GIMP 3.0 Enters RC Testing After 20 Years (tomshardware.com) 55
GIMP 3.0, the long-awaited upgrade from the popular open-source image editor, has entered the release candidate phase, signaling that a stable version may be available by the end of this year or early 2025. Tom's Hardware reports: So, what has changed with the debut of GIMP 3? The new interface is still quite recognizable to classic GIMP users but has been considerably smoothed out and is far more scalable to high-resolution displays than it used to be. Several familiar icons have been carefully converted to SVGs or Scalable Vector Graphics, enabling supremely high-quality, scalable assets.
While PNGs, or Portable Network Graphics, are also known to be high-quality due to their lack of compression, they are still suboptimal compared to SVGs when SVGs are applicable. The work of converting GIMP's tool icons to SVG is still in progress per the original blog post, but it's good that developer Denis Rangelov has already started on the work.
Many aspects of the GIMP 3.0 update are almost wholly on the backend for ensuring project and plugin compatibility with past projects made with previous versions of GIMP. To summarize: a public GIMP API is being stabilized to make it easier to port GIMP 2.10-based plugins and scripts to GIMP 3.0. Several bugs related to color accuracy have been fixed to improve color management while still maintaining compatibility with past GIMP projects. You can read the GIMP team's blog post here.
While PNGs, or Portable Network Graphics, are also known to be high-quality due to their lack of compression, they are still suboptimal compared to SVGs when SVGs are applicable. The work of converting GIMP's tool icons to SVG is still in progress per the original blog post, but it's good that developer Denis Rangelov has already started on the work.
Many aspects of the GIMP 3.0 update are almost wholly on the backend for ensuring project and plugin compatibility with past projects made with previous versions of GIMP. To summarize: a public GIMP API is being stabilized to make it easier to port GIMP 2.10-based plugins and scripts to GIMP 3.0. Several bugs related to color accuracy have been fixed to improve color management while still maintaining compatibility with past GIMP projects. You can read the GIMP team's blog post here.
Colour (Score:3)
Re:Colour (Score:4, Insightful)
I am afraid I agree!
GIMP is one of those [powerful] and feature rich open source applications that gives open source software a bad name. It's not easy to use or get used to.
What it needs is a check-box of some sort that would change the entire interface to appear like Photoshop's.
This is because it's being touted (by some people), as Photoshop's alterative. Folks from Photoshop would find an easier time transitioning for sure, and those new to GIMP would have an opportunity to try out Photoshop's interface.
Re:Colour (Score:4, Informative)
It's really not a Photoshop alternative though.
If you need anything aside from destructive adjustments, the clone tool, and some transparency in RGBA it's pretty much useless.
Fortunately with 3.0 that may be about to change. Hopefully it'll bring us some of those long missing features from the late 90s Photoshop era.
3.x will likely bring me what I need for personal use very soon.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really understand the difference but I noticed this; it looks like they've added something along those lines:
"Non-Destructive Editing Updates
Since our last update, we have continued to make improvements and bug fixes to our non-destructive filter code. Many of these issues were reported by Sam Lester during the developing and testing of his third-party GEGL filters.
While non-destructive filters have been a very popular addition to GIMP 3.0, some early adopters have requested that we provide a way to
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really understand the difference but I noticed this; it looks like they've added something along those lines:
Just installed the RC and tried some non-destructive editing: you can apply some filters, then later come back to them and adjust parameters. Example: you sharpened the image, then adjusted color, contrast and such. Then you go back the the sharpening filter and make it less aggresive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's like Layer Effects in Photoshop.
If Blender's modifiers are like that, then yes, it's like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I've been very excited about GEGL for over a decade.
It'll also allow 16 but color channels if I'm not mistaken.
It allows you to go back and revisit adjustments you've made, adjust "transparency" for effects, rearrange their order, and ad new elements behind some adjustments, but not others.
Basically the adjustment acts like a layer that only applies to content behind it (including other adjustments).
It's a feature that Photoshop has had since the 90s and one of the motivators to the GEGL (along with 16
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, this feature basically keeps a memory of the changes so you can go back and tweak or undo them live, without undoing all the way back to the original change? So this feature lets you re-make changes you've made previously after applying additional steps/filters/transforms so you can fine-tune the effect?
I think I get it- the effects you apply can still be tweaked further down the line after other effects or edits have been applied, is that correct?
Re: (Score:2)
That's sort of the idea.
This is important because many effects are destructive. So if for example you're working on something with a lot of elements (we'll say a poster, and just accept that it's the best tool for a poster) and want a sepia effect, you can go back to the layer (which acts sort of like a window applying the effect) and reduce the sepia effect using the same interface as when initially applying an effect, just slide that slider to the left. No data is lost in the process, so you can even rest
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for that explanation.
I'm a clumsy amateur when it comes to GIMP but I've been bitten by the undo/redo scenario myself more times than I can count.
Re: (Score:2)
It's really not a Photoshop alternative though.
Of course it is. I used it over the last 20+ years in many commercial projects.
Re: (Score:3)
>"What it needs is a check-box of some sort that would change the entire interface to appear like Photoshop's"
https://thegimptutorials.com/h... [thegimptutorials.com]
https://github.com/Diolinux/Ph... [github.com]
It is not "out of the box", but a collection of config files. I have never used it, just looked interesting.
Re:Colour (Score:5, Interesting)
I say Adobe gives closed source software a bad name. I used Gimp as my first editor and when I tried to use Photoshop I hated the interface.
Who still uses a single huge window in which the inage windows open? Ugh, that's so.., Windows.
Anyways, Photoshop is not the be-all and end-all UI that everyone prefers. I prefer Gimp classic interface.
Re: (Score:2)
I, as a long time GIMP user, took at some point a Photoshop course (for a certification in graphic design). I found its interface cumbersome and uninuitive and prefer how GIMP works. I can list some of GIMP's drawbacks, but after 2.0, the UI is not one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not just the UI. But in any case what you are talking about is the reverse case of being used to something. When you come from a niche and are unable to use popular, that isn't the popular having a bad name, that is your specific use issue - that you were trained on something niche. The problem is different when considered in reverse. Popular isn't trying to attract niche, niche is trying to attract popular. In that regard the vast majority of the people using computers would find it much more jarring
Re:Colour (Score:4)
Who still uses a single huge window in which the inage windows open? Ugh, that's so.., Windows.
Using MDI is not Photoshop's best feature IMO, but a lot of people prefer such an interface as it keeps other applications' windows visibly separate.
What is its best feature is Layer Effects, and they are just now trickling into GIMP despite there being an experimental project to implement them for years now. This was a horrible mistake, as this is the #1 thing that makes Photoshop powerful that GIMP was missing, and they should have incorporated it and been working on improving it a long time ago. It makes a lot of things easy in Photoshop which are very hard in GIMP.
Re: (Score:2)
people saying it's a photoshop alternative haven't used photoshop since 1999.
Re: (Score:2)
People saying it isn't, have never tried to seriously use GIMP.
Re: (Score:2)
What it needs is a check-box of some sort that would change the entire interface to appear like Photoshop's.
It doesn't. GIMP does not copy Photoshop features 1:1, some things are worse, some others are better. Mimicking the interface would mislead users to think features are identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Photoshop also has a terrible UI.
Re: (Score:2)
> What it needs is a check-box of some sort that would change the entire interface to appear like Photoshop's.
Agreed. There used to be a (unofficial IIRC) config that set all the hotkeys to be the same as Photoshop. I don't know what happened to it.
The GIMP UX people are pretty clueless about onboarding. The first time you start GIMP a dialog box should appear:
I'm not holding my breath waiting for basic QoL when they can't even understand their own customers.
Re:Colour (Score:5, Informative)
>"Last i used gimp 3 it was seriously broken in many areas The colour picker just outright lied about what is was seeing."
https://www.gimp.org/news/2024... [gimp.org]
"we have found and fixed a number of bugs and missed areas that needed to be color space aware. We have also reviewed reports by color expert Elle Stone to make sure that the color values shown by GIMP are as accurate as possible."
>"Does gimp work properly in different colour spaces now? Ie can i now work in adobe 1998 colour space?"
http://www.mrvicaphotography.c... [mrvicaphotography.com]
"This article is about showing you how to use any ICC profile youâ(TM)d like in GIMP and then the choice can be yours"
The article has a missing link which is this: https://www.adobe.com/digitali... [adobe.com] The Adobe 1998 color image encoding ICC is copyrighted and can't be included in GIMP for obvious reasons.
read the link you posted... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you didn't read the actual download pages? For an individual:
"Adobe also grants you the rights to distribute the Software only (a) as embedded within digital image files and (b) on a standalone basis. No other distribution of the Software is allowed; including, without limitation, distribution of the Software when incorporated into or bundled with any application software."
And for Bundling:
" If you distribute the Software on a standalone or bundled basis, you will do so by first obtaining the agree
Re: (Score:2)
A color profile is not software, it is a model implemented by software [wikipedia.org] and does not define algorithms or processing details [wikipedia.org].
Different software implementing the same model would not be restricted except by patents, and creating it through reverse engineering is explicitly protected by the DMCA so long as it is for purposes of interoperability, which is what color profiles are for.
Re: (Score:2)
>"the color space is inherently public domain and can be included in GIMP or anywhere else."
Then why didn't the project just include that color space and call it something else, like "Clay Color Space"?
Re: Colour (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Colour (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
The article has a missing link which is this: https://www.adobe.com/digitali [adobe.com]... [adobe.com] The Adobe 1998 color image encoding ICC is copyrighted and can't be included in GIMP for obvious reasons.
Re-read your own link. The colour space isn't copyrighted, it's name is trademarked that is all. The bottom of the page even tells you the alternative wording you may use if you replicate the colour space in your product.
Re: (Score:2)
Last i used gimp 3 it was seriously broken in many areas
And then was this "last time", a reasonably recent release or some pre-alpha build?
Re: Colour (Score:2)
We have not yet released GIMP 3.0 so you didnâ(TM)t use it before :-)
Higher bit depths and colour profiles are supported now.
The UX from Hell (Score:3)
Why can't they come up with a user friendly UX in these 30 years?
Even copying the UI from MSPaint would be a great improvement.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If you just want a vastly-better-than-MS-paint replacement, could I suggest Paint.NET [getpaint.net]? Does most of what most people will need it for, and has pretty much zero learning curve.
But wait! It's almost 2025 and now there's Photopea [photopea.com]. Webassembly required.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
They came with an user friendly UX in GIMP 2.0. If you say otherwise, you either have unreasonable expectations (it being a 1:1 Photoshop clone) or didn't honestly try to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's collateral damage from ubiquitous narcissism. Due to narcissism, UX is beyond ken of developers.
cmyk support? nfT (Score:2)
Duke Nuke'em Forever and ever and ever (Score:2)
You don't like it? (Score:3)
Re:You don't like it? (Score:4, Interesting)
You can show gratitude and complain at the same time.
You don't get a right to have anyone care about your complaints, but guess what? Most of the time, even when you pay nobody cares.
I'm thankful GIMP exists, sometimes it is handy. And other times, I would rather open up a decades-old version of Photoshop in Wine because I will be able to achieve the same thing in less time.
Photoshop had Layer Effects and a far superior interface in its 1.0 release in 1990. GIMP is a lot better than nothing, but it's difficult to understand why they couldn't learn more from software that was around for almost a decade before GIMP was introduced. It seems like pure NIH, which is always toxic to progress.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that the GIMP developers simply like the GIMP GUI.
I strongly suspect the majority of them use a decent window manager with sloppy focus and no autoraise. Why? Well I like the GIMP UI and that's the WM scheme I use and it works very well. Also I've literally never used photoshop, so I have nothing I was already used to.
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible that the GIMP developers simply like the GIMP GUI.
It's also possible that the GIMP developers are insane, then. The GUI is the #1 most hated aspect of the software.
I strongly suspect the majority of them use a decent window manager with sloppy focus and no autoraise.
I am using compiz+emerald with sloppy focus and no autoraise, and GIMP's interface is still shit. And it's actually gotten worse than it used to be, have you seen what they did with resynthesizer? You used to be able to just get it from the menu trivially and it worked, now* you have to dig for it and then fuck with options just to get it to do anything.
* Yeah I know it's a plugin, and also I ha
Re: (Score:2)
It's also possible that the GIMP developers are insane, then.
Possible. I also like vi and xfig. I know my tastes don't align with the mainstream, but there does seem to be a small cadre of like minded people.
Re: (Score:2)
We complain about everything, and never actually contribute to make things better.
That way we can't be proven wrong, and can instead be a smug armchair expert.
That's It? Gimp Needs New Leadership (Score:2)
Here is an an example of them still pushing their tired document-soup window mode age
"PNG has a lack of compression" (Score:2)
Python 2 Deprecation Blocker (Score:2)
The real story here isn't about an image editor it's about Python. Some Linux distros have been keeping Python 2.x afloat for ages after EOL because it was a Gimp Dependency and they wanted to include Gimp with their distro.
Gimp 3.0 also eliminates its Python 2.x dependency so this is the true end of Python 2.