GIMP 2.7.2 Released — Another Step Toward 2.8 264
An anonymous reader writes "The developers of GIMP have finally released a new development version on the way to GIMP 2.8. GIMP 2.7.2 includes a huge bunch of changes — but it is not intended for production use. 'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"
One reason alone (Score:5, Interesting)
'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"
Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.
Re:One reason alone (Score:5, Insightful)
"Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade."
As long as I can not use single-window mode I'm happy to upgrade. If it becomes the only way to use gimp, it's time to fork the code.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I'd prefer a cleaned up version of that mess to a single window mode... but single window mode is something a lot of people want, so it's good to see it finally taking shape.
And what's wrong with the name!
Re: (Score:2)
And what's wrong with the name!
Just in case you're serious: here [wikipedia.org]. It's hard to recommend this software without the need to explain it really has nothing to do with bondage.
Re: (Score:2)
And why not here [wikipedia.org]?
If you want to use Wikipedia, at least be fair. If you search for "gimp" in wikipedia you get the disambiguation page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimp [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
point taken
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to recommend this software without the need to explain it really has nothing to do with bondage.
Who do you hang out with? That's the first I've ever heard of the term.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you never saw Pulp Fiction, which is where the name was inspired from. Too lazy too Google the scene, but you can find it on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
So if a program doesn't respect the way an OS behaves... it's the OS's fault?
And it's not just Windows -- Gimp on the Mac is borderline unusable due to the way floating windows behave. Other programs on the Mac make floating windows work fine, but Gimp never bothered to fix that issue.
Re: (Score:2)
That's missing the point though, which is that other programs don't have this problem. Photoshop, Flash, Illustrator, etc. all work fine on Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
They "work on Windows" by using a single window and tiling it. This is Window's fault because they made it impossible to stop a click from raising a window.
Of course the idiots desiging both KDE and Gnome are copying this wonderful feature slavishly from Windows, leading to every program including Gimp being forced to a single-window design as well.
Mac is just messed up (clicking raises windows there, too) but they have about 100 "window modes" that can be used to keep floating windows on top.
Hints to desig
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I actually prefer the floating windows (in all applications, not just gimp) although I find gimp makes them fairly unintuitive. I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice. Not sure why people have this desire to have everything crowded in one window, I mean, I get that photoshop does it that way and can see why people looking for a photoshop replacement would want this... but the preference for single window over floating window appears to be moving through all applications.
When
Re:One reason alone (Score:5, Funny)
I have several (6) monitors, and being able to spread stuff out is nice.
You do, of course, realize the vast majority of people using the software have a single monitor, right. A tiny fraction have 2. The number of people on the planet with 6 monitors using gimp regularly would probably fit in my garage.
So although you are happy with your setup, and the way you organize windows works for you, its not an option for most people.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree 6 is rare.. but 2 seems to be quite popular, especially with graphics people.
Even when using a single window though, I still prefer floating windows. Sometimes it's nice to full screen something, and use shortcuts ... sometimes you want to have toolbox/layers and such beside the image. Various expand/maximize functions in single window apps always seem cumbersome to me... I'd rather use my window managers tools for managing windows than some application specific set of tools. I actually don't use gi
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that frustrates me about GIMP's floating palettes is that if I have other windows open, then in order to bring GIMP fully to the front, I need to click through all of the various sub-windows. I've learned to work around it (e.g. in KDE I can middle-click other windows to push them fully behind the GIMP;
Re: (Score:2)
The number of atoms in the universe would conveniently fit into your garage as well. It only has about 80 digits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone using a modern OS can have virtual desktops of some sort. This makes floating windows useful to everyone.
Think about it, when you use single window applications with multiple windows inside the main window, the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows. Of course, it does so badly. Why not let your window manager do the job it was designed to do?
Besides, Photoshop has floating windows too. I just opened CS2 and count 6 windows. Tell me, what is the m
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone using a modern OS can have virtual desktops of some sort.
And almost nobody uses them.
Re: (Score:3)
"the application essentially has to reinvent the window manager for those internal windows."
No they are not. Any modern OS has implementations of windows-inside-of-windows.
"Tell me, what is the major difference between this [uberdownloads.com] and this [yeniprogram.gen.tr]? I just don't see it."
There's no difference in those screenshots because you are not using any other programs, at least with the gimp screenshot.
Add a browser window, a notepad, and a music player. They will intermix with the gimp windows
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The PhotoShop ones are "Palette Windows" (WS_EX_PALETTEWINDOW in Win32-land) and so go with the main window and the window manager knows not to give them separate entries on the task bar and alt-tab list. However, they added this as an option somewhere in the 2.6 series, as I have it set that way.
Well, knowing Adobe, they're probably some owner-drawn hack instead.
If you open more than one image, however, GIMP gets one window per image, while Photoshop still has a single entry in the window manager.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the version I have, the floating windows are always-on-top and CAN'T BE MINIMIZED. Seriously... WTF. And they clutter up the task bar because they all have their own button.
Then again - maybe they fixed that. I don't use GIMP enough to bother updating it regularly. I'll have to download the most recent version when I get home tonight.
Ideally, the tool buckets should not have their own task bar buttons (focus them through the Windows menu in the canvas window). They should be always on top, but t
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yeah, the problem with GIMP isn't the floating windows.
The problems are:
1. The floating windows continue to float on top of everything else even when GIMP drops down the window stack and they become useless.
2. You can't lift other windows above GIMP's floating windows, no matter how hard you try.
3. Clicking one of GIMP's floating windows doesn't bring GIMP to the front of the window stack.
4. Clicking the main GIMP window doesn't bring the floating windows to the front.
You can fix some of these problems by c
Re: (Score:3)
If they did floating windows like Paint.NET does nobody would complain. The problem isn't the concept, but their half-assed execution.
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't love Adobe, nor photoshop -- but for a professional there's no other alternative."
Rubbish. There are entire lists of good alternatives, depending on what you are doing. Granted, few of them will do everything Photoshop will, but many of them do what they do better than Photoshop, with a much more streamlined interface.
Photoshop has gotten much too complex for its own good. I prefer smaller, faster, cleaner programs designed to do more specific things. Even if I have to use several, in my opinion it's usually a better experience than using Photoshop.
Re: (Score:2)
My only complaint is that it is not available for Mac. I run Xara on my Mac in a Windows VM... and I still like it better than Photoshop.
Re: (Score:2)
'The new release comprises layer groups (which were introduced after 2.7.1), an almost done text-on-canvas feature, the all-new brush engine and of course the new single window mode.'"
Single window mode is all you need to know about why you should upgrade.
Heck with that.
The lack of layer groups has been the single greatest barrier to my migrating to GIMP as a production tool. Without them, working on large and complex files becomes an organizational nightmare. Creating blank layers with names like "---- BEGIN Name of Subdivision ---"/"---- END Name of Subdivision ---" to lend structure and delineate groups of layers like we did in 1999 just doesn't cut it in modern production environments where decompressed file sizes can be measured in gigabytes.
A sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Regularly, for the last oh 10 years or so, every time there has been an announcement of a new version - I've been asking if you could have a 'master' window in which all other windows opened - and always the reply was attacks on me, my current OS of choice and possibly a passing reference to my parentage.
And so i didn't try GIMP again.
However this time I'm going to try it again, see if what you said means what i think it means.
There's a class of retard (Score:2)
The problem was apparently that there's a class of retard using an OS somewhat ironically entitled "Windows" that shipped with an unusable window manager.
There's also a class of retard working for some flatbed scanner manufacturers that doesn't develop drivers for anything but Windows. Likewise, there is a class of retard working for video game developers that doesn't port PC games to Linux or even make sure they work in Wine.
These people managed to repeat the lie often enough that GIMP devs finally decided to pander to these simple minded folk who couldn't deal with downloading a decent replacement WM
Which "decent replacement VM" for Windows do you recommend that 1. is free software or freeware, 2. makes GIMP work better, and 3. doesn't break other applications running at the same time?
Virtuawin (Score:2)
I use VirtuaWin. It's not a full blown Window Manager, but it allows to have multiple desktops, so you can allocate one purely for Gimp windows.
GIMP is also Windows desktop software (Score:2)
SANE always worked for me back in the day
My experience differs. I installed Linux on a partition years ago, and it turned out that there was no SANE driver for a Microtek ScanMaker 4850 USB flatbed scanner. Several years later, as of today, it's still unsupported [sane-project.org]. It's hard to "watch what you buy" when peripheral manufacturers are not in the habit of putting a penguin on the box or even mentioning Linux at all in the system requirements on the back.
That has nothing to do with the discussion here which is about adopting Windows paradigms for unix desktop software.
GIMP is also Windows desktop software. The UI layer of Windows desktop software SHOULD follow the be
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a linux user, I'm running Ubuntu, with gnome. I'm a heavy user of multiple desktops. I spawn terminals like crazy. People are confused when they see me work, and I used to have a beard.
And I still think the GIMP multi window interface is retarded. I simply don't understand the need to look past the floating windows to see the stuff behind it (being your desktop of what else), it's messy and distracting.
But please enlighten one, explain to us lesser and simple minded folk how GIMP with with the floating
Re:One reason alone (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, I will bite. Just some of the reasons I like multiple windows better:
* Multiple windows actually do not cover as much screen space as a single window, so I can have several GIMP windows arranged with several other programs, and use them together.
* With a good window manager, it is easier to hide and show individual components of the program. Windows can iconify or shade at a key-press or mouse click.
* I can send some windows to different virtual desktop. I can make my toolboxes sticky, and put one image on each virtual desktop, and easily switch between them.
* I can tear of a frequently used menu and arrange it on the screen next to my toolbox, or where ever I want it.
* If I have multiple monitors, I can put some windows on one of them, and others on another.
* With some window managers, I can make some windows translucent, so you can see what's behind them. That way I can cram more stuff on a small monitor.
Most of these I actually use with GIMP all the time. I am not saying that GIMP user interface is perfect, but the multiple window interface in my opinion is not a problem. In general I think that for a sufficiently complicated program a multiple window interface is vastly superior to a single window one.
One think I really miss in GIMP is an ability to easily create my own custom toolboxes and menus where I could place frequently used operations for different types of work. Right now I have to constantly hunt for things in the ever expanding menu structure.
Re: (Score:2)
You know how sometimes words take on the opposite meaning? Like something that is "bad" is actually good?
I hereby propose that if people insist on using the word "retarded" colloquially, that they use it to describe something as fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd be less crabby if you had a nice selection of games to play.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Windows" that shipped with an unusable window manager.
Anyone have some points to back this claim up? I'm actually genuinely curious what's wrong with the way they did it. I'm not really aware of what makes it an unusable window manager, from both coding and user perspectives. Sorta assuming this is just AC trolling but maybe there is some actual reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd assume he's either complaining about:
lack of focus-follows-mouse (which is purely a matter of preference)
the fact that it's impossible to have a window in-focus without raising it
doesn't snap to screen/window edges when moving and resizing (although Windows 7 did add some basic support for this)
doesn't support multiple work spaces (although Windows 7 added a gesture to minimize all the windows except the topmost one)
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that it's impossible to have a window in-focus without raising it
DING DING DING! We have a winner! Despite your attempt to put disdain on the claim that Windows is broken, you managed to exactly state the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just a beginner power user on Unix so, no, AC was de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interaction Design is best done by an Interaction Designer.
An artist can do Interaction Design as badly, or worse, than any "software geek". Unless he's also an Interaction Designer. Which also applies to the software geek.
Re: (Score:2)
Turn off the toolbars you're not using. Under the "Windows" menu, "Dockable Dialogs", you can select/deselect each of the items that are getting in your way.
It'd be rather annoying to have to constantly go in and enable/disable the windows you need just so they're not all in the way, but it's a start. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Or drag them into tabbed groups, if you use them occasionally. Clicking the tab is easier than opening and closing dialogs.
Wake Me When They Change The Name (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I know, Noble Open Source coders are supposed to be above the cosmetic issues and petty concerns of Man's World, but when you are looking for credibility amongst designers, illustrators, photographers and other arts professionals, would it really hurt -- would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?
And if not, why GIMP? Why not just go for the gold in the shoot-your-own-snarky-foot Olympics, call it TARD or DOUCHE or FLACCID? I'm sure who ever came up with "GNU Image Manipulation Program" could just as easily reverse-engineer an acronym for HOMO or DICKLESS...
Re: (Score:2)
would it really hurt -- would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?
Considering the splash for GIMP 2.7 is the mascot locked in a cage with a dominatrix standing beside it I'm thinking that they decided to embrace the (bad) name and run with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I've just looked for the splash for 2.7 and I can't find anything that looks like that.
Wake me when you've thought of a name (Score:2)
would you really lose so much integrity -- to slap this thing with a flashier moniker than "G.I.M.P."?
There are two steps to doing this. First make the application's name configurable at compile time, much like Firefox does. Second and possibly more expensive is to come up with a recognizable name that isn't already else someone else's trademark, plug it into the application, and promote it.
Re: (Score:3)
The name is a prime example of geeks not having social skills. They just don't get how the name hurts adoption of the program, reasoning that since the name has no effect on the program's functionality, no logical person would ever refuse to use it based on the name, and if someone does refuse to use it, it's their fault for being so illogical and there's no reason to cater to them. Guys, there's a reason why McDonalds isn't named "N*gger Burgers".
It can also be thought of as a small example of how free s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even assuming it takes a branding expert to make a really good name, it doesn't take a branding expert merely to throw out a name that obviously sucks a lot more than average. No branding expert is needed to figure out that "Gimp" is going to discourage use of the program, just some common sense.
No zero length filenames (Score:2)
it doesn't take a branding expert merely to throw out a name
Yes it does. All executable files on both UNIX and Windows need a name of nonzero length, as do all program menu entries. So throwing out a name would require a new name to replace the old name.
Re:Wake Me When They Change The Name (Score:5, Insightful)
blah blah blah GIMP sounds funny blah blah blah
Does anyone really care about this anymore? Everyone I know who has started using the GIMP had a chuckle about the name, then really forgot about the name and got on with editing photos.
Basically, noone cares anymore.
And also, language changes. Google "gimp". You have to get to the bottom of the second page before you reach an "urban dictionary" definition of the old meaning. The first two whole pages are about image manipulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone you know who has started using GIMP is probably a geek, not an upper level person at a company or other place where image matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone you know who has started using GIMP is probably a geek, not an upper level person at a company or other place where image matters.
Yeah, that's why the in-house applications in the company I work for have names like CATS, SMILE, BRATS, SODIT, etc. Somebody there using GIMP wouldn't surprise me at all! Oh, and yes, we're by far the biggest one in the world in "our" industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously people who have chosen to use the software either like the name or don't care about the name. The issue the GPP raises is, is GIMP's market share being reduced due to the poor name? And if it is, why on earth would you want to keep it? By the same logical premise where calling it GIMP shouldn't matter, since the name has no bearing on the functionality, why keep it if it's having a negative effect on your product?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, people still care. Anyone in a position of power is not going to allow this due to the name. Lots of people find the name offensive / or too risky so it will never be installed. To the point that they would rather pay money, then to use GIMP. Heck, there are developers that won't touch the source code because nob
Re: (Score:2)
Even still, why not fork the project with a different name. Every time a new release build is released, fork it, rename it, rinse-repeat
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a native English speaker and to me "gimp" meant just "that free photoshop from gnu" until I ended up in this forum.
I demand that gimps choose another name. We could call them RobotRunAmoks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and what's with that browser plugin named after exposing oneself in public?
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, the last remaining market where open source ISN'T already dominating (or at least mainstream) is the desktop.
And even on the desktop, tools like the GIMP, LibreOffice (OO.o), and Firefox are starting to dominate. (Just not Linux, yet - needs more/better driver support.)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? He brings up a point that will never go away until they finally decide to rename it. The name is a problem, whether or not certain individuals want to acknowledge it.
Coming anytime now (Score:3, Informative)
Cue:
* Griping about the interface, or Photoshop's interface. Obligatory mention of GIMPshop
* "Not up to scratch for pro work", followed by "I'm a pro and I like it" and "Not much of a pro then" retorts
* "Hey it's free and Photoshop costs $$$"
In 3... 2... 1...
Another day in Slashdot
Re:Coming anytime now (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, I'll bite.
Has it got colour management yet?
I switched from Linux to Windows for Photoshop and OS level colour management (with support for calibration tools). No brainer unless you want to spend more than the cost of Photoshop on printer ink and paper.
Re: (Score:2)
That'd be news, so you can assume it hasn't. That and adjustment layers. But sooo many arguments here revolve on issues that haven't changed ...
Just out of curiosity (honestly), would it be good enough for professional art that won't be printed?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe, for artwork. Less so for photo editing. A calibrated screen is still useful for knowing that at least on your screen the colours meet some objective standard - you can't control how they appear on other people's screens, of course.
I use adjustment layers extensively on my photos. Rather than trying to dodge and burn on the image, for example, I'll create an adjustment layer and then paint it in over the areas I want to affect. I then blur the mask to soften the edges of the effect, and adjust the opa
Re: (Score:3)
To continue that list: Does it even have support anything higher than 8 bits per channel yet? I really require that for some of my work and I always end up using Photoshop in a Windows VM. At least I've written my own little viewer for HDR images, so I can at least get by without having to fire up PS constantly.
Last I checked, the ability to handle 16 bit integer and floating point formats has been deliberately removed from Krita as well - supposedly because it was suddenly intended to be a painting program
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's another killer.
For photos I can just about manage with 8 bit for what I do in Photoshop as I do the basics converting from RAW in Lightroom - but then I need Lightroom. Back to square one.
I'd use a VM myself, but since 99% of what I do with my PC now, other than web browsing, is photo editing I figure there's no point in the overhead (and last I checked the virtual graphics card in VMWare, at least, didn't support colour calibration properly).
Re: (Score:3)
The GIMP guys are working towards support for 16 bits per channel. I was hoping to learn about the progress toward that, but I didn't see it discussed here; mostly people were griping about UI.
As I understand it, the GIMP core engine has 8 bits per channel pretty much hard-wired into it and it would be a pain to fix that. Instead, the GIMP guys have been working on a new engine called GEGL [wikipedia.org], and this was designed from the ground up to handle higher bit depths and to allow non-destructive editing. I believ
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it has "color" management. *Dodges*
Ah, so the feature is only available in America then, I see...
Imp (Score:2)
Lets just drop the 'G' and call it 'Imp' from now on...
Help Wanted (Score:4, Informative)
A decade ago, the GIMP was one of the jewels of open source, something everyone would show off to others as an example of what open source development could accomplish. But it's been so short of manpower that it's largely stagnated for quite a while. They could really use some help. See Nordholt's latest blog entry [chromecode.com] for some related thoughts.
Donate for Feature (Score:2)
Well, the opensource world doesn't really have "donate for feature" runs. I think that would really help.
And it would help if some prominent OSS guys were doing a bit of PR for such runs.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I have asked for features in the past (Pidgin!) and the development team has refused donations, while I would have been happy to "buy" a feature. A kickstarter-like site would be cool for feature requests. It could be carefully organized by the different the projects. It might be difficult though if the development team believes a requested feature to be outside the scope of their application, or against its philosophy. Forks and market segmentation could result.
The problem is there's always the risk that developers will deliberately avoid releasing fixes for nasty bugs until they get more money out of it.
Very interesting thought...
Re: (Score:2)
A decade ago, the GIMP was one of the jewels of open source, something everyone would show off to others as an example of what open source development could accomplish. But it's been so short of manpower that it's largely stagnated for quite a while. They could really use some help. See Nordholt's latest blog entry [chromecode.com] for some related thoughts.
A decade ago there were lower expectations for open source, it was more of a by geeks for geeks environment at the time. As acceptance increases expectation rise, comparisons to commercial counterparts are more often made, etc. To a broad audience saying GIMP was considered a jewel doesn't elevate GIMP, it tarnishes open source.
That said, I don't think GIMP is a bad program. Its a useful program, certainly a vast improvement over things like MS Paint. However even for simple things I find the US$80 Photo
Re: (Score:2)
They could really use some help.
I think it's finally time for me to step up to the plate and help out on a FOSS project. Your post helped me realize it's finally time.
I'll start working immediately on the ball-gag module.
2.7.2 is another step toward 2.8 (Score:2)
Really.. thanks for clearing that up!
OK, Since we can't discuss Gimp w/o Photoshop (Score:2)
About every other month or so I edit an image for some other personal project.
About once a month I edit an image at work. This is not really my job (thus no employer purchased graphics package), another guy does that but for really easy little one-offs it's quicker to do it myself.
At work I have to use Windows. I honestly do prefer Linux at home, it's what I like, not a religion or a point I am trying t
Re: (Score:2)
Use Krita. All the excuses photoshop fanbois wheel out every time GIMP is mentioned don't apply to it, and this has been the case for years.
Re:Still in use? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Still in use? (Score:5, Funny)
Have they made any interface changes for this new Gimp branch? I'm looking for something powerful and intuitively accessible, like Blender.
Re: (Score:2)
I started using WordPerfect back in the days before it had GUI elements, when text would show up yellow on the screen to indicate it would print underlined. Despite that, when it acquired a GUI, or when M$Word, StarOffice, OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. came out, I had no "expectations" to "overcome" preventing me from figuring out how to use them—I just looked at what the $!@% I was doing when I did it. The idea that one tool should be any harder to use than another simply because it's not precisely the s
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that that is intellectual laziness, but it is human nature to not want to learn
Re:Still in use? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people use gimp. But no it won't be worth your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Do people really use gimp? The last time I tried it I found it almost impossible to use. Granted this was a few years ago. Would it be worth my time to go back and look at it again?
Many fewer people use it now that they have dropped support for XP SP2.
Re: (Score:3)
XP SP2 is supported, isn't it?
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html [sourceforge.net]
GIMP requires Windows XP SP2 or newer to run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Printing is less and less important in design. Unless you are doing textile or billboard, I do not think CMYK is a good choice.
It more than billboards. Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.
Oh please, for those purposes CMYK is overkill. RGB is good enough for that. Hellfire, There are people doing those things in Print Shop!
Re: (Score:2)
Consider business cards, letter head, flyers, postcards, etc.
Oh please, for those purposes CMYK is overkill. RGB is good enough for that. Hellfire, There are people doing those things in Print Shop!
I am not talking about the cards and flyers printed at home. I'm talking about the stuff you hand off to your local/online printshop for a professional look.
Re: (Score:2)
And most of those don't need the precision of CMYK either, some mom & pop shop making up some two color flyers or business cards doesn't need CMYK as much for what they do.
The local printshop here tells you to use something called Jaws PDF Courier which installs a PDF printer. So...they probably STILL use PrintShop or maybe InDesign if they're lucky. Some probably just make it things up in Word!
Yes, there are some people who need CMYK for professional purposes...but most of those who complain about CM
Re: (Score:3)
What about 16-bit per channel?
It's a must for working with photography.
Re: (Score:2)
Because 2011 will be the year of Linux on the desktop!!!
When the year of the Linux desktop arrives Adobe will release a native Photoshop for Linux.