Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Gimp Graphics Software

GIMP 2.6 Released 639

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the pimp-your-pixels dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP 2.6 Released

Comments Filter:
  • I just got 2.4! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AKAImBatman (238306) * <<akaimbatman> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @10:51AM (#25218757) Homepage Journal

    Man, just after I updated 2.2 to 2.4! @#@!#*!!!

    One area I hope the GIMP team focuses on in the future is font rendering. 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.

    Other than that, GIMP is an incredible product. Anyone doing casual graphical editing, just learning, or otherwise does not need the top-end features of Photoshop will be well-served by this package. Kudos for doing such an incredible job, guys! :-)

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:03AM (#25218939)

      A more needed update....

      SOMEONE PLEASE FORK THE PROJECT AND GIVE IT A NEW NAME!

      My Point of sales machine died a few days ago, and the tech asked if I had installed anything on it. I told him that I loaded up "the gnu image manipulation program" just to avoid saying "GIMP". Can't we rename it to something better?

      I suggest we use: GNU Photo & Image Manipulation Program.

      • by Keyper7 (1160079) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:09AM (#25219057)
        If someone introduced me to something called "G-PIMP", I'm not sure I'd like to know what the G stands for...
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MightyYar (622222)

        gPimp, lol, sounds like an evil Apple product. Or a good one, depending on what side of the holy war you fight for.

      • Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:24AM (#25219333)
        People laugh. But when I taught a web class for my company last year, that name kept me from using this as the recommended graphic program of choice (used Photoshop elements instead). It's typical developer thoughtlessness to use a name that most people associate with a disturbing scene in the movie Pulp Fiction for an application that supposedly wants to be taken seriously. You can have the greatest application in the world, but if you name it "FUCK" you're going to be spending every subsequent Thanksgiving sitting at the kid's table.
        • Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by oogoliegoogolie (635356) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @12:11PM (#25220233)

          Gimp developers don't care what you think. People have been very vocal in requesting this product undergo a name (as well as UI!)change to something less silly, childish, and stupid since it came out in the late 90's, and they haven't done it so it ain't going to happen now. GIMP is destined to always conjure images about either: a) that disturbing dude from pulp fiction as you mentioned, or b) children who have some affliction or disability that causes them difficulty when walking.

          • Gimp developers don't care what you think.

            .

            There is really nothing I can add to this.

        • Re:I just got 2.4! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by LWATCDR (28044) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @12:40PM (#25220749) Homepage Journal

          So call it by it's full name. Gnu Image Manipulation Program.
          If you must rename the icon.
          I am pretty sure that Photoshop Elements is actually called PSE or some such thing.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by seandiggity (992657)
          One of my instructors kept calling it "the unfortunately-named GIMP" :)

          Since they've already taken GNU out of the acronym, why not just go with IMP? The mascot is kinda impish anyway.

          Realistically, I don't think a name change will ever happen. There should just be a fork with literally nothing changed but the name, so that people who want to deploy the software but feel the name will impede them in doing so have another option. GIMP not only has unpleasant associations, it implies that the applicati
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by flyingfsck (986395)
      The workaround is to always work with a larger image than you need then once the font work is done, scale it smaller.
    • GEGL (Score:5, Interesting)

      by blindd0t (855876) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:15AM (#25219139)

      So now with GEGL worked into GIMP, how long will it be until we see something equivalent to Photoshop's Layer Groups? Is it already in this release? (I didn't see anything about it in the release notes.) Sometimes simple projects grow in size to the point where it'd be very convenient to be able to better organize layers in groups and sub-groups. I like GIMP, and it would be much more practical for me to use it more often with this feature.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by nine-times (778537)

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        by AKAImBatman (238306) *

        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:I just got 2.4! (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:36AM (#25219589)

          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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by AKAImBatman (238306) *

            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)

          by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @12:00PM (#25220023)
          I haven't used GIMP in a long time, but what you describe sounds more like an issue with how it handles antialiasing. Photoshop gives you several different options for how it applies antialiasing, which you adjust depending on the character shapes and how they interact with the background imagery you're dealing with (for instance, you might use 'smooth' for small text on a dark background, or 'sharp' for a large headline). With GIMP it looks like it's just a single checkbox--on or off.
  • CYMK (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Abreu (173023) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @10:51AM (#25218759)

    A question, is there CYMK color separation support already?

    Sorry if this was implemented already, I havent checked on the Gimp in a while.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by compro01 (777531)

      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:CYMK (Score:5, Informative)

      by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:08AM (#25219033) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • Perspective adjust (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VincenzoRomano (881055) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @10:57AM (#25218845) Homepage Journal
    I hope they'll make it more usable as in Krita [koffice.org].
  • by Ed Avis (5917) <ed@membled.com> on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:06AM (#25218991) Homepage

    It's not completely clear from the release notes: does this mean that the GIMP can now load and save images with 16 or 32 bits per colour channel, or is it still limited to 8-bit RGB despite the new GEGL engine under the hood?

    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Beetle B. (516615)

        Until it's all replaced with 32-bit capable code, GIMP will continue to be unusable for photography beyond the party snapshot level.

        It's fairly rair that 16 bits per channel will make the difference.

      • by fabs64 (657132) <beaufabry+slashdot,org&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @12:53PM (#25220915)
        The vast majority of DSLR's only have 12 bits per channel in raw mode to begin with, and certainly only 8 bits in jpeg. Get a grip.
        • by strags (209606)

          The difference between 8-bit and 12-bit when working with DSLRs is actually pretty significant. You can pull a surprising amount of detail out of underexposed regions with 4096 shades that would otherwise be lost with 256.

          Rounding errors (generally banding artifacts) will also be much quicker to appear with lower bit depths. If you're going to support 16 bits per channel, one may as well go all the way and support higher bit-depths too.

          • by Animaether (411575) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @03:34PM (#25223479) Journal

            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. )

      • by photomonkey (987563) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @01:01PM (#25221043)

        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: (Score:3, Funny)

        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.

        It's a long story, but the short version is no
  • The future of GIMP (Score:5, Interesting)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @11:06AM (#25219005) Journal

    Let's be honest here. I like GIMP, I generally prefer it over photoshop (for what I do). But it's not photoshop and it gets shit on for that reason. The solution: GIMP should ditch GTK/GDK and use GNUStep/Cocoa. This provides a number of advantages - free CMYK and pantone support, better font rendering, an improved UI, and direct access to artistic types. Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then). An OS X native GIMP would kick it's ass.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by ColdWetDog (752185) *

      Photoshop on OS X is a dog -- the look and feel doesn't match and Adobe won't provide a 64-bit version until CS 5 (if then).

      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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by aurb (674003)
      Ditch GTK? That's kinda funny, because GTK was created as the toolkit for GIMP (GTK stands for The GIMP Toolkit) :-)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300)

      It is not photoshop... However if anyone wants to use photoshop in Linux they tell them use the Gimp, it is just as good... Which is bad advice. My output with Photoshop is much higher then with the GIMP, it may be just me and how I approach problems but in general I can get much more done and look a lot better with photoshop vs. the GIMP. It is not that GIMP is photoshop or the developers are trying to make it like Photoshop, However it given as a replacement where it isn't.
      Photoshop is only a dog when dea

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by paulbd (118132)
      It would cool if Photoshop made the same move too, eh? Its not written with Cocoa either, which is giving Adobe a few headaches now that Carbon has been even more officially deprecated than it used to be. Seriously, you simply don't seem to understand what is involved in switching an program that it totally rooted in its GUI from one GUI toolkit to another. People say this as though its a simple recoding. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even porting from one version of a toolkit to another can be
  • Gimp fork. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Sasayaki (1096761) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @12:45PM (#25220811)

    I don't like the name GIMP.

    Is it possible to fork GIMP and change absolutely no functionality but the name? Or is this in violation of some kind of licensing or other issue?

  • The thing that causes me problems in the Gimp is that text is rasterized as soon as it's scaled or otherwise manipulated by any means other than changing the point size in the text dialog. This means that if I have a block of text that I've resized by drag handles, or if I've rescaled the image, as soon as I edit the text content it reverts to the original point size.

    Has that been fixed in any recent versions?

  • No Binaries (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bryansix (761547) on Wednesday October 01, 2008 @02:55PM (#25222865) Homepage
    There are no binaries for windows yet. Therefore it is basically not released. No I will not jump through a billion hoops to compile it for windows when someone else is already doing that and will most likely finish sooner then me.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by conlaw (983784)
      However, if you are running Windows XP or Vista, there's a great little program available at http://www.paint.net/ [paint.net] While it's not as full-featured as GIMP or Photoshop, it still does a great job of picture manipulation. And it's FREE to download and use. As to platforms other than Windows, the authors state:

      We are currently not doing any work to directly support Mac OS, Linux, Mono, or any other platform. It's not that we dislike any of them, it's just that they're entirely differenet development platfor

The meta-Turing test counts a thing as intelligent if it seeks to devise and apply Turing tests to objects of its own creation. -- Lew Mammel, Jr.

Working...