First Preview of GIMP 2.0 Ready for Testing

molnarcs writes "The first preview of GIMP-2.0 is available. It can be installed side-by-side with GIMP 1.2 - so there is no need to uninstall 1.2 to test it. According to this README, some parts (gimp-perl and GAP) were removed from the main package, and will be released as separate modules. Use the mirrors listed on the homepage to download the source code. (Also available for FreeBSD via ports)." Apparently the GIMP is finally adding CYMK support, for those of you working in the print world.

Yes but....

[dustmote]

Does it allow me to copy money? I hear programs like this are in short supply. :)

Re:Yes but....

[Anonymous Coward]

To copy money on Photoshop CS, its easy. Here is how to get around it.

1. Open up image in ImageReady.
2. Click import image to Photoshop
3. Have funny money fun :D

Adobe are stupid.

Perhaps it was intentional?

[Ayanami Rei]

I mean, no sense making it airtight. What happens if one of Adobe's biggest clients came running to them bitching about this new "feature". They'd have to have some technical work-around to tell them. (At least they'd be sure they weren't counterfeiters)

Re:Yes but....

[capoccia]

Does it allow me to copy money? I hear programs like this are in short supply. :)

I copied some currency with the GIMP recently. No problems at all.
http://kandent.com/archives/2003_11/funny_money.ht ml [kandent.com]

Re:Yes but....

[GrievousAngel]

Being free isn't enough for you? I'm afraid if you want a license to print money, you'll have to get a job either at the Treasury or at Microsoft. Sorry.

If you don't mind me asking...

[vasqzr]

What happens if you try to copy money with Photoshop CS?

The reason I ask is, we just bought a $25,000 Canon color printer. It might print some fairly realistic -looking- money, but it wouldn't fool anyone if they touched it, even if they had the right paper.

Our copier salesperson told us a story, that sounded like an urban legend, it went like this:

"A few years back, we sold 5 color copiers to some Arab guys in the Detroit area. They paid for them in cash, didn't want a service contract, and wanted them

Re:If you don't mind me asking...

[mirko]

Did these arabs pay him using phony money ?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Copying?

[Theatetus]

The image is the easy part. Getting your hands on the right kind of paper is what's tricky.

Screenshots?

[jeffkjo1]

Does anyone have any screenshots?

Re:Screenshots?

[locutus_borg]

There is one here....
http://openosx.com/gimp2/screenshots.htm l

Re:Screenshots?

[jcupitt65]

Here's a shot [ng-london.org.uk] of 1.3.23 (I think), the final is pretty similar.

Re:Screenshots?

[jeremymh]

screenshot of the default setup running under gnome. [iinet.net.au]

The interface has some very nice improvements. Each tool window can be dragged around, to dock things together (see the tabs on the layers window? Behind that are paths, undo history etc)

You don't have to right click on an image to do functions to the image, it has them up the top of that window, making it more friendly to new users.

Re:Screenshots?

[Raphael]

There are several screenshots of version 1.3 (pre-2.0) of the GIMP on the developer's site: http://developer.gimp.org/screenshots.html [gimp.org].

Other screenshots of version 2.0 will be available later, when the new GIMP web site goes live.

screenshot link

[ubiquitin]

There's a screenshot of the GIMP 2.0pre1 for Mac users here [macgimp.org].

Difficult to use or?

[tindur]

A lot of people say Gimp is difficult to use. Is it difficult for people who are used to Photoshop or is it difficult for everybody?

I haven't used image manipulation programs and would like to learn the basics. There are courses for Photoshop. Would it help me to take one of them?

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Mephisto_kur]

As someone who just recently started playing with this stuff, I can say that GIMP is much less intuitive than PS. That is the main problem. Since Photoshop is based on an MDI setup, and the standard menu style of most GUI apps out currently, it is leaps and bounds easier to just jump right into than GIMP.

GIMP is a powerful program, I'll give it that. With the addition of CMYK you can expect some graphics folks that have been waiting to move to jump ship, but it still needs some serious work on the user interface before I expect it will become as main stream as PS or PSP.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Ianoo]

Your "intuitiveness" about MDI applications is false intuitiveness brought on by using too much Windows software. MDI applications are horrendous for inexperienced users, and even Microsoft tried to phase them out (witness Word 2000). Macs and most X windows toolkits don't even have them. Tabbed user interfaces are generally considered better (but aren't great).

Re:Difficult to use or?

[DrXym]

Not in the case. If you had used GIMP or any other graphics tool you would realise that MDI is essential. The problem with GIMP 1.2 (and only somewhat lessened by tabs in 1.3/2.x) is that you're forever playing 'hunt' the window because all the GIMP tool bars (all umpteen of them) are forever getting lost on your desktop and the task bar doesn't help much because it is so densely packed.

The 'workaround' is start it up on its own desktop, but this is essentially just allowing you to do what MDI would have

Re:Difficult to use or?

[DrXym]

Who says it has to be forced? But it should be an option. Not everyone has the luxury of multiple desktops (Win32 users for one, but probably many Linux users too), so an MDI option is important.

As for the taskbar, I'm sure you can make it work in a number of ways. Personally I like an individual tab for evry window. Irrespective of the way you use it, it is still a poor substitute for an app which has UI shortcomings.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Darren Winsper]

Err...The GIMP doesn't spawn separate toolbars for each image. It didn't in 1.2 and it didn't in 1.0 (Which is many, many years old). In fact, it doesn't even use toolbars as such, there's just a set of toolbox windows which aren't associated to any one image.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Tet]

Err...The GIMP doesn't spawn separate toolbars for each image. It didn't in 1.2 and it didn't in 1.0 (Which is many, many years old).

For those of us with longer memories, it didn't in 0.99, it didn't in 0.54 (the last Motif version) and it didn't in whatever the previous version that I used was (0.38? I can't remember; it was a long time ago now!). In fact, I think I can quite comprehensively state that Gimp has never behaved like this...

Thanks, I like detail. (-:

[leonbrooks]

I also like not being left in doubt as to an author's opinion, and there are no lingering questions here. (-:

Re:Difficult to use or?

[tgd]

I generally find Gimp very easy to use, even easier in some ways than Photoshop (although I think the difference between which you're comfortable with largely comes from whether or not you find top menus or context menus more convenient).

The actual methodologies you use between the two are very similar, although newer Photoshops have some interesting capabilities that Gimp doesn't have. For even very advanced graphic design, Gimp can certainly do it. Its got more features than people were using to do any imaging work a few years ago with things like Photoshop.

Courses that cover techniques could certainly be useful, with the understanding that the actual steps may be different in Gimp. Knowing what to do is more important than how to do it.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Pope Raymond Lama]

It is difficult for people who have never used it. As is pretty much anything else.

The "big difference" is that instead of oppening the whole program, images and sibblings in a single window, The GIMP opens the toolboxes and images in separate windows. This allows a serious user to make an optimal use of the multiple desktops avaliable in almost all window manager for X11 out there.

As for making a phtoshop course, go for it. But make sure to pick a good course. If you pick a crappy one, that instead of teaching you some of the fundaments behind image manipulation, just mention a couple of the latest Photoshop automagic wizards, that will do you no good, either for using The GIMP, or for doing any serious work.

On the other hand, with a good course, you will find that most of the really usefull stuff on Photoshop or the like is in the GIMP, sometimes even more powerfull.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Raphael]

The "big difference" is that instead of oppening the whole program, images and sibblings in a single window, The GIMP opens the toolboxes and images in separate windows. This allows a serious user to make an optimal use of the multiple desktops avaliable in almost all window manager for X11 out there.

Yes, the current interface [gimp.org] of the GIMP (already much improved since the GIMP 1.x days) is very nice if you have a window manager that provides multiple desktops or virtual workspaces. This is good for most

Re:Difficult to use or?

[rusty0101]

"The GIMP" (proper name include "The") takes some time to learn. You can use many of the skills you learn in using Photoshop, however getting to the tools you are familiar with is an exercise in creative thinking. The Interface is different, so if the tool you are looking for is (as an example) adjusting the gama for a layer, you have to navigate through different menus than you would under Photoshop, or PSP.

Whether that makes it "harder" than the other tools is a matter of interpretation.

The largest problem with learning The GIMP right now is that if you go to a bricks and mortar book store, you will be hard pressed to find a "Teach yourself" or "24 hours" type book, especially for the current version. There are tutorials online, and some of the techniques documented in earlier books (look at the online used books) are still useful.

Photoshop has been around longer, and has more marketing muscle behind it because Adobe has earned quite a bit of money off the product. As a result of those two factors (and perhaps a dozen others I am not aware of) it is easier to find people willing to earn money teaching you how to use the product. If you drop over $200 on a piece of software, wouldn't you want to make sure you had some pretty good ideas on how to use it?

The GIMP on the other hand is more of a play with this tool, and see what you can do, how about that tool, etc.

Just my thoughts, others may think otherwise.

-Rusty

Re:Difficult to use or?

[sootman]

Book links:

Grokking The GIMP [gimp-savvy.com] - 100% free online or you can buy a copy.

ORA GIMP Pocket Reference [oreilly.com] -- prettty handy. You might find that in your local B&N or Borders or whatever.

Of course, both of these are for The GIMP 1.2.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Deusy]

The largest problem with learning The GIMP right now is that ... you will be hard pressed to find a "Teach yourself" or "24 hours" type book, especially for the current version. There are tutorials online... ...such as the Gimp User Group which can teach you a lot of very good techniques with a collection of very good tutorials. [sunsite.dk]

Re:Difficult to use or?

[Lispy]

Well, this probably depends on how familiar with PCs you are. I am not an Imagemanipulation-guru myself but I had no trouble getting my work done (some webgraphics, Digicam-Manipulation and so on) with either Adobe Photoshop or Gimp.

They actually look a bit different but follow the same basic concept. The "tools" you get are mostly the same, their location and symbols may differ and the holy war about wether the windows are "docked" inside a framewindows or free floating is mostly a question of taste.

Therefore if you are quite at home with a modern dekstop PC you will soon feel comfortably with both systems.

So, to answer your question I would say that Gimp is easier for newbies and pretty hard for Photoshop-hardliners who have become very used to Photoshop and all its quirks.

Have you ever seen a Graphicdesigner use Photoshop on a Mac? Honestly its impressive (for me at least). They move thru the menus like a sleepwalker. Of course they would have a hard time to learn something new.

My hint: If youre a cheap (like me) with a decent knowledge of modern GUIs get TheGimp and see if it suits you. I like it and use it for all my picture edit needs!

cu,
Lispy

Re:Difficult to use or?

[SQLz]

The tools in Gimp 2.0 act much more like their Photoshop equivolents. Its much easier to use than 1.2 in fact I prefer it for everything except font rendering. (1.3 was 2.0 until recently) I use Photoshop via Wine to write text then save it as a psd and load it into Gimp because the anti-aliasing is so much better in Photoshop. After using Gimp 1.3/2.0 for awhile, Photoshop seems bloated and cumbersome to use. Now with the much more interface its like the OpenOffice of graphics programs, good enough for

Re:Difficult to use or?

[t'mbert]

I think the responses here are typical. Typical of those who think "different is better" and that we all have time to devote to this.

I tried and tried to use Gimp over the years, I tried to read through the manuals online...it was PAINFUL. Even the easiest things escaped me. I just wanted to do X very simple procedure, and I spent hours trying to figure out how to do that. I even found newsgroup postings from people trying to do what I was doing and getting responses like "it's just a little different, you have to hold shift-alt drag the mouse and stand on your head to draw a box." Duh.

And then I picked up a trial copy of Elements 2.0, figured it out in about 30 seconds and was doing what I needed to do. I paid my $100 two days later and will never go back. It's super-fast on my machine too.

The lesson: Gimp is different for the sake of being different, which means it's a higher learning curve than I'm willing to give it. I'll gladly pay someone who's taken the time to make their software work in a way that users expect these days.

Take a page about design from Joel on Software [joelonsoftware.com], guys. The Gimp isn't worth my time.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[MobyDisk]

Are you takign the course to learn image manipulation, or to learn the UI. If you are taking it for the UI, then no, it won't help. You will have to learn that on your own. To learn the tools - yes, you will have to translate that knowledge though. Allow me to give my experience as a Photoshop user moving to Gimp

I find Gimp hard to use. The Slashdot & Linux community will say that it just takes "getting used to" but I suspect that is the same crowd who will tell you that applications don't need to look & act in a consistent manner. I think the cause is that Gimp uses a number of old-skool interface concepts that fewer and fewer apps use these days.

Gimp uses the multiple-dynamic-windows approach, rather than the docking toolbar approach. This is the biggest headache, and probably the only one that it is impossible to "get used to." When you click on a tool, tool windows may appear, disappear, or resize. They may appear or resize right in front of another window that you need to see. Sometimes running a filter opens one or more windows, but you don't realize it because they open on top of each other and you may see only one of them, or none of them. Compare to MS Office, OpenOffice, or Photoshop, where the existing tool windows simply change their content.

Because Gimp "tool" windows are "top-level" windows, you cannot use alt-tab to switch between Applications anymore since you will have 5-10 more windows to go through. It also clutters the taskbar. (Some environments can group windows to help with this, but this causes other problems) If another window obscures Gimp, you can't simply click on one Gimp window and they all are visible. You must click on each window, or you must minimize the other application. Essentially, it has to have it's own desktop.

Gimp has a "main" window which has a menu for commands like File and Help. The image manipulation options (File, Edit, Select, Filters, ...) are a right-click menu on the image. This saves screen space by not displaying the menu at all times, but is confusing at first.

Gimp options are powerful and highly technical. For example, Photoshop has a median filter that asks you for the radius. Gimp has a median filter that asks you for radius, adaptive Y/N, recursive Y/N, black level, and white level. It is an excellent filter, but it is confusing at first.

It's tough to imagine these things without seeing it. I hope that Gimp 2.0 offers a more toolbar approach that is more consistent with the way most applications work. I think that will really help to make it more mainstream.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[AKnightCowboy]

Now, try the same in Photoshop CS!

I just put a picture of JFK in my scanner and imported it into Photoshop CS just fine.

Re:Difficult to use or?

[R.Caley]

put dead president into scanner

If you think that's hard, try it with live ones. Shrub is too thick for me to be able to close the lid, Clinton has this bit that always seems to stick out the side, Bush is too slippery to stay put on the glass, Reagan won't go in without his astrologer's approval, Carter's teeth dazzle the CCD, and Ford is invisible.

Grokking the Gimp

[CapnKirk]

It's an online book [gimp-savvy.com], best I've ever read on the GIMP. The instructions for how to retouch photos is fantastic. You can also buy a hardcopy.

Re:No, The GIMP's GUI just plain sucks...

[TandyMasterControl]

"File management is a horror, with stale motif-like file manager widgets that lack sensible defaults, and don't remember where you are."

You didn't tap its power. Yes it looks like ass, and it seems really braindead, but looks can be deceiving. If you come from Windows, you'll have a hard time guessing what the dialog can do.

Say you have an image that you want to reopen and edit to create a totally new image. You can't remember its exact name, though, because you initially added this file to your home directory months ago and since that time you've made several versions of images derived from this original already --always keeping part of the name of the original in the names of its derived images. Let's say the file has "cat" somewhere in its name. So there are several maybe a dozen and a half "cat" images that are associated with this original all jumbled in your home. And some of these are .jpgs some are .pngs, and some are "master images" in Gimp's native xcf format that have color tinting or have been cropped. And these files are all mixed up among a thousand or so other files in your home dir. You don't want any jpegs or processed .xcf's --just the original. How to find the one you want?

Well this apparently stupid looking file selector actually has some powerful tools to help you find that one desired file very quickly. Down in the file name text area you can type *cat*.xcf and hit TAB and then the listing of files in the right pane of the dialog will change. Only those master images with "cat" and suffix .xcf will appear now. Instead of a rightpane list of 987 filenames, now there's maybe only six files to choose from. (I am basing this description off of an example I am trying out as i write this). Let's say you can't tell at a glance which .xcf file out of these six filenames is the one that you wanted to start with. Clicking once on each of these filenames will give you a graphic preview of the file to the right of the 'selection' text area. So the GIMP fileselector is actually a shitload faster than many people think.

I long for "shortcut" buttons in the Gnome/GTK+ fileselector dialog (Ximian has long had these and I can't understand why Gnome hasn't incorporated them already). Basically a "home" shortcut would satisfy me. Others pine for a shortcut to removable media. But I also wonder how many of the people who piss and moan for that kind of feature are still unaware of how fast you can use TAB autocompletion to navigate directories in the file selection dialog? Once you learn that you can do this, and get some practice using it, I can't imagine that you'd believe that poking through a visual tree of directories and subdirectories could ever be as fast. TAB completion rules. Of course it assumes you know something about your filesystem. But then, UNIX was created for intelligent professionals unafraid of a keyboard, not porn surfers who always need one hand free.

The List of mirrors is slashdoted.

[chrestomanci]

Africa ftp://ftp.is.co.za/applications/gimp/ [is.co.za] Australia ftp://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/gimp/ [planetmirror.com]
http://ftp.planetmirror.com/pub/gimp/gimp/ [planetmirror.com]
ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp/ [aarnet.edu.au]
http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/gimp/ [aarnet.edu.au]
ftp://gimp.zeta.org.au/gimp/gimp/ [zeta.org.au] Austria ftp://gd.tuwien.ac.at/graphics/gimp/gimp/ [tuwien.ac.at] Finland ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/sci/graphics/packages/gimp/ [funet.fi] France ftp://ftp.minet.net/pub/gimp/ [minet.net]
http://ftp.iut-bm.univ-fcomte.fr/pub/gimp/ [univ-fcomte.fr] Germany ftp://ftp.fh-heilbronn.de/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/gim p/ [fh-heilbronn.de]
ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/grafik/gimp/ [ftp.gwdg.de]
http://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/misc/grafik/gimp/ [ftp.gwdg.de] Greece ftp://sunsite.ics.forth.gr/sunsite/pub/gimp/ [forth.gr] Ireland ftp://ftp.esat.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/ [esat.net]
http://ftp.esat.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/pub/gimp/ [esat.net] Japan ftp://SunSITE.sut.ac.jp/pub/archives/packages/gimp / [sut.ac.jp]
ftp://ftp.u-aizu.ac.jp/pub/graphics/tools/gimp/ [u-aizu.ac.jp]
http://www.ring.gr.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/ [ring.gr.jp]
ftp://ftp.ring.gr.jp/pub/graphics/gimp/ [ring.gr.jp]
http://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/ [nucba.ac.jp]
ftp://mirror.nucba.ac.jp/mirror/gimp/ [nucba.ac.jp] Korea ftp://ftp.kreonet.re.kr/pub/tools/X11/ftp.gimp.org / [kreonet.re.kr] Netherlands http://gnu.kookel.org/ftp/gimp/ [kookel.org]
ftp://gnu.kookel.org/pub/gimp/ [kookel.org] Norway ftp://sunsite.uio.no/pub/gimp/ [sunsite.uio.no] Poland ftp://ftp.tuniv.szczecin.pl/pub/Linux/gimp/ [szczecin.pl]
ftp://sunsite.icm.edu.pl/pub/graphics/gimp/ [icm.edu.pl] Romania ftp://ftp.kappa.ro/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/ [kappa.ro]
ftp://ftp.iasi.roedu.net/pub/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/ [roedu.net]
http://ftp.iasi.roedu.net/mirrors/ftp.gimp.org/ [roedu.net] Russia ftp://ftp.sai.msu.su/pub/unix/graphics/gimp/mirror / [sai.msu.su]
http://gimp.tsuren.net/mirror/gimp/ [tsuren.net]

Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[AnriL]

Having CMYK support is all fine and dandy but it won't get you far in the printing world without support for colour profiles and colour calibration. Linux sadly lags behind others (Windows, MacOS) in this area, and having Gimp support CMYK is like fitting racing wheels onto a horse and shoving it onto the Indycar track ...

Mod away...

Re:Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[jcupitt65]

There's a thing to output to CMYK using a colour profile via littlecms [littlecms.com].

What GIMP is missing is native CMYK (ie. it's all still RGB for editing). Next version!

Re:Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[Raphael]

Isn't native CMYK going to be in 2.0?

No, the plans have changed last year. There was a debate among the developers about whether the next stable release should be called 1.4 or 2.0, and the decision was to call it 2.0. It does not have the native CMYK support (only export), but it has many other new features. Also, the internal structure of the program has changed so much that a major change in the version number was considered useful. Even if the end users do not see some of these changes, they are very significant for script and plug-in authors and the improved structure and documentation of the code should make it easier for new developers to contribute to the GIMP.

A bit of background (if you are interested): after the GIMP developers' conference in 2000, the plans were to have CMYK support in GIMP 2.0. These plans for "the future of the GIMP" were published and were often refered to (in newsgroups, mailing lists and even here on Slashdot), until the middle of last year. At that time, the discussion started about how the new version should be called and it was decided to call it 2.0. This decision was confirmed at the 2003 edition of the GIMP developers' conference. Even if those who were expecting native CMYK in 2.0 will have to wait until the next release, I think that most users will be very happy with the new GIMP.

Re:Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[ScottGant]

wow, in all the years I worked in the pre-press field I never ever once used color calibration nor colour profiles. Not once.

We scan, make a Kodak Approval or similar proof (depending on what the customer/pressmen wanted), looked at it in a light booth, went back and made adjustments...taking readings here and there and using curves and masks to color correct areas, then made a final proof. The customer would then look at it, approve it or want more adjustments. etc etc.

So to say that you wouldn't get far in printing without profiles is kinda wrong. We saw them mainly as a crutch to people that simply didn't understand color, and generally ran circles around them in terms of speed and accuracy.

Re:Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[Trolling4Dollars]

Why do people always bring up printing? How many people at home ACTUALLY print using CMYK or plan to take their family photos to a service bureau and have them printed in large format? A professional designer might be limited by this, but they are not likely to use GIMP for final output. The printing issue is a non-issue for about 90% of the GIMP user base since many of us do not ever intend to go to print. Besides... dead tree publishing is overrated.

they will though as it becomes easier

[rebelcool]

its still a bit of a voodoo science to get the colors "just right", even with OSX and windows, but canon for example distributes its own photo print tool that uses canon provided profiles (based on their OEM paper and ink).

You still need some sort of monitor calibrator though to get the right colors. This can be as simple as the adobe gamma software, or the more accurate colorimeter packages which come with a sensor that suction cups to the monitor.

I just can't take a photo editting package seriously if

Re:Ready for printing? Don't think so.

[johnnyb]

Wrong. Disney uses WINE.

They fixed the interface (mostly)!

[ciaran_o_riordan]

For anyone that hasn't tried it out, the interface is much improved. Great news since this is most peoples biggest gripe.

toolboxes are now dockable with the main toolbox, so you just have one toolbox window, and a window for the image. Also, the image window has a menu bar now.

Windows version?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, will there be a Windows version anytime soon for us Windows users (over half of ./), or are we stuck with the ancient 1.2.5? I would like to try it out, since the newer versions are said to have a less sucky UI making them actually usable, but the Windows port of the GIMP seems... dead.
(and no, don't even think about saying "upgrade to linux" or something similar - some of us have to stick with the platform, some of us simply prefer it, and in no way are you going to get people to switch to Linux because it is the only thing that runs the GIMP)

Re:Windows version?

[dylan_-]

So, will there be a Windows version anytime soon for us Windows users (over half of ./), or are we stuck with the ancient 1.2.5?

I'm running 1.3.23 on my Win2K machine. Download it from http://www.gimp.org/~tml/gimp/win32/downloads.html

You may have to wait a bit till gimp.org gets back on its feet...

I had a problem in that it didn't detect my fonts, and I had to grab fontconfig from http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WindowsInstall to fix it. The new interface took a little getting used to, but I like it now.

Re:No GIMP-2.0 Windows version!

[Raphael]

The answer to the grand-parent - no win32 gimp-2.0 available yet - unless you compile it and debug it yourself :)

<pedantic>Well, there is no gimp-2.0 for any platform yet. We are only talking about a pre-release here.</pedantic>

This pre-release version (2.0-pre1) is not very different from version 1.3.23, which is available for Windows in a convenient installer from Jernej Simoncic's page [arnes.si]. The release of the source code is rather new and it will take a few days until binaries are available for all platforms, but you can probably expect a 2.0-pre version for Windows soon.

Re:No GIMP-2.0 Windows version!

[dylan_-]

We discuss here Gimp-2.0 remember?

1.3 is the same as 2.0. The 1.3 is the development branch. I was pointing out that he is not stuck with 1.2 on Windows.

Gimp/Cinepaint merge

[gr8_phk]

Gimp and Cinepaint should merge. Why not? The Cinepaint guys roadmap shows some items being pulled across from GIMP and development of new stuff that would certainly be welcome in GIMP. The main difference is Cinepaint was restructured to support the deeper color depths required by the studios. It seems to me that GIMP may actually have more active development going on. The fork just seems unfortunate to me - I suspect politics at work, which can't be productive.

Mandrake Cooker has it

[Götz]

The package gimp1_3 in the Mandrake Cooker contribs is already at version 2.0pre1. Users of 9.2 should be able to install it too.

Go to Easy Urpmi [urpmi.org] and add a Cooker contribs source if you don't have one already. Then type urpmi gimp1_3 and you're done.

CMYK support getting closer, but not here yet

[ubiquitin]

I wanted to clarify one point from this slashdot posting: GIMP 2.0pre1 has plugin or two that can handle some CMYK functionality, but this is not the release that uses gegl, or the generic enhanced graphics library [gegl.org]. GEGL is the project that will bring all the bells and whistles necessary for proper colorspace support.

Help Me Out GIMPers

[subjectstorm]

I've been using photoshop for about, eh . . . 2.5 years now. I'm currently using 6 on a Win 2K box here at work.

It nice, but it can be an enormous resource hog. it also likes to occasionally lose all of the styles i've loaded or created myself.

anybody out there using both that can tell me how they differ in terms of performance or ease of use? photoshop can be damned cryptic sometimes.

also, i can read the specs all day, so if your answer is "RTFS" or "photoshop suXX0rz" then you can just shove it. I'm asking more about perceived differences.

i've got mandrake at home, so i COULD load it up there and play with it, but i HATE taking my work home. anyone using it on windows? don't flame me, i don't have a choice here :)

Re:Help Me Out GIMPers

[Tsu Dho Nimh]

"anybody out there using both that can tell me how they differ in terms of performance or ease of use"

I've used them both ... neither is what I would call easy, but power and ease of use don't go together. As for performance, way back when it was GIMP 0.something we ran a test on photoediting. The same digital image was edited with the GIMP and with PhotoShop to crop, remove flaws, and enhance. We couldn't tell which one had been processed by which program, so the compoany switched ot GIMP and saved a bundle.

I'll help... as much as I can.

[aug24]

I use it, but not on Windows. In terms of performance, I use an old box for my web stuff and it's plenty responsive enough for me.

In terms of ease of use, it's quite a different interface, although it sounds like 2 can be made closer to PS in MDI/floating terms. I understand that many people *really* didn't like the original The GIMP design of 'all windows float so there', but I got used to it really quickly. The tools system is very similar, but the menus are set up completely differently. It's like s

RPMS (and SRPMS) for RHL9/FC1

[kosmosik]

http://www.gnome.org/~drc/gimp-rpms/ - here you go... [gnome.org]
Cheers.

gimp is too complicated for me...

[Maditude]

At last, I can ask slashdot without being too off-topic! Gimp, like photoshop, is just too much for me -- I've recently made a full-time switch to Linux at home, and the one thing on my list of needed software is a SIMPLE photo editor (for fixing red-eye and not much else). I was pretty happy with PhotoImpression under Windows, but haven't found anything close to that level of simplicity under Linux. Anyone got any suggestions (preferably aside from Wine and Gimp) for something that runs well under Linux?

Re:gimp is too complicated for me...

[Thornae]

the one thing on my list of needed software is a SIMPLE photo editor

Well, a quick search on Freshmeat [freshmeat.net] (bookmark it, you'll find it very useful) suggests the following:
If you're not after actual re-touching capability, VIPS [soton.ac.uk] might be what you want. (Oh, you are. Oops.)
Well, for the princely sum of US$25, JPhotoBrush Pro [jphotobrushpro.com] looks good (there's a trial version available for download).
For very basic manipulation, IV [twu.net] might do. And if you want something really basic... [newbreedsoftware.com]
If you're willing to play with something considerably less mainstream, PyWiew [lycos.co.uk] caught my interest for being pure Python. Does sound a bit esoteric, though.

Finally, you could see for yourself [freshmeat.net] what else is out there. There's more than freshmeat, of course. Like the Linux section of Tucows [tucows.com].

Incidentally, if you have the time to learn it, Gimp can be very useful. Best way (like all *NIX at home learning) is to find someone who knows what they're doing and get them to teach you.

P.S. - If you like Linux, try FreeBSD sometime. Not as popular or well covered, but has advantages too.

HTH, etc.

Screenshots

[ghostis]

Here are some decent screenshots [golem.de]

-ghostis

Re:Screenshots

[zandermander]

Does anyone else find the 4th screenshot from the right incredibly funny?

Note that among other templates there is one for toilet paper?

Now to just figure out how to run it through my laserprinter.....

:-D

SVG Support?!

[Milo Fungus]

Am I seeing this correctly? (screenshot #6 [golem.de] Does The GIMP 2.0 support SVG [w3.org]? HALLELUJAH!!! That's fantastic! I Googled around and found this article [google.com] (translated from German).

This is wonderful, but a bit strange. I once inquired around about why The GIMP was so lacking in vector art tools. Why wasn't there a tool for making basic shapes, for instance? The answer I found (by Googling around) was that The GIMP is based on the old Unix philosphy, which focuses on small, reusable components. Designing in th

Re:SVG Support?!

[ianezz]

Am I seeing this correctly?

Yes and no.

The Gimp has had for some time (since version 1.2 IIRC) some support for vectorial drawing: you can define paths using bezier curves, which may be adjusted, saved and restored, and drawn on the current layer using the current brush. But drawing (and selecting the layer) must be done manually.

The next version of The Gimp adds the ability to save and restore paths as SVG paths (before, it used an ad-hoc simple textual format), and also the ability to import an SVG image by rendering it on a bitmap (like it did with PS images).

That's it: a useful thing to have, but it has little to do with vectorial drawing.

There was a GNU project (which apparently failed) that was trying to create a vector art authoring tool. I can't remember the name of it.

You are talking about GYVE [gyve.org]: its developement has stopped in 2002.

OTOH, for Free vectorial drawing programs, check out sodipodi [sodipodi.com] (and its IMHO nicer branch Inkscape [inkscape.org]) and the good ol' Sketch [sourceforge.net] (now called Skencil).

I wonder...

[shic]

Is there a Win32 binary (installer?) available for GIMP 2.0?

What's wrong with window-in-window?

[Queuetue]

I'm a fan of window-in-window MDI, and any time I ask why it's not considered for interfaces in most Linux/UNIX apps, I'm told that

a) It's really bad.

and

b) Microsoft has stopped using it.

Can someone explain why it's so bad? Because it sure seems like a great way to associate windows and tools together into one cohesive group. The fact that MS does something is never a good enough reason for me to do something, that they stop doing something won't make me stop either.

I'd just like some clarity on why

Re:What's wrong with window-in-window?

[vidarh]

MDI that uses nested windows consistent with the current window manager is a "problem", though it shouldn't be hard to provide an X protocol extension to allow windows to have managed sub-windows (I think, though I'm not sure, that it might be feasible to do it even without a change to the server itself, by letting apps ask the window manager directly to reparent it's windows, but there might be restrictions that stop this). The reason nobody has bothered doing this is that MDI is a giant hack which had as it's sole purpose to "work around" a problem created by the menu-per-window mechanism of Windows, which is the defacto standard also for X apps.

It's confusing as hell to most users, but was considered more or less a necessity due to avoid reproducing toolbars etc. for all document windows.

AmigaOS and MacOS avoided similar issues with an app-wide menu at the top of the screen, and in AmigaOS' case with "screens" as a more generic type of grouping (because screens weren't restricted to having Windows from one app)

In X you can get the same grouping by keeping an app on a virtual screen, so MDI serves very little purpose. Using virtual screens gives you the advantage that there is one less mechanism for the user to understand.

Increased screen real estate and configurable and draggable toolbars also lessen the problem of losing screen realestate by duplicating toolbars in each document window.

To sum it up, MDI was a hack to solve a problem that's mostly gone away.

whats wrong with software?

[thogard]

Why can't any modern program be smart enough to figure out you've gone down the maze of menus to select the same option 600 times and then put a button for it some place reasonable or assign an automatic keyboard shortcut?

Re:whats wrong with software?

[Lochin Rabbar]

Probably the same reason that makes modern users unable to comprehend tear off menus.

Is this for real?

[lumpenprole]

Did anybody else notice that the new file dialogue shown here:
http://scr.golem.de/?d=0310/gimp&p=7 [golem.de]
includes a form for toilet paper? My god I love open source software!

sorry to bring this up every time there's a gimp

[MarcoAtWork]

article, but have they finally put in adjustment layers?

GIMP Falling behind for digital photography

[Alan]

I love gimp, but latey it seems to be falling farther and farther behind the windows alternatives, at least in the area of digital photography manipulation. Don't get me wrong, it can still do all the things that it needs (I think), but the ease of use and UI from programs such as photohop, elements, and even ms pictureit/digital image pro make it pale in comparision.

A couple of quick examples of things I'd like to see (which aren't in the last gimp 1.3.2x version I have installed):

- crop which dims the area outside the crop to give you a better feel of what the cropped image will look like
- a "straighten image" function like MS has in their product, where you simply click a line on the horizon (or whatever) and the image is rotated and cropped automagically
- auto-[levels,colors]

Though I'm not sure if the gimp needs this sort of functionality, or if a branch using it's libs for digital imaging (gimp-elements?) needs to be branched off and started.

Script-Fu Hell

[N8F8]

Script-Fu seems to have been in limbo for quite a while. Personally I feel Scheme is just to alient for most hobby programmers. Not to mention the tons of dead scripts due to version incompatabilities. Perl-Fu seems to have never gotten off the ground. It would be nice if someone would develop a Javascript like interface language. I'd bet the intersection of graphics app users and web developers is pretty big.

Re:Including banknote detection ?

[JanneM]

Except this one is a little different:

"Alert: a real $20 note is two steps darker than your attempt. Also, your serial number will not validate. Would you like me to apply corrections?"

Re:Including banknote detection ?

[CaptainAlbert]

LOL!

Prepare for Microsoft to retaliate by inserting Clippy into MS Paint...

"I see you're trying to defraud the federal government - would you like some help with that?"

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about..and neither do the people who modded you insightful GIMP 1.3.x/2.0 does a lot to address the user interface issue; (most, AFAIK) of the previously isolated windows can be docked.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[adrianbaugh]

I really liked the gimp-1.2 UI: the "everything is in the context menu or separate windows" just appeals for some reason.

But for those of you who like menus along the top - they're there in 1.3; for those of you who want to combine control windows - you can do this too, switching between controls with tabs. Really, from what I've used of it so far, it seems you can customise the UI pretty much any which way.

I'm still itching for gimp-2.2 or whenever they finally put high-resolution colour models back in.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Deusy]

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about..and neither do the people who modded you insightful GIMP 1.3.x/2.0 does a lot to address the user interface issue; (most, AFAIK) of the previously isolated windows can be docked.

I can confirm that the OP didn't know what he was talking about.

On a more serious note, the perception that the Gimp has a terrible user interface is a fallacy. Most people who complain are Photoshop users. D'uh! It's got a different UI to Photoshop, try using it for more than 5 minutes and you'll find that it's quite a nifty UI that is arguably better.

Of course, most people are referring to Windows and their poor taskbar being clogged up. D'uh! Get a decent OS or WinXP that'll solve that for you.

On an even more serious note, there's some awesome UI improvements in Gimp2. Not only does it use the graceful gtk2, it has some awesome UI touches like being able to group together dialogues in a tabbed dialogue. Gimp2 takes all that was good about the Gimp UI and improves on it whilst dropping a lot of the deadwood.

I'm glad that they didn't listen the whining Why isn't it like Photoshop crowd and stuck to what is a good plan.

And I, for one, welcome our new Gimp overlords.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[haggar]

There is some valid concern regarding the UI: when I started to use GIMP, 2 years ago, I just couldn't figure out how to actually manipulate files (open, new, save etc.), it was really weird. At first I was totally frustrated and I gave up on GIMP. However, I had to convert some pictures to PNG, and I was hoping GIMP would do that correctly - and I was right, GIMP lived up to his fame of being powerful. That's when I was forced to figure out the GIMP UI.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[donscarletti]

I use multihead displays and personally, I have never seen anything as efficient as the gimp interface to use.

Also, 1.3 and 2.0 have tabbed control boxes making the UI compact, intuitive and flexible, one can even shove all one's little boxes into a single window vertically with the new interface and it will be the same aweful interface that you seem to like with photoshop.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[CaptnMArk]

MDI sucks. I'd rather have the current UI.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[CaptnMArk]

... 2 minutes pass ...

Of course, the current UI is also MDI. (multiple documents)

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Boing]

The problem with gimp...is its User interface... What happened to the MDI model.

Someone responded saying the problem has been partially solved in later versions of gimp, with "docking" ability. But I think Photoshop and its imitators have shown that a true MDI workspace is ideal for image editing.

For the story of why MDI wasn't adopted earlier, read the following:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7379 [gnome.org]

Putting my own personal bias into it, attitudes like Sven's (for example, an exerpt from a message on 2002-12-10 08:31: "WiW is evil! Why do you want to put a large window all over your screen that hides everything but your application? Because your desktop sucks? Then get a better one.") are what I see as the big imediment towards adoption of open source. If someone in a commercial project vocally complained that the customers of that project wanted dumb things and that their environments were inferior, he or she would be fired.

I understand that these people have given freely of their time to improve GIMP, but they also claim to want widespread adoption of it; something that won't happen if they establish a mental wall between their personal agendas and the desires of other users.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[quantum bit]

Yes, let's cram all of the tools and images into one single toplevel window so that everything is restricted to one of my monitors instead of being able to spread out across all 3.

What genius! We'll conquer the world yet...

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Boing]

so that everything is restricted to one of my monitors

Well, that's kind of the beauty of open source. I'm not disagreeing with Sven's opinion, just his closed-mindedness to other opinions. I'm all in favor of leaving MDI as a selectable option, like it is in NetBeans IDE, for instance. There will always be people in both camps, so neither one would really die out once they were both adopted.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[RoLi]

I'm not disagreeing with Sven's opinion, just his closed-mindedness to other opinions.

It's not nearly as closed minded as "[..] Photoshop and its imitators have shown that a true MDI workspace is ideal for image editing"

That's closed mindness at it's finest. And to complain about closed-mindness of others just tops it off.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Overly Critical Guy]

Right, let's squash the 90% of the population that hates the GIMP interface (someone claims MDI sucks, yet everyone wants it...perhaps the problem is that person?) so the minority of people with multiple monitors can feel happy that they have a brush toolbar on screen 3.

This despite the fact Photoshop handles multiple windows quite well anyway. You honestly think GIMP couldn't be MDI and multiple-monitor friendly? Welcome to the reason OSS has yet to succeed in the desktop market. Elitism and closed-min

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Outland Traveller]

I personally see MDI as a horrible dead-end, and completely agree with Sven's analysis.

I'm very happy that Gimp did not follow photoshop too closely on that point.

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Boing]

Gimp people are not complaining that Gimp "customers" want stupid things, they complain that Photoshop customers want stupid things.

If the goal is to increase GIMP market share, then Photoshop customers are GIMP customers. People who do graphic design for a living may have brand loyalty to Photoshop, but only because it's been so consistently powerful and usable for their purposes. If GIMP were truly "better", there would be a changing of the guard.

Window in window is really a horrible user interfac

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Paladin128]

The GIMP uses a different model... rather than the monolithic application model, it uses the document model. Only the stuff you need to manipulate the document at a given time needs to rank high in Z-order.

Now, that doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I could see something like a checkbox in the config for "raise all tool palletes on document focus", that would raise all the tool palletes when the image being manipulated gains focus. This would be genuinely useful. Or better yet, make this model

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Coryoth]

On the other hand, it's quite frequent, when using the GIMP, for me to inadvertently click on a program in the background, and have to manually re-raise each GIMP window. Additionally, the unnecessary window decorations (full titlebar, outline, etc) waste a great deal of screen real estate when applied to several windows of the same program.

That's the downside of GIMP for windows - which I presume is what you are using: it is designed for Linux, so doesn't work well with Windows slightly more spare window

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Boing]

Or do you (deep down) just tolerate the imposition that is PhotoShop's MDI because you're so used to it?

I'll be honest, even if I were using GIMP in X11, and I had a viewport separated for specifically that purpose, I think I'd still prefer MDI. Part of that is that I'm used to it, but the value of my familiarity is that by this point, I've wrapped my head around the desktop-within-a-desktop metaphor, and I no longer have any troubles with it.

When I look at GIMP, I see multiple windows. For referenc

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Elektroschock]

I prefer the way Kdevelop chose: You can configure your user interface to whatever you like. Unfortunately gtk does not provide this functionality.

It was always said that gimp 2 will offen gui abstraction. We will wait and see.

I am still waiting for a proper KDE integration of Gimp or an alzternative. I also hope that 2.0 will be "stable" when it is got the status "stable".

Re:The problem with gimp...

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Really! I agree. Photoshop is priced for raping it's users. I realize they have a ton of money tied up in it's development, but that is not an excuse for charging as much as some PC's COST! Video is even worse! Premiere is priced really high as well. GIMP rocks. I can do about 90 percent of what can be done in Photoshop with the GIMP. CMYK is just an added and wanted feature.

Re:Anybody knows the CMYK value for green?

[TheMidget]

Emerald green or GET27 green ?

Don't know. Whatever green is on a greenback!

Re:Good news!

[Deusy]

I am happy to hear that there is a Gimp 2 on the horizon.

The development version has been very good and (for me) very stable - more-so than the stable version - for the last 3-6 months, althoguh YMMV.

They've made a lot of improvements in usability as well as improving on and adding features. It's like comparing Photoshop6 to Photoshop4. It's that much better than the ugly, awkward, and sometimes crashy Gimp-1.2.

Re:Gimp 2.0 on Win32 ETA?

[craigmarshall]

Apparently 1.3.23 is basically it. I've been using 1.2.5, and the new one is totally different. The new one is gorgeous!

Here's the download page: http://www2.arnes.si/~sopjsimo/gimp/unstable.html [arnes.si]

I recommend gtk-wimp too: http://gtk-wimp.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:keybindings and focus

[Tet]

One thing I would really really like is if the tool palette hotkeys were mapped to the same tools in the GIMP as they are in Photoshop.

So do it, then. Open up a new image, right click, go to Tools -> Select Tools -> Fuzzy Select, and without releasing the mouse button, press your desired hotkey combination. Voila. That hotkey will now choose fuzzy select from that point onwards. You can do the same for all the tools, until you have the desired hotkeys configured.

Personally, I find Photoshop is lac

Re:My beef with Gimp

[prockcore]

It's like 7 icons wide by 4 deep, which means you end up with a large box, rather than a taller slimmer one like in Photoshop.

You can resize the tool selection box window.. make it 1 icon wide by 30 deep if you wish. Just click the corner and drag, just like resizing any other window.

Font copyright

[tepples]

where're all the DIP tools like 2D FFT and convolution matrix?

I agree. After having done some of that 2D FFT crack in a college image manipulation course that used MATLAB, I want some more in GIMP as well.

Text - can't they store vector data as well so that on comps without those fonts i can still safely resize based on vector data?

In theory, Photoshop could turn text outlines into an Illustrator vector layer, but it'd probably violate many font packages' EULAs. Vector data is copyrighted, and an e

Re:Major version numbers

[Permission Denied]

Can somebody help me understand the difference in how major version numbers work between free software and commercial software?

Sure. Commercial software always uses version numbers to indicate minor and major changes, whereas open source software uses version numbers willy-nilly.

Let's look at Sun for example. Long ago, we had SunOS 4.0. This continued until Sun was ready for the next major version of their OS. Instead of calling it SunOS 5.0, they created a new product line and called it Solaris