Slashdot Log In
Hack turns GIMP into Photoshop Look-alike
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Mar 31, 2005 06:39 PM
from the reduced-learning-curves dept.
from the reduced-learning-curves dept.
Mr_Silver writes "One of the many complaints about the GIMP is that of its user interface and how it should be more like Photoshop. If you feel that this is true then Scott Moschella has hacked together GimpShop which turns GIMP's user interface into something more akin to Photoshop for OSX. However, if you're not running that operating system, fret not, because there is a version for Linux too."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Gimp 1.2 sure, but Gimp 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gimp has a nice interface in itself, but when you switch from PSP/Pshop (or to them, as uncle), the softwares are so many worlds apart UI-wise that you're plain and simply lost.
And you therefore consider the new software (whichever it is) to be "a damn load of crap cause i can't find any of the tools/options/boxes of chocolate i'm looking for"
In a nutshell, the interface elements people don't like in The Gimp (when they have issues with the interface) are: all of them, because they're too different from Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro's
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Zed: his .JPG of you says you don't got no purty mouth.
Maynard: Bring out the GIMP.
Zed: The GIMP's sleeping.
Maynard: Well I guess you'll have to kill - SIGALRM it, won't you?
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but if the pig won't charge you $500 for the privilege of taking it out to dinner...
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
So... you'd date a pig to save $500?
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmm, bacon.
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe, but if the pig won't charge you $500 for the privilege of taking it out to dinner... ;)
And you could just eat the pig and sell the dress!
Then you would be full and have more money and...
I'm not sure what I'm saying. What are we talking about?
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Not even in Arkansas?
hawk
Parent
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Hey fat ass, don't say pig-fucker in front of Jesus!
Parent
Sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
Parent
Re:Sheesh! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ah, the usual fallacy, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And bear in mind that the BSA is basically a sock-puppet that exists only to whine about piracy, and how some chinese kid pirating 3DSMax to mod a $40 game actually represents a $6000 loss for a company. (Surely _everyone_ would pay $6000, even in countries where it means 6 years' salary, to mod a $40 game, if it wasn't for piracy. Not.)
BSA's only reason to exist is to cry wolf. So they do it lots. The'll even classify the neighbour's dog as a wolf because it sorta looks like it. Or as I usually say, there's a reason there's BS in BSA.
So if even their inflated numbers don't say 100%, sorry, I don't believe the fallacy that goes "they've all pirated <insert software title>".
The fact which some people fail to understand is that a helluva lot of us actually pay for software. Or, to open that can of worms too, for music.
Why would someone in their right mind pay for commercial software instead of (A) using some free crap, or (B) pirating it?
Well, point A is easy: because often we actually don't find the free one to do the same, or have the same usability. Sometimes it's cheaper to pay for something than to spend weeks making the free version work, or learning its quirks. Time is money, and mine is pretty expensive.
Point B actually boils down to personal ethics: either you're a thief or you aren't. If you are, I don't expect you to understand why someone would prefer buying stuff if shoplifting it was easy. If you aren't, then you can understand that most people wouldn't shoplift even if shops were completely non-supervised.
It also illustrates another point: true, not everyone can afford Photoshop. So some buy Paintshop Pro instead.
The world isn't made of only extremes. In the real world there are a lot of shades of grey in between owning a Ferrari and walking to work.
The same applies or rather should apply to software too: there are (and should be more) choices between the most expensive version (even by piracy) or something free (again, sometimes "free" via piracy, as in using a SN generator on a shareware version.) Paintshop is just one such example of an in-between piece of software. Others include, for example, using Milkshape instead of 3DSMax.
Parent
Re:Sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure you aren't trying to be rude, so I will try as well.
Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.
I simply have no skills in programming this kind of thing what so ever. Period. And there are a ton of people that use OSS every day that would never in a million years _ever_ be able to help port anything.
So you know what I and every other lazy bastard out there that "expect people to do this for us"? A user base that makes OSS work.
Without a userbase, there lacks popularity, without popularity there lacks the free advertising, marketing, etc.. that drives new programmers, bug testers, quality feedback, etc.. back to the those "that can do this for us".
Yes it's free software, and guess what? That's the only reason I use it. Call me selfish, but I'm a spokesman and advocate of OSS to the normal schmoes. I defend our rights with my speech. I encourage non-techie users to use OSS. I feel that I, and many others, that can't "do this for ourselves" add a huge aspect to the OSS community that the core programmers perhaps take for granted.
If only people that could compile linux used it, it would absolutely pathetic community supporting by comparison to the current reality.
Parent
Not being rude, true. (Score:5, Informative)
C'mon already. If a Linux user said that to a person who solely compiles an OSS app in Visual C++, what sort of answer do you think they would give them? Personally, I think it's pretty good that they have stuff already.
I can't understand the argument that people who write free software (free as in beer and free as in speech) should HAVE to do a port to Windows! They don't get paid for it, they don't have a responsibility to any of you! It's a priviledge, not a right to have this stuff.
Hence my sheesh.
Parent
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Prepare for a call... (Score:5, Funny)
YAY! (Score:5, Funny)
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
What? The GIMP was already popular. It might win a few converts from existing Photoshop users who don't want to pay for future upgrades (or people using pirated copies), but I doubt it will popularize the GIMP much more than it already is. GIMPshop was only released yesterday, so only time will tell what kind of an impact it'll have.
What's wrong with that attitude? If it works for one person and they release it, it'll probably work for other people. Software can always be improved, but at some point there must be a feature freeze and debugging or it'll never be released. One of the best aspects of free/open source software is that people can add to it or change it if they want, unlike proprietary software.
The GIMP was already cross-platform! You can download binaries for Windows, MacOS, and several kinds of Unix and Linux; or download the source code and compile it yourself. I'm assuming GIMPshop is still just as portable. The Linux version was released by somebody else later the same day. It probably just needs to be compiled for other platforms.
Parent
download link at MacGIMP.org (Score:5, Informative)
Gimp is no Photoshop -- a photographer (Score:5, Informative)
Until that day comes, Photoshop it is.
Wish granted (Score:5, Informative)
Arbitrary colour channel depths is something of an elephant in the room at the moment. It was supposed to be inherent in a particular supporting library, but development on that library seems ot have petered out.
The people who are actually doing stuff do have this in mind, though, and regularly get asked about it, so it will happen, even if only to stop the whining.
Parent
Fanstistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually totally copying photoshop is taking things pretty far! I'd have settled for a simple normal window model for each platform. Cool though.
This WILL reduce barriers to entry very dramatically. Always was curious that GIMP put together a nice package, but made it so awakward to use.
the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:5, Funny)
This my friends, is how you get your ass beaten by every beret-wearing latte drinking graphic designer in the building.
Parent
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:5, Informative)
There is a Pantone Process series which IS CMYK based (CMYK are process color inks vs. spot color inks). There is a conversion between Pantone spot colors and Pantone process. So that if your company logo uses a particular spot (custom mixed ink) color, you can find the closest approximate to use in a process (4 color CMYK) print job (i.e. a magazine ad).
Parent
Impressive (Score:5, Interesting)
As a OS X user, I would also say anything that requires X11 is not a native OS X application. With no core OS X technology support (little things like colorsync, quicktime, etc), Gimp will really never take off on OS X. I personally will stick to using photoshop.
Re:As a photoshop user... (Score:5, Informative)
But anyways. Under the Edit menu you can change your keyboard shortcuts to whatever the "F" you want. And you could always change the keyboard shortcuts if you put as much research into it as you do into bitching about it.
And oh yeah, there was that whole Illustrator/Indesign rationalization for making the same type of keyboard shortcuts the same in all of the apps. So that the learning impaired would only have to learn them one last time.
So young to not be able to learn... Maybe we should start a foundation...
Parent
Re:As a photoshop user... (Score:5, Informative)
- Open Adobe Photoshop CS
- Select "Keyboard Shortcuts" from the Edit menu
- Shut the fuck up about not being able to change keybindings
If you're still using Photoshop 5.5 on a Mac OS X box, no wonder you're not happy.Parent
For better or worse (Score:5, Interesting)
Ob. Disclaimer: I've used the GIMP since 0.54 on SGI, and think it hit a peak of usability somewhere around 1.1. The newer features are nice, but I'm glad someone took a stand and wrote an alternative. With this interface, it's a great alternative to Elements, and will hopefully cause Free Software to be used in more environments than before.
Windows? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mirror for Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
GIMPshop.dmg.tbz [logicx.net]
GIMPshop-source-2.2.4.tbz [logicx.net]
Hello negativity (Score:5, Insightful)
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't look like photoshop!"
Dev: "Here, we recreated the photoshop interface for Gimp. You may be more comfortable with it now"
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't act like photoshop!"
Holy shit people. The Gimp rocks, be thankful for that. Yes it doesn't have some of photoshop's features, but most people don't need those features anyway. You can't tell me most people are professional graphic artists or work in a print shop. For those people, get Photoshop, for everyone else, get the Gimp. Would you rather spend 700 bucks, or an extra 5 minutes figuring soemthing out?
Unless of course, you have no ethical problem with illegaly copying software, in which case you might as well get Photoshop for your l33t h4x0r graphics.
Re:Hello negativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Dev: "Here's a version of GIMP that acts like photoshop."
User: "Wahhhh! Why can't the Open Source community ever do anything innovative instead of just copying commercial software!"
Parent
Adobe's interface (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, can we PLEASE get a name that doesn't contain the world "GIMP"? Pretty please? Pleeeease?
Jokes aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
The project has to accept the changes, my guess is they didn't want to have a photoshop clone interface. But that doesn't mean you cannot release a patch yourself, which is what happened here.
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Informative)
But take it from someone who's been using photoshop since around version 4.0 (which begat 5, then 5.5, then 6, then 7, and now CS, just FYI), it is still drastically different.
I personally can't use it, because I use so many keyboard shortcuts, within a matter of about 15 seconds of using the gimp, I'm so violently frustrated I want to punch a hole in my monitor.
So, with that said - I need to give this a try
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Informative)
have fun!!
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, there are lots of often pricy special filters that are not part of photoshop itself, but were made by third party developers specifically as add ons for it, and if you want to use one of these, it pretty much dictates using photoshop. Most of this can be avoided by writing your own filter params for freeware programs, but a.) you have to know how, b.) it can take a little time, and deadlines don't care, and c.) some shops' legal types are actually worried this skirts too close to violating a EULA clause against reverse engineering.
(I also started doing illustrations using a bunch of small, limited freeware tools, and often had to switch twenty times between three or four of em to finish a single small project, so I've gotten strongly biased against swapping partially completed files around, probably more than most - maybe this colors my opinions above).
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Informative)
Does that matter? Well, it does to some.
A bigger factor I think is the interface. I doubt one user in 10 could figure out how to draw a line in the Gimp without looking it up. (Anti-Hint: there's no line tool!)
However I think the single biggest boon to Gimp would be if Adobe found a way to stop PhotoShop piracy, and chose to do so.
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Informative)
What do you mean there's no line tool? You click on the little thing that looks like a "pencil." Then you "draw" with it.
If you want your line straight, hold down Shift while you do the above.
Admittedly, the gimp interface isn't simple. I'd complain more about drawing an empty rectangle: select "region" tool, select a rectangular region, then "Edit->Stroke". Not easy to figure out the first time.
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically Adobe runs into the problem where every person that wants to do image editing is now thinking "photoshop or bust". And all of those types will end up pirating it or not doing any image editing at all. I think my dad went the no editing at all route, because he wanted to only use photoshop for editing (not that he knows how).
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent