Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Gimp GUI Graphics Technology

The GIMP Now Has a Working Single-Window Mode 403

Posted by timothy
from the how-long-were-the-contractions dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix is reporting that The GIMP now has a working single-window mode, a long desired feature by the open-source graphics community to be more competitive with Adobe Photoshop. There's also a number of other user highlights in the new GIMP 2.7.3 release. The GPLv3 graphics software can be downloaded at GIMP.org."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The GIMP Now Has a Working Single-Window Mode

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @10:47AM (#37178500)

    For example, in the most recent version of GIMP, it doesn't even START without segfaulting in the default configuration of many distros:

    http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1746905&mode=linear
    http://www.techjail.net/solved-gimp-not-launching-on-kubuntu-11-04.html

    Yes, there is a workaround, but sheesh - this looks *massively* unprofessional compared to photoshop. Having your program not work *out of the box* on the single most popular linux distro out there makes for a horrible initial impression.

    Very unprofessional.

  • by isopropanol (1936936) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @10:50AM (#37178542) Journal

    Still no 16 bit per pixel images (it can import them, but not work in 16 bit).

  • Re:Read the article (Score:3, Interesting)

    by asdf7890 (1518587) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @10:55AM (#37178610)

    So what is single window mode and what will it buy me?

    The current GIMP interface is a multi-window affair which many find hard to grasp for one reason or another, or just find inconvenient.

    A single window environment will improve your productivity if:
    * you have trouble with the existing interface
    * you have never used the existing interface, and are trying the program after using other graphics tools (i.e. less retraining effort as it should in theory be closer to what you are already used to using)
    * you just don't like the existing interface

    I'm quite happy with GIMP the way it is, though I would probably be quite happy with the single-window mode too if that became default (caveat: I don't do a lot of graphics editing, so I can't claim my opinions on the matter come from a position of expertise). I think the multi-window arrangement made more sense than it does now back when focus-follows-mouse was the dominant focus control method in unix-a-like environments, but almost everyone now uses click-to-focus.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:03AM (#37178724) Homepage Journal

    Here is some work [youtube.com] by photoshop dilettantes [youtube.com]

  • by 0123456 (636235) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:05AM (#37178770)

    While that would be nice, by far the worst thing about Gimp is the UI. It may be OK on a desktop with a big screen but I was trying to edit an image on my laptop recently and with all the windows splattered everywhere, most of them forcing themselves to the front all the time because, my God, the font window is so much more important than the image I'm trying to edit, I ended up with about a quarter of the screen available for editing.

    I'm really hoping that this is an improvement.

  • by vlm (69642) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:06AM (#37178784)

    Wake me up when I can finally use 16, 32 or 64 bits per channel, and the channels aren't restricted to RGBA or integers ...

    Overkill slightly? Power dynamic range from single photon starlight to laser eye damage is only about 100 dB... You can't buy 64 bit A/D converters, unless you're talking about some kind of marketing thing where you have 4 16 bit A/D in the same box. LCD monitors are very low contrast, just barely above 20 dB, paper and ink's only about 10 dB.

    There does not seem to be a practical input or output technology that can use more than 16 bits. 8 bits is probably too low. I would advocate for 16 bit, but 32 is as pointless as using scientific notation for each channel.

  • by Intron (870560) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:11AM (#37178858)

    There's a reason that the dabblers complain about the GIMP. Have you ever read through one of those tutorials on how to do some cool graphics technique, like floating semi-transparent 3D letters above a picture? They tend to be written as "go to the *X Menu* and select *Name*" so they can't be translated to a program that has different menus and names. The dabblers don't know how to do things, just how to follow recipes.

  • by eepok (545733) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:12AM (#37178882) Homepage

    Prior to graduating, I used GIMP because I couldn't afford Photoshop and didn't want to pirate it. When I started working for the university, I used it and Open Office specifically to show low/no-funding educational organizations that they don't need to spend thousands of dollars so their workers could edit documents and make beautiful images.

    I continued to use it in different departments so the departments wouldn't have to spend the $200 university license fees.

    In all these instances, I used GIMP portable either from a thumb drive or from the desktop. No installation because no one has permissions to install programs on their computers. A couple weeks ago, though, a new campus-wide update prohibited the launching of ANY exe not explicitly installed by an IT admin. I appealed and they said to buy and use photoshop. /sigh

  • by hedwards (940851) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:16AM (#37178954)

    As well there should be. Having a single window that spans two monitors only works well if both monitors have the same resolution. Otherwise it tends to be somewhat awkward. What's wonderful about the current system is that I can place my tools on one monitor along with a view of the whole image and do my manipulation on the other monitor.

    Just as long as they keep the older multi-window mode I don't have any problems with this.

  • by dada21 (163177) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:18AM (#37178986) Homepage Journal

    16bits per channel is really important.

    I own some print shops, we take artist original prints and paintings and produce reproductions, a la Giclée. We scan as high res as possible, with as many bits per color channel as possible.

    Since no scanner is eprfectly color accurate, we do some post production work in Photoshop. 8bits per channel does bring some loss to saturation, contrast and gradients during post production. 16 bits per channel lessens these effects.

    Do we use 32 bits? Almost never, but it does come in handy in *rare* instances. Recently we had to scan a painting with metallic inks. 32 bits per channel actually allowed us to properly map the metallic colors to our metalic ink on our printer.

  • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Tuesday August 23, 2011 @11:23AM (#37179068)

    32bit per channel isn't out of the realm of sanity - think computer graphics.

    But 64bit? That's pushing it more than a little.
    http://www.anyhere.com/gward/hdrenc/hdr_encodings.html [anyhere.com]

    Maybe if you wanted to capture in a single scene the darkest material ever made, in the shadow of a nuclear explosion.

NOWPRINT. NOWPRINT. Clemclone, back to the shadows again. - The Firesign Theater

Working...