Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

First Looks at The Gimp 2.5

Posted by CmdrTaco on Mon Apr 14, 2008 08:27 AM
from the like-a-fine-wine dept.
desmondhaynes writes "The GIMP team announced today the first release from the 2.5 development series. It is true that this version is unstable, but a little bird told me to give it a try and see what's it capable of. First of all, let me tell you that its interface is quite redesigned and I think that some users will have problems adjusting with it, but that's just my two cents. On the other hand, version 2.5.0 of The GIMP includes some hot new features, like the integration of GEGL (Generic Graphics Library) which will finally get support for higher color depths, more colorspaces and eventually non-destructive editing."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by CastrTroy (595695) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:32AM (#23062380) Homepage
    With the rate of advancement in The GIMP, eventually, Photoshop enthusiasts will have nothing bad to really say about it. It was always about no cmyk, no 32 bit color support, no adjustment layers. It looks like some of these things may be coming in future.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2008, @08:33AM (#23062398)
      You forgot "no interface elements that aren't batshit insane."
      • Re:Yay New Features (Score:5, Informative)

        by Coryoth (254751) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:59AM (#23062756) Homepage Journal

        You forgot "no interface elements that aren't batshit insane."
        I'm curious; can you tell me some interface elements that are batshit insane, and explain why they are insane? Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to admit that GIMP has some interface quirks and problems around and about. Personally, however, I've found most things to work reasonably well, and, more importantly, to be steadily improving (the dockable palettes that showed up in 2.0 or so, and the Image Window + Tools Window shown in TFA for 2.5, etc.). That leaves me honestly curious as to what leads one to the point of view that apparently all the interface elements are insane -- so please: can you explain some of the things that bug you so much about the interface?
        • by krazytekn0 (1069802) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:08AM (#23062868)
          But they aren't the same interface elements as Photshop! So they're terrible!!! </sarcasm>
          • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2008, @09:50AM (#23063448)
            This is why the GIMP will never be popular. Despite its lack of popularity and the overwhelming number of complaints about the user interface, the developers, and the few existing supporters, continuously rely on the excuse that users are merely familiar and conditioned to the Photoshop user interface.

            Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the GIMP's user interface was haphazardly thrown together by programmers with absolutely no concern for HCI. Photoshop's interface couldn't possibly be better despite the thousands of hours of research and user interface testing that Adobe has put into it. Nope, absolutely none of that matters!

            Keep blaming people's familiarity with Photoshop and you'll be sure to continue the GIMPs long standing tradition of complete and utter failure.
            • by Shade of Pyrrhus (992978) on Monday April 14 2008, @10:22AM (#23063988)
              If I could mod you up, I would.

              I love the GIMP, and I've never actually had Photoshop. However, I will say that I frequently get lost in trying to figure out where things are. If, instead of saying, "Oh, it's not Photoshop, your complaint isn't legit!", they all said "Let's see what we can do to fix this," things would probably get better more quickly.

              I understand they've been working on things, hence this release, but these complaints are very old.
            • Re:Yay New Features (Score:5, Interesting)

              by MoxFulder (159829) on Monday April 14 2008, @12:01PM (#23065818) Homepage

              This is why the GIMP will never be popular. Despite its lack of popularity and the overwhelming number of complaints about the user interface, the developers, and the few existing supporters, continuously rely on the excuse that users are merely familiar and conditioned to the Photoshop user interface.
              I must respectfully disagree. I am not an expert with either program, but I use GIMP much more and generally prefer it. I agree that the interface had some rough edges prior to the 2.0 releases, but they've improved a ton since... I find the GIMP's interface more intuitive. If I use Photoshop, I get confused :-P

              If you want the Photoshop interface, check out GIMPshop [wikipedia.org]. It doesn't seem to be very popular though, I guess not EVERYONE is hankering for a Photoshop interface.

              Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the GIMP's user interface was haphazardly thrown together by programmers with absolutely no concern for HCI. Photoshop's interface couldn't possibly be better despite the thousands of hours of research and user interface testing that Adobe has put into it. Nope, absolutely none of that matters!
              Actually, I think the GIMP has put a *lot* of effort into adopting the GNOME Human Interface Guidelines [gnome.org]. GNOME applications in general have improved immensely in usability as a result of these, in my opinion!

              Keep blaming people's familiarity with Photoshop and you'll be sure to continue the GIMPs long standing tradition of complete and utter failure.
              Failure? Why?

              I use it a lot and like it a lot. So do many other people. It keeps getting better and gaining more features.

              No one's getting paid to write the GIMP... they don't *have to* judge their success based on commercial competition. That's the beauty of open source/free software: if it's useful to *someone*, it will continue to be developed.
              • by Z34107 (925136) on Monday April 14 2008, @01:04PM (#23066920)

                I use only the Windows port of GIMP - I don't do much photo editing, but before the not much that I didn't do was not done in Photoshop. </Englishgrammar>

                The Photoshop interface was clunky, but I blame that on the "We have 5 million features that you will probably never used, all cleverly hidden under buttons!

                The GIMP interface, however, fails at basic Windows GUI principles. This is to be expected, of course, but come on - the interface is generally split up into 3 modeless dialog boxes. The one that has your tools on it is hidden if you maximize your editing window. Ditto for the layers box. They kinda got it right with some features like "transform" - the relevant dialog box pops up, in view, in the editing window, as you're editing.

                The whole 3-separate-windows thing (editing, tools, layers) looks like a lazy hack, something I did when a project was due and I was too lazy (read: procrastinated on the deadline and was too time constrained) to write a proper interface.

        • Re:Yay New Features (Score:5, Informative)

          by MobyDisk (75490) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:35AM (#23063264) Homepage
          The problem with GIMP is that the interface is so far gone, so weird, so bizarre, so non-standard - that it is really tough for anybody to sanely explain what's wrong with it. It's just so darn self evident.

          Having not used it in 2 years, I'll try:
          1) The multiple windows thing
          I think this is the most often cited issue so I will list it first. GIMP opens multiple top-level windows which means that normal shortcuts and window navigation doesn't work. (Alt-tab on Windows -- apple-tab on Macs, etc.) The only way to use GIMP is to have multiple virtual desktops, which not everyone likes. The barrage of windows clutters the interface, and windows move around a lot because when you select new tools they resize or change. You can see through to the desktop which is distracting. I know at least on the Windows version, the keys that hide windows so you can get to your image don't really work right. Maybe my experience is skewed though because of the Windows and Mac ports. But IIRC, this same stuff happened on Linux.

          This problem has garnered enough hate that there are several open-source projects that are either modifications to Photoshop, or programs that re-parent the window so that it behaves more normally. Unfortauntely, all of them are hacks and don't work super-well.

          2) Unusual use of menus
          - The menus are just... oddd. To a new user, the app is useless because once you open something, you get a window with no menus. After much frustration, the user monkey-clicks the mouse and realizes the menus are on the right-click instead of at the top of the window. That might not actually be a bad idea, but it is definitely counter-intuitive. Especially for "file" operations where people are used to seeing File-New/Open/Save/Save As/Close and those just aren't there.

          This is not an issue for an advanced user, but it is strikingly odd to someone new, and it might force a lot of people to give-up right away.

          3) Things that are NOT problems
          - I'm browsing the comments and I see comments about Photoshop having an odd user-interface. I see comments that one particular tool or another doesn't work the way someone expects. I think these people are missing the point. The problems with GIMP aren't that some particular tool is not as easy to use as a Photoshop tool, or vice-versa. The problem is that nobody can even find the tool in GIMP because the overarching user-interface is so strange. Once people can get to the tool in the first place, then think about how the tool behaves.

          4) Other
          If you really want to know, this comes-up on Slashdot every 6 months or so. Probably some searching will come-up with obvious things I've completely forgotten over time.
          • Re:Yay New Features (Score:4, Informative)

            by Coryoth (254751) on Monday April 14 2008, @10:01AM (#23063656) Homepage Journal

            Having not used it in 2 years, I'll try:
            That may be part of the problem -- as I said, they have been working on various issues...

            The multiple windows thing
            This was slimmed down in 2.0 with dockable palettes so you could just have one tool window and then image windows. The docked windows also solve the issue of windows resizing (palettes don't when docked; they may, at worst, acquire scroll bars). This particular release sees the start of further UI overhauls the first of which is to provide a default main window with a single "tools window" which has the various palettes docked into it. Furthermore, the "tools window" is marked as a utility window, so windowing systems that understand such things will consider it as different (i.e. not a main window). This fixes (I presume, I haven't tried it) your window navigation keybinding issue.

            I guess the long answer is: GIMP was initially designed for systems that didn't have taskbars, and did have multiple desktops; the result was the interface you seem familiar with, which, I agree, had serious shortcomings when ported to Windows. Over the years various efforts have been made to clean this up, and are still ongoing. Windows, of course, is still not the best platform, though there are plugins like Portable Background Window [portableapps.com] which provide a single background window which contains all the GIMP windows, providing an MDI style interface for Windows.

            Unusual use of menus...To a new user, the app is useless because once you open something, you get a window with no menus.
            This was fixed in, I believe, 2.0 (or possibly 2.2). All image windows have menu bars with a menu that replicates the right click menu. This means users can simply use the menu at the top of the window as they might expect, or use the right click menu if they prefer. The latest version from TFA goes so far as to remove the menu from the tool window and provide a default empty image window (with menubar) upon start up. While the last problem is still potentially somewhat irksome depending on taste (though with plugins it can be "fixed") I think this one has been safely dealt with since the last time you used the GIMP... indeed, it was dealt with some time ago.
            • by blincoln (592401) on Monday April 14 2008, @10:18AM (#23063924) Journal
              Yes, if you have a single desktop (because in your mind it's still 1992 or something)

              Why would I want multiple desktops? So that I can be even less aware of applications that aren't running in the foreground?

              Not everyone's brain works the same way. You may like virtual desktops. I like having three physical monitors with one desktop that spans them so I can see at a glance all of the applications I'm using for a given task.
            • Your argument would make sense if most other applications on Linux used the same archipelago-of-small-windows approach the Gimp does. It would be the standard way of working to set up multiple virtual desktops with one for each app. But practically no other graphical program is like that, even on Unix-like systems. Even if the Gimp's way is theoretically superior, what matters most of all is consistency and not having each app reinvent the wheel in its own peculiar way. So the Gimp needs to get a more conventional user interface style.

              (Are multiple desktops set up by default in a typical Linux distribution these days?)
            • Re:Yay New Features (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Ford Prefect (8777) on Monday April 14 2008, @10:07AM (#23063758) Homepage

              My understanding is that the multi window interface is actually very similar to Photoshop on the MAC.

              Screenshots or it didn't happen!

              Oh wait. The GIMP [hylobatidae.org], Photoshop CS3 [hylobatidae.org]. Behold some passing similarities!

              • by Sentry21 (8183) on Monday April 14 2008, @02:13PM (#23067928) Journal
                Except that the GIMP uses full-fledged windows for tool palettes, meaning that they could end up above (or behind) applications, despite the main document application being in front; Photoshop, in contrast, uses toolbars, which are 'always on top' when Photoshop is the active application, meaning you'll never lose your toolbars.

                Also, this means that toolbars never show up in Expose or spaces, or in advanced task-switchers like Witch; GIMP's toolbars also, last I dealt with it, showed up in the GNOME panel, resulting in a half-dozen entries just to edit one image.

                Toolbars are not windows. Seriously. I hope this is one of the fixes, or it's going to keep being treated like a half-baked toy.
            • Re:Yay New Features (Score:5, Interesting)

              by Toby_Tyke (797359) on Monday April 14 2008, @10:12AM (#23063836) Journal
              My understanding is that the multi window interface is actually very similar to Photoshop on the MAC. Photoshop only has a single window MDI in windows. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

              I think you are wrong.

              I HATE the Gimp's GUI. Absolutely, completely despise it, and here's why. Say I have a bunch of apps open, browser, music player, my home folder, and Gimp. Now, the Gimp actually has three windows, The document window, the tool browser and the layers palate (actually it can have more than that, but that's the default). Now, let's suppose that I've finished reading slashdot, and I want to carry on editing my image, so I click on the taskbar button named "image.xcf". The image I was working on is maximized, but where are my editing tools? oh, they're still minimised. Back down to the taskbar, click on the GIMP button. OK, so I select the tool I want, but wait, I'm on the wrong layer. OK, back down to the taskbar, click on the Layers,Channels button, up pops the layer selector.

              OK, so so far I've had to maximize three separate windows, just to be able to edit the image. But it gets even more annoying, because you can end up with the image over the top of the tool palates, so every time you want to go back and change a tool, you have to go back down to the taskbar and select the palate window again (or alt tab).

              Now the reason I think you're wrong is because last time I posted a rant like this, two Mac users pointed out that Photoshop on the Mac does not work like this. Apperently, clicking on any image open in photoshop also brings the tools into focus as well. Of course I could be wrong as well, since I have no direct experience with Photoshop on Macs.

              And before anyone points out that I could just set the palates to "Always on top", yes I could, and as a matter of fact I do, but it grates on me to have to work around a programs stupid defaults. Besides, I then have to manually minimize them if I want to use another program, and then manually bring them back up after clicking on an image window. Still annoying. Clicking an image in Gimp should bring the image up along with a full set of editing tools.
              • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Monday April 14 2008, @10:53AM (#23064580) Journal

                I always found using multiple windows was a good idea -- it lets the window manager actually manage the windows. If it's annoying, in the ways you describe, maybe that says something about your window manager?

                Now the reason I think you're wrong is because last time I posted a rant like this, two Mac users pointed out that Photoshop on the Mac does not work like this. Apperently, clicking on any image open in photoshop also brings the tools into focus as well.

                At least on OS X, that is how all programs work. Or at least, it is possible to click on an application to raise all of its windows, and command+tab (like alt+tab, but better) will actually raise all of those windows. Windows are actually naturally grouped by application -- I had a keystroke to cycle through open Terminals, and that actually worked really well, because Terminal is actually its own application.

                Gimp was developed on Linux, where we've had a few sane windowing ideas that Windows has yet to pick up on, and OS X is only slowly starting to steal. Simple example: Virtual desktops. Put gimp on its own workspace, and you are literally one keystroke away from moving back to that image.

                And then there are dual-monitor systems. This is where Photoshop really starts to be annoying, unless there is some way I don't know of to detach the tools (probably is) -- it's possible to put the image itself, completely maximized, on one monitor, and all of the tools on another monitor.

                Clicking an image in Gimp should bring the image up along with a full set of editing tools.

                Most open source programs try to assume less about their user -- what if you didn't want that full set of editing tools to come up? What if you just want to look at the image, on as much screen area as possible, before you start editing? Why should it be the job of the individual application to work around crappy window managers?

                All that said, there's always GimpShop -- haven't tried it myself, but it claims to make Gimp look photoshop-like.

              • by yankpop (931224) on Monday April 14 2008, @12:01PM (#23065824)

                I understand where you're coming from. But I think the UI design does actually make a lot of sense in a Linux context. Some of the problems you describe may be a consequence of a flawed port to windows. But when you're working with virtual desktops those problems completely disappear.

                In my case, I'm reading slashdot in my 'firefox' desktop. When I want to get back to editing a picture I hotkey over to the 'gimp' desktop where all the windows are laid out how I want them. When I need to check mail, I hop over to my mail desktop and so on. Nothing is ever minimized, and I never find myself alt-tabbing through a dozen unrelated windows, as would happen when all my apps are on the same desktop.

                Given that 99% of my computer use is confined to 3 apps (browser, editor, mail), a six desktop layout is more than enough room for all, without becoming too complex to navigate. Now that MS supports multiple desktops as well, at least in Vista, people may start discovering that there are saner ways to arrange multiple windows than squeezing them all onto the toolbar of a single desktop.

                yp.

      • Re:Yay New Features (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ford Prefect (8777) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:06AM (#23062834) Homepage

        You forgot "no interface elements that aren't batshit insane."

        Yeah, like changing a simple right-click on a layer, then 'Alpha to selection' to 'Select', 'Load Selection...', then selecting the appropriate document and channel from no-preview combo-boxes...

        The GIMP's batshit insane, but Photoshop is as loopy as a teapot. Their particular modes of madness simply aren't entirely compatible - The GIMP is definitely pretty bad in places, but for the life of me I can't figure out how Photoshop is supposed to be infinitely superior from a user interface point of view.

        I must admit that I still really like The GIMP's perspective correction tool - Photoshop's got better distortion tools, but they won't run backwards. Unlike the crop tool's perspective correction, which has no handy grid-lines visible. There's the lens correction filter, but that's really fiddly. But is brilliant at removing barrel distortion from texture references - something that's a real arse in The GIMP.

        Drawing tools? I really like how the hold-shift-to-draw-a-straight-line works in The GIMP. Click somewhere, undo to remove that splodge, hold shift down and it'll preview a fine line from where you clicked to the current cursor position. Click somewhere, and it'll draw a line with the current drawing tool. Hold down control-shift, and it'll lock to particular angles.

        Photoshop? Click, undo to remove that splodge, ARSE! it's forgotten where I clicked. Okay ... Leave that initial splodge, hold down shift, NO FINE PREVIEW LINE!, click somewhere, oops wrong place for that line, undo, ARSE AGAIN! it's forgotten where I wanted to draw the line from!

        With Photoshop, it's really easy to set up guides for your simple, shadowy lines on yer textures - but I still like The GIMP's way of doing it.

        Actually, The GIMP's handling of alpha channels is a bit more sensible - right up until the point it merrily decides to discard colour information from completely transparent pixels. As part of an 'optimisation', albeit one that only gets invoked with certain operations. So it's very easy to completely destroy your texture, unless you keep to a strict, undocumented set of operations.

        Photoshop's alpha handling is plain weird in places, but it's a bit more predictable...

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2008, @08:42AM (#23062520)
      With the rate of advancement in The GIMP, eventually, Photoshop enthusiasts will have nothing bad to really say about it.

      You're right. It's only been 12+ years that people have been asking for those things. Now GIMP actually has an engine capable of doing them (note that it doesn't actually do them yet). It'll only be another few years until the basics are covered!
        • Re:Yay New Features (Score:4, Informative)

          by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:14AM (#23062950)

          As those are features I use on pretty much every image I guess I won't be using it yet. Same with a pretty large portion of anybody else who scans film.

          You might want to try CinePaint (formerly called Film Gimp). It is a fork of Gimp aimed specifically at touching up frames of film. It supports 8, 16, and 32 bit color, CMYK, HDR, Onion skinning, etc.

          It is mainly developed by film production, special effects companies and has been used on many major motion pictures (Harry Potter, Spider Man, etc.).

          It may well be more what you're looking for if you're working with film images.

  • Jam Tomorrow (Score:3, Insightful)

    by allcar (1111567) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:35AM (#23062424)
    This feels like one of those releases that will be exciting for the developers, but largely irrelevant to the end users. Hopefully, it will lay the foundations for future releases to have exciting new features and capabilities, but for now there seems little to shout about.
    Reminds me of KDE4.
    • Re:Jam Tomorrow (Score:5, Informative)

      by tpwch (748980) <slashdot@tpwch.com> on Monday April 14 2008, @08:43AM (#23062550) Homepage
      Wrong. Finally getting higher than 8-bit depth is great news for anyone who does more than a bit of hobby work with the gimp.

      To take myself as an example I take photos with a digital camera that gives me RAW files. Those are 12-bit files, which means 4096 colors per pixel rather than the 256 you get with 8 bit. Now I will be able to edit those in the gimp without loosing any quality, which means alot less posterisation when adjusting contrast and settings like that. The output image will simply look alot better, with the same tools that we already have in the gimp (assuming that the input image is of good quality of course).
      • Re:Jam Tomorrow (Score:5, Informative)

        by simcop2387 (703011) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:16AM (#23062992) Homepage Journal

        To take myself as an example I take photos with a digital camera that gives me RAW files. Those are 12-bit files, which means 4096 colors per pixel rather than the 256 you get with 8 bit.
        just to be pedantic, i doubt you're raw files are actually 12bit per pixel, its most probably 12bit per channel per pixel (and in the case of the gimp it was a maximum of 8bit per channel per pixel). this gives you 12bits * 3 channels (assuming RGB here) per pixel, so its a 2^36 colors (68,719,476,736 ) instead of 2^24 colors (16,777,216). still a dramatic change, but i just figured it'd be nice to have the complete numbers there :)
  • by Eevee (535658) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:38AM (#23062458)
    I realize that marketing has nothing to do with the features or performance of a program. But it does have a factor in acceptance at work. There's no way I'm going in front of our Engineering Review Board for a product called "The Gimp", no matter how much money it's going to save.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2008, @08:38AM (#23062466)
    ...the very first item in the list of "noteworthy" improvements is a new splash screen. :'(
    • by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:44AM (#23062554)
      Yep. My first thought exactly. You know the guy doing the writeup/review really has no clue about the GIMP's shortcomings when he touts a new splashscreen as an exciting improvement.
    • ...the very first item in the list of "noteworthy" improvements is a new splash screen. :'(
      It's a development release. The odd numbered releases (2.1, 2.3, 2.5) are all unstable development releases when new features are integrated in. Usually there are around 20 such development releases (i.e., we got to around 2.3.20 before 2.4 was finally released). In this case we have 2.5.0 -- the very first development release, with just the beginnings to structural changes to integrate new functionality. In this case that means enough behind the scenes work to get GEGL working, and the beginnings of an apparent UI overhaul. Expect another 20 or so releases each adding more improvements before you get the next stable release: 2.6.0.
  • Ad trap (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Zebedeu (739988) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:44AM (#23062564)
    Wow, that's a bad review!

    One can tell that from his very first comment (on the splash screen):

    HOT new splash
    But probably this is just a temporary one, as the final version will have a totally different splash!
    Really? You mean the splash screen is a HOT new feature? And you say it will "probably" change on the final version? Amazing!

    Then it just goes downhill from there, ending with a description of what The Gimp is.
    Thanks, I didn't know what it was before, now I have to read your crappy review once again so it makes sense.

    At least there were no shortage of ads, which surprisingly got through my AdBlock Plus.

    BAD ADBLOCK! BAD!
  • Appauling (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stuidge (1104439) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:45AM (#23062578)
    This is a word for word, picture for picture copy of the original at Softpedia [softpedia.com] (I'm guessing, as the Softpedia article was posted 4 days earlier). The article linked is full of adverts as well. You would be better off reading the offical GIMP release notes [gimp.org].
  • Malware (Score:5, Informative)

    by pelago (957767) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:45AM (#23062582)
    Hmm, I'm getting malware popups from 'trustedbrowser.com' from the site in TFA.
  • by MMC Monster (602931) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:50AM (#23062624)
    Forget changing the name. In the list of requests for 2.8, the number one request is a single window model.

    This is likely the number one request for s number of years, yet we have to wait until 2.8 to even see if it will happen?

    The Gimp is a nice tool, but it really should listen to it's users.
  • Solen content!!! (Score:5, Informative)

    by theempire (1272824) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:00AM (#23062760)
    Dear Slashdot admin, be aware that the current article (http://techrunch.blogspot.com/2008/04/first-look-gimp-250.html) was completely stolen from Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/First-Look-The-GIMP-2-5-0-83090.shtml) which was posted, as Stuidge said above, 4 days ago....
  • Excited about GEGL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radarsat1 (786772) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:19AM (#23063024) Homepage
    Yes, this is great. Forget the bad / stolen / whatever review, a look at the product..

    I've been looking forward to them integrating GEGL for some time now, and it looks like they've finally done it. This is going to be the single best thing to happen to open-source image manipulation in a long time.

    GEGL will take care of almost all the current complaints from image professionals related to image bit depths, printing features, etc. It'll make layering effects much easier to apply and it makes everything related to image manipulation completely modular.

    Also, think about how REALLY nice it is that the image manipulations routines are now librarified (is that a word?)... It means that we'll likely see other new applications pop up here and there taking advantage of this nicely-designed back-end. So don't worry about the lack of changes to the GUI, this will come in time, and even the GUI-related complaints (though I don't understand them) will likely be eventually moot.

    I think it's great that they've finally achieved this long sought-after goal of redesigning the GIMP back-end and integrating it into the application. We should all be very excited about this! I use the GIMP all the time for my (non-professional) needs, and it's an amazing piece of software.
  • by bbyakk (815167) on Monday April 14 2008, @12:18PM (#23066094)
    Inkscape has just had a major new release, 0.46. (Yeah, its number does not look like it's a major release, but it is. It's the biggest one so far).

    Inkscape's UI is a lot better than GIMP's. Everyone admits that. And it's much improved in 0.46 anyway.

    Inkscape, as a vector application, is simply a better choice for a lot of graphic tasks for which clueless people still try to use GIMP or Photoshop. Just look at the "can it draw circles" thread in this discussion!

    AND YET, despite all this, new version of GIMP gets front page news on Slashdot, but any submissions about Inkscape 0.46 are rejected.

    This is simply ridiculous.

      • by bbyakk (815167) on Monday April 14 2008, @01:18PM (#23067104)
        > If Inkscape is so good, it's version number should at least be 1.0

        Aren't you aware of the fact that open source is very version-shy, in general? And that a quality of an open source application is not correlated with its version number? I thought this was Slashdot where such things need not be explained.

        > Inkscape is a better choice for graphic tasks that involve vectors.

        Which is the clear majority of all graphic tasks, overall. Draw something? Best done in vector, with full freedom and editability. Compose something out of existing stock art? Pure vector. Anything involving text? Of course vector, using GIMP/Photoshop for text is self-inflicted torture. Banners, diagrams, cartoons, maps, buttons? Vector, vector, vector...

        What remains to bitmap editors? Well, editing photos, naturally. Retouching, color correction, RAW work. Also, naturalistic drawing emulating watercolor, oil etc (but this is not the domain of GIMP or Photoshop either, try ArtRage). That's about all. Even things like shadows, bevels, and texturizing can now be done in Inkscape using filters.

        > It's more likely they just use bitmap tools more than they use vector tools.

        And this is sad. I know Photoshop came first and deeply entrenched itself into the brains of users. But come on people, it's time to give it a second thought. It's 21st century and vector editors have progressed far, far beyond what was available in the 90s.

        > Last time I used Inkscape, on X11 on Macintosh, it wasn't even capable of sorting the File->Open dialog in alphabetical order.

        It's curious that for your pick, you chose one of the things that is actually common to both Inkscape and GIMP - the file dialog provided by the GTK library! Of course Inkscape does not maliciously missort your files, it's just the default with the GTK version you were using. And I have just searched even deleted and closed bug reports and could not find yours. So, if it's still not fixed in 0.46, please go to https://bugs.launchpad.net/inkscape [launchpad.net] and report it.
    • by MightyYar (622222) on Monday April 14 2008, @08:41AM (#23062510)
      Let me start it off :)

      First of all, let me tell you that its interface is quite redesigned and I think that some users will have problems adjusting with it, but that's just my two cents.
      Now those users will know how the rest of us feel!

      I kid... if it had 16-bit support I would use the Gimp since I don't care about CMYK.
    • ... before the MDI argument kicks off? ;)

      You need to be more patient, first we're going to discuss CMYK.

      Once we're done with that we'll look at your MFI problem...
    • If you want to add shapes to a raster image, try making a selection in the desired shape and then doing Edit > Fill or Edit > Stroke. Useful selection tools for this include the box tool (press r), the oval tool (press e), and the path tool for polygons and Bezier shapes (press b).
    • by caseih (160668) on Monday April 14 2008, @09:37AM (#23063288)
      Don't you think that you were trying to use the wrong tool for the job to begin with? Gimp is an "Image Manipulation Program" first and foremost. If you are trying to create a web comic, I'd think that a vector graphics program would be you first choice of tools.

      Sure Paint.NET and Photoshop blur the lines a bit, but the better tool still, in the proprietary world, would be Adobe Illustrator, or something like Inkscape in the OSS world.