GIMP Not Enough for Linux Users? 819
nursegirl writes "Novell has been running a survey about apps that people need in order to convert their data centers or desktops to Linux. The online survey has been running since Jan 13, and Adobe Photoshop was at the top of the list as of February 1. Desktoplinux.com has an interesting article about why the existence of the GIMP isn't enough for many professionals."
Photoshop (Score:5, Informative)
Then... Photoshop is a SDI application on the Mac. SDI vs MDI is hardly the reason professionals will not switch to The GIMP.
Like the article mentions, it's all about colour management and plugins. The former could be solved with code, but the latter is very much chicken/egg; third-parties won't write GIMP plugins until companies start using it, and companies won't start using it until their plugins are available.
Not to mention all the licensing fun of releasing closed plugins for a GPL application. That'd be fun...
GIMP won't natively process in 16bpp images (Score:5, Informative)
The Standard (Score:2, Informative)
Krita (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Krita (Score:2, Informative)
It looks like its closer to the photoshop interface. Though it does look like it has fewer features right now.
Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, you took the tangent, instead of reviewing his points, you simply dismiss the whole argument because of something else he said.
Let's analyse his points, ok?
a) The menus - this may be fixed in 2.4, but it took a long time.
b) The color space (CMYK) and depth (16-bit)
c) The plugins
To make GIMP plugins, you need to compile them. He says Photoshop isn't an application, but a platform. And I think he's right. The GIMP, as good as it is^H^Hwas, has stalled in the stoneage, while Photoshop has evolved.
In my opinion, rewriting GIMP from scratch and making it extensible would be the best choice.
Re:GUI perhaps? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Reason why people want Photoshop... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Artists' OS Knowledge (Score:1, Informative)
Gimp is available for both OSX [sourceforge.net] and XP [sourceforge.net], which are about as easy to install as Photoshop.
Re:Photoshop (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the survey [novell.com] asks what apps are required for "switching to Linux in their data center", not what's needed before your mom will let you install it on the family computer.
Taught Gimp lately?? (Score:2, Informative)
Lets face it. Graphics is about art, not software. Artists use the techniques and software that they have been taught to use. I use Gimp because the artist part of my software experience came after my debut in linux. Had I gone through any graphics program, I would undoubtedly be using Photoshop. Why?
Because that's what they teach. Why would I want to relearn another peice of software??
If you want people to use your software, you have got to get it used in schools. Just my two cents.
Re:How can we take this seriously... (Score:5, Informative)
Photoshop is a Killer App (Score:3, Informative)
Colour depth. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is at the core of the GIMP developer team's culture. If you hang out on the GIMP mailing list for any amount of time, you'll find it's an unbelievably hostile list. The members of the team seem to hate each other with a passion! There is constant bickering and any questions that are even a shade off-topic (or even on-topic but in the mailing list archives) will be flamed mercilessly.
It is that innate hostility that drove a wedge between the GIMP team and the consortium of movie art teams that put together FilmGIMP/CinePaint. That the project had to be forked in order to get such a basic feature done is just criminal.
GIMP is great - yes - but it could have been so much greater. It's amazing that it's done as well as it has.
Re:Ugh. (Score:5, Informative)
For example, one technique used when shooting photos in high contrast lighting conditions is to shoot the photos a bit underexposed then go back and adjust them after the fact, since otherwise the camera can screw up the highlights, often causing them to shift colors due to saturation. Having the extra bits gives a lot more room to change the photo later.
RAW images are becoming increasingly popular, and though there are several different formats, just supporting Canon and Nikon will probably make 90% of the people happy. For those not familiar with raw image formats, most high-end cameras support more than 8 bits per pixel, often 12 bits and preserve the original CCD/CMOS mosaic pattern. Code like dcraw has already been written which can read most of the formats out there. I myself as a Linux user have fallen in love with Bibble, which allows me to quickly go through hundreds or even thousands of photos and fix things like white balance, shadow recovery, lens distortion, sharpening, etc. all while supporting the higher color depth.
Re:What is on the rest of the list? (Score:2, Informative)
1. Photoshop
2. Autocad
3. Dreamweaver
4. iTunes
5. Macromedia Studio
6. Flash
7. Quicken
8. Visio
9. Quickbooks
10. Lotus Notes
I am batting zero today. Time to sleep.
Re:Huh? (Score:2, Informative)
You're aboslutely right -- except that 99% you're talking about also wouldn't be voting in this poll because they could get Photoshop if they need it. You're ignoring that a huge percentage of non-web-development professionals sit down in front of Linux boxes every day: they're working on movies and video games. You are aware that ILM, Dreamworks, Sony, WETA--just to name a few--have their artists working on Linux, right? That's a several thousand people who daily sit down and struggle without Photoshop. Gimp is a sorry substitute, and most shops have the Photoshop centric positions (art department, matte painters) still on Windows or Mac as a result.
Before you go off saying I don't know what I'm talking about, I am a professional in that industry. Gimp was offered as a solution to me at a former employer on Linux, when Photoshop on SGI was dying off (yes, Photoshop ran on IRIX!). At the time, I said we better figure out a way to get WINE to run Photoshop, because Gimp does not cut it for mortals. Gimp still does not cut it nearly 8 years later. I'll take my current shop where we work on Windows and I have a COM-scriptable Photoshop CS2, thank you very much.
Re:Perfect example of OSS problems (Score:4, Informative)
There are many advantages to an RGB workflow - smaller image sizes and easier for software to work with is one, less RAM and disk space used, less data to crunch etc.
Using a fully ICC profiled workflow, from capture/acquisition through retouching and editing and finally to output means that the one source image can be retargeted at a number of different output devices and keep the highest possible quality. The days of using pre-separated CMYK images are drawing to a close, as once you've converted to CMYK you don't want to go flipping back and forth between that and RGB. Also, once you've got CMYK, you will find it very hard to use the same source image for, say, printing on newsprint at 75lpi and printing the same image in a glossy magazine on high-brightness stock at 175lpi, or using stochastic screening...
Anyway, having said all that, I totally agree with you that the GIMP is totally unsuited to a professional workflow.
Time is money, and the time you waste with GIMP over a couple of weeks will easily cover the purchase price for the entire Adobe Creative Suite where you have a heap of apps that all work together and, more importantly, are recognised in the industry as having proven themselves to work...
Re:Perfect example of OSS problems (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Artists' OS Knowledge (Score:1, Informative)
The GIMP is actually a pretty good program. It might lack some options, but it's still pretty usable even in a professional environment. I think though it's because everyone is used to photoshop that it's hard to get away from it.
Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news... you are full of it (Score:3, Informative)
Please, let's cut the crap. This kind of overly optimistic "The opposition sucks, our solution is the best!" is stupid and hurts OSS. The reason it hurts it is because if someone actually listens to you and trys GIMP, expecting it to be better than Photoshop and then find out it's not, they get a very negative impression of OSS. They believe that it's all a bunch of shoddy shit created by amatures, and that the things they hold up as the best products are, in fact, poor quality.
GIMP is fine for people who do non-serious work and are willing to put up with a difficult interface to get what they want. It's not easy for beginners. For that, there's Photoshop Elements.
Re:GUI perhaps? (Score:2, Informative)
This is a problem with Microsoft Windows(tm)(r)(C)(a)(b)(c)(e)(f)(g)(h), not with GIMP. Having separate windows lets you set them up freely; if you want to switch to some other problem, go ahead -- this is what the other desktops are for. But if you are restricted to an ancient single-desktop scheme, then yes, MDI can alleviate your problem a bit.
Thus, it's not GIMP what is a festering pile of crap. It's the lesser image editors' tendency to accomodate misdesigns of the past.
On the other hand, once you learn something, you tend to shun all different designs. I've used Turbo Pascal (WordStar keybindings) as a kid for many years, and now I use jstar exclusively, disregarding vi and emacs as crap with anal-retentive user interface, even though I do know that in theory they are superior. This can explain why people like you dislike the new, ergonomic interface and want to keep the old MDI style you're used to.
Sven is a bit of a jerk (Score:1, Informative)
Yes, it is HIS project, but the second you GPL the code, it's out of your hands and flaming people for trying to do something new with your idea is petty. You aren't by any means required to provide support to the forks (I'm sure he has no love for the FilmGIMP/CinePaint devs either), but a lack of civility makes your own project, nay, OSS at large, look like a giant group of elitist pricks.
Re:Krita (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Software patents (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's insanely too bad Adobe ported 1st to SGI (Score:4, Informative)
I have licenses for Photoshop, Illustrator and Premiere on one of my SGIs at home, as well as the now discontinued Eclipse, and Eclipse was miles ahead of Photoshop back then. I don't use any of the Adobe packages anymore, mostly because i find them totally awkward to use - significantly worse than gimp.
Re:Yeah, like rezising a brush for instance! (Score:3, Informative)
Given that ctrl-k is used for similar functions in other applications, it's fair to reuse it for that in Gimp. ISTR that even MS Excel uses ctrl-k to clear a cell, for example. Note that it's trivial to remap the delete key to either cut (normally ctrl-x) or clear (normally ctrl-k) in Gimp, should you wish to do so. You could argue that it should perhaps be the default setting.
Re:GUI perhaps? (Score:4, Informative)
Kind of misses the point of free software. When you say, "it's free, so stop your bitching," what you're really saying is "you get what you pay for, and you're better off paying for it." How does that make open source software better again?
b) Do the changes yourself
Not everybody is a programmer. This is the first excuse that a lot of people run for, and it's weak. The whole point of an "open-source community" is the idea of people exchanging ideas to create really useful software for everybody. End users's opinions shouldn't be shot down just because they're not programmers. Even real programmers might have good opinions but just not enough spare time in their day to dive into the cruft of somebody else's buggy code and start making it better.
One of the biggest complaints of the guy who cobbled together GimpShop was that all the resources were scattered around with no rhyme or reason, making tracking things down really hard to do. If a programmer came in and fixed all that, who's to guarantee that the maintainers will buy it? There are egos involved, not to mention a "community;" one person can't fix everybody else's mistakes at one go.
c) Don't use GIMP and STFU
Yep, that's a sure-fire way to make the Gimp better. "Sure, our program sucks, but you don't have to use it." Might as well pack it in and call it quits with that kind of attitude. What's the point of creating software if people don't want to use it? Why even make it public it if you're not prepared to hear what the rest of the world hears about it?
What we're talking about is the large majority of serious Photoshop users, not just one or two malcontents. I think it would be cool if the Gimp competed. There are just a few basics that could be implemented that would make some serious waves in Gimp adoption, without turning the Gimp into some sort of bastardized Photoshop clone.
Photoshop for UNIX (Score:3, Informative)
This place has a PDF version of the Adobe product brochure:
http://computing.ee.ethz.ch/sepp/photoshop-3.0.1-
Wine runs photoshop right? (Score:2, Informative)