Hack turns GIMP into Photoshop Look-alike 749
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."
If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seconded (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey. (Score:4, Interesting)
Payback sucks, huh?
Re:Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)
Truthfully, it warms my heart to see a lack of a windows version.
What a stupid comment.
I have seen many people decide that moving over to Linux is a good idea after they try a good open source application on windows. Open office or firefox do a great job of lessening a users fear of open source, and once that fear has gone, the move to linux seems much more acceptable. The trick is to show the windows user that other OS's and their software can be as good or better as their windows counterpart. Now while I use GIMP myself (on windows and linux), it isn't exactly the kind of program thats going to convert users. That 90% is still 90%, and if they can only ever try GIMP with its current user interface on windows, then its highly unlikely that they will feel the urge to move from PSP or PS. However, if they can use GIMP with a familiar UI, then they may stick with it, and then they have one less application keeping them bound to their OS.
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
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?
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:3, Funny)
Porky
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...
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
So... you'd date a pig to save $500?
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:4, Funny)
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Mmmm, bacon.
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?
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Not even in Arkansas?
hawk
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:4, Funny)
Aww...who am I kidding? Everything you think about Arkansas...it's all true.
Debian Packages Here (Score:4, Informative)
http://cmb.phys.cwru.edu/kisner/gimpshop/ [cwru.edu]
Anyway, at least it is an easy way to install and check it out.
-Ted
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Funny)
Hey fat ass, don't say pig-fucker in front of Jesus!
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.
Re:Sheesh! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Indeed. (Score:4, Informative)
This is something that will improve with GIMP 2.4. There is already some code in CVS to improve integration of color management into the workflow.
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Prepare for a call... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Prepare for a call... (Score:4, Informative)
Adobe sues Macromedia over customizable tabbed palettes. [adobe.com]
Macromedia retaliates, sues Adobe over changing blended elements and automatic re-blending of elements. [internetnews.com]
Search Google with Adobe Macromedia Lawsuit [google.ca] for a nice looooong list of articles about this fued.
YAY! (Score:5, Funny)
I am happy for this (Score:3, Informative)
Torrent perhaps? (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be a good idea to seed a torrent for this before the 40Mb downloads crush his server.
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
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.
download link at MacGIMP.org (Score:5, Informative)
Gimp is no Photoshop -- a photographer (Score:5, Informative)
Until that day comes, Photoshop it is.
Re:Gimp is no Photoshop -- a photographer (Score:3, Insightful)
16bpp is nice, but for most of its life, Photoshop didn't support 16bpp either, and yet professionals were using it widely.
it doesn't support "Crop and Rotate" the way Photoshop does (very convenient trick to implement both in a single keystroke)
You can implement features like that in a couple of lines of scripting. Or you can just turn on "dynamic menu shortcuts" and pick more convenient shortcuts.
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.
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.
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:3, Informative)
(OT) Artists and berets (Score:3, Insightful)
The people you see in front of the Starbucks dressed in fashionable black with the berets cocked on their brows are probably art dealers or self-styled critics, not artists.
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember that his saving a few grand is going to cost YOU. The good news, though, is that what it costs you depends on what you do with the app. Me, personally, I create textures with Photoshop, and GIMP is sorely missing out on the transfer modes that I need. Hopefully with that example, you'll understand how my math works.
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood the point of a pure RGB program. Nobody uses just plain old RGB. Even Web designers are all using RGBA now.
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).
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:Impressive (Score:3, Informative)
As a photoshop user... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the only piece of pay software I use, and it's been UNuseable for my needs since v.6 came out- and it keeps getting more bloated, slower, and less useable as time goes by. It really burns my ass that they changed a lot of the key bindings (FOR NO REASON) with v.6 and give the user NO way to actually edit a key config for themselves. Games have been doing this for years and MS Office is extensively customizeable... you'd think Adobe would get on boa
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...
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.Re:Impressive (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
After playing with OSS a while you realize that more than one person usually wants what you want, provided its a reasonably common problem you're addressing.
GTK2 is being ported to OSX (without needing X11 [figuiere.net].
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.
Re:For better or worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe did not invent photo editing, nor did they invent most of the features in Photoshop. They were simply the first company to ship this kind of software for popular PC platforms.
That is why it is particularly annoying that Adobe has such a lock on this market. If you think it is time that we dropped the "pretence" and we "supported those companies that actually innovate", then you shou
Re:For better or worse (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously don't work with images professionally.
Theres not even icc profiling available, which is an absolute must have. No adjustment layers makes it laughable as a professional editting tool. To say that 99% of professionals could use gimp and not lose anything compared to photoshop is just ridiculous. Why would you even suggest that.
Re:For better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there is ICC profiling, either outside the Gimp or as a plug-in. However, few people seem to use it or want it.
No adjustment layers makes it laughable as a professional editting tool.
Photoshop didn't use to have those either, yet plenty of professionals, even of your ilk, used to use it.
To say that 99% of professionals could use gimp and not lose anything compared to photoshop is just ridiculous. Why would you even suggest that.
You lose lots of functionality, it just happens to be functionality most people who work with images for a living don't actually need. (Note that most people who work with images for a living are neither photographers nor graphic designers nor prepress professionals.)
You obviously don't work with images professionally.
You obviously share the uninformed arrogance so common to many photographers and designers. I'm neither a photographer nor a designer, but I work with images professionally and almost certainly know a lot more about color than you do. I have never needed more color management than I get on Linux. If enough of the Gimp user community needs color management, it will be added, hopefully in a better way than in Photoshop.
The old interface (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows? (Score:5, Interesting)
Mirror for Screenshots (Score:5, Informative)
Fedora Core 2 RPM (Score:4, Interesting)
Code Mills [codemills.com]
Good luck with anything else (the site with the source is slashdotted now
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!"
Re:Hello negativity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the important thing to remember is that, even though the GIMP is an excellent resouce for its price, it's far from the be-all, end-all of photo manipulation. Therefore it makes sense for users to offer constructive criticism, and I think it important to distinguish between that and whining. The former helps form a direction for the GIMP developers, and not everyone has the hacking skills or time to make a direct contribution. This is the sort of situations where, while users should be thankful for what they have, they should also look ahead at what they need. Without that second part, there cannot be progress.
Re:700$. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another experiment: take someone like me, who doesn't know the first god damn thing about graphic design. Tell that person to open the GIMP, and draw a fucking circle. H
Adobe's interface (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, can we PLEASE get a name that doesn't contain the world "GIMP"? Pretty please? Pleeeease?
Whew! (Score:3, Funny)
ALERT! ALERT!! 1 April Approaching!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks this is an April Fool's Day joke.
1. Don't you think Adobe would sue the pants off of anyone who did this?
2. For those of us used to GIMP, redoing the look and feel to be like Photoshop won't do much good.
The GIMP today = Photoshop five years ago (Score:3, Interesting)
But having said that, The Gimp is great if you need only the features of Photoshop 4 or 5. Photoshop has come a long way since then. Anyone who compares the two as "comparable" has not spent more than a few hours with the latest releases of Photoshop. There are definitely some cool things about process and detailed editing that The Gimp doesn't even come close for.
And I suspect this will continue to be the case. I'm willing to pay $800 to get today's tools, even though tools from five years ago are available for free.
But want I really want is an MDI interface (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried to have a somewhat similar environment with having all the gimp tools in one workspace and the image in another but it's just not the same.
And I've seen this mentioned before with stating why an MDI interface is inferior. Well, it's hard to swallow something you know you don't like after multiple attempts at getting used to it, no matter who tells you 'no what you've liked all this time, no no, that way is no good, this is the way.'
But, from what I understand, this functionality is beyond most (all?) current window managers for X.
Jokes aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Subject (Score:3, Funny)
Also see (Score:4, Funny)
HIG conformance (Score:3, Informative)
Re:HIG conformance (Score:3, 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.
Re:Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Does... (Score:5, Informative)
have fun!!
Re:Does... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are generally equal, it doesn't make sense to switch back and forth. If one is superior to the other, it doesn't make sense to switch back and forth. The only reason I can think of to use both regularly is that they each have strengths that you prefer over the other; that neither meets your satisfaction all the time.
I don't mean to attack you or either software package, but your comment made me wonder about the general usage of competing sof
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).
No, it doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Or a professional (Score:3, Insightful)
Computer (AMD 2400, 1GB RAM, 200GB HDD): AUD$450
19" CRT monitor: AUD$300
Linux: AUD$0
The GIMP: AUD$0
OpenOffice.org: AUD$0
TOTAL: AUD$750 vs
Computer: AUD$450
Monitor: AUD$300
Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au]
MS Office Basic OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
TOTAL: AUD$2629
DELTA: AUD$1879 or 250% extra.
Note that PS is more than half of the total
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.
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.
Re:Does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does... (Score:4, Funny)
Shit, and all these years I've been using a damned ruler on my mouse pad!
Re:Does... (Score:3, Interesting)
Adobe doesn't care about piracy that much, it's just education to them until someone gets a good job or black bottom line. Smart marketing ploy an old co-worker of mine told me about.... If you only pick on people with money that aren't paying their fair share, you're going to end up with more money in the end because eventually, people who like your software will buy it and use
Dwuh? 24bpp = 8 bits per channel (Score:3, Informative)
3 channels per pixel
= 24 bits per pixel
Pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
For most of the crowd, Elements will be more than enough. For photography/graphic arts/etc students who need more, there's an educational version.
If you're one of the few image editing professionals that needs the full Photoshop, you're probably making enough to justify Photoshop as a business expense.
Photoshop is one of those apps that targets the professional class. Adobe doesn't care about that 90% of the pirates who warez the software and use it once a month to airbrush themselves into Natalie Portman's publicity shot. Adobe cares about the design shops who buy the legal version and use it eight hours a day, every day. There are enough of these folks paying full price to cover the development costs, and turn a nice profit besides. Everyone else can use Elements, or the GIMP.
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).
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does... (Score:5, Funny)
"But Dad, you can afford a Mercedes!"
"Why would I want to drive an inferior car?"
"Son, I'm thirsty. Steal me some Crystal."
"But Dad, we have some nice wine in the fridge!"
"Inferior!"
"Well, OK, I have just enough money for a bottle of Moet."
"Inferior and costly!"
"Son, I'm horny. Go kidnap Natalie Portman."
"But Dad, what about Mom!"
"Natalie Portman or bust!"
Re:Does... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Obligatory AYB post (Score:3)
Re:Why not a legitimate redesign? Such a waste... (Score:3, Funny)
No I'm working on several other Opensource projects
What's with the hostility?
My point is that if you're going to go through all the work of a skin/redesign, why make a look-alike with a high legal risk-factor?
No one was bitching.
Settle down. Have a mint.
Re:My biggest complaint (Score:3, Informative)
Re:bittorrent (Score:4, Informative)
http://pipe.cs.dartmouth.edu/torrents/ [dartmouth.edu]
Re:a 'personalities' / themes plug-in for GIMP? (Score:4, Informative)