GIMP 2.6 Released 639
Enselic writes "The GIMP developers are proud to announce the release of GIMP 2.6. The release notes start with: 'GIMP 2.6 is an important release from a development point of view. It features changes to the user interface addressing some often received complaints, and a tentative integration of GEGL, the graph based image processing library that will eventually bring high bit-depth and non-destructive editing to GIMP.' The notes go on to say the toolbox menubar has been removed, the toolbox and docks now are utility windows, it's now possible to pan beyond the image border, the freehand select tool has been enhanced to support polygonal selections, and much more."
Re:CYMK (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see it anywhere in the release notes, though the potential for CMYK support was one of the reasons for the move to GEGL.
There is a plugin called seperate+ [yellowmagic.info], though I'm not sure if that still works properly with the new version.
There's also a potentially useful article [archlinux.org] on this on the Arch Linux wiki.
Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (Score:4, Informative)
Then you want Inkscape instead.
Re:Windows version still lagging. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CYMK (Score:5, Informative)
CMYK support for the GIMP [archlinux.org] - Why you might not need CMYK support in the GIMP.
Separate+ CMYK separations plugin for GIMP [yellowmagic.info] -- And if you really need it, get this. Very nice. Supports ICC color profiles.
Re:Windows version still lagging. (Score:5, Informative)
The 2.6.0 installer for Windows is basically ready. It just needs a little more testing and should become available in a day or two.
Re:The future of GIMP (Score:3, Informative)
Just what are you running on? A Newton? PS CS2 / CS3 is / are quite happy with any recent Mac this side of a mini. And PS for Windows isn't exactly snappy on anything but a reasonably fast, memory stuffed PC. As for the 64 bit version, you're just blowing smoke. It's a 10-20% speed increase, at best, on gigabyte sized images. If you do these routinely, well then, go get Vista. I often do 3 - 4 gigabyte panoramas. Even on an 8GB Mac Pro they take a while (10-15 minutes to stitch). 64 bit would shave a minute or two off that? W00t!
Even manipulating multi gigabyte images on the 'ol 32 bit platform is pretty snappy. 64 bits will be nice, I'll take it when it comes, but I'm not crying about it.
If you think PS on OS X is a dog, either you don't know your breeds or you don't know how to set up a Photoshop capable machine.
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:3, Informative)
I absolutely love working with GIMP, but the fonts still don't come out as nice as they do in Photoshop. I'm not graphical design savvy enough to know why, only that my fonts look like crud when compared to the smooth output of Photoshop.
Could it be the kerning [wikipedia.org]? I don't use GIMP, but kerning is one of those things that can be hard to put your finger on, but make a huge difference on whether or not text looks good.
Re:CYMK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:CYMK (Score:1, Informative)
Thanks a lot. I'll look into it.
CMYK support is absolutely necessary for any serious attempt at desktop publishing.
Unless your desktop publishing operation goes out to a litho offset printer, I wouldn't worry about it. Most other kinds of printers only take RGB inputs, even if they use CMYK inks.
It's still essentially 8-bit. (Score:3, Informative)
It's a long story, but the short version is that there's a ton of archaic, horribly outdated 8-bit legacy code gumming up the works. Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.
Re:It really didn't have this? (Score:3, Informative)
You could already do a polygonal select, it's just not the tool you'd expect to use.
"Paths Tool: Create and edit paths (B)". Click point-by-point to create the polygon; don't bother closing it, it'll connect the first and last points automatically. As a bonus, you can create arcs instead of line segments if you so desire. Once you have the polygon, just hit "Selection from Path" and presto, there's your selection.
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:3, Informative)
Kerning is definitely part of the problem. Even with the auto-hinter on and/or forced, the text kerning is still a bit bizarre. But even then, Photoshop appears to emit smoother edges on the text. GIMP fonts often look rough around the edges, and I can't figure out why.
Re:The future of GIMP (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:5, Informative)
I experienced the same problem with crappy looking fonts, specifically when printing. I have gotten around this by changing the ppi to 300 (the default is 72) when creating a new image. This has made a huge difference and the fonts look much better. The option is under the advanced section when you create a new image.
Re:It really didn't have this? (Score:5, Informative)
Does he advertise projects he works on in his spare time as being comparable to Photoshop?
Where does GIMP advertise? And where do they claim to be comparable to Photoshop? In fact, I found
this document [gimp.org], which has the "Gimp Vision", part of which includes:
What GIMP is not:
* GIMP is not MS Paint or Adobe Photoshop
Re:I just love Gimp (Score:3, Informative)
In Photoshop CS3 you have the best of both worlds, you can undock the various elements and have them independently anywhere on the screen, or you can dock them in the main application window. That's always been the problem with the GIMP UI, those of us that don't like the default behaviour don't have the option of changing it (short of becoming a GIMP developer and forking the code, anyway). It doesn't look from the screenshots as if the old GIMP UI behaviour has really changed in the way implied anyway, but maybe I'm missing something.
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:3, Informative)
You know what? I think that does the trick! I never would have thought of using the DPI to increase the resolution of fonts. But if you think about the way that font renderers are implemented, it makes a lot of sense. Kudos!
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:3, Informative)
"IMP" would be fine.
(I don't know if it's regional, but in the UK "gimp" would usually be an insult, a more offensive version of "idiot". Wikipedia says it's also the term for a role in BDSM, but I think that is less well known.
know a couple of teachers who were keen to use the GIMP in schools, but didn't because the name is just asking for trouble.)
Re:CYMK (Score:2, Informative)
CMYK support is not necessarily needed in GIMP, however. If your target for the images is Scribus, for example, you can take advantage of Scribus' CMYK sep support. In fact, in thise case you're better off using Scribus' CMYK support rather than any support in GIMP. You only need CMYK in GIMP if you're outputting to offset or service bureau directly from GIMP.
That's the point of the article I linked.
Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, that's not necessarily the case.
I am a professional commercial photographer and editorial photojournalist. Sure, CS3 is still my editor of choice, but the GIMP is moving ever-closer to being a viable option.
There is not a single application I can think of where someone working as a photojournalist would ever need more than what the GIMP offers.
File submission standard for newsprint is still 10 inches on the long axis @ 200 ppi. Files are then compressed to clock in at betweek 650kb-900kb. sRGB colorspace and 8 bits-per-pixel are more than enough. Pre-press does the CYMK conversion and Web crop, usually.
The level of editing (painting) done to editorial photos is minimal by standard ethical practice; and so really the tool need only be able to crop, resample, dust spot and adjust the exposure.
In fact, for funzies, I just did a complete start-to-finish editorial shoot post in GIMP 2.4. The EXIF/XMP/IPTC stuff hurts bad (please, please, please, please FIX THIS), but the actual post went fine.
Making stuff screen-ready can easily be accomplished in the GIMP as well.
I don't have a whole lot of experience with making multimedia presentations (audio slideshows, etc.) for Web and screen display in the GIMP/Linux, so I'll leave that alone for now.
On the commercial, every-photo-is-a-painting side, the GIMP might be a bit of a hindrance. The more advanced layering, color conversions, spot toning, etc. typically deployed in, say, advertising post is probably more than can be reasonably handled by the GIMP.
Admittedly, some of that sentiment may come from my being a lot more comfortable in Photoshop than GIMP.
Generally speaking, some of the resizing plugins and effects plugins that we have come to count on are not available for GIMP, and even if the same thing can be accomplished with a different set of tools, we're disinclined to learn them.
Keep in mind that more than half the professional photographers out there are self-employed, and the time required to learn a new toolset can be killer.
The GIMP has come a long way since I first started playing with Linux about 10 years ago.
It even plays fairly nicely with RAW files from my cameras.
Today, I have it (under Hardy Heron) installed on my non-production workstation, and have no doubt that in years to come, it may very well become a full-fledged alternative to Photoshop.
Re:It really didn't have this? (Score:4, Informative)
In their own words, "GIMP is our answer to the current lack of free (or at least reasonably priced) image manipulation software for GNU/Linux and UNIX in general."
It is a raster editor, which means that it performs operations directly on the pixels that make up the image, and not a vector editor. Other (proprietary) raster editors include Adobe Photoshop, Jasc Paintshop Pro and the humble Microsoft Paint. An alternative free editor is the KOffice project, Krita. Users wanting to edit photographs will certainly want a raster editor like GIMP. Graphic designers and illustrators may prefer a vector editor depending on their tastes.
If you're not trying to compete, perhaps you shouldn't mention them and critique their pricing in the official FAQ.
Re:No native OS X support? (Score:4, Informative)
I would tell you that, no, you should not install the Gimp if those are your requirements. Congratulations, you're free to use whatever fits your actual needs! However, the Gimp does fit my requirements and plenty of other people's, so kindly stop bashing it and go quietly use whatever your tool of choice is instead. Thank you.
No Binaries (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I just love Gimp (Score:3, Informative)
Since Gimp 2.0 (which was released years ago), you can dock any tool dialog.
Re:Any chance we can draw circles and boxes now (Score:3, Informative)
Nope, you still want Inkscape. Take the cartoon speech bubble example: how do you decide how big you want it to be? The answer is "big enough to fit the text I want inside," of course! And the easiest way to do that is if the speech bubble is a vector object, so that it can just expand as you type text (also inherently vectors) into it. And the program suited to working with vectors is Inkscape, not GIMP.
All you have to do is import your bitmap into Inkscape, which is easy to do, and go from there.
Re:It's still essentially 8-bit. (Score:5, Informative)
I think that what GP is getting at is that...
- Unless you're shooting RAW (DNG, 16-bit TIFF, EXR or whatever your camera supports there), you're not going to get those 12 bits anyway.
- Not too long ago, Photoshop didn't do 16bpc itself.. and it still doesn't on a ton of commands. That never stopped anybody from processing photos in the past, why should it now? Clearly it's nice if you -can- work in 16bit, but it's not going to stop hundreds of thousands of people from working with photographs for the sole reason that 16bit is unavailable.
In short, GP's parent poster acts a bit like an audiophile, claiming that every non-goldplated-connector is completely useless for listening to music the moment goldplated-connectors became available.
Oh, and I'm a graphics professional - I work with 32bpc imagery all the time as sometimes that's what you need to run film footage through extensive colorgrading processes without incurring losses.. so yes, I know very *very* well what the advantages are.. and I certainly agree that Ol' Gimpo needs at least 16bpc, but preferable 32bpc, workflow. ( Cursed lack of support for Cinepaint. )
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)