Linux.com

I don't think we need a fork, because we have other alternatives to the GIMP (krita comes to my mind). Even more, i think there's nothing wrong with GIMP's interface. Please don't try to homogenize and let variety exist.

#

Puuuhhhlease! If you don't think The Gimp's GUI is fucked up, then you need to get your eyes checked. Whoever designed the "interface" should be taken out back and shot!

#

It's only what you're used to.

Unlike most people, I had never used Photoshop before I found the GIMP. Sure, it was quite a steep learning curve at first, but I kept at it. When I try Photoshop now, I'm immediately disgusted at how unintuitive and clumsy (in my opinion) the UI is. I wouldn't mind it if more programs worked the way GIMP does.

And this was GIMP on Windows, mind you, with all the quirks of their pathetic window manager.
(I use Linux now of course)

I'm sure that if I had started with Photoshop, my opinions about the two programs would be switched.

#

while id ont think gimps ui is perfect or even any good. i do think that the people who wine the most about it are the people who can barely use photoshop were it not for habit and muscle memory.

#

I think this hits the nail on the head. Sound knowledge of basic color and image theory will let you use gimp and photoshop interchangably, though not in a professional workflow which is highly optimized.

-anon

#

>>"...it was quite a steep learning curve at first, but I kept at it."

Any software that has "quite a steep learning curve" to learn how to use it has, by definition, a bad user interface.

That's not the same as arguing that learning to use the capabilities of software cannot legitimately require a steep learning curve. Or, that an interface cannot be complex. Capabilities and user interface are different creatures.

The job of the interface is to make it as easy as possible for people to exploit capabilities. Arguing that Gimp's interface is just fine if only everyone else would climb the same learning curve as you did is turning things on their head.

Gimp doesn't exist in isolation. Expensive software that offers the same capabilities is widely available. The fact that people continue to buy it rather than grabbing a free copy of Gimp says something. But, to hear it, you have to be willing to stop blaming users for the failures of software.

 

#

"Any software that has "quite a steep learning curve" to learn how to use it has, by definition, a bad user interface."

Easy to learn, frustrating to use once learnt is the windows way, Hard to learn, great to use once learnt is the Linux way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

#

"Any software that has "quite a steep learning curve" to learn how to use it has, by definition, a bad user interface."

Too general - rather, any such software has a bad user interface *for new users*. That's certainly a bad thing if you're designing it for those with no experience of the kind of software you're building.

But equally, you may have designed it to be highly efficient for the people who use it continuously for everyday work - that's a valid decision. It might take a little longer for new users to come up to speed, but it may be worth it for the greater productively once they've learned all the tricks.

They're both valid approaches to usability, they're just focusing on different aspects of it - ease of learning versus long-term efficiency. Both are important, but the balance depends on the case. Organisations with high staff turnover probably want systems that can easily be learned - organisations where people stay in a role for years will probably favour long-term efficiency, even if it means a slightly slower start.

#

"Any software that has "quite a steep learning curve" to learn how to use it has, by definition, a bad user interface." Easy to learn, frustrating to use once learnt is the windows way, Hard to learn, great to use once learnt is the Linux way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

That's cute. As a person who as used Linux exclusively for several years, I'd like to point out that it's also not true.

If you actually regularly work with a program like the GIMP, you soon realize that it not only starts hard, but in fact continues to get in the way long after you've learned to use it.

Try using Evolution, one of the Office suites, GnuCash, or even InkScape (all complex and powerful tools) for comparison. You know something? It's fairly easy to get started and as you learn more they continue to let you think about the complicated task at hand instead of the complicated interface that's making what should be an easy job hard.

#

Actually, I rather like it. It doesn't clutter my screen, and it gets the job done. I've tried Photoshop and I don't like their interface. It seems like Photoshop is only good if that's *all* I'm doing at the time, which is never the case. If I'm doing graphics work I have 4-6 programs running (GIMP, Inkscape, an HTML editor, a web browser, a text terminal, an FTP client and my mail client). In this environment, I appreciate GIMP taking up little screen real-state.

Daniel.

#

A proper usability test would take people who haven't used any image manipulation tool and see where they expect to find things. If the shortcut keys are all the same between Photoshop and Gimp then the interface need not look anything like Photoshop if usability tests show it is not as usable as an alternative.

#

Granted, I am not a professional, I just use the GIMP for minor photo-editing tasks. And I have certainly found some command line tools (e.g. ImageMajik (spelling?) more helpful sometimes.

I have mixed feelings about the functionality and documentation of the GIMP. There is a lot of functionality which I don't understand. But for the basics, between trial and error and Googling, I have been able to figure out what I need to know.

So, yes, I would agree this must be comparative. Having absolutely nothing else (except CLI tools) to compare it to, I find the GIMP to be one of the thousands of free software applications which is fun, full of goodness, and for which I am very grateful to the developers who work so hard on all of these various wonderful Linux tools. It's all good, even when it's bad, if you know what I mean.

But if I was comparing it with something else, well, then maybe I wouldn't be so impressed. Right now, I am very impressed by the GIMP.

#

inkscape was a fork from sodipodi. it has come a huge way since the fork getting far more usable, and gaining features. If the same could happen for GIMP this would be a good thing.

also look at the speed that krita developed recently. it makes it look almost like the GIMP devs are dragging their feet.

personally i dont mind the GIMP interface too much (although i think the two sepperate and deffierent file menus is very silly (mac os style menu bars are the way)). i do did like the lack of anything higher than 8bit rgb. my camera takes 12bit raw, and i feel like i'm throwing useful data away.

#

You mean that menu bar on top of the screen, common to all apps but changing according to which window has the focus?

If so, then I disagree.

I like focus-follow-mouse. I cannot bear click-to-focus anymore, it's too clumsy.

On its way to that beautiful top-of-the-screen menu bar, the mouse pointer may cause focus to change many times... so no, I don't like the Mac (or Windows) way.

#

I completely agree, I hate click-to-focus. And in Gimp, the first think I did agter installing 2.0 (or whatever wersion it was introduced) was disabling the menus on image windows.

#

When a program does not meet your expectations, usually you stop using it.
If the Gimp were launched now instead of ~10 years back, nobody would ever care to use it. The Gimp has held the spot as Linux graphics program so long, that it's mindshare alone compensates for the unfriendly GUI. Everybody knows (and tells other about) the existence of the GIMP, but most people do not like to discuss the problems they have with using the GIMP, for fear of coming across as dumb.
This will not change easyly or fast. One can assume that the developers are Gimp powerusers themselves. Powerusers are the ones that stand to loose the most from the needed GUI redesign, as they would have to relearn all their GIMP tricks. So developers do not want a redesign as that would destroy their status(-quo). This stalemate will continue untill a editor takes over the position as best known graphics editor.

I heard good things about Krita, I might go check that one out.

#

Did you read any of the discussions that took place on OpenUsability for example? Developers are not afraid to loose their "tricks", they are afraid to loose functionality. Everything that has been asked has been discussed, and those which were turned down were given reasons. Current GIMP powerusers would get very angry if developers would transform the GUI to be more "photoshop-like", and would thus loose all the great advantages coming from MDI, docks,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this has very few to do with learned tricks.

#

Sure. Would you describe your own knowledge as 'my tricks' or rather as 'functionallity' (oh no,not of me but of the program).
Stuff like MDI, docks, etc is all GUI. The aim of the program is to produce/edit graphics, not fiddle around with the GUI.
But I am glad you agree that there is a group afraid to lose something, and therefore things are stalling?

#

Everything that has been asked has been discussed, and those which were turned down were given reasons.

So, does that mean that the Gimp is more usable because they have reasons not to change?
Given that the dev always have acted reasonable and the state the Gimp is still in, I'd say that those very reasons are part of the problem.

They should get their act togherther, create/install/appoint a 'click counter' and determine the max clicks/interactions allowed for each function. Then measure the difference (iin clicks&time0 between new and powerusers doing these tasks. That will make painfully clear where Gimp lacks.
Oh, and fix that id10t openfile dialog!

#

Most of the complaints I have ever heard of stem around the use of child windows. If you come from Windows, you don't have true multiple desktops, so using a one window application makes sense there. But in Linux where most DE's and window managers have mulitiple desktops, The Gimps interface works better. You can send the project window to one desktop, and the toolbars to another. When I have it this way, I have all the child windows open and the project maximized, and none of the windows interfer with eachother. You cannot do this in Photoshop, at all. But now that I'm used to that feature of the Gimp, I really hate that lack in Photoshop.

That said, I'm starting to use Krita and it's GOOD. Not nearly as powerful but it has a great interface and it's nice and light weight. I use it now about 75% of the time. The best part is I seeing rivaling The Gimp in short order.

#

"When I have it this way, I have all the child windows open and the project maximized, and none of the windows interfer with eachother. You cannot do this in Photoshop, at all. But now that I'm used to that feature of the Gimp, I really hate that lack in Photoshop."

Apparently, you don't know how to use Photoshop. If you have your project image maximized in the PS window, if you want to hide all the dialogs/child windows, you just hit TAB. That's it! No dragging crap to another virtual desktop. No having to change virtual desktops just to change tools. Just hit TAB to toggle them on and off.

Personally, coming from a long graphics background (starting out coding sprites on a C64 all the way through PaintShop Pro and up to Photoshop/Fireworks currently), the GIMP interface is maddening. The handling of layers is seriously unintuitive. The menu system sucks. Handling of text and text editing is even MORE unintuitive (why in God's name do I need to have a popup window to enter and place text? And forget trying to edit that text easily).

The absolute worst thing is the handling of plugins/foo. The devs need to get it through their thick skulls that designers/graphic artists are RARELY coders. Coding, compiling and installing "foo" in GIMP makes me want to murder nuns and infants.

I'm one of the ones who will never switch to Linux until something even *remotely* comparable to Photoshop is there...and GIMP isn't even on the same continent as Photoshop when it comes to ease of use and familiarity.

#

Apparenty, you don't know how to use GIMP. Because, at least with the latest development snapshots, it behaves very similar to what you just described. The toolbox and palettes are utility windows that float over the image window. Pressing Tab hides them and another press of Tab brings them up again.

This is one of the many usability improvements in the 2.3 series that the author of this article just ignored. Whether that happened out of ignorance or intentionally, I don't know.

#

Apparently, you don't know that the average graphic don't use the "latest development snapshot".

Oh, no, i missed that gimp is for coders, not graphics.

#

The tab feature has been in GIMP since the 1.0 versions. The behaviour has changed slightly in the development version but the basic functionality should be in your copy of GIMP as well.

#

In that case, you obviously wouldn't mind paying for it. So you could try Pixel:

<a href="http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12" title="kanzelsberger.com">http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=12</a kanzelsberger.com>

There's also Krita, which is less mature (functionality wise) than the Gimp, but has a totally different UI. Personally, I can't stand Krita's UI - I run 1600x1200 and I still don't have enough room on the screen - but you might. It's nothing like Photoshop either (which I don't like either for much the same reason as many people don't like the Gimp - it's way too complicated).

#

The interface is actually quite improved in the recent versions, and it can easily be made better.

No - what absolutely AMAZES me is that the GIMP team seems to be out of touch with what the basic users want. On example, GIMP comes with plenty of fancy scritps but does sill not have THE tool which all newbies (and not so newbies) want:

* redeye removal

Yes, I know, you can use various tricks, tutorials and tools to eventually remove redeye, but who wants to go through that?!

I realize that redeye removal is not the ultimae pinnacle of image manipulation, there are plenty of more important things and tools, but by *NOT* having a simple, "one-click", redeye removal tool GIMP sends the wrong message to newbies and to everybody else.

So here is my suggestion: let's get the GIMP development team to post a survey of what *USERS* most want and get them to pay more attention to the rest of the community.

#

A script to do this has existed for quite awhile. Search for "red-eye.scm" and copy it to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gimp-2.2/scripts/ (or equivalent). You select the eyes (don't have to be very precise) and then do Scripts -> Selections -> Red Eye Removal.

Why they don't distribute this with the app I don't know.....

#

Hi friend,

I just googled that scripts, put it in the right place and tried it out. Works *perfectly*!

Many thanks for the pointer!

====>>>>Hey - GIMP TEAM - pay attention please:

You really, REALLY, need to distribute this script with every GIMP version! Good luck to all!

#

>> * redeye removal

if you'd stop shooting snapshots with the god-awful on-camera flash you wouldn't have red-eye to begin with.

#

of some fanboy declaring that the user is wrong. There are thousands more people that make snaps than people that make 'semi' professional photo's.

#

>THE tool which all newbies (and not so newbies) want: redeye removal

If redeye removal and other simple photo touch up tasks are what you are after, GIMP is the wrong tool anyway. Repeat after me: GIMP is the wrong, tool stay away.

Since that's out of the way let's get to business and select the right tools for the job, tools like LPhoto or DigiKam's editor. It's much better for all newbies (and not so newbies).

#

The problem is that newbies like me don't know about LPhoto or DigiKam, whereas Gimp is installed on most Linux boxes by default, LPhoto isn't. Maybe the Gimp wasn't designed for photo manipulation, but it should have those capabilities built in. Lots of graphics manipulation involves things like red-eye reduction before you get on to moving parts of the photo around and doing advanced functions. People expect the Gimp to be a replacement for Photoshop and I think the Gimp should aspire to it, rather than simply saying, that isn't our task.

#

Using the GIMP, open the image, press + or - to zoom in and out, move the sliders to show the eye with the arrow keys, hit F to activate the lasso tool, select the area of red pixels in the eye using SHIFT or CTRL to include or exclude parts of the selection, and desaturate the colour from the colour menu - choosing one of the settings. I find the luminosity setting a good one.

Picasa and digiKam has the button "Red eye"-removal that you ask for. However, have you tried them on hundreds of images? My wife has, and her conclusion is 50/50 good/bad results. Why? What goes wrong? Imprecise selection of pixels (try it on a picture where the person isn't looking directly at the camera), and no ability to exclude parts of the selection.

#

Color change tool, zoom in on the eye its not that difficult

#

Having spent 2 hours so far trying to do just that - YES IT IS!!

All the tools/techniques so far get rid of the "red" but end up with glowing sinister white eyes instead. not great for a five year old's birthday snaps.

Sorry, but some of us have lives, we're not all photo snobs with noting else better to spend our money on. Losers

#

People always complain about the GIMP's GUI, but it is the documentation that really lets it down. There is a lot of documentation, but it is entirely useless. Its full of things like "this is a wonderful plugin", and desperately short on just why, and how you access all that wonder.

#

O please. Apparently you've never been to <a href="http://manual.gimp.org/en/" title="gimp.org">http://manual.gimp.org/en/</a gimp.org> I don't think you can get a manual that is more direct and to the point.

#

So, how many times have you been stuck, gone to that manual, and quickly found the answers you need?

#

I love the Gimp. I've used it for years and can make it do great things. That does not mean that I think it couldn't do with an overhaul<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

On the basis of your question, I picked a random topic off the top of my head: "Which edge detection algorithm should I pick?" It's a reasonable question for an intermediate user to ask. So, I check out chapter 5 (Edge-detect filters). So far so good - easily located information.

Then I get this sentence: "The Laplacian edge detection uses the second derivative (fig.3)." Erm<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... OK, so without a grounding in calculus the user can't get past the introduction to edge detection. Granted, the following sections are more useful, but I would wager that most users wouldn't get past this first page.

While on the one hand I love that many OSS projects are "by coders for coders" (being a coder myself), it also grates when something like a graphics app is sucked into that too. My sister is an illustrator, she knows her way around graphics apps. She hates the gimp because she thinks its too geared for "you programmer types". Says it all, really.

#

After 30 years of computer use... I have seen and tried just about everything.

GIMP when I first opened it had me feeling like I was suddenly this pilot of a large ship out at sea and with no training, what was I to do? I clicked on many things, and lots was foreign to me. I did get to do some things...but, if I got near shore and I was depended on with this app to not drive the ship into the rocks... We would have lost the ship.

GUI help is needed, but there are some major innovations over PhotoShop that need to be kept.

Besides that: Education is needed. I recommend that someone with full knowledge of GIMP construct a "Point and Click Open Office" by Roblimo' Miller style TRAINING VIDEOS with Creative Commons Licenses... and maybe a book on The GIMP. See Newsforge article with Links to some videos here:
<a href="http://business.newsforge.com/business/05/11/09/2044220.shtml?tid=35&tid=136&tid=130" title="newsforge.com">http://business.newsforge.com/business/05/11/09/2<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 44220.shtml?tid=35&tid=136&tid=130</a newsforge.com>

Now, with these training videos and a sensible book of How-to's then you can start the education process. Right now, even teachers in schools have no way to actually run a class on The Gimp due to a lack of a sensible way to understand it from "start-newbie to finish-expert" user status!

Sample video from link above...!
<a href="http://images.newsforge.com/2005/11/03%20Adding%20Graphics%20to%20Documents.swf" title="newsforge.com">http://images.newsforge.com/2005/11/03%20Adding%2<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> Graphics%20to%20Documents.swf</a newsforge.com>

An easy way to understand what is not understood is only arrived at by determining the correct path to one's desitination. This learning and following of a path is called Education! The Gimp lacks an obvious path to anywhere (at least from the eyes of a newbie)!

#

You're correct that it's the lack of Education that's holding back the Gimp's adoption as I've found it to be a very flexible tool. Now if I had access to a ready source of information on how to do things, such as create my own scripts, perform specific actions and could purchase a book such as the Classroom in a Book Series for Photoshop, I'd find it much easier to learn/use the damn thing.

Another comment made was in regards to click counts. How menu menus/clicks does it take to perform any action? That's another area that's holding back adoption as Adobe has invested the time/money on the UI studies to ensure that what users call critical features aren't buried to deeply. Change that in the UI and get better documentation and suddenly the project would be able to start making a difference even though it's different from Photoshop and many of the Other MS/OS-X graphics editors, which is the reason you find so many "Lite" versions of them.

#

Bull. If you have to "Educate" someone how to use your user interface..... something is seriously wrong.

#

Bull. If you have to "Educate" someone how to use your user interface..... something is seriously wrong.

maybe for the interface, but GIMP as a project could probably benefit from some beginner instructional videos on how to edit photos.

when/why unsharp mask instead of sharp?

what's the best sequence to perform operations?

etc...

this would help people use GIMP more effectively, and explain the interface as well.

#

Yes the interface. It would go a lot further imo if it were more apparent, clearer, obvious, etal from said interface how to do something. Don't ask me what that might be or look like cause I not a UI expert. I'll just know when I see it.

#

Even dismissing the fact that there are folks with different aptitudes with computers... nothing comes in a spray can when it comes to learning anything for the first time (if learning were a intuitive response to stimuli, we could do away with schools, books and teachers)!

Education is key - with GIMP, you feel like you are wearing a blind fold and playing pin the tail on the donkey. If anyone were to be watching - it would be funny. But, in this case, this is no laughing matter or a joke to take lightly.

When I first saw Windows 95, when it first came out it was the same as when I first saw Windows XP as well... it took a long time and headaches to get where I was comfortable with it (and I still found it frustrating) - I was totally lost. GIMP is just like that - Free Tools need Free Training Videos that you can download and watch to get the idea of where to start and then for advanced functions a video would help as well!

#

What does "education" have to do with Gimp's poor interface? You're simply transferring responsibility for the interfface from the designers to prospective users and third-party trainers, who are supposed to put in the effort to figure it all out.

Here's a clue you all need to understand: People Do Not Want To Go To School Before They Can Use Software.

#

I have always said in public that the Gimp's UI is the worst of Open Source. A geek's UI for a geek's product made so geeky only geeks will ever understand it. I personnally tried to have Linspire subsidize the Gimp to make it more UI-friendly. The result was far from my expectations (and from Linspire's) to say the least.

multi-document interface ? no way
less icons ? naaah
simpler preference panel ? bah
drop the UGLY gtk+ filepicker ? nope

Pffff. Software engineers should drop their pride more often and remember that UI design is complex.

And speaking of Nvu+Gimp, no I disagree, Nvu does not need the full power of the Gimp's core. A plugin doing simple image transformations would be a plus though.

Daniel Glazman
Nvu Engineering Lead

#

GIMP is the product of hobbyists, and like a lot of hobbyist based projects, it has run into the limitation of it's developers/maintainers. The article points out the OpenUsability web site and how it hasn't accomplished much. OpenUsability attempted to bring designers and developers together to improve usability. The designers wanted some radical changes to the user interface so that the GIMP would be a reasonable design tool for those who would actually use it for production; but the maintainers only wanted to make minor changes to the UI. "Why isn't the GIMP team willing to develop a better user interface?" -- you may ask. The answer is: They would love to, they just don't know how! Let me explain.
The GIMP maintainers' stubbornness is a facade, hiding their limited hobbyist abilities. The GIMP itself is a massive kludge of bits, snippets, and hacks. Like a collage made from newspaper, tissue, and glitter -- the complexity of the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. I don't fault the GIMP community, they've done nothing wrong and I'm sure they're having a lot of fun with their hobby. But let this serve as a cautionary tale: As end users of other people's toy projects, please apply a healthy dose of Reasonable Expectations(TM).

#

Thank you! I came to GIMP out of desperation trying to find a way to edit something (can't even remember what) in a way that wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg (read: Photoshop). I downloaded it, expecting a very limited program that would not do anything I wanted it to. It took me a bit to figure out how to move around in GIMP and learn what some of the stuff meant (I think even now I understand about 25% of it). I wasn't even sure I'd learn it well enough to do what I wanted to. But I did, and more. I love it, even though it isn't very easy for me to use. I love it because it does so many things, and I love it because it was FREE. I quickly forgave the GIMP team for the difficulties of the program because I realized early on that it was written for people who, unlike me, already had a good handle on graphics editing; that it was the product of a lot of hard work by a lot of people who weren't getting paid to write it; and that I hadn't had to pay through the nose for the ability to edit my graphics. I've since done lots of things with GIMP, and I love it! In spite of the fact that I still don't understand all of it. Sometimes I'll play around with the scripts and things that I don't understand, to see what I can get them to do. Doing that helped me reunite a camera with its owner once. It had 50th anniversary pictures on it, and they had happened to take a picture of the outside of the building. The building had a plaque on it. Using GIMP, I was able to -through trial and error- enhance the plaque enough to find out the building's name, and from there, online and over the phone, track down the camera's owner. Reasonable Expectations and gratitude. I'm a happy user. :)

#

Fascinating.
I just downloaded Nvu to have a look at it. Of course, I couldn't be bothered actually using it for production purposes -- I much prefer to code my web pages by hand, because that way I know spurious c**p isn't being introduced to it.
I can say this about it:
OMFG, CLUTTER! What the **** were you thinking having a font list in your menu like that? Why does the toolbar take up so much ****ing space? What do most of those buttons do?! Hmm, a nice friendly button that tells you you're using Nvu. WELL, NO S**T! That's what I launched isn't it?! It's in the ****ING TITLEBAR, too.
Mozilla-like file dialogue? Ick. Functionality of a teddy bear with nipples. Very ugly too. About as appealing as fungus growing on your crotch.
The site manager sidebar sucks. Now you're using up not only all the vertical space, but all the horizontal space as well. Sure, you can turn it off, but what if you want the horizontal space *and* its functionality? Huh?!
The CSS editor was designed by a sadist.

I have done a fair bit of web developing in my time. Yourprogram quite frankly sucks. Unlike the GIMP, which suits my needs pretty well whether I'm doing web and application development, graphic design, or photo manipulation. I love the UI, and have done ever since I found out to press the right mouse button (which took me all of 2 seconds). I'm pretty sure my post does more actual analysis than yours, too.

#

Pfff.

<a href="http://www.newsday.com/technology/ny-dolinar4631546feb19,0,4151717.column" title="newsday.com">http://www.newsday.com/technology/ny-dolinar46315<nobr>4<wbr></nobr> 6feb19,0,4151717.column</a newsday.com>

#

And that didn't address anything I passed an opinion on.

#

I had exactly the same experience as you when I tried to offer advice to GIMP developers on its UI.

The only solution I see is to fork it, and rethink the UI from the ground up.

Joachim Noreiko
GNOME docs team

#

...lots of whining but not a lot of doing...

You've got the software available, change it YOURSELF... Quit the complaining that other people should change their software TO FIT YOU... You want better stuff, make it yourself...

I'd agree that GIMP is pretty painful UI-wise, but I'm not gonna carp at them that they should spend their time and effort to change something to fit in WITH ME... If I wanted it changed I'd do it myself... and so should you...

#

Anonymous Reader, that's EXACTLY the point of the article's author : they should not change something to fit in WITH YOU or WITH ME, they should change a lot of things to fit in WITH EVERYONE.

And if your answer to non-techies saying "I don't understand this stuff" is "ok, fix it yourself", well, I'm not sure you care about USERS anyway.

#

Anonymous Reader says...

You don't provide any justification why they "should" change it at all... They are happy with it, why should they spend time and effort changing something they are happy with... The whole POINT about giving YOU the FREEDOM that everyone carps on that is SOOOO IMPORTANT to them is that they can change the software... So if you don't like it then change it...

Otherwise, cough up some cash and PAY someone to change it to fit your needs...

And guess what, we DON'T care about USERS, never have, never will... We don't make software to make YOU happy... never have, never will...

#

That's kinda sad.

If you don't care about the users, then you don't care about whether or not the software is used, and if the software isn't used, then what's the point of writing it?

When people use software, they become more or less dependant on the software. This means that you, as the softwares author, have a responsibility. You can say that people can just choose another program, but making such a choise isn't free.

Appart from the responsibility, there's the pride and satesfaction in knowing that people enjoy using your software.

#

The GIMP team ultimately wrote the software for themselves. They're not selling it. They've done everyone else a favour by publishing their source code so anyone can amend it as they wish. They don't have any responsibility to "users" - their target user base is themselves.

You want it changed, take the source code and either change it or get someone else to change it for you. Don't try and make it the responsibility of the GIMP team.

#

point of write software is to use it, and give it away (for free) to someone else for use it if that solves other person problem.

peoples addiction is their own problem, more or less like other addictions (nicotine, alocohol, adrenaline<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)

there is no 'free' choice. you can:
- buy another program
- learn to use my program as-is and/or modify it for your need (cost you time, which is money<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.)
- pay me to modify software for you.

you just have to choose which is best for you.

i enjoy to have at least one user<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (or my company)

#

Few people have the necessary skills to engage in a redesign of a complex software product such as GIMP. Thankfully, most Open Source development projects have ways for non-programmers to provide critical feedback to developers about which features should be priorities. It seems that a part of the problem here is that this feedback is going nowhere.

Still, given a choice between investing an unknown quantity of money or time redesigning a product to fit their needs, and spending $1,000/seat on a product that does fit their needs, most people and organizations will gladly pony up the money for the proprietary solution.

#

There is another way, Raptorhead.com sells CD that includes Gimp. And will provide users with training, and easey to use manuals. "Making it easier" is the gap that commercial companies can fill between open source projects and end users either in the Windows or Linux space.

In the end these open source commercial companies innovation should be focused on improving ease of use and deliveries.

#

You've got the software available, change it YOURSELF

i really wish people would shut the hell up with this response. this might have made sense when the only people using FOSS were us dorks handing around shell scripts to process log files, but we're in a different era now.

#

You may feel that we're in a different era, but we'll only be really in the bright new era when volunteer developers can be blackmailed into developing what they're not interested in, if we're also in the era where those volunteers are paid for it. You don't plonk down the money, you don't get to make demands.

#

everything you say is true, but the "code it yourself" response is still useless and inappropriate.

#

No one said the computer illiterates may not express wishes. Its just plain inappropriate to write "they need to get told a lesson because they do not do X". It's their free time, if they choose to spend it coding something most users can't handle, well, so is it. You can always use something else.

#

quite a jump you're making here from "computer illiterates" to someone with the skill-set to contribute code to such a complex project.

most professional programmers would find decyphering the gimp a real challenge, if only because of the volume of code.

#

Then learn the skills you need to change your FREE software, or shut up complaining about it... Or... cough up some cash for a product that DOES fit your needs...

Whether we are in a different era or not, the GIMP guys are under no obligation to change something to fit in with other peoples wants/desires/needs...

This is what the freeloaders are missing... Raving about how GIMP is useless is fine, so don't use it, use something else, or change GIMP yourself, or pay someone to change it for you... Biting the hand that feeds is never wise...

#

i really wish people would shut the hell up with this response. this might have made sense when the only people using FOSS were us dorks handing around shell scripts to process log files, but we're in a different era now.

Yes, of course. The developers should snap to just so whenever a user asks, nay, demands change.

Yes, sir. No, sir. Three bags full, sir!

Alternatively, you could just crack open those piggy banks and make it worth the developer's while to code the changes you'd really like to see.

But...but...it's free software!

Free as in freedom. You're free to use the software, throw it in a dumpster, or hire someone to improve it for your desires. Oh, wait, that would actually cost you money?

Yes, and? come on, if you wave enough money around, you'll get someone to "fix" GIMP. So quit yer whining and start those bake sales. Buy a cookie for GIMP!

#

I've read this response, and some of the responses to it, and I have to say I agree with the idea that many critics are quick to say, but less to do. I've used the Gimp for years, and I purchased a book on how to use it, as well as read tips over the net. Photoshop has the same sort of issues as far as if you really want to use it, you have to read documentation as well. I note that there are people who state there is no documentation available, but on the same time, I recognonize that most people are too lazy to read, period. Some may disagree, but I have experience under my belt in both work and personal life that I base this on.

    So let's retouch on these issues. Someone compares Photoshop, a flagship product of Adobe with lots of developers (this is an assumption based on the cost) that costs someone an arm and a leg (while you may disagree with this, I'll certainly note your point, but face it, most of the people use Gimp based on cost "apparently") and compare it to Gimp, which is a software "idea". It is an idea because you have it based on freedom of speech, you have the source code, and you can modify it. Complaining about the Gimp is comparable to complaining about your right to complain. If you do not like the Gimp, either pitch in, or stop using it. I have noted the complaints of "I don't know how to program" or "I don't have the time". No? Well you can contribute to Gimp's development by establishing contact with those who can and fund their development efforts. After all, the "Free" in this "Free Software" is freedom in speech; it doesn't mean you shouldn't pitch in if you find the software useful. Of course, I'm sure at this point, one would start justifying their position on not donating to a project's development by defining their definition of the word "useful". You can justify anything if you want to be selfish, and quite frankly, this is what I see most of these complaints are.

    If there is another project out there that you like that is shareware, say this "Pixel" editor for instance, use it. It is "shareware", and have you paid for it perchance? I think one needs to know the definition of shareware as well. One really needs to revaluate one's position by attacking a "free speech" program, because I have to state, this is quite silly.

    If you want Photoshop functionality, then logic would deduce that you purchase Photoshop. If it costs too much, then purchase Photoshop Elements. If it doesn't run on your platform, then switch platforms or consider taking a performance decrease by utilizing emulation. If this will not work for you, then you really are whining. Seriously...you are. That's what life is about...making the best choice out of the available options. If none of those options fit you, make new options by "creating" them, otherwise, keep silent.

#

with that approach, Linux will never be "ready for the desktop", whatever that means.
You want linux to be a viable OS? Cater for the 99% of users who don't program and don't want to.

#

working with digital photos, 8bit is a problem. 16bit is slated for a future release, but honestly, it can't come too soon.

the UI has some shortcomings, but i think they could be mostly allieviated by adding drag/drop menu *items*.

usually i perform aset of operations in roughly the same order - levels, color balance, etc.., and scale, sharp at the end... i'd like to create my own tear-off menu containing just the menu items i most frequently use. and this would be persistent, so when i close/reopen GIMP it reappears.

another huge feature would be the option to create versioned images that remember the operations applied to them, and the ability to go back, change the parameters in *one* operation, and then step forward through the others as they were originally applied.

example: i apply the following operations to a portrait:

levels
color balance
saturation
curves
scale
sharp

later, i decide i want to desaturate the portrait to even out the skin tones a bit. i'd like to be able to "rewind" my operations to the "saturation" step, and apply the desired desaturation. then i want to be able to step through the remaining operations, with the parameters that were previously used, and have the option to just reapply them, or to adjust the parameters first.

currently, i save multiple versions of an image, one for each operation applied:

IMG_9448.JPG
portrait_9448.xcf
portrait-lev_9448.xcf
portrait-lev-colorbal_9448.xcf
portrait-lev-colorbal-sat_9448.xcf
portrait-lev-colorbal-sat-curves_9448.xcf
portrait-lev-colorbal-sat-curves-scale_9448.xcf
portrait-lev-colorbal-sat-curves-scale-sharp_9448<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> xcf

this gives me the ability to go back to any previous stage, but then i have to manually reapply all the successive operations; and since i don't record the parameters i used previously, i have to do a lot of visual inspection to get it right the second time. (i know this is probably a good idea anyway, since changing a step early in the process may change the parameters i use in the succeeding steps, but it would be useful to be able to start with the original parameters used and then adjust from there).

and, of course, the above scheme is not exactly space-efficient (that's what the 500GB RAID storage is for).

and, finally, i have a UI suggestion for preview modes. instead of an image preview "viewport" on the operation dialog, seamlessly superimpose the preview viewport on the image itself. allow the user to resize/drag it around on the actual image window. i'm not 100% sure about this, but i think that might be more natural than the current method.

#

Nice photo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Nice photo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

what photo?

#

I'm 34, a former Windows user and have been a Linux advocate going on 3 years so I don't understand all the childish complaining about Gimp's GUI. It's called Gimp, not Photoshop. Complaining about the UI because it doesn't resemble Photoshop is like someone complaining that Maya GUI isn't the same as XSI when the products are made from two entirely different developers.

Anyway the only issue I have with Gimp developement is their apparent lack of interest in providing support for 32-bit High Dynamic Range (HDR) images that is currently available in Cinepaint and commercial applications Pixel and Photoshop CS 2.0. Pixel is most likely the best option for now though it would be nice to see this supported in Gimp which is free and would help lower cost for studios and professional freelance artists.

#

Your right. GIMP is a different program with different features and different user interface from Photoshop. Personally I like GIMP's user interface although sometimes I use a lighter weight program for simple tasks.

#

well guess why openoffice "feels" similar to ms office gui wise?

i guess the developers just wanted to avoid to listen to whining all day because button A is at a different place.

#

The part I don't understand, I started with The GIMP. Didn't have Photoshop. Now when I've tried Photoshop, I'm lost. I can't find most of the stuff I'm looking for. I work faster by using The GIMP. The interface is just plain better to me.

#

I've never used photoshop and I find GIMP terrible. Mostly because of the annoyance of the many many windows, GIMP uses, it's terrible to switch between the windows especially if one has been hidden.
And NO decicating an intire virtual desktop for one program is not something I want to do, and it doesn't solve the problem.
What I want is one window per open file, with all toolbars in it (toolbars can of course be closed and open at will). In short SDI made right.

- m_abs

#

Personally i like the Gimp, i use it more than PS, and when i go back to PS for any reason at all i dislike it... However that said i would really like to see what the xara xtreme will be able to do...
the Previews are looking goog

#

xara xtreme is for vector graphics. Like inkscape.

#

I am not a graphics person. Occasionally I want to clean up an image or add some text to it. I have never been able to figure out how to use the Gimp. I'm sure I could if I took the time, but the task at hand was always so simple, that I said, "Why should I bother?" What I would love to see is a very simple stripped down version of the Gimp that is very easy to understand. Something resembling MS Paint, but with a few more options. That would serve the vast majority of users who don't want to do anything fancy and don't want to wade through manuals. (I haven't tried Kriva, so maybe it does all this.)

In addition, I think a separate stripped-doen version of Gimp for photos would be nice. Something that has red-eye reduction and all the standard functions.

If you had these two stripped down programs, I think the vast majority of people would stop complaining about the Gimp. They would realize that you only use it for advanced tasks and it has a significant learning curve.

#

Krita would certainly do what you want, but I guess what you need is Kolourpaint. Give both a try!

#

The problem is that Linux has all kinds of stripped down programs for the non-graphical boob running around with their digital camera snapping pictures every at anthing that moves.

BUT THEY NEVER USE THEM. Digikam for instance can do all of the little tasks for you like red eye removel, adjusting levels, cropping, etc and your done. No gimp.

But people seem to have it in their head that they must have access to the most powerful graphics app available. BUT it must be easy for them to use. News-flash: IT DOESN"T WORK THAT WAY.

#

It is impossible to discuss this rationally, because facts do not matter. When you are dealing with dogbrain users, the label is ALL that matters. So if you can't show them software that says "PHOTOSHOP" or "AUTOCAD" or "MICROSOFT OFFICE" or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... when it starts up, you are showing them somthing different, something inferior, something bad. You can argue with them, demonstrate point by point on function, whatever, they KNOW that THE BEST software is PHOTOSHOP or AUTOCAD or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Screw em, let them eat any form of sh... they want. Save your breath.

#

FINALLY! Someone who makes sense here! I have this problem with most people I meet who use computers--they think anything other than "Microsoft", "PhotoShop", "AutoCad", or other big brands is worthless. I am sick of "GIMP 5uX0Rz" "GIMP sucks cuz it don't look like PhotoShop" and other BS comments. The GIMP works very well for my girlfriend and me. We also don't understand this BS about splitting the program just because Adobe does it. Why the heck is it so "beneficial" to split up the GIMP (for the two "purposes"--web and printing) because some company did it with their proprietary product?

NEWS FLASH: They did it to make MONEY! The GIMP is FREE SOFTWARE. There is NO REASON to do this with a free product. Personally, I would prefer it if the GIMP supported both in one program.

#

to <a href="http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/1818224" title="newsforge.com">http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/02/24/<nobr>1<wbr></nobr> 818224</a newsforge.com>

#

Why o why must Gimp be "Photoshop-for-free"?

If you prefer photoshop, then for God's sake, quit making Gimp users miserable with your whining and go use photoshop. Perhaps you didn't know it could work with WINE? (Very fitting name for the project)

And why must Gimp be the all powerful photoeditor made for none Graphics people that somehow knows exactly how you think a program should run and look?

Yes, Gimp has a complex interface made for the geeky, nerdy, poweruser, whatever you lablel them. What does it take to make you realize that THIS IS WHO THIS PROGRAM IS INTENDED FOR. If you want something for cropping, removing red-eye, and adjusting the levels in your pictures (because you obviously haven't learned to use a camera properly either) then there are dozens of apps for that. Showimg, digikam, kview, fspot, gwenview, GQview, showfoto, etc, etc. Krita won't be of much help. It's geared towards professionals as well.

Futhermore, why must Windows users insist on using Gimp? Yes, it will be buggy, yes it will look and act odd, and yes it will just plain suck. It wasn't origionally intended to run on windows. It's a hack. Learn to use a posix operating system, THEN you can make comments about Gimp.

Yes, Gimp can be improved. There's always room to make things better. A fork wouldn't offend me either. That's how things get done in the world of FOSS. But most of the crap I've read is response to the article is a bunch of nit-picky bitching. If the Gimp developers ignore people who stand around grumbling "why isn't it more like photoshop" then I say good for them.

And if you're thinking about forking Gimp, don't think that the same won't happen to you, reguardless of how much you make it like photoshop.

God, I hate photoshop.

#

AMEN!

I get sick of reading the whines of Photoshop suckers. I hate that illogical, cluttered, constricted mess. Maybe they could make it sensible if it wasn't so tied to such a corroded OS, but, hey Adobe made their bed. You couldn't pay me to ever go back to that pair again.

Gimp rocks. Photoshop sucks.

#

its Photoshop *users* I hate. (in particular the Maccie breed)

#

Tons of people are using GIMP and are happy with it. I think this is part of a different problem. Since the GIMP started to become useful, there have been a group of vocal folks that just complain about what it doesn't do, it's not photo shop, it's not cymk based, the UI sucks...

GIMP is robust, stable, it has a great set of tools. If it needs UI work then do that. The thing is since it caters to "design" folks and they all have tons of opinions there will never be consensus. I don't know how you'd say efforts failed, they took to long? They just gave up? Some up with some UI improvements, implement them of get someone to implement them and get them incorporated in to the code. If you can't and people like them, then fork.

#

Sorry, but it is not stable or robust when you try using it for large multi-layered images. Sure, noddy web stuff and trival photo editing tends to be fine, but as soon as you starting increasing the amount of data it uses, you'll find it less stable than cinelerra.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(

#

Great, this seems to be cyclical, every 3 monthes somewhere a thread pops up, with someone whining and asking why gimp can't be like photoshop. Well, perhaps because it's not photoshop?
The article mentioned duotone images and CMYK, what it failed to mention, was that for instance, duotone (and spot color support, particularly pantone), isn't supported because they're encumbered by patents, and nowadays people seem to be very lawsuit happy regarding IP issues.
About the user interface issue, well, why can't you just deal with the fact that you have multiple desktops on linux? That's a good thing, and if you really miss the GDI look, just go to the gimp website, check the plugins url: <a href="http://registry.gimp.org/" title="gimp.org">http://registry.gimp.org/</a gimp.org>, and search for the gimp deweirdifier, or, you can check GIMPshop, a photoshop "mod" for gimp that some made a while ago:
<a href="http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241/" title="plasticbugs.com">http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241/</a plasticbugs.com>

Everytime i see articles like this, you quickly realize that the person that authored them, didn't do the slightest bit of research. Right now, you have all those options, the photoshop mod, the gimp deweirdifier <a href="http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=3892/" title="gimp.org">http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=3892/</a gimp.org>, and someone mentioned an anti-redeye effect, you just didn't bothered to search the plugins section of the gimp website, or googling:
<a href="http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/redeye/" title="gimp.org">http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/redeye/</a gimp.org>
You have 2 plugins there, plus a script-fu, plus a per-fu, plust 2 tutorials for gimp 1.x, plus 2.x, and:
<a href="http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/RedEye2/" title="gimpguru.org">http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/RedEye2/</a gimpguru.org>
and another perl-fu:
<a href="http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/digicam/redeye/" title="ucla.edu">http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/digicam/redeye/</a ucla.edu>
and another plugin in C:
<a href="http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4212/" title="gimp.org">http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4212/</a gimp.org>

On top of that, it's open-source, if you don't like the options that you have, then create your own options, or ask someone to create them for you. What's wrong with donating something, hardware, or monetary reward, for someone to implement a particular feature that you really want? These "gimp sucks because it's not a photoshop clone" threads are ridiculous, and i just expect that no gimp developer wastes time reading these demands and focus instead on what the gimp's original goals were and are: to have an image editing application on linux, with a similar funcionality to photoshop. If there are limits, like the CMYK issue, and spot colors, then you might want to check this:
<a href="http://www.elug.de/projekte/patent-party/material.html/" title="www.elug.de">http://www.elug.de/projekte/patent-party/material<nobr>.<wbr></nobr> html/</a www.elug.de>
and
<a href="http://www.levien.com/gimp/gcmm.html/" title="levien.com">http://www.levien.com/gimp/gcmm.html/</a levien.com>
and
<a href="http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/aboutus.asp?idArticle=53/" title="pantone.com">http://www.pantone.com/aboutus/aboutus.asp?idArti<nobr>c<wbr></nobr> le=53/</a pantone.com>
and the subsequent discussion on groklaw.net
<a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816092029989#c350672/" title="groklaw.net">http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050816<nobr>0<wbr></nobr> 92029989#c350672/</a groklaw.net>

However, there is still the option to use CMYK with this:
<a href="http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml/" title="blackfiveservices.co.uk">http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> </a blackfiveservices.co.uk>
And a basic approach to duotones with:
<a href="http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=6749/" title="gimp.org">http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=6749/</a gimp.org>

Unfortunately, i'm sure that when gimp 2.4 comes out, we'll see another dosis of "let's fork gimp, it's not like photoshop" articles popup, written by obviously lazy people that don't even try to understand why gimp can't have certain features, and obviously don't even try to search for alternatives, or even, to bother finding if gimp actually already implements X or Y feature.

As for gimp's development, again, in the main gimp site, you have an url to the developer's website, with the current changelog, and the developer's mailing list archives. You would then realize that there is a lot of work going on GEGL (Gimp-E graphical libraries: <a href="http://www.gegl.org/" title="gegl.org">http://www.gegl.org/</a gegl.org>) to finally add support to images higher than 8bpc.

To sum this up, the usability issue, is not an issue, because there are alternatives, but obviously, some people are too lazy to even bother searching for them, much less actually learning them.

#

someone mentioned an anti-redeye effect, you just didn't bothered to search the plugins section of the gimp website, or googling:
<a href="http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/redeye/" title="gimp.org">http://carol.gimp.org/gimp2/photography/redeye/</a gimp.org>
You have 2 plugins there, plus a script-fu, plus a per-fu, plust 2 tutorials for gimp 1.x, plus 2.x, and:
<a href="http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/RedEye2/" title="gimpguru.org">http://gimpguru.org/Tutorials/RedEye2/</a gimpguru.org>
and another perl-fu:
<a href="http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/digicam/redeye/" title="ucla.edu">http://fmg-www.cs.ucla.edu/geoff/digicam/redeye/</a ucla.edu>
and another plugin in C:
<a href="http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4212/" title="gimp.org">http://registry.gimp.org/plugin?id=4212/</a gimp.org>

Actually - you are absolutely correct. I did not google this. And yes, that was the first thing to do and I feel stupid for not having done so.

Thanks for all the links!

#

Np, sorry if i sounded a bit agravated. About gimp plugins, there are some very nice plugins. The central repository is like i mentioned, the gimp registry, and compiling plugins isn't hard. When you install gimp, you already have an tool that makes it easier for you to compile plugins > gimp-install
Basically, this is used to build plugins, install them (in user mode, in which case it installs to ~/.gimp-2.2/plugins/ for instance), or admin mode, in which case it installs to the main gimp installation's plugins folder. You can use this to install scripts as well. The installation is easy, about compiling, gimp-install already sets all the flags required to compile them (all the gtk, glib dependencies, etc..).
You might want to check the dcam noise plugin as well, works really great to remove compression artifacts from digital images, and the ACE > adaptative contrast enhancement.
In any case, don't be scared by the task, if there aren't binary plugins already compiled in the gimp registry, compiling them isn't hard, just use the gimp-install utility (check the switches, because there are several options, to build only, install, install as admin, build and strip, etc...).

#

hey - you were RIGHT to be aggravated<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) I do the same thing when I come across stupid behavoir also...

I guess that I did not google this stuff simply because it seemed so basic to me that it did not cross my mind that I might want to google it. If I came across a word-processor without a spellcheck I would not think of goolging it (-: next time I will though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Many thanks for all the tips!

#

No. He's not *totally* correct. If "every couple of months" a lot of different people complain about an issue, then the issue is real and needs to be addressed.

#

Bullshit.

First off, let me point out that I don't care what the limitations are. I want what I want. If X delivers it and Y doesn't, then Y sucks by comparison. But teacher, the dog ate my homework. I don't care. Do it or get out of my face.

Second off, I shouldn't have to use a tool called "deweirdifier" on anything I own. I don't wan't weird shit to begin with. I want well designed, functional programs.

Third off, how much work went into it, and how free it is are non issues. If it takes you 50 hours to do the work someone else does in 5, you are a poor iranian worker for a reason. And on the free issue, I;m not interested in brain surgery discounts. Make it good. If you can afford to make it free, perfect. If you can't afford to make it free, a well. But don't make it shitty and then hide behind free.

The gimp is a shitty tool because of usability issues. An undue burden is placed on the user. For every minute of usefull work, you spend an average of 1.5 minutes dealing with the spaghetti incompetent designers left in. And to even get the thing started you have to spend a week, as you call it " bother searching for them". It shouldn't be my job to spend a week looking around for the pieces of your messy "completed" project.

And no, it's not free. My hours come at 100$ a pop. If you expect me to spend 50 hours "learning" your sorry ass code, that's a 5000 dollar tag you just put on it.

No.

<a href="http://www.zenofeller.com/gimp.php" title="zenofeller.com">http://www.zenofeller.com/gimp.php</a zenofeller.com>

#

One is whether GIMP needs improvements in GUI and functionality on its own.

The other is whether OSS has a tool that replicates all of PhotoShop's FUNCTIONALITY with PhotoShop's EASE OF USE.

The two are not the same. Both are legitimate.

If people are going to recommend GIMP to WINDOWS users as a REPLACEMENT for PhotoShop, then GIMP needs to have the same level of functionality and usability. Whether that means the GUI needs to be made to look like PhotoShop or simply made easier while still being DIFFERENT from PhotoShop is another separate question.

If you are NOT going to recommend GIMP to WINDOWS users as a replacement for PhotoShop, then what DO you recommend? If there isn't anything, then OSS is short a product category and needs to get cracking. Fortunately, it seems to be doing so.

If you're not going to bother to recommend OSS to Windows users, then shut the frag up about the complaints about the GIMP not being recommendable. People who want Windows users to switch to Linux have a valid point - the GIMP doesn't cut it. If you don't care about that, then don't bother commenting about those people.

Because the entire point is that people who do graphics seriously will NOT use Linux or OSS until they can do the same stuff there that they can do in Windows. And if GIMP is the supposed "powerhouse" graphic tool for Linux, then it better do everything that a PhotoShop user wants to do and it better do it as easily.

Now, certainly, there is a problem with Windows users not wanting to relearn a different GUI. No doubt about that. And that's not the GIMP developers' fault. But I suspect from my own limited experience with the GIMP that the GUI could be significantly improved.

People who say the developers "don't have" to change their preferred GUI at the request of others are missing the point. If the developers don't care to change it, fine. It's their stuff, they can do what they want with it. Just stop telling us GIMP is a replacement for PhotoShop because it isn't and the developers don't intend it to be.

At the same time, whenever someone wants a GUI change in the GIMP for the simple reason that they think the GUI sucks, don't just tell them to buzz off because "it's not their project." That's simply stupid. The developers should have SOME interest in providing software that someone else can use - else why bother releasing a public version at all? Just keep it on your own machine, so we don't have to bother with you at all. If you expect people to use your software, pay attention to usability complaints. It's that fragging simple.

If you don't care whether anyone can use your software, guess what? We don't particularly care to know you wrote it and we won't use it. Stuff that in your ego.

Bottom line: The GIMP developers need to make a public statement about whether they intend to make GIMP equal in functionality and usability to PhotoShop. If not, fine, somebody else will make a project that does. If they do, go to it.

For the rest of us, especially the people who want to recommend Linux to Windows users, take note about that public statement. If the developers reject PhotoShop capability and usability, stop recommending GIMP to Windows PhotoShop users. Find and recommend something else.

The problem is strictly the confusion between GIMP on its own merits and GIMP as a replacement for PhotoShop.

#

You don't like it? Don't use it. Problem solved.

WTF did you get the idea that the universe revolves around your selfish wants? WTF did you get the idea that the GIMP developers OWE you jack shit?

Poor baby. Giving you the world is still not enough. It's always GIMME GIMME GIMME some mo!

#

Damn! Both you and "prokoudin" are so frelling wrong it's pathetic.

The original post simply said that if the developers of the GIMP want people to use it then it needs to do what those same people want it to do. If they don't want people to use it then they can keep going on their merry way. There's nothing wrong with this at all. That's the power of the open source world.

Anyone remember SLS Linux? They wouldn't listen to what their users wanted. Then Patrick released Slackware and no one has heard of SLS since.

So if the two of you would stop being arrogant asses long enough to understand the world of open source it might keep you from posting asinine and embarrassing messages like these.

#

Hell, another one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

You definitely fail to understand the nature of open source. It's not meant to be pleasing anyone except its creator and probably his friends. There is no single pathetic atom in it. This is plain pragmatic.

Either pay for a feature or stop yelling. If you can't pay or you are just greedy or whatever, prove to developers that your ideas are of any worth. Provide use cases, mockups etc. That's the way open source works -- when feedback is constructive. No more, no less.

Yelling is not constructive. Asking if developers want to compete with PS or clone it is not constructive.

Bottomline: developers do not owe you anything.

#

Hell, another one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) You definitely fail to understand the nature of open source. It's not meant to be pleasing anyone except its creator and probably his friends.

Great. Please inform Redhat, Mandriva, Slackware, Novell et al to stop wasting everybody's time.

#

I'm not talking about large companies. I'm talking about individuals. Is GIMP been developed by Redhat, Mandriva, Novell?

#

What rock have you been under for the last 15 years?

First off, it's true that constructive feedback is the best thing a user can give to the developer(s). However, the idea that an app or tool is there only to please the developer (and his friends) is ludicrous. Yes, most of the things we use started off as the proverbial itch scratching. But if a project gets past the point of just the developer(s) and their friends using it then it's now a product. The creative developers with talent will jump at the chance to make their tool or app better for people to use. Now, if you will reread my post you'll see that I specifically said if the development team wants to do their own thing and not respond to users requests that just fine and dandy. The power of open source is that it is dynamic and can be or do anything and go in any direction. No one "owes" anyone anything.

But ponder this; If you built the killer app and nobody used it, what good is it to have built that app in the first place? Developers exist because of the users. It's not the other way around. And I say this as a developer of some 20+ years.

#

No and no. Open source is for benefit of both developers and users.

I'm not saying that developers should ignore users. They just have their own priorities that don't neccesarily reflect users priorities.

And for your information, GIMP's developers listen to their users when users don't shout at them and don't take them for personal slaves.

Just be positive and quit selfishness. Telling developers to do what they have to do in your opinion is not positive. Naming contributors "arrogant asses" is not positive.

If you keep talking to people that way, noone will listen to you.

#

> Bottom line: The GIMP developers need to make a public statement about whether they intend to make GIMP equal in functionality and usability to PhotoShop...

This is one of most selfish statements here. For you information PS is not the only powerful tool out there to compare GIMP to. Do they have to make a table and fill it with info whether they try to compete with one application or another? Why do they _have_ to? Do they owe you money? May you really give orders?

> If the developers reject PhotoShop capability and usability, stop recommending GIMP to Windows PhotoShop users.

Are you on your mind? Since when GIMP's developers recommend their "child" as PS's substitution?

Most users have GIMP for free and the source code too. Be happy with it or stay away. Just quit behaving like everyone in the world owes you $25.

#

While the GIMP isnt perfect it is unique and fun. The more I use it the esier it gets. It may not have all the tools or ease of use as Photoshop, but its 100% free! People need to stop complaining and try it. The "hard to use" bs seems to be attached to all oss programs. IMHO its nothing but FUDsters talking.

#

If you are NOT going to recommend GIMP to WINDOWS users as a replacement for PhotoShop, then what DO you recommend? If there isn't anything, then OSS is short a product category and needs to get cracking. Fortunately, it seems to be doing so.

Why am I going to recommend an OSS prog to somebody not using an OSS platform? If somebody on a windows machine comes asking about an image editor for windows I'm going to tell them to go buy photoshop. Too cheap to pay for it? Well you can always use MSPaint.

#

Well, the posts responding to my post demonstrated my point. None of these people understand the problem and none of them understand open source.

The point of open source is not to feed the developer's ego. The point of open source is to provide quality software of value for free or low cost.

The motivation for someone to develop open source is not relevant to the point of open source as a development method.

Like I said before, if the teenage babies here who only want to develop their egos instead of software would wake up, nobody is going to be using their software if it doesn't pay any attention to functionality and usability already demonstrated by proprietary software.

So go ahead, ignore all this. And the rest of us will ignore your software.

And open source will sink into obscurity as nobody bothers to use it. Fortunately this won't happen because MOST open source projects recognize the need to develop functional and usable software - not egos.

It's only a few teenage punks who think they know it all who claim differently.

Either the GIMP will develop sufficient usability to entice non-OSS users over to OSS or it won't. If it doesn't, it will be eclipsed by something that does, because somebody will get the message that there is an opportunity to develop something as good or better than PhotoShop.

And THAT'S how you get ego-boo - developing software that people actually want to use, not some crap that appeals only to you - which makes you a narcissist and a twit.

It's exactly the narcissists and twits that give OSS a bad name. Linus may not care about users, but he cares about quality and usable software. That is the difference between Linus and the twits.

#

Oh dear, first, you tell us - contributors - that we do not understand open source. Then you tell us what motivation we have. But that wasn't enough for you.

You then stated that "The point of open source is to provide quality software of value for free or low cost."

What moon have you fallen from?

Next time before you start spreading nonsense, go to Free Software Foundation web-site and read:

"Free software is a matter of liberty not price. You should think of "free" as in "free speech"."

Read it twice. Read it more times, until it finally settles in your mind: LIBERTY, NOT PRICE.

Then we can talk.

#

I really appreciated the guy's statement. All he's asking is for a straight answer - Is the GIMP intended for a normal person who needs a tool that is at least as powerful and easy to use as the one they have?

If so, there are some flaws that will need to be addressed.

If not, then all this "freedom" doesn't do most of us any good. Freedom to do what? Learn to code and write a tool that works because the GIMP folks don't want to? Thanks, but we were already free to do that, and already decided on more rewarding work.

#

> All he's asking is for a straight answer - Is the GIMP intended for a normal person who needs a tool that is at least as powerful and easy to use as the one they have?

No, you are getting things wrong.

1. Who is that normal person? The one who uses Photoshop? Does using Photoshop make people normal? Does not using Photoshop make people unnormal? What does unnormal means then? Mentally disturbed? Unsocial? Please consider thinking twice before you post harsh statements.

2. If one has a powerful and easy to use tool, why should he switch to something else that is "at least as powerful and easy to use" as his current tool? I can imagine only one situation: the current tool is warez.

Have you ever visited homepage of Paint Shop Pro or Pixel or any other advanced graphics editor? Did you see any comparison to Photoshop there? I bet you didn't. Do you know why?

Because comparisons are made by people, and people have preferences. For one GIMP has all features he needs, whether it's web graphics or photo retouching or painting. For another one none of them are sufficient. You can't line up all users and say "Since today for all of you Photoshop is better in all aspects"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

> If so, there are some flaws that will need to be addressed.

They won't. Simply because you can't make everyone happy. And everyone has his own preferences. Would you want to address everyone's preferences if you were developer? How many hours a day have you got? 48? 72? Are you sure your application will stay consistent if you implement everyone's feature requests? Go figure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

> 1. Who is that normal person? The one who uses Photoshop? Does using Photoshop make people normal? Does not using Photoshop make people unnormal?

Do we have to be hair splitting here? In the context of GIMP, a PS user *is* a normal user. Call it target audience if you want to.

>> If so, there are some flaws that will need to be addressed.
>
> They won't. Simply because you can't make everyone happy. And everyone has his own preferences. Would you want to address everyone's preferences if you were developer? How many hours a day have you got? 48? 72? Are you sure your application will stay consistent if you implement everyone's feature requests? Go figure<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

If there is a large demand for a certain feature, I definitely would think twice about not adding it.

It's not for no reason that PS was voted as more important than MS Office in order for people to switch to Linux. There is no acceptable alternative available already (unlike OO for Office), this also means GIMP does not cut it as a replacement.

If the GIMP developers would want to attract new users, they would change the interface to more closely resemble PS, it's that simple.

Of course it is their decision to do so or not do so, but if they want new users, they better should. This is the message here, what the developers make of it is up to them.

I am confident that someone will create a PS replacement eventually, if the GIMP does not want to step up to the challenge.

#

I'm a semi-recent BA working on being a pro photographer. Big handicap - I haven't touched photoshop or used windows since 2001, constantly hoping that the GIMP will one day be something less of a wrestling match. These days I regularly wonder whether I could scrape the funds together and bite the windows bullet, or whether I'd rather just shoot film.

Every time this discussion comes up, people insist that the GIMP shouldn't be like Photoshop, that being a geek tool made for geeks is fine, go use something else or write your own, etc. etc. In other words, the GIMP developers are unwilling or unable to understand and respond to the needs of their potential users, and would rather just shoot the messenger.

As someone who does in fact know what he's talking about, I don't care if it's like Photoshop. I do care that I can do the things I do most often with a minimum of fuss, and that once I learn how to something repetition remains easy. The design of the GIMP doesn't allow for this.

I'm not talking about sacrificing power for simplicity. If you've ever used a good camera, you'd realize that to a large extent, power IS simplicity.

I suppose there's not much reason for the F/OSS community to care, I'm not about to start coding and I'm not a huge funder. Until you do care, and enough that the GIMP is either significantly changed or replaced, you really have no business complaining about the lack of interest from camera manufacturers and hardware developers though. They have a bigger market to think about.

#

the GIMP developers are unwilling or unable to understand and respond to the needs of their potential users, and would rather just shoot the messenger.


Maybe it's because they prefer to listen to their current users. You see, right now there is probably few thousands people around the world who use Gimp regularly and are pretty happy with the interface. There also seems to be few hundred people whi every time someone mentions Gimp start screaming about the horrible interface and how it needs to be changed. Now suppose the developers go ahead, spend several months changing the interface. As a result, there will be bunch of users around the world happily adopting Gimp, but there will also be several hundred people angry about the change screaming every time someone mentiones Gimp how the new interface is horrible and how it should have never been changed.

It may be that we use Gimp for different things, but I find that for me, repetition is usually pretty easy. Yes, there are things that could be better, for example I wish that when I tear of a menu, then quit Gimp and start it again, it would remember that I had a menu torn off. But these are small things.

#

"Now suppose the developers go ahead, spend several months changing the interface. As a result, there will be bunch of users around the world happily adopting Gimp, but there will also be several hundred people angry about the change screaming every time someone mentiones Gimp how the new interface is horrible and how it should have never been changed."

Ummm...this is open source. Isn't change suppose to be one of it's strengths?

#

I suppose there's not much reason for the F/OSS community to care, I'm not about to start coding and I'm not a huge funder.

In otherwords you want something for nothing. If you and everyone else complaining in this article's comments put up US$300 each (the price of the academic version of Photoshop), you might get a developer or two. And if Google runs their "Summer of Code" this year, you might want to put the bug in their ear that GIMP interface overhaul would be a good thing. See, you don't have to be a master coder to contribute to FOSS.

Until you do care, and enough that the GIMP is either significantly changed or replaced, you really have no business complaining about the lack of interest from camera manufacturers and hardware developers though. They have a bigger market to think about.

That's a huge red herring. Massive! Impressive. And nonsense. So long as they either a) provide documentation on how to write drivers for their hardware, or b) develop their hardware to play well with certain standards like USB mass storage, I haven't got an issue.

And if they don't, I still don't have an issue. They're free to do what they like. But I'm free to not purchase their products...

#

The other mentioned image editor ("Pixel") looks nice, but strictly speaking it is not Shareware - it is Crippleware, because it injects visible watermarks to edited images.

#

CinePaint is a fork from GIMP. It was once called Film GIMP.

If the GIMP developers aren't sufficiently responsive to your needs, give the CinePaint community a try.

(And even if they aren't willing to give you what you want, at least they represent a proof of concept that GIMP forks can succeed if there is sufficient demand. Been there, done that)

#

I don't think the fact that Gimp isn't a photoshop rippoff is the problem so much as how obvious it is that it's designed by programmers.

Lemme take a look at the menus here.

"Python-Fu" What the hell does that mean?

"Script-Fu" Does Python not fit here?

How come the "Stroke ******" items are in the Edit menu? They're the only item in the Edit menu that directly effects pixels.

The interface is generally lacking features and isn't consistent. Not all the previews in dialogues work the same. Some tools edit in dialogues, some edit in the window...

The bottom line is, there isn't a seriously thought out form and function. If it is, it's thought out from the perspective of the programmer. They designers are thinking, how is this function implemented? What scripting language is behind it?

But when people hear interface problems, they think, "OMG they just want a PS clone!" And then you have "GimpShop".

A few questions before you go into that line of thought:

*Why do you think Linux\Unix has the desktop pager? I would NEVER use Gimp without it. But I'm so used to it now, I dislike using Windows at all cause it doesn't have it. So using it for Gimp is a non-issue.

*How many Linux\Unix programs use MDI? The only program I can think of is StarOffice which USED to use MDI. I just opened up OpenOffice... Nope, not MDI anymore. I know MDI programs probably exists, I'm sure someone will give me an example and bitch about my research, but they aren't common. Not one program installed on my computer AT ALL uses MDI.

If Gimp switched to MDI for the sake of ripping Photoshop, it would be totally off from the rest of the system's user interface.

Without actually fixing any of the problems.

#

> Lemme take a look at the menus here. "Python-Fu" What the hell does that mean? "Script-Fu" Does Python not fit here?

They are all merged into one "Effects" menu in 2.3.x. Dunno what you're asking about<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Fantastic! Good to know there's someone on the job<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

I have 2.2.something. Latest update from FC4.

#

Actually there are quite a few MDI applications like all of KOffice components and Scribus.

#

Ah, I'm a Gnome user.

I prefer KDE on it's own merits, but every program I use is GTK so I figured I'd just roll with it...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...But that's kinda still my point, KOffice and such are part of the KDE\Qt group which differs a tad from the GTK programs, like Gimp.

#

KOffice is not mdi. Not at all. Every document has its own window.

Boudewijn Rempt, Krita maintainer.

#

Errr, I haven't opened multiply images in it yet. Thank you for clarification<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

I've been reading this nonsense about the gimp interface being cludgy, strange, difficult, whatever, for years.

So now, after switching fully to linux from windows, decided to start working with the gimp. I have decent background in fireworks and photoshop.

First of all, I still remember learning adobe's bizarre layout logic. Talk about non-intuitive and painful, photoshop, or, shiver, illustrator, they take the cake for bad interfaces that simply exist because everyone is used to them.

Fireworks I've always like, it's clean, although mx 2004 is a disaster in almost every way, so let's not compare fireworks mx to the gimp.

But knowing two image processing programs made the gimp completely obvious, it was just a matter of finding the controls, no different than moving from photoshop to fireworks. Some things aren't easy to find right off, but then again, they aren't easy in photoshop or fireworks either, I read books on those to learn them.

I have to conclude that this is the classic argument given against linux: it's not windows.

So the gimp isn't photoshop, big deal, I opened it, I did what I needed to do, and if I need to learn it more I'll get a book on it, just like I did with photoshop or fireworks.

The interface is great if you have multiple desktops, it's fantastic if you have dual monitors, or a very large monitor.

I really don't understand why people find this program so confusing, just spend the same time you've spent learning your favorite $600 windows application and you'll find I think that it works just fine.

And these demands that the developers do x or y, what's that nonsense about, this is free open source software, you didn't pay for it, you don't write any documentation for it, but you want it the way you want it? Talk about childish. So yes, if you don't like one of these projects, either don't use it, or contribute to make it better. But please, this is not a commercial project, it's made by volunteers. If photoshop has features you don't like, and you paid hundreds of dollars for it, you have every right to complain and try to get adobe to fix it. But if someone gives you a present, which is what this kind of software is at its heart, why on earth do you think you have the right to question the quality of that present?

You don't have to use it, that's completely fine. If you like photoshop's interface, which I don't, then use it. Photoshop runs pretty well on wine by the way, so you can use that.

But people complaining about a product they got for free, then complaining when someone suggests they help make the product better, where does that come from? You don't need to use it, the maintainers and developers do not benefit from your use of it. It's a gift to you.

Personally, I was amazed when I started using it, everything is pretty much where I expect it to be, things do pretty much what I expect them to do, and this for the price of $0. Krita looks promising too. Same price.

If you want commercial software, then please, go buy some, and use it, nobody cares. I found the gimp to do and be exactly what it said, it's a completely fine image processing program, done by volunteers, given to me for free. Since I do some open source stuff, I sort of understand the process. If you don't, here's the basic idea:

You're doing it because it's interesting to you. You add the features you want to see, because they are the features you want. Other people are attracted to the project because they share your interests and probably like how you approach the issue. Some people like it but want to change some stuff, they provide code and fixes to do that, since they are scratching their own, not the main developer's, itch.

As for NVU, don't make me laugh, talk about a sad open source project, that's the worst one I've seen. But since I tried it, realized it was useless, I just forgot about it. It doesn't meet my needs, and it's not a 1.0 release, no way. If I'm going to criticize a project, it's nvu.

#

And these demands that the developers do x or y, what's that nonsense about, this is free open source software, you didn't pay for it, you don't write any documentation for it, but you want it the way you want it? Talk about childish. So yes, if you don't like one of these projects, either don't use it, or contribute to make it better.

I heard a guy from the USA West coast summarize the USA East coast attitude as this: "Come correct, or don't come at all." What you call childish, I call an insistance on quality work. Even work done for free. I have a volunteer gig on the weekends, I expect constructive criticism and don't excuse myself from doing a good job just because I'm not getting paid.

I don't claim to know how Photoshop handles these things, but I do know that GIMP's multi-window interface is inconsistent with the rest of my GNOME desktop, doing batch [anything] is more trouble than it's worth, the menu system is far more convoluted and tricky to remember than necessary, and if they've done anything about color profiles, I've been at it for five years now and I've yet to discover it.

These complaints have been a common theme for years. If you want to ignore and dismiss them, fine. But don't ask people to pretend that you're producing something that is of good quality and adequate to their needs if you aren't.

If you can't take the scrutiny, or don't like how hard it is to do something well, fine. The author and many East-coast types will happily continue to advocate finding or building a functional alternative. Until one exists, "Linux is ready for the Desktop" will only apply to a few people who don't demand good work on an occasional basis.

For the record, I am not someone who learned Photoshop and is scared of different interfaces. I ditched Windows for Linux in 2001 specifically because I demand quality. On a couple of occasions when it made sense I've suggested Debian to friends, though usually I have to advise people to buy Apple.

I really do believe F/OSS has the most potential, but if it's going to be reached there needs to be a welcoming of constructive criticism, responsiveness to users who do not have the ability to code or pay tons of money, and a constant insistence on excellence regardless of whether "the other guy" is doing things better.

#

The other advantage of open source projects is that if in fact they stop providing what the users want, someone at some point will start developing either a new project, or fork the old one, to better satisfy their own tastes.

I simply do not understand the multiple window thing, that's how all the image apps work. Except they keep them initially in one master window. But you can move them out of that, at least in fireworks.

As for batch processing, check out other tools that might do that job better, sometimes you have to use other tools.

Personally I found the Gimp's interface no more or less intuitive than any other image manipulation program's.

But I suspect that in a year or two Krita will be at least as good as the Gimp, kde apps are moving very fast right now.

The problem here isn't the idea that open source projects shouldn't strive for quality, obviously the developers strive for quality, but with a key difference: it's the quality they want and like.

The assumption that the linux desktop has to do something or other to 'get ready for average users', I just don't understand that.

Just think of the statement. You can already run photoshop in Wine, it works. Can you point me to the near professional quality image manipulation program, office suite, etc, applications that come installed when I install Windows? I seem to have missed those.

Windows comes with a text editor, notepad, that was written I would guess in 1990 or so. Same for all the other little apps windows comes with.

All the applications you're used to with your linux installed are all extras, you don't get anything like that on windows install. So I just don't understand that criticism at all, it makes no sense.

To compare linux to windows you'd have to strip out almost every program linux distros usually come with on their desktop installs, then compare feature for feature.

In a way it's funny, the linux users are so demanding that they actually expect to get a professional quality program for free. And it's happening, k3b is functionally more or less as good as nero from what I can see for example.

The gimp or krita are both radically superior to the native image processor windows comes with, OpenOffice is lightyears ahead of wordpad.

For an average user, if I give them the gimp, or krita, they will have the tools they need, for free, without installing a thing.

That's the real comparison I'd make. If the gimp is missing features, or you don't like how something is implemented, which is fine, I don't like Photoshop either, then first see if those features are maybe available on some other application, or if they can be run by scripting, or many other options.

I'm not saying the gimp is great in itself, but it's a great FREE program. It's almost as good as Photoshop in many ways. So I'm glad it's there, that's all, end of story. I'm sure the developers want it to be as good as it can be.

#

The assumption that the linux desktop has to do something or other to 'get ready for average users', I just don't understand that.

A lot of people and companies are putting a lot of money and effort into convincing the average user that "Linux is desktop ready." A lot of other people spend a lot of time patting themselves and eachother on the back for having produced a fabulous new development paradigm that's going to radically alter the business landscape, break the Microsoft Monopoly, run on everything from the largest supercomputer to the tiniest mp3 player, etc. etc. Some of it even seems to be happening.

Why should these people care about making Linux usable by the average user? I don't know. But if they don't, all their promises and predictions will amount to is a bunch of hot air and an interesting toy that only geeks use. Based on the discussions here, nobody will care.

The cost-free argument has no power over "let's me actually do my work."

The Free argument is nice in theory, but most of us don't code. Being Free to beg the help of people who deliberately turn a deaf ear isn't nearly as nice as being Free to pay one of several organizations who all actively want our long term business.

I've found other tools for batch processing, and I get around the GIMP okay. I actually prefer using Linux with all the extra work involved. You know why? In addition to being a photographer, I'm a big geek. Nevertheless, when someone - especially a fellow photographer, asks me about this Linux thing, I have one bit of advice: "Don't believe the hype."

To date, I've said that because the tools aren't there yet for the normal guy. Another few rounds of this, and I'll be saying "These people don't care what you need. They talk a nice bit about Freedom, but they really mean you're on your own, take it or leave it. I happen to take it, but I can't suggest that you do."

#

Lucky for you - you are allowed to pay any developer to add or fix functionality in any free (as in freedom) software.

>The Free argument is nice in theory, but most of us don't code. Being Free to beg the help of people who deliberately turn a deaf ear isn't nearly as nice as being Free to pay one of several organizations who all actively want our long term business.

In other words - you are not willing to pay. That kind of breaks your argument, doesn't it?

#

>>>

Which tools? My digital camera is recognized by digikam and another digital photo viewer. I can create galleries with gwenview. I can process images with a variety of tools, from gimp to krita to imagemagick.

My installation came with a full featured office suite that is more than good enough for almost all home users.

I only had to install one driver on each box, at most, if they have newer radeon or nvidia cards.

To install any program I just type in apt-get install .

I have a full featured email client with built in spam protection.

I'd say it's exactly the opposite: the tools are almost all there for the normal guy. It's the people who need more, like the photoshop types, the advanced word macro, complex MS office corporate stuff, that's what's not ready.

And if those users want that level of support, they can pay for it, just like they do now.

I fell for it too, I thought linux wasn't ready, it is ready, as long as you don't try to force the box to be windows, and learn the tools you have, instead of pining for the tools you don't have.

These newsforge threads, I'm sure the editors post those stories just to get a reaction, get reading times, stickiness of the thread, all that, up. Doesn't take any work, as noted earlier, all they have to do is print the standard gimp has bad interface story and it's guaranteed to pull in readers.

#

The Free argument is nice in theory, but most of us don't code. Being Free to beg the help of people who deliberately turn a deaf ear isn't nearly as nice as being Free to pay one of several organizations who all actively want our long term business.

Which organizations would those be? Microsoft? Adobe? Oracle? in case you haven't noticed, they also deliberately turn a deaf ear while cheerfully taking your money. Oh, then to add insult to injury, they demand that you verify that the software you paid for is actually paid for.

It's almost like they don't trust you to be honest or something.

#

I couldn't have said it better myself - including the part about Nvu, but let's stick to the GIMP.

If we allow ourselves three users - Jane, Sarah and Mary, let's play out what they would like to do with an image manipulation program - their top items.

About Jane:

Jane brings her digital camera to family gatherings, parties and on holidays. She is a casual photographer. She knows nothing about how a camera works, she just clicks and hopes the flash comes off at the right time. She does not worry about composition, or if the sun is in front of a subject or behind it, if there is enough light in the room to get a good shot and so on. One could conclude that images are taken as a memory aid, and to show other people a situation or place. You don't need to know any image manipulation program to tell which problems she would want to fix. The subjects will be focused if she has autofocus, and maybe correctly lit if outdoors, but most indoor shots taken without sun-light through windows will be underlit because the inbuilt flash provides too poor lighting, and she doesn't turn up the light to fix the problem as that would ruin the athmosphere of the occation. Naturally, the inbuilt flash of her compact digital camera provides a too narrow angle from flash to subject to lens, and she doesn't tell people to look at her shoulder, so most eyes are red and faces are too brightly lit by the flash.

Functionality needed: She needs an album function, crop with composition guide, contrast/brightness, and red eye remover.

Best GNU/Linux application for Jane: digiKam with all the extra plugins. See <a href="http://extragear.kde.org/apps/digikamimageplugins/" title="kde.org">http://extragear.kde.org/apps/digikamimageplugins<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> </a kde.org>

About Sarah:

Sarah is a professional photographer who runs her own studio, but she enjoys landscapes and architecture in the morning because of the wonderful light. Her images are mostly fine, but sometimes there are subtle colour casts she needs to touch up, and sometimes she wants to crop something.

Functionality: Curves, crop

Best GNU/Linux application for the job: GIMP. Why? Because of the excellent documentation available to people like her. See Grokking the GIMP by Carey Bunks, <a href="http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html?node45.html" title="gimp-savvy.com">http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html?node45.html</a gimp-savvy.com> or the GIMP manual at <a href="http://docs.gimp.org/en/index.html" title="gimp.org">http://docs.gimp.org/en/index.html</a gimp.org> - just look at the clear index of that manual - from beginner to expert - wonderful.

About Mary:

Mary works for an ad agency. She is the in house image manipulator for all those wonderful posters. Sarah comes to Mary if there is model who needs to loose some lines or whatever.

Functionality: Masks, blending modes, layers - the lot.

Best GNU/Linux application: GIMP - full stop. Books: <a href="http://www.gimp.org/books/" title="gimp.org">http://www.gimp.org/books/</a gimp.org>
Tutorials: <a href="http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/" title="gimp.org">http://www.gimp.org/tutorials/</a gimp.org>
Mailing lists: <a href="http://www.gimp.org/mail_lists.html" title="gimp.org">http://www.gimp.org/mail_lists.html</a gimp.org>

So the answer depends upon your needs, qualifications and interest.

#

GIMP doesn't need a fork, it needs more developers. I can barely use Photoshop, but GIMP feels just right. That is not to say that GIMP has a better interface than Photoshop, only that I'm used to the GIMP. I couldn't make sense of the interface when I first saw it, but then again, no interface can make concepts such as layer masks and non-destructive editing (using layers) obvious. I did what most Photoshop users do when they get into image editing -- I read a book (Grokking The GIMP), and quickly learned how to use the program.

I can't find the radical design proposals that the author refers to, all I can find on the web site are three proposals, and all seem quite incremental in nature. I'm sure the developers would love for people to start hacking on the GIMP and implement the excellent suggestions on the Open Usability web site, they just need more manpower.

Here's a pertinent quote from Sven Neumann, one of the lead developers, over at Open Usability:

By: Sven Neumann

RE: Is there anyone left?

2006-01-11 23:37

You want to understand what the developers want? If that really hasn't become clear until now, I will try to summarize my view on what the developers want.

We want help to improve usability of GIMP. We want to see usability techniques being applied to GIMP. We want to see a number of personas being created that represent the different GIMP users. We want to see a list of typical use cases. We want to know about typical workflows. We want to see where the current user interface gets into the way. We want to know about your ideas on how to streamline typical workflows. We want user tests to be performed and analysed. We want to see proposals for a better menu hierarchy which are not based on personal opinions but on the result of (for example) card-sorting sessions exercised with a small number of (potential) users. We want to see your paper prototypes. We want to see proposals for user interface changes based on use cases. We want user interface mockups, detailed enough so that they can actually be implemented.

We do not want the usual ranting about the GIMP user interfaces. We have heard all that before. There is probably noone who knows better how bad the GIMP user interface really is than the GIMP developers. We also don't want people who expect us to implement the proposed changes immidiately.

My hope is that we can collect and maintain a list of changes that will improve the user interface. That list then needs to be enriched by developer comments that outline how these changes can actually be implemented. That list will then hopefully attract new developers and eventually we will see GIMP becoming more user-friendly. I am afraid that without a whole bunch of new and motivated developers that is not going to happen but I hope that the openusability.org effort can help to realize this vision.

Sven

#

Oh sure, Sven SAYS that.
But give him any concrete suggestions and he pisses all over them.

#

What he says he wants is called "domain expert business analyst" in my industry, able to collect, organise and document user requirements. I am a BA and the best way these requirements are gathered is by conducting user interviews and surveys. Unfortunately, I am a graphics newbie so wouldn't be such a good person for the job.

That could be an interesting job though. But then again, there needs to be a clear commitment from developpers to act on these requirements otherwise noone will invest the time and effort doing all that analysis work.

#

"a clear commitment from developpers to act on these requirements"

That what we never got at Open Usability.

#

As far as I know the openusability.org effort was started as a way to attract new developers. How can you expect a commitment from the developers then?

There are no developers to commit to your ideas yet. You were supposed to come up with a redesign that is capable of bringing some fresh blood into GIMP development. If your proposals are good, someone will implement them. The better your proposals, the sooner that will happen.

#

...are the 80s workflows.

No dynamic effect layers? DUH. Every single layer effect (such as drop shadows etc) should be dynamic and stackable. It would support crafting and going very easy and fast back to fix errors in the beginning of the workflows.

Gimp is 5 years behind in this area and it's absolutely imperative feature set for any "professional grade" image editing application. Furthermore the developers seem to like discussing over completely meaningless small tweaks and performing them while there are fundamental flaws in the application. I don't expect them to ever grow up and pull their head out of... Ahm.

Gimp isn't just worth anything if you compare it to the Photoshop, just because Photoshop is really usable and Gimp is not. It's just that plain simple.

#

Pixel has this feature and in my opinion it's better than Photoshop in this case because effects are really stackable, you can use same effect more times and you decide about order<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

#

Is some kind of mental disconnect happening here? I'm getting increasingly confused by the posters here, some of them anyway.

I just went to amazon.com and priced photoshop 7. It cost $750.

While it's enormously flattering to the gimp developers to be compared in any way to the product of a huge corporation that basically only does image processing, where on earth do you get the idea that anyone is suggesting that you leave the tool you need?

If you are happy paying $750 for a single application, and if it does what you need, then why are you even wasting the reader's time posting in these comments?

Are you suggesting that a small group of programmers, working on a volunteer basis, should easily be able to keep up with the adobe corporation?

Where does this kind of lunacy come from? And you want them to bring the gimp up to the professional level you want, so you can not pay for photoshop?

If you're a pro, and need photoshop, by all means, BUY PHOTOSHOP. It's kind of hard to believe this kind of whining to be honest, I mean, are we adults here, or little kids?

How on earth can an allegedly adult brain come up with such nonsense?

Let's repeat the example: install windows, look at 'start => programs'. Please list all the high end image processing applications you found there. Since there are none, what are you talking about?

I have to assume that this is that USA thing where people feel entitled to whine and complain about something they've done nothing to contribute to.

Try contributing to an open source project and you might find that your willingness to b#tch and moan drops off almost instantly. And then you might actually try to improve things in any way you can. Or you might just keep complaining.

And if you don't like the gimp, why are you using it in the first place? Did someone point a gun at your head and force you?

Where does this attitude come from? I really don't understand it at all. It's like reading spoiled little kids complaining that their new toy isn't good enough.

#

Hey, maybe some of us SHOULD fork the gimp? It's open source. Just group up, find some coders and get to work...

If I have time this summer I might try something like that.

#

If you are a developer with some free time and interest in working on computer graphics and/or user interfaces, perhaps you should contact the GIMP developers before you consider a fork? As far as I know the GIMP developers are very open for changes and the only thing that keeps them from happening is lack of active developers. It's not a question of ignoring users and user interface experts. It's simply lack of people with enough coding skills and free time who would be able to implement the much needed changes.

#

...Yeah, I'll just do that or something.

I don't really know what's going on in detail but I'm kinda bored.

#

"As far as I know the GIMP developers are very open for changes"

As far as I know, they're not.
I was part of the initial effort at Open Usability, and the response from the developers was obstructive, combative, and frequently downright rude.

If you want to fork, go for it.

#

The openusability.org effort didn't even get to the point yet where developers would have to be involved. The members there were supposed to get something done that they can show to the developers. But they haven't even managed to organize themselves. Just have a look at the forums. If you were part of that initial effort, you should ask yourself why that has happened.

#

I was part of that effort, and I have.

You can see for yourself what happened.

#

I had a look at the forums and all I can say that I have never before seen people acting so unprofessional and unorganized. I understand that you are posting anonymously here. If I was you, I would be ashamed.

Let's hope that people get their act together and turn this effort into something useful. Even if it had a bad start, it could still become a success.

#

So I'm at work and my boss suggests that I design some flyers to promote the use of one of the systems around the office. Rock on -- a break from the hum drum of daily life... told him that I needed Photoshop... we don't have a license... will IT approve use of The GiMP?? Ask em...

They did.

SO I installed and attempted to use the GiMP for this project. It was awesome and served it's purpose in all but 1 area... text.

One of the tools I use the most in photoshop in relation to deisgn and layout is text... I can tweak it any way I want and make it work... I can automagically create a text path simply by clicking near an existing path and specifying some spacing.

This is my only beef with using the GiMP regularly... that and the way that it handles layers and quick masks is quirky.

#

Yes, you are right. Text is an aspect where Gimp must improve.

I think the Filters that bundle along with Gimp are really cool. "Many" of which aren't available in a default installation of Photoshop.

I have also experienced that it takes comparatively more time to open a file in Gimp than Photoshop. People at IRC have argued with me that it is a matter with the amount of Memory that the system has. But I have used the term "comparatively" - which is from extensive experimentation with large files (100 MB+) using Photoshop CS2 on optimized Windows XP and Gimp on optimized Linux installations (dual boot).

(By optimized I mean conducting standard disk, memory and process optimizations that any average user for both OSes would generally do).

I am in the process of migrating a Small Photography firm (about 10 artists) in India to Gimp from Photoshop. In fact, I am one of the partner of this company and we all liked Gimp very much - particularly because:

(1) It is free<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-), and

(2) Being based on Linux it indirectly offers (in my perspective) an opportunity for comparatively finer control over various filters and image adjustments (explanation is that we can use the various command line utilities of ImageMagick).

I "know" and so does everyone that Photoshop is the best "Image Editing Software" (no Euphemism intended: for Photoshop fans). Gimp isn't the best! But it helps you to compete with the best, and your competitors who use Photoshop - at a fractional or no cost.

Your customers see the output - not the software that helped you get there.

BTW, for those who might be curious:

1. How I intend to resolve my resource issues? Clustering + Virtualization. It isn't expensive for me as Gimp is not the only app that we intend to run. (We also have an ERP and a few other apps).

2. Text?
If you think creatively and use many of the wonderful scripts, filters and plugins that bundle with Gimp, I don't think there might be much problem. Isn't there more than one way to do it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Conclusion:

Everything takes its time. IMHO, there shouldn't be need for a fork. Gimp is doing great; it is improving; without must study and based on my instinct, I take the liberty to state that the user-base of Gimp is also increasing; Did I read somewhere about re-inventing the wheel<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... ?

#

Maybe someday Gimp will have better text support, but that's not really a mojor focus of a photo editing program. What you want is desktop publishing.

Do all the image manipulation stuff you need to do with gimp, then pull the resulting images into Scribus and do all your text and document layout work there. You can do just about anything you want with text in Scribus.

#

Look <a href="http://svenfoo.geekheim.de/index.php/2006-03-13/time-to-stick-a-fork-in-the-gimp/" title="geekheim.de">here</a geekheim.de> for a reply from one of the GIMP maintainers.

#

The problem I see with the GIMP is that many use it and most never try to put anything back into it.

Even if they are not a programmer they can still give some solid feedback on it. As for the GIMPShop project that is something else.

Where is the people working on this??? Where is the latest version? They supposedly to have a menu almost identical to Photoshop and lay out.

How ever I never seen this I installed it always looks like the same GIMP as it was from the beginnig. ALso they never updated their versions.

If you want to get people to jump on the band wagon then you need a few things.

1. A Decent Website that has nice easy navagation.
2. An how to install it section that is easy to follow for the newbies.
3. You need to open within a single Window for a bit more user friendly experience.
4. A gallery with some of what Gimp can do!!!!
5. A how to section just as that as Photoshopcafe does.
6. Explain to people it's FREE and have it in BOLD TYPE!!!!
7. Give it more PLUGINS. Yes there was one that I have used it basically does the same thing as Knockout where you can pick one part of an image to copy.
8. Press Copies on Cd's with all versions included for Linux, WIndows, MAC, etc.,
9. Have workshops ran by LUG's, and PC users groups!
10. Get a little more inovation and dress it up a little so people will think it is a bit more of a Serious Program rather then it's usually included in almost ever DISTRO!!!

These alone would breath some life into this and bring it back around.

Next what is anyone doing to PROMOTE IT?????
Where is the People showing off it's potential at Meetings? Or as I said in Workshops?

It's something you have to do. I can street Preach and push LINUX and have done so and even had Articles done with me doing such.

How ever I never seen people HYPE GIMP and we know that if more HYPE was put into it, as well as say a few PC manufactures including it on their PC"S then it would wake others up to it.

Stick a fork in the Lazy people on the GIMPSHOP project with thier VAPOR WARE version, stick a fork in the ones who use the crap out of it but not working together to push what you can do with it.

BP.

#

Are you volunteering? The GIMP web site is abandoned for a few years already with only minor maintainance work being done occasionally. Any help with the web site would be very much welcomed. Perhaps a small group of people could design something new even?

#

> 7. Give it more PLUGINS. Yes there was one that I have used it basically does the same thing as Knockout where you can pick one part of an image to copy.

Ahem, did you have a look at registry.gimp.org?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)

> 8. Press Copies on Cd's with all versions included for Linux, WIndows, MAC, etc.

The OpenCD does it already

#

I knew a guy who used that JASC Paint program (and paid a ton of money for it) who's a complete Windows user, tech illiterate, who switched to Gimp cause it was much easier.

I know that's not Paintshop but... Yeah.

#

It's a developper's world. Given the amount of dissent, it clearly calls for a fruitful fork. Now to do that, you have to be a developper, and an experienced one at that and with time on his hands and more than mildly interested in graphics.

Another thing is that a lot of developpers in open source don't need users satisfaction because, they've not sought it in the first place. So user's unhappiness can be ignored, as long as the users are not as well the application's developpers....

That's freedom at its harshest. Those users who love Photoshop or other graphics apps should just buy it/download it and stop hassling the Gimp developpers. To those Photoshop loving gimp users, I'd recommend they all donate 5% of the photoshop price tag to the gimp developpers. Maybe that'd make the developpers read suggestions more carefuly. But only maybe.

Those developpers who think they can change things but that the gimp project doesn't let them should just Fork or contribute to another project.

Now Linuxformat (in print) runs great gimp tutorial and there is definitely a lot of good there.

#

i like gimp

#

I agree very much with the things mentioned in this article.

Personally I don't like the GIMP's UI very much but I could work with it if its features were more advanced. Unfortunately there is at the moment no 2D application that comes anywhere near PhotoShop or Painter/Art Rage (for natural media). Pixel32 looks nice but is still buggy and incomplete, and I'll keep an eye on Krita.

I would really like to see a fork of the GIMP, much like CinePaint (<a href="http://cinepaint.org/" title="cinepaint.org">http://cinepaint.org/</a cinepaint.org>).

#

I wanted to add one more thing to this discussion concerning GIMP stagnation. Some of the major visual effects studios had been supporting GIMP in the past. But due to disagreements in the direction that it should go support was pulled.

#