GIMP Finally Worth a Look?

[dean_matsueda]

<p>Just read on slashdot.org that someone released a very impressive looking

Photoshop-like interface for the free, open-source image editing program, GIMP. My

biggest complaint/resistance towards GIMP was its interface but now... I think it could be

worth a second look.</p>

<p>

<a href="http://plasticbugs.com/index.php?p=241" target="_blank">GIMPshop</a> (link

will open in a new browser window)</p>

<p>

Anyone using GIMP here? Do you think this new intereface might help sway Photoshop

users?</p>

<p>

Note, as of this posting, the developer has yet to compile a Windows version. So, Mac and

Linux only at this time.</p>

[leonard_evens]

I've been using the Gimp for years. I don't find the interface a problem. In fact, when I use Photoshop, I find its interface a problem, but I can manage. Presumably this all depends on what you are used to.

 

Gimp 2.X does have a better interface than Gimp 1.X.

 

I would think that the thing Photoshop users would miss the most is adjustment layers. That is not an interface issue. Secondarily, the fact that the gimp doesn't yet handle 16 bit channels may be seen as a significant limitation by some people.

[frank_oddsocks]

Strictly speaking, Unix-like systems only, as it runs under the X11 environment on Mac.

 

He mentions that he made many changes to many modules. These kinds of changes tend to break with changes to the original program. Worst case, he forked the source and you are now reliant on him to merge all gimp changes into his version.

[jean_marc_liotier]

<p>Depends on what you are used to work with. To me, it is Photoshop whose interfaces feels alien and uncomfortable - it would be better if it behaved a bit more like Gimp. It is very subjective... Likewise after ten years with Canon Eos I always find Nikon gear awkward although others will feel the contrary...</p>

<p>That said, the good news is that separation between functions and graphical user interface has been proven possible with Gimp. That is good : there is no reason why functions should tied to a particular interface that will put off half of the audience.</p>

<p>But if I were a Photoshop addict I would not take the plunge yet : maintainance is a major issue with newborn projects such as this one. By all means give it a try but wait for the dust to settle a bit before you commit time into switching.</p>

<p>I am glad that Photoshop users could maybe one day in the near future have a way to wean off from their rather expensive addiction to proprietary software.</p>

[andrew_carlson]

Interesting, personally if I want something to look like photoshop I'd just buy photoshop or go the more illegal route and find a friend with a copy. I mean if you want an app to look exactly like another app, why not buy that application instead? Why go to the trouble?

 

I've used gimp, not as extensively as PS and I can manage in either. What I don't like about Gimp is that somethings are just easier to do in PS. Both applications can do it, the way Photoshop goes about it is easier. What I like about Gimp - an immense library of filters, and scripting capabilities that PS doesn't seem to have caught up with. Sure PS-actions are nice, but what about script-fu? There are some pretty neat filter/scripts there.

 

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, for my sports shots, I use photoshop - I've got my actions written, filters down - very little time in post production to get images posted and ready to order. If I just want to mess around I'll use gimp. Still can't seem to get Gimp-dcraw working right though. It never compiles!

[bobatkins]

Wonder if Adobe will try to slap a "look and feel" lawsuit on him?

[leonard]

<p>As far as I can tell, this project tries to conform the GIMP's menus to photoshop. That's a noble goal, but it is not the same as true compatibility. If you're a photoshop "pro" and have invested in plug-ins and have a bunch of actions that you've saved, you won't be able to use those with this version of the GIMP.</p>

 

<p>That said, the GIMP itself is a solid program, and I find that its features far outstrip my capabilities and imagination as a photo retoucher or manipulator. Be sure to get the <a href="http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/RawPhoto">RawPhoto</a> plugin if you use RAW files.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

GIMP is a far better tool than Photoshop for creating and converting

JPEG, that's for sure. Not only does GIMP produce less-bloated JPEG,

but you have control over specific JPEG parameters. However I think

layers, 16-bit, colorspaces, CMYK, and speed with large images, all

still favor Photoshop.

[dean_matsueda]

Interesting answers, everyone. From my understanding, GIMP will do about 90% of what

most people do in Photoshop so for millions of Photoshop users, it seems like this

project really lowers the barrier to entry from at least trying GIMP.

 

And for F/OSS advocates, this is important I think. Almost on a daily basis, I see questions

in this forum about recommendations on image editing software or one that doesn't cost

$600+ USD and while GIMP is always suggested, I'm not sure how seriously it's taken.

 

The reasons for this preceived dismissal are most likely varied from person to person. But

if all the Photoshop users on PN start recommending GIMP as an alternative because

they've actually used it, I think it could take off.

 

And yes, it remains to be seen what Adobe's reaction will be, if any.

[spehr]

<p>I use Gimp since I'm still an ameuter and it does 100% of what I need now. <i>I like it very much</i> except for quirks. Photoshop is pretty much still required for pro work (ICC, color profiles etc I hear is nicely supported) - yet the progress in Gimp's abilities is insane. Quirks like not supporting TIFF /exif fully so my coolscan images lose scanning tags. The plugins/filters still need improving. There is no Noiseninja equivalant. <a href=http://registry.gimp.org>http://registry.gimp.org</a> has a great listing.

<p>

The great thing about open source is users have more say in developer direction of the project. So when 90-95% of the gimp users want Gimpshop, it would replace or complement the current look/feel. If the Gimpshop interface gets more people interested in Gimp, I'm all for it. I'm going to stick with the main design for now. Not a hard decision since I don't use Photoshop; no benefit. Don't look for it to be default for right now.

<p>

And yes, Bob's right about the look&feel suit. Changing Gimp names to exactly match (Text -> Typing tool eg.) doesn't help. Hope he retained a lawyer and will fight it.

[always_wanderlust]

GIMP runs on windoze. Just need the GTK Libraries. I've been using GIMP on windows for a while and I still don't like it, guess I'm just biased towards Photoshop...