A Gimp In Photoshop's Clothing 531
comforteagle writes "Scott Moschella, from Attack of the Show!, set out to make The Gimp a little friendlier with a simple UI make-over, creating GimpShop. Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion. Howard Wen has interviewed Scott about why he did this. From the interview: 'I've always thought that GIMP was just as powerful as Photoshop. My way of proving it was to make GIMP work as close to Photoshop as I possibly could, given my limited programming experience.' As more Windows/Mac users discover powerful open source applications are they bound (slashdot disc.) to make more discoveries of this kind?" Update: 09/16 18:48 GMT by Z : Some users have pointed out this is basically an update to a previous discussion we've had. Link added for the sake of completeness.
Changes overdue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Note pad -> Word pad -> Word -> Word Publishing
Why not have the gimp frame work able to go from a basic Paint application to a full featured artisic tool. Or from a basic photo touch up with resize and redeye reduction to a full scale photo manipulation.
Why don't OS developers see that they could not only skin the looks of the application but the features as well.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed a key step:
Notepad -> Wordpad -> Word -> vim -> perfect desktop publishing.
You may now go about your business.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Funny)
NotePad -> Emacs -> Jed -> Vim
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Interesting)
Skinning generally refers (particularly in the past, although some apps have far more complex things now) to just changing the look of the interface, not what's actually there. He's essentially suggesting changing the whole frontend to create several apps of varying complexity with a common backend.
GUI programs are badly designed. (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I really hate is when you load a big file and the entire interface freezes while the file loads. Argh! ICQ always did that on my contact list. Horribly coded.
There is no reason why a well designed app shouldn't be portable to different UI's ranging from text based on up. Why not have a text-based version of GIMP or OpenOffice that lets you manipulate the files using command-line commands? Functionality should not be based on the UI.
Re:GUI programs are badly designed. (Score:3, Informative)
I agree completely. Seperating the parts is critical.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even when I'm fully proficient with a program, I appreciate an easy, intuitive interface. It lets me get my work done quicker. It's less of a strain on my mind. I can spend those brain-hourse thinking about my next algorithm, learning more new programs, or whatever.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Insightful)
What you're used to has a lot to do with how you deal with an interface. Innovative (or at least 'different')interfaces suck primarily because they can't read minds, which is what experience tell me you mean by "it's not intuitive."
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:4, Interesting)
I've downloaded GIMP... had no idea what to do with it so after a couple sessions of randomly pushing buttons left it sit to gather stray 0s and 1s that collect on my HDD much like the dust gathers on my Windows 95 MCP book.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Interesting)
In Brasil ... (Score:5, Informative)
Our "computer programs law" explicitly excludes "similarity from a preexisting program functionality" from copyright protection, and our patents law explicitly excludes computer programs, methods and algorithms, from patent protection.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope this gets modded "Redundant" because it deserves to be, but also to point out that your argument fails because PaintShop has never been sued. Trademark enforcement requires that you defend ANY and ALL infringement of your mark or you lose it. You cannot selectively enforce your tradmarks.
The fact that Adobe has not sued a fairly well known clone for tradmark violation puts the lie to your claim.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Funny)
It's after lunch on Friday, and I lack the energy for extended IANALity over this. But what I'm curious about is why the eleventy-third person to start in with "PaintShop! PaintShop!" is so indignant over my supposed redundancy...?
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just started using The GIMP... (Score:4, Insightful)
A little recognition that users matter would go a long way. I'd be willing to try alternative skins on top of GIMP.
Re:Just started using The GIMP... (Score:5, Informative)
http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/ [gimp-savvy.com]
It's the best book out there to explain how Gimp works to a novice. It actually explain the image manipulation concepts and how to use them. For exemple, it will explain to you *why* a picture look bad.
It was made for version 1.2 of The Gimp but the interface still works the same way.
Except for bezier paths (check Gimp online help by pressing F1 when you get there) and the author tell you that intelligent scissors is broken but it works pretty well in 2.0+ versions.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't understand why people say this is what we need to get people to use the gimp, that the awkward interface is holding it back and people need to address usability, when this doesn't even fix the #1 complaint most people have about Gimp, which is that it is not an MDI app.
All GimpShop does is move around the menus, you still have the same floating toolbars and multiple windows like before. So basically this has the UI of the Gimp which seems to turn people off anyways, and the menu layout of PS which most people who'd use Gimp don't know anyway because PS costs too much for them (unless the got it by other means, in which case they're not going to use the Gimp anyway).
And while I'm on the whole MDI thing, how come no one ever bothers to mention that PS on Mac is not MDI either? In fact PS on Mac looks a whole lot like the Gimp, except it has the menubar on top instead of in the image window. I find it confusing because we hear people say "Gimp sucks, it's not MDI!!" and also "Mac is best for Photoshop," and PS on Mac is not MDI so therefore it must suck? But it's the best too? I guess I don't get it, seems to me people rant just to rant.
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Changes overdue. (Score:3, Funny)
How the hell did they manage that? I mean, this interview is only three days old! Mein Gott, the Slashdot editors continue to impress. Now if they can just post an interview with Linus and Gates in 2015, it would be perfect.
Can you help out?
--
Evan
PS (Score:5, Insightful)
With Photoshop weighing in at over a thousand dollars Canadian, let me just say that anything that resembles it moderately, without the strange behaviour of PaintShop, is welcomed. Free too?
It's funny because I can remember thinking about this the other day, and wondering when companies are going to start investing in the future of office systems, to help reduce their own long-term bottom line. If everyone donates $100 to the Gimp/Gimpshop project(s), just imagine the money saving that would come out of it! I would be willing to bet that if this happened, in less than five years open source would outpace Adobe in quality and reliability. The reason most people use Photoshop is for quality and reliability -- not necessarily features as you might expect. It does what I need better than anything else yet, but with some time, effort and financial backing, we'll see superior products come out of the open source community.
Open source needs a well of cash to draw from. I suggest a foundation be made to fund open source projects better than we've seen. Apply and they bankroll your project if you've got something hot. I'd like to see that work on a large scale and I often wonder why SourceForge doesn't take that approach, in favour of small donations to each project on a case-by-case level. I'd love to apply for financing for my crazy open source ideas! It's the money factor that slows me down. I don't have time to pursue it very well because I have to pay bills.
Re:PS (Score:2)
[sarcasm mode] Wow this has never been thought of before!! Genius!! [/sarcasm mode]
Re:PS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PS (Score:2)
I'm guessing because it would involve a lot of additional time and resources. In a pay-per-project scenario, you ideally get a distribution based on user interest anyways. It just seems like a lot more work to change the distribution of donations by a little bit.
Re:PS FROM GRANDPA (Score:3, Funny)
I'd figure someone as old as you (uid 56!!) would know that it's "/me passes out"...
Re:PS FROM GRANDPA (Score:2, Funny)
Re:PS (Score:4, Interesting)
The low-end is saturated with dozens of products, but especially Adobe's own Photoshop Elements (which people here like to ignore, probably because it usually costs $35 [purplus.net] - it's easier to attack "a thousand dollars Canadian"). On the high-end, you have professionals with very exacting requirements and no time for hassles. These people live for 5-second reductions in processing time because they do it constantly. Anything that causes them to slow down even the tiniest bit will be a deal-breaker. The interface must be completely fluid.
Most open source projects aren't necessarily strapped for cash, but rather they have little focus or centralized planning. They suffer either from feature creep and bloated interfaces that make no sense, or a dearth of features due to lack of desire to implement what other people want. Cash won't make a bit of difference if the developers don't have focus, and I don't see that kind of emphasis on quality and interface refinement in the Gimp. "Good enough" isn't good enough.
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:3, Insightful)
The shame of this is that those very people are working with tax payer money which would be better spent on something other than photoshop, but are going to be turned off by a name s
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:4, Insightful)
You sound like the people calling for firing the official in DC who used the word "niggardly".
Do you also object to the phrases "spic and span" and "a chink in the armor"?
"gimp" means beautiful or attractive, and has meant that for far longer than it's been used as slang for the handicapped. Presumably the makers of an image manipulation program had that meaning in mind.
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:3, Interesting)
Number one, while you can point to some obscure and -to be blunt- bizarre definition of the word, people who are decision makers are not going to think of the word you mean; they are going to think of the meaning which the word "GIMP" currently has in popular vocabulary
Secondly, the target audience which I'm referring to are people who already endure the stigma of either mental illness, chemical dependencies or physical challenges; the word "gimp" is a direct insult to
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Number one, the term, regardless of permanence, is one which puts down and degrades a person or group of persons for a physical infirmity. That is the common meaning, that is the association which will be on the mind of any decision makers who are told about this free photo-shop like program called THE CRIPPLE^W GIMP.
Secondly, the program is commonly referred to by it's initials, and it is those initials which is what it will be judged by ("the cripple? WTF?")
T
Re:Want companies to adopt GIMP? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I came up with a mathematics program, and called it "Coordinated Unit Normalized Tester" and then expected colleges and corporations to adopt it, you'd laugh. Why is this different?
I think it's a great idea (Score:5, Informative)
Photoshop shortcuts for gimp (Score:5, Informative)
cl
Another Storm on the Horizon? (Score:5, Insightful)
To borrow a quote from elsewhere: "If you build it, they will come."
One of Adobe's Lawyers (from their Barrel O' Lawyers): Your Honor, in the defendent's own words:
Judge: I have no recourse other than to find for the plaintiff and wreak all sorts of havoc with Open Source Development.Re:Another Storm on the Horizon? (Score:2)
However, I don't think "compatible UIs" have been tested in court. Furthermore, I seriously doubt they patented their specific UI. On what grounds would a suit be filed do you suspect? I am having a hard time imagining any at this point -- a deficiency on my part, I suspect.
Oh bring back the good ole days before patents were tied to software and "look and feel" became a trademark, a copyright and/or a patented item.
Growing up with Photoshop (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Growing up with Photoshop (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Growing up with Photoshop (Score:4, Insightful)
It depends.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It depends.. (Score:2)
Re:It depends.. (Score:2)
CLI-GIMP $ resize file.jpg 1600x1200
or
clickity clickity scroll scroll clickity click-hold, whoops too far clickity drag scroll crap....
Re:It depends.. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there's always ImageMagick [imagemagick.org] for that. I like to call it 'Photoshop for the command line' :)
If you want something lower level even, there's the GD library [boutell.com]. There are lovely GD bindings for PHP, Perl and others.
Happy command-line drawing!
GIMP on Macintosh (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:GIMP on Macintosh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GIMP on Macintosh (Score:2)
Re:GIMP on Macintosh (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there anything like X11 or rdesktop/NX that Macs s
The gimp is better BECAUSE of the interface (Score:3, Interesting)
I have yet to try this, but am planning on it (Score:3, Interesting)
Gimp Vs Photoshop (Score:3, Interesting)
But, it has a clunky interface (at least to my eyes), and requires more work to perform many tasks. The win32 versions I've used have always been buggy (I have to save often, and have lost countless hours of work due to Gimp crashes). And it is loaded with a number of features I wish it didn't waste my navigation with (like that cute little image-stamper tool).
I think one strength of Gimp is it's freedom to experiment with interfaces, so in that light I'd rather the core version didn't try to emulate Photoshop... rather concentrating on trying to be something different and potentially better.
But aside from that, the changes I see this guy putting out are making me pitch a tent.
Re:Gimp Vs Photoshop (Score:2)
I'd be curious to know which aspects are better than Photoshop.
Forever playing catch up? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linspire, KDE, GIMP, and others, if you spent the time improving, not cloning, your application, perhaps you'd get more users.
I mean really, if your app is going to look, feel, and function, like a Windows one, why should I use yours??
Re:Forever playing catch up? (Score:3, Informative)
Cause it's free?
Easy.... (Score:2)
When you have people out there who spent many hundreds of dollars on training courses and the like for Photoshop, they're generally *not* going to see the value in an alternative product that has a drastically different GUI. It makes a
Re:Forever playing catch up? (Score:3, Informative)
Suggestive blurb (Score:2, Funny)
Before you say it can't compete... (Score:2)
Re:Before you say it can't compete... (Score:2)
Re:Before you say it can't compete... (Score:3, Insightful)
The tools don't work as well as they should. I tried once to do some simple selections, fill them, and add some blur. Gaussian blur didn't work with partial alpha transparency correctly at all. I couldn't figure out how to do what I wanted to do.
The Gimp does not have a usable workflow. It's hard to explain unless you're a designer, but you need to have certain tools work in a certain
Re:Before you say it can't compete... (Score:4, Insightful)
= adjustment layers (this feature alone makes gimp a toy in my book)
= healing brush/spot healing brush (use it all the time)
= adobe bridge + adobe camera raw (and don't tell me there are other apps to do this, I know there are, but acr+bridge is amazing in CS2)
= liquify
= 16 and 32 bit/channel images (I do all my editing in 16 personally)
= CYMK/LAB/... color spaces
= color profiles (so I can soft-proof exactly what my print will look like when printed at the lab *AND* can use their profiles instead of having to limit myself to sRGB)
= vanishing point (ok, gimmicky but it's quite useful sometimes)
= multiple easily placeable color samplers
= an actually good UI without 250000 extra windows: in PS I can just press 'tab' and work on the imace on an empty screen, 'tab' again and all my palettes are back where they were.
= history brush
= better support for my wacom tablet (although the gimp is not totally bad, it's still nowhere near as good)
= meaningful keyboard shortcuts for everything.
and the list goes on and on and on. I am very much pro open source, but when it comes to the Gimp the people that say that it's as good as PS strike me the same way as the people that say that their webserver written in perl in a CS class is as good as Apache.
Sure, the gimp is fine for the 'resize the pic for the web and maybe correct some red eye' crowd, but as soon as you have to do something more involved even the humble (and cheap) PS Elements is light years ahead.
Mirror (Score:2)
Re:Mirror (Score:2)
Dupe (Score:2, Redundant)
Patents (Score:2)
Great Idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Only zealots should be complaining over this - especially since you can still use the Classic GIMP Interface if you wish.
It comes down to how you use it (Score:2, Funny)
But, if like most people, you just want to use it and not struggle with things, it works fine.
Kind of like how MSFT noticed a lot of people were using WordPad or NotePad because Word had too many darned features that people got lost and they only wanted to write a short note, so they stopped fighting that and stopped making the menus way way too complex.
Most people don't us
Gimp is nice, but lacks key features (Score:4, Informative)
* Color management. Not aware of ICC color profiling. Can I calibrate my monitor with nVideo and ATI Linux drivers? Can Gimp load an ICC profile of my output device to proof my print?
* Multi-processor support. Photoshop takes advantage of my dual-core machine.
* Large files. Photoshop loads and processes 1 GB image files much faster than Gimp. With my 4x5" large-format camera and a 2400dpi film scanner, my image files are 100 megapixels.
Re:Gimp is nice, but lacks key features (Score:4, Informative)
* Color management. Not aware of ICC color profiling. Can I calibrate my monitor with nVideo and ATI Linux drivers? Can Gimp load an ICC profile of my output device to proof my print?"
It seems to me that the major show-stopper is your own laziness to find out these things. GIMP has allowed you to proof your prints using ICC profiles since version 2.0.
Damn (Score:2)
new name? (Score:2, Funny)
Today's News & Tomorrow's News (Score:3, Funny)
Tomorrow: The return of the Look & Feel Lawsuit.
Stay tuned.
Is that... (Score:2)
FTA: "For people out there who are looking to get a Photoshop-like experience without pirating or purchasing Photoshop..."
Anyone who says (Score:5, Interesting)
When the GIMP has:
1) CMYK support;
2) Channel math;
3) Industry standard color engine and ICC profile support;
4) Channel mixer;
5) Equal control over color adjustment modes
and a bunch of other shit, then the GIMP will be as powerful as Photoshop. Until then, it's a silly statement to make. While 50% of the people who use Photoshop can very probably do the exact same things with the GIMP, for the 50% who really push Photoshop there is no substitute. And, as you climb higher on that curve to the people who are really stretching Photoshop on a daily basis (mainly very high level retouchers/digital artists) it is quite literally the only tool for the job.
This is one of those time I think open source cheerleading is not a good thing. Just because it's an open source digital image editing program doesn't mean it's the same thing as Adobe's flagship product.
Re:Anyone who says (Score:3, Interesting)
When Photoshop has a native way to create and save Windows .ICO (icon) files and better WMF support, it will be more useful to me.
Re:Anyone who says (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anyone who says (Score:3, Informative)
Which is a damn shame. Photoshop has so many hateful little ass-backwards bits (e.g. the braindead layer transparency model that hides layer alpha from the user entirely) that it's incredibly frustrating nobody's gotten it better.
I want the GIMP (or anything else) not to reach feature parity with PS, but to surpass it so I can get my work done better and faster.
Multiple layer masks/clipping paths.
Filters as adjustment layers.
nodal rather than la
Gimp pisses all over gnome's HIG (Score:3, Insightful)
The gimp pretty much pisses all over the gnome HIG [gnome.org]. I think it is very difficult to use for newbies and/or people used to use photoshop. They seem to completelly ignore all we know about usability and human computer interfaces.
This development and the reaction that people are having to it can be a wake up call for the gimp developers. They may realize their interface could use some work. Kind of like KDE is reacting now that GNOME is doing so well on usability. In my mind, this should benefits the gimp
I really hope they take a constructive attitude towards this one and take a look at why people are liking this.
Old news... (Score:5, Informative)
It's been a few months... (Score:5, Informative)
Despite an outcry from some developers, users have picked it up with passion.
As I recall, the developers were upset because of the way he went about makeing Gimp look like Photoshop. Rather than making changes to the data files that are used to create the menus, he changed to programing itself. This (going by memory) broke foreign language support. As I recall, Scott wrote the Gimp team and sent his suggestions. The Gimp team wrote back and invited him to join a discustion group. However, Scott decided to fork Gimp and make the changes himself. This of course leaves maintenance up to Scott. I hope he's up to it.
GIMPShop is perfect "Killer App" for converting... (Score:3, Informative)
They both suck, model after inkscape instead (Score:2)
Gimp's interface sucks because the windows are always misplaced, the tools options are all different sizes so they don't fit naturally in any group. So it's always messy, with tools in different positions on the screen, etc.
Photoshop sucks because the floating palettes are always overtop of some part of the image you want to see and they are a pain to re-arrange. It also sucks because it basically takes over the whole screen to be usable, so you can do nothing else at the same ti
there it is, breath it in!! (Score:2)
HERETIC!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep OSS like it is: by programmers who like to read 1MB man file and memorize obscure commands to use counterintuitive interfaces, for programmers who like to read 1MB man file and memorize obscure commands to use counterintuitive interfaces.
"A horrible waste of time and resources" (Score:5, Informative)
Some of the reactions:
Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" (Score:3, Informative)
Guys, how ignorant are you? GIMP ships with a menurc with PS keybindings for years, guess why? For GIMP 2.2, a lot of work has been put into making the menus configurable by means of editing XML files. What do you think we did this for? By editing the C source files (which would have been completely unnecessary) and by releasing this as a fork of GIMP, Scott created an unmaintainable mess. Thus I call his work a waste of time.
Re:"A horrible waste of time and resources" (Score:3, Insightful)
I Do Wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it be more accurate to say that I removed my illegal, pirated version of Photoshop now that I have GimpShop?
Makes more sense than saying I threw away my $800 legal copy of Photoshop now that I have GimpShop for free.
Re:Paint.net (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Paint.net (Score:2)
Re:Windows? (Score:2)
your rage is misdirected (Score:3, Informative)
no, it's not about this interview