The Gimp from the Eyes of a Photoshop User 1199
Eugenia writes "Many in the F/OSS community are raving about the Gimp, however pros who have actually used Photoshop think differently: This Mac professional designer goes through the steps of getting Gimp 2.0 up and running on his Mac, only to get baffled by the chaotic interface in general and its non-standard UI compared to other Mac apps, its slowness to open large files and to apply filters, the unintuitive tools that accompany it and its very visible bad quality of text and lines/shapes. That designer even bought a 'supported' version of MacGimp by an OSS-Mac company, Archei, but he never heard back for his support requests (free Gimp for Macs here). I think that's one of the best-written articles I've ever read about the reality of most open-source geek-driven projects vs their equivelant professional/proprietary ones. Personally, before I get persuaded to use Gimp again for my photography projects, I would need --in addition to the author's peeves -- full 16-bit per channel support, high-quality scanning/printing drivers with integrated GUI (a'la SilverFast), and a 'crop and rotate' feature (as seen in PS/PSE). Besides, both Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements cost bellow $100 (with PS Elements getting bundled with most scanners/printers/digital cameras, albeit without the much needed 16bit support either)."
I agree... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I agree... (Score:5, Interesting)
But when it comes to working with images I still have to run Win4Lin to open a Win98 session and run Paint Shop Pro. The interface on The Gimp is just unusable to me. And maybe it has all the same features as Paint Shop Pro, but at least with PSP I can find them.
Re:I agree... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think if you keep using it you'll start to appreciate the right-click-on-the-image deal. Say if you want to select a region and apply a sharpen filter, you can draw your box, then at the location, bring up the menu and select sharpen. Instead of having to go up to the top of the screen.
Re:I agree... (Score:5, Informative)
Many of problems that the author sites in the review are problems that are native to the Mac version. I agree that GIMP does need some help in many areas, but the program isn't ideal for Macs right now, without some work.
A) It requires an X11 server on top of the MacOS.
B) The filesystem issue is related to the fact that GIMP wasn't designed for OSX, even if it can be compiled for it.
C) The font issues are related to the fact that it is using a different font renderer than OSX. There is no sub-pixel hinting going on in his makeshift X-server, and it looks like it is using an inferior render.
Really, I don't disagree with the reviewer. They are legitimate points, but the majority of the problems are simply related to the Mac install.
In regards to other complaints...
Tools *ARE* organized; e.g. first row has selection tools, and fourth row has drawing tools.
I'm not sure what was up with his copy, but JPEG images (over 30 MB) open up within a fraction of a second for me.
The "reviewer" hasn't familiarized himself with how the drawing tools work to get them to function properly. I personally feel that this person is just looking for a Photoshop clone, which GIMP is not. It is similar to Photoshop in the sense that it performs most of the same functions, but it is not a clone by design. The UI seems practical to some of us; even novice users that I know. But hey... To each his own. Again, the GIMP does deserve criticism in some respects, but 3/4 of the problems that the reviewer sited were not the fault of GIMP or its design.
Re:I agree... (Score:5, Insightful)
I seriously doubt that and find this argument a little boring, to be honest. Everytime someone talks about usability of an open source software, the OSS community unite itself under the voice of "That's because you're not used to it".
I didn't have to get used to Photoshop, I just found all the stuff I needed naturally.
Now The Gimp is another matter altogether. I don't know anyone that got used to its clumsy 12 windows that fill in your task bar. None of the user interactions are standard (Like Esc to simulate "Cancel", Tab, Space, Enter,
Interface (Score:5, Interesting)
(donning asbestos underwear)
FYI, I am a programmer and web app designer, not a graphics artist. That being said, I feel that any GUI application with a well-designed interface should be fairly intuitive and I should be able to get up to speed in a few minutes (I learn quickly).
I tried The Gimp on Linux. I tried The Gimp in Windows (the new native version). I still cannot get it. I try Photoshop and I can be halfway productive instantly. The result suck, remember I am not a graphics designer and I cannot even write legibly let alone draw with a pencil or a mouse, but I can get around the filters, tools, etc.
My experiences with other peoples' work proves that The Gimp is capable and powerful. My experiences with my own work proves that The Gimp has a steep learning curve mostly due to its odd interface.
Re:Interface (Score:5, Insightful)
My experiences with other peoples' work proves that The Gimp is capable and powerful. My experiences with my own work proves that The Gimp has a steep learning curve mostly due to its odd interface.
I think you're confusing "easy to learn" with "easy to use". An interface that is simple and intuitive can often get in the way of productivity. Often used functions that are easy to find may take several mouse clicks to use when a keyboard command, while not intuitive, would make it much easier to do the same thing. Blender [blender.org] is a great example of this. "Intuitive" is the last thing I would call the interface, but once you learn it it's incredibly productive. Whether or not Gimp falls into this category, I don't know as I'm not a graphic designer nor do I have much experience with either Photoshop or Gimp. But how easy it is to learn should not be the sole, or even primary, metric on judging an interface. For serious work, where someone is going to take the time to learn the application beyond the hobby user level, how easy it is to perform common tasks is going to trump easy to learn every time.
Re:Interface (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a programmer, server-side developer (Cocoon 2), graphic designer and site designer.
Operating Systems I learned include HP-UX, IRIX for Wavefront during Animation at WSU while persuing second B.S. in Cptr Science. First was in Mech. Engineering (I understand Design applied to Systems and Machines), NeXTSTEP(self-taught, loved it so much left my second B.S. behind to work at NeXT Software), Mac OS 6 - 9 (Used it sparingly while working at Apple focused on Rhapsody than OS X), Windows(95/98/NT/2k/XP), worked with various graphics applications on various operating systems.
All my graphics are now done with the following products:
What they all have in common is I run them on Debian GNU/Linux via KDE 3.2.2 along with GNOME and GNUstep.
When I use OS X which is becoming more often doesn't mean I'm going to not use Linux. I'll leverage them both and make myself as productive and useful as my damn mind can handle.
Stop fucking whining, become a Keith Ohlfs and contribute your ideas of UI Design so that people can benefit from these vast wellsprings of insight.
I see a need I research tools available and I learn new skills. Jack of All Trades, but I tell you my M.E. background has taught me to produce first rate results and learn on-the-fly.
The GIMP needs a more cohesive UI but if you can get your Mind around Photoshop you can get your Mind around the GIMP. User Tutorial Documentation also needs to be massively increased. If one doesn't know Python the odds of fully leveraging the GIMP with scripts on Images is very remote.
On OS X I will reach for the Stone Design CD, use Create and all the other apps that come with it, and continue on my merry ways.
The Best Applications on OS X aren't the ones from Adobe, Macromedia, etc... They are from the Minds of Developers who had the headstart of Getting Cocoa and its Capabilities. Apple is making it clear how to do it, finally!!
Personal observation after having to downgrade from working at NeXT to merging with the Zealots at Apple, YOU WASTED 4 YEARS WHINING AND WHAT WE HAVE IN A BEAUTIFUL OS IS NOT EVEN WHERE IT SHOULD BE. BUT COMPROMISE IS A BITCH AINT IT?
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Inyourfaces (Score:5, Funny)
Which interface is more complex: Photoshop or AutoCAD? Are there other programs (not OSs) that are more complicated to operate than graphics-oriented ones? Girlfriend 2.0 doesn't count.
AutoCAD is more complex, but then again, its task is more complex. Either way, they are both complex. Girlfriend 2.0 is not nearly as complicated nor as annoying as Wife 3.0 ;-) Not to mention the extra money and resources it eats up with no apparent benefit...
Re:Interface (Score:4, Informative)
So you're basing your opinion on software that is 3 years old running on a platform it was ported to, but not initially designed for. Now that's a useful evaluation. Try the latest version on a Linux desktop.
FreeType for GIMP (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FreeType for GIMP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FreeType for GIMP (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true. The problem with articles like this falls under not understanding the material under review (e.g. expecting it to be a Photoshop port to Linux) and not doing research before proudly exclaiming that "Gimp Sux0rs!"
A competant review includes things like "There was a plugin for it which I found eventually, but it's a bit silly that the default text tool is so poor."
I feel that Gimp has a long way to go, but with script-fu it has some serious potential and can already make a lot of sweet images. Photoshop is still better for professional work I'd venture, but Gimp surely does not suck.
And I still fail to see why the user interface is perplexing. Confusing for a new user, sure, but if you can't understand anything that isn't presented to you in the same fashion as every other app you use, I won't feel any pity, especially when you're dealing with such a powerful tool. Powerful tools can justify (and often require) a non-standard interface to be useful.
That's my rant.
Cheers
UI in the OS world (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: UI in the OS world (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of UI design is simply forgetting what you know about computers in general, and your bit of software in particular. You'd think it'd be easier to forget than to learn! You just have to step back and ask questions like: what's the user trying to do here? What mindset will they start off with? What will they expect? How can we make it easy for them? How little do they need to learn to do it?
Yes, sometimes coming up with the right UI will involve lots of UI experience, having learned techniques and tools, or having that mindset. But I reckon half the time it's simply down to caring about the UI, stopping for a moment and asking whether this whizzy bit of code you're keen on is really the best thing for the user, or whether something simpler or less clever will be better.
The other thing you need is discipline. Sometimes providing two different ways to do something is worse than just providing one, especially if neither do it properly. Sometimes you need to keep things simple and uncluttered -- having to shoe-horn stuff together that doesn't naturally fit is often a sign of deeper problems in your underlying model. Sometimes you need to restrict what your users can do. After all, it's better to do one thing really well than several things badly. And sometimes you need to respect platform/system/community standards, even if you don't like them.
As usual, I've rambled too long. But if all developers cared about their user interfaces, and had the discipline to do what was needed, then all software would benefit.
Re:UI in the OS world (Score:4, Interesting)
As I mentioned previously, there are definitely strides being made towards improving the UI in OS apps - Gnome, for example, has made some good headway due to their GNOME Usability Project. Other projects are progressing as well. However, for the most part, OSS is still very developer (/engineer) centric.
Anyone used that Film Gimp? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Anyone used that Film Gimp? (Score:5, Informative)
FilmGimp a.k.a. CinePaint, is for a few specilized film editing applications, mostly to do with hand-rotoscoping, dust removal, and such. It is not a general purpose tool for video editing like Premiere or AfterEffects.
Missing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Missing (Score:4, Troll)
I use the best tool available in my price range. If that tool is free, geat. I'll use it. If that tool is not free, fine. I'll save up my lunch money and buy it.
Re:Missing (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a review by someone who uses image editing program professionally, so to her, time is money. She may save herself quite a bit of money, but she would have to spend a large amount of time to learn the program before she can utilize it for work. All that time is lost revenue for her. In addition to the steep learning curve, she is complaining about the quality of the resulting images from GIMP - this would be a big no no for someone who does graphics editing professionally. If she can't produce top quality work, how is she suppose to satisfy her clients? In another words, more lost revenue. Pretty soon the lost revenue should equal to or surpass the money she saves from not buying PhotoShop.
-B
Re:Missing (Score:4, Insightful)
You may or may not know this, but open source does not mean 'free'. Sure the GIMP is 'free' but open source in no way means it is free.
2. I don't have to shell out some money for paint shop pro...
Time is, literally, money. If you spend 100 hours using the GIMP in a month, but doing the same task in PSP, PS, etc, would take 70 hours you'd have saved 30 hours. In this 30 hours you could could do casual work in the local gas station, bar or mall earning at least mininum wage (say $7ph) which works out as $210 in those 30 hours - that is OPPORTUNITY COST! By buying a product you have made money! Needless to say, if you were a graphic designer or used graphics anywhere near regularly you'd use such a program for more than a month (the opportunity cost of $210 only refers to a month, besides your hourly wage would probably be more the $7ph). A layman using such a program for a year would also save big-time!
That is the meaning of opportunity cost and TCO. You may pay for a product, but if that product is superior you may easily end up saving. Photoshop (and PSP maybe - don't have much eperience with that compared to PS or the GIMP) is a demonstration of that principal.
GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (Score:5, Insightful)
Enthusiasm for the GIMP reminds me of Samuel Johnson's famous comments on women preaching [samueljohnson.com].
Historical sexism aside, his point was that when we see something hard being done by someone unexpected, we sometimes fail to notice how poorly it's actually being done.
In the OS community, everyone gets so excited about having a "free" (as in beer) app which potentially replaces an expensive commercial app, that we get a bit carried away in our enthusiasm.
Its like the do-it-yourself TiVo's that aren't really anywhere near as convenient or feature rich as the real deal.
GIMP gives us a glimpse of the tremendous potential of Open Source software, but anyone who thinks its "as good as PS," isn't a serious Photoshop user.
Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's not that the dog talks well, it's that it talks at all."
This is the problem with a lot of open source: people are happy that it talks at all. Maybe someday they'll get around to talking well?
Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason I'm reading the article is because I'm actually interested in the photoshop user's experience with GIMP, since I thought he might have some insightful comments and valid complaints. I'm not a heavy-duty graphics manipulator, but I do find discussions like this of open-source software interesting. And of course, I read through the comments because I'd like to read other people's valid, constructive criticisms of GIMP. This I have no problem with, and this feedback is actually very useful to the open-source process.
However, what I object to is all the useless, nonconstructive comments (bashing) that I see here. Of course, there's some of this in any story on open-source software, usually from MS astroturfers and the like. But for some reason it seems to get out of hand when the GIMP comes up, and it usually seems to involve either religious professionals who love Photoshop and go on and on about how much their time is worth, or nonprofessionals who just pirate PS and complain that GIMP isn't the same, or other nonprofessionals who use Paint Shop Pro or something similar and have to tell the world how it's wonderful and they'd never use the GIMP. The bottom line: if you don't like GIMP, and have nothing to offer besides an unpaid advertisement for something else, then go away.
Are you going to tell me now that you actually like reading this stuff?
Re:GIMP is like Johnson's "woman preacher" (Score:4, Informative)
Liquefy tools? Much better type handling? Much better color matching? New filters? Real vector layers? Soft proofing? Hello?
I'm not sure what you mean by "rendition". Do you mean how the colors render on your monitor? Do you mean your color profiles? In both cases the problem is you and not the software. Photoshop has about the best color management engine out there.
I have no ideas what you're talking about.
The fact that you teach design is clear to me, as you don't know the first thing about production. I have lost track of the die cuts I have made with Illustrator. You can make die cuts with fucking Quark if you need to. Man, I would hate to be one of your students.
Then it's a good thing millions and millions of designers choose Photoshop.
I don't know where you live, but here (NYC) good designers make $600+ a day and high level retouchers make $150/hr.
Back on the topic: although people seem to be concentrating on UI issues, GIMP is nowhere near feature-complete with respect to Photoshop.
Adjustment Layers (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the really cool things you can do with adjustment layers is work with an image you're turning into black and white and make it look like an honest-to-God black and white image (as opposed to merely a desaturated color image). In some ways, it's almost like taking an internal picture of your subject and adjusting the tones and hue on the fly, which can turn out some very nifty results. In GIMP, you just don't have that flexibility.
GIMP is FREE (Score:5, Insightful)
You get what you pay for. It's that simple. And considering The Gimp is free it's a GREAT DEAL!
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
Re:GIMP is FREE (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of quality apps with a GUI for Linux. That The Gimp is free is no excuse to have a crappy interface that is completely unintuitive.
Re:GIMP is FREE (Score:3, Interesting)
From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, I'm sure an free illegal version of photoshop is more useful than a free legal version of the gimp, but if people would use gimp instead at least then we'd hear one fewer company whining about people infringing on their copyright and about how it cost them $X million a year.
Re:GIMP is FREE (Score:5, Insightful)
Then we'd have a usefull free program. But no, for some reason the designers of GIMP just will NOT listen. They like their crazy interface, regardless of how many professions tell them it's crap.
Re:GIMP is FREE (Score:3, Insightful)
A fundamentally dangerous mantra (Score:5, Interesting)
Read that again. Once more. Think about what you are saying.
Consider the degree of difficulty necessary to achieve making something that is free a "great deal."
If we in the open source community are to satifsfy ourselves with having given value by creating something that doesn't have negative utlility, then its time for us to stop the madness entirely.
We must do great work with our energies, or spend the time doing something else. Imagine that Steve Jobs or the corporate slavedriver of your choice were constantly riding you to make "art rather than crap." Imagine that your livelihood depended on making it great, and that you were worthless if it weren't. Otherwise, don't bother.
Anything less, and you are a poser wannabe.
Sorry, I don't buy it. Nothing we do is a "great deal" because its free. It should be a great deal at any reasonable price, and an astonishing piece of wonder because it is free (both in terms of price and liberty).
And for the record, that reviewer paid for the software, and found it wanting at any price. It had negative utility for her, and frankly, that sucks -- notwithstanding the wonder and excellence of the effort.
Its ok to say, "hey, that's not for you, sorry it didn't work out for you." But to say, "hey, its free, what did you expect?" Sorry, it just ain't the hacker ethic.
Money is not the only kind of cost. (Score:5, Insightful)
I made a concerted effort to start using the Gimp, beginning with the assumption that anything about the interface that didn't feel right to me was merely becuase I wasn't used to it and that once I got used to its idiom I would be as efficient with it as I would be with Photoshop. This turned out not to be the case.
What I would consider an acceptably designed tool is that once you are familiar with it, it just melts away into a comfortable sort of overlay where what you find yourself thinking of is what you're doing, not thinking about how to make the tool do what you want. It turns out that the Gimp interface, with its tools which do not work in logical or naturally synergistic ways and its interface consisting entirely of totally unrelated features scattered over a huge mess of heirarchal menus that seem to have the features sorted into them in random order, was just something I cannot get into a comfortable state with, no matter how much time I spent fighting with it. In fact, it was bad enough I couldn't actually manage to complete a single attempt at an image, no matter how small, to my satisfaction. The interface just got in the way too much. I would posit that this is the Gimp's fault, not mine.
Now, given, this was Gimp 1. The new Gimp that came out a couple weeks ago, I haven't used. But to be firmly honest I see no reason why I should. These people have given me no reason to believe they can design a useable interface. Installing this software would be a mere matter of typing "sudo emerge gimp" into my Gentoo box at home before I go to bed and letting it grind for the next day and a half. However, it would require a large investment of time in terms of learning, testing and playing with the Gimp2 interface, and I simply lack any reason to believe that there will be any sort of worthwhile payoff for this cost of time. I would prefer to continue with my current situation of using imagemagick to convert formats and only being able to edit images while in a computer lab on campus. To be honest, while I am somewhat embarrased to be saying this, if I DO eventually try out Gimp2, it will be for the sole reason that once I do so I will be able to respond to Slashdot discussions about it like this one in an informed manner. The software program itself simply does not offer anything I am interested in using.
If they would be honest A LOT of home users SHOULD use the GIMP instead of using an illegal version of Photoshop.
I disagree. There are other free and inexpensive alternatives to the Gimp that perform their jobs far better. One that comes to mind is GraphicConverter, a very cheap shareware graphics app for OS X that I used for years (though I haven't used it much since the OS X switch) that while by no means professional is totally acceptable for a large variety of applications. It doesn't have as many OH SUPER LEET TEXT EFFECTS as the Gimp does but I or anyone else could sit down, immediately understand how to do what they want, and perform tasks of relative complexity without being stymied by the interface. The same is not true of the GIMP. I am not familiar with windows freeware but I would imagine a similar situation exists there.
A long way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
There are some major beefs that graphic designers and Photoshoppers have with the GIMP:
(1) The interface sucks. Nobody likes working with 16 different open windows
(2) The interface sucks. Nobody likes menus in different windows and toolbars
(3) No 16-bit/channel color support
(4) No [good] CMYK support = will never be used in prepress[1]
(5) Repeat (1) and (2)
(6) [Lack of] Speed
(7) Dependencies (GTK+, etc.)
Most importantly, I think, the GIMP community needs once again to have its teeth kicked in for its idiocy in choosing the name 'GIMP.' Yes, we here on Slashdot all know that it stands for GNU Image Manipulation Program, and we've all heard how it's "just an acronym" and not supposed to mean anything. But for reasons of political correctness, common decency, etc. the program's name will continue to be a major reason that it never sees any serious adoption.
So, GIMP developers, clean up the interface and change the product name, and your program has a decent chance of seeing the light of day in the real world.
[1] In the GIMP developer's defense, most/all of the CMYK process is patent protected.
Re:A long way to go (Score:5, Funny)
I'm having a hard time with this one....
-dameron
Re:A long way to go (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A long way to go (Score:4, Interesting)
You are correct in saying that in the US design world you won't get anywhere without Pantone but there exists other systems in other countries and other areas, For example the ultimate reference to colour in the scientific world is not Pantone, is CIE [cie.co.at].
CIE were the first to conduct scientific colour perception experiments 90 years ago way before the first computer, and now they are the ISO colour standardization body.
I'm not sure how well PS supports the CIE standards but at least the Gimp supports CIE-Lab.
heh, he screwed something up (Score:5, Insightful)
s/UNIX/OS-X
Yeah
Sunny Dubey
Such high expectations considering its name. (Score:5, Funny)
n : disability of walking due to crippling of the legs or feet
I suggest they rename it to Firehercules or Spartacus.
Photoshop and professional users (Score:3, Insightful)
gimp not bad anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that these Photoshop users are used to photoshop. Any other UI no matter how slick and perfect will be worse for them. They are trained on photoshop so well that using anything else kills their efficiency. Like driving stick for the first time after driving automatic your whole life.
I'm no graphic wizard, just a programmer. And I recently got gimp 2 for windows and linux. I couldn't do fancy things right away, but its not because I couldn't find the buttons or they were in bad or hidden places. It's because I don't know anything about making graphics. If graphics people start out on the gimp instead of photoshop they will be just as good on that.
So don't try to convert people to gimp. Just get new people who are about to pirate photoshop for the first time to use gimp instead.
That's about it...
Re:gimp not bad anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Read one of the above complaints that mentions not liking "menus in the windows". I hate to break it to you, but that's not a GIMP paradigm--that's a is-not-a-macintosh paradigm.
I also don't buy the right click thing. I use right click religiously and find it infinitely more useful that having to go all the way up to the top of the window just to select a menu option.
The interface (in those respects) doesn't suck, it's just different.
As for CMYK, patents aside, it's scheduled for next release, we'll see about it all then.
Also, if you haven't tried it since 1.0, look again. 2.0 uses the new GTK and it's a hell of a lot smoother. I really think next version will be serious-production-useful.
That said, I use it more or less daily and can vouch for one thing it does well that Photoshop (even with the right plugins) does horribly--Scripting.
If anyone read the comments in the article about Scribus, they noted one of the QuarkExpress guys raving about how it could autogenerate their catalog based on a database.
Gimp does this sort of thing insanely well. Between Gimp-Perl and Gimp-Python (and Script-Fu in general), you can automate processes in Gimp in insane ways. Automated photo-processing can be awesome.
As for "people who prefer Gimp to PS aren't serious PS users", I'd have to call BS on this one. After working with PS on OSX (even with OSX's crispy Unixness) actually seems to crash more. It also has issues of not really being able to tweak extensions (in OS9 you could turn them on and off in the extensions folder, now you can't, that can suck).
Similarly, I have problems getting PhotoShop, OSX, Postscript, and HP Designjets to kick out the correct colors. It does badness.
In short, PS has its share of problems as does Gimp. I would also argue that PS's interface has some serious suckage to it as well. The only thing I miss about it is the space-bar as a shortcut key--that was handy.
I think with the completion of 16-bit buffers and CMYK, you'll see a lot less complainers next version.
The thing to remember is that it's free (not beer-free, freedom free). That means that every advance it makes stays with it. It can't go out of business or get "phased out" with the next release. It's there for you, as long as you need it. When Microsoft buys the DOJ, SEC, and FCC and then Adobe, the PS people will have a rude awakening about exactly why Open Source is good. For that matter, if Apple bought Adobe, they might find out as well...
In parting, I'd remind all of you PS users that Adobe themselves pioneered the legal doctrine that copying look and feel is not copyright violation. If we reskin GIMP to look EXACTLY like PS, would that make you happy?
Stunning conclusion (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stunning conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stunning conclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Opinion on all four, and a speed tip. (Score:3, Informative)
[b]PHOTOSHOP:[/b] A bit overkill, but it's the best for most any application. It's better on a Mac, though, than on a PC, due to interface issues.
[b]GIMP:[/b] Next best thing, I can do almost 100% of the stuff I can do in Photoshop. Speeding stuff up (like employing multiple CPU's or servers) will help, and 16-bit/channel may help photo artists.
[b]Paint Shop Pro:[/b] If it's what you got and you can't get the others, it'll do. Most of the stuff above you can do.
[b]Photoshop Elements:[/b] DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT GETTING THIS!!! BAD! BAD!! The interface is confusing for even old Photoshop users, and to think I used Photoshop *BEFORE* going with Gimp!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!
Most of the time, you (the common user) don't need something heavy-handed as Photoshop. You just need to tweak Gimp/PSP to use more memory. I have it using half of 1.5 gigs here, may push it back up to a full gig. That speeds filters up fast (when you don't have to swap!)
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
When I was primarily a Linux user, I used GIMP for many hours out of each day, tinkering with my photos, working on images for web sites, etc. It is a good tool, and it has a lot going for it. The new interface is nice, but... in so many regards, GIMP is no Photoshop. I quickly realized this after I got a Power Mac and Photoshop 7.
Even though I do not use Photoshop in any professional context, it is a phenomenal product even for my personal use. Here are the major things that keep me from using GIMP on the Mac beyond occasionally playing with it:
Don't get me wrong - GIMP is a nice program, and for the price it absolutely kicks ass. But just that handful of problems listed above will be enough to turn off serious photo/graphics folks. Hell, I'm a geek that has used Linuxy and UNIXy stuff for years, and I am seriously bothered by those issues I listed, among other nit-picky ones.
Adobe doesn't have much to worry about at the moment. But if an Aqua native version of GIMP came out and could offer similar performance on high-powered Macs, then they might have reason to start sweating.
Let's be fair to OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
OSS isn't always harder to use than commercial software. The Gimp has ALWAYS had its UI as a major complaint. KDE isn't harder to use than Explorer. Kopete isn't harder to use than ICQ. VNC isn't harder to use than PCAnywhere.
The Gimp is damn hard to learn and use.
Re:Let's be fair to OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
So is Photoshop. Go to any bookstore and there are more photoshop books than any other book. Photoshop isn't easy or intuitive at all.
Every graphic designer has spent hundreds of hours learning photoshop.. so when they use any other application, their first complaint is "this isn't photoshop".
That's not to say that the gimp couldn't use a lot of UI work, but any complaint from a photoshop user should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm always reminded of the battle between Lightwave and Maya users. Each set swears up and down that their application is easier, and that the other application is a disaster.
Ouch... (Score:5, Insightful)
The bar chart at the end should be a wake-up call to developers; the reviewer rates the 'features' at 80%, yet the 'value' is 10% and the 'must-have factor' at 1%. It doesn't matter how many features you've crammed in, if you hide it in a confusing interface and the overall product takes up more time than saves, it's just not worth bothering with.
Backwards! (Score:4, Insightful)
My impression of *NIX type OS's has been that if you ask it to point a gun at you and pull the trigger, it'll do so without a second thought (cough)rm -r *(cough). He seems to have confused the "imaginary" file system that is his OS X folders, with the actual file system underneath. Funny how people see the system they're accustomed to as being "real" even after it has had reality abstracted away to another system underneath it.
Let's go through this (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is not the point. You know what I do if I want to install gimp?
apt-get install gimp
That's it. That covers installation and download. I don't need to start some nonstandard installer program or reboot my machine like on Windows (I guess on MacOS I would have to drag and drop something, as that seems to be the way Apple likes to do everything). If that's not "ready to roll" I don't know what that is.
Open source developers primarily support the platforms they work with -- mainly Linux and FreeBSD. If you use a proprietary platform like MacOS then don't whine that there are no ready-made binaries for whatever you want to do.
The point of open source (or free software) is freedom - even if you never touch the source code, you know that no single company has control over what you can or cannot do, can decide to suddenly remove certain features or add certain requirements -- if that happens, and the majority of the community doesn't agree, then the program will be forked, i.e. someone will create THE BLIMP, the truly free alternative to THE GIMP. This is what just happened with X-Window, and it could never happen if a single company had control over the source code. If you don't care about freedom, don't use open source software.
Opening MacGimp for the first time was like stepping out onto the surface of an alien planet
That's because that is exactly what you are doing. MacOS is not Linux, it has its own proprietary desktop. If you take software that was developed under completely different conditions - one key condition being that the programmer doesn't know and doesn't need to know what underlying desktop the user works with (there's that pesky freedom again) - and you thrust this software into a proprietary environment where these choices do not exist, then yes, that's like stepping on an alien planet.
Most of the complaints of the author are the result of two things:
The few complaints that are valid (chaotic menu structure, lack of previews) can only be addressed through contributing money, code, or detailed ideas. Whining about open source software is like complaining about the quality of a Wikipedia article.
So: Mac user rambles about obscure GIMP port to MacOS not being like other MacOS applications. Nothing to see here - move along.
photoshop stagnating (Score:4, Insightful)
In the long run, there is no question, what will prevail. Photoshop is 14 years old, the gimp 7 years. Photoshop 2 was already a good project and I preferred photoshop 3 for many years since it was much faster then the photoshop 4/5 hogs under the old Mac OS. Having seen Adobe pulling Premiere from the Mac platform, I would not even bet on whether Photoshop will exist on the Mac in 10 years. The sudden death of closed source projects makes me nervous. The sudden disappearance of applications like Adobe dimension or Canoma is something which should make you think. I have more faith in open source projects. The gimp steadily improves while photoshop essentially stagnated.
Yes, the Gimp has a different user interface, but this is a minor issue. What is important for me is that the application is stable, also with memory intensive tasks, that it starts up fast and I'm done quickly also with working on hundreds of files at once "gimp *.jpg" My experience is that the gimp on linux starts a multiple times faster then photoshop or the macromedia fireworks on a mac with a similar CPU. The slower Gimp OSX performance might be related to the fact that X applications still run way too slow on the Mac. But this is steadily improving.
Author of article has some wrong ideas.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to click on buttons several times to active is also a symptom of running under X11. I have GIMP2 on my powerbook and it's *horrible* to work with because of the way that focus works in a mac so each time you click from window to window in the gimp you have to click once to give the window focus, and then again to activate the menu/tool/etc.
Tools probably aren't grouped in the best way, but they are grouped with reasonably. The selection tools, manipulation tools (rotate, scale, etc), fill tools, and drawing tools. Again, they aren't perfect, but they are definately not "thrown down".
The open dialoge is standard GTK and if you were running in GNOME under linux, would look the same as the rest of your desktop. It doesn't look like your standard open dialoge because it's GTK, not aqua!
Some of the performance issues again are no doubt due to the emulation, again, same with the font handling. Try it on a real linux computer.
Also, GIMP isn't trying to be photoshop, I don't think, it's the poor man's photoshop. Hopefully now that 2.0 is out the devs will be able to concentrate on polishing the UI, adding in some of the niceness that is in elements, etc.
Gimp is a great program (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to use Gimp an awful lot before I found Photoshop. Photoshop was bliss compared to the Gimp's UI. I then heard that Gimp 2 would fix a lot of the UI issues. However I was very disappointed when I tried Gimp 2.
I had been led to believe that this version would fix all the UI issues with the previous one.
The new text tool was so deficient that I was longing for the old text tool back. The UI was meant to be dockable
The Gimp can't be fixed. It needs a whole new front-end designed in collaboration with the users. A few prettier icons doesn't fix it.
The article is NOT Gimp bashing: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not take such reviews as constructive criticism? It's actually good for programs like gimp that professionals or people who can influence the professionals have started to pay attention to free software.
So don't take it personally, guys. It's a good sign
Is it really surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The total users for that tool
2. The fraction of users developing that tool.
Everybody needs a basic kernel, word processor, spreadsheet, drawing program etc. Many users, low percentage develops but still many developers.
Geeky stuff like a regex parser may have few users, but relatively many developers.
A professional class graphics tool? Few people need it, the "professional class" at least. Few geeks are really great artists, and so relatively few developers. A low-low score = bad.
The only reason Photoshop comes up more often than other software is that users need the basic features, and well - if they're first going to pirate something, they go for the top product.
Yes, if I was doing graphics professionally, I would most likely get a professional tool, just as if I was doing movie editing, audio editing, 3d modeling or just about any other job.
If that is what you do for a living, simply do the math. How much time would it save you, or how much would it increase the quality and value of your work. If it's above sales price, buy.
I don't expect a bunch of programmers to sit down and make something for me that they don't need themselves - or well if they did, it would be because I'm paying them, which is indirectly what I do when I buy software. Obvious, isn't it?
Kjella
I think the problem with GIMP is because.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly Graphic Designers are NOT programers. There visual people who like pretty things and easy to use GUI's - thats why Apple is a great platform for us
Theres no need for me to write a script or make sure I have some other dependency programs/file sinstalled. The Program works exactly like the other programs I use in the print industry Illustrator, Photoshop, Indesign - they all use a similar UI.
Theres no reason for a graphic designer to touch linux ever. Maybe a windows machine, always an apple, but never linux.
The makers of GIMP are open source programmers who know nothing about graphic design in the professional world. Look at the prettines of their site compared to adobe's. The GIMP could have millions of dollars of money put into it and never be as good as phhotoshop, because they don't know or understand that CODERS ARE NOT GRAPHIC DESIGNERS and vice versa.
Different mind sets... (Score:5, Insightful)
That said... OS projects involving the arts, need to get more artists to participate. More right brained thinking folks involved who will ultimately be using the applications. The kind of people who write code, typically want tools who's UI is consistent with the environments they use. These prople have tremendous mental muscles in those linear skills usually associated with coding and designing software. In applications whose ultimate user base will be artists, those considerations are second to having a tool which elegantly allows them to visualize, create, give birth to artistic expression. Powerful file handling features are great for somebody intending to perform batch operations on a slew of graphics files... however more photographers are looking for ways to get a clear sense of their work, and how to improve it. Most don't care what algorythms the programmer chose to operate on the graphic... they just want to see the operation quickly so they can compare this or that.
WIRED did a great article on OS last November... at OS as it's beginning to influence law and science. We need to have a fair representation of all human endeavors involved in this movement, so they can cross pollinate and create the kind of tools, resources, and infrastructure needed to grow a distinctly different kind of culture. One that is more interested in the common good, the general benefit to all, than the need to control or own one another. A shift from the an 18th century mentality to a truly third millinium mindset. I look forward to the evolution of OS... I see it as an underlying force for expressing what's best in being human.
Genda
Only real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
But to be able to cope adequately with scanned images it really really needs 16-bit depth support. I know filmgimp supports it but the interface on that is really clunky (yes, even by GIMP standards!) and I've never managed to get xsane working happily with it. I don't care about ELQ's proposed spiffy scanner interfaces - xsane does everything I'll ever need, though I wish some of the ranges would revert to +/-400% rather than +/-100%. lcms colour management would be nice, but for home users (ie most users) it's not a can't-live-without feature. 16 bits-per-channel support is; I know there are plans to support it in future releases via libGEGL, but progress on this seems achingly slow. There seem to be plans to polish gimp-2.0 and release a 2.2 later in the year; I'd far rather that was shelved and the developers worked on libGEGL as the basis of a new GIMP core.
Once again, wishing I could moderate the article. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most open source apps?
I agree with the assertion that GIMP has got absolutely squat on Photoshop. Honestly. That's why I see no problem in dropping the big bucks on PS. But MOST open source apps being the same? Highly doubtful.
OpenOffice handles legacy Word documents better than the "latest and greatest" from Microsoft. Heck, I've had compatibility problems between the equivalent versions of Word for Windows and Word for Mac that have been resolved just by opening the document up in OO.
Bash rocks cmd's socks off. If geeks do one thing exceptionally well, it's command-line tools.
Ogle vs. Any DVD player for Windows: Killer. Just learn your bloody keyboard mappings already (not that hard to find) and it's exactly the same as any given DVD player except no lock-outs, so you can skip all the bullshit previews the companies decide to force feed you with (also, you've read the FBI Warnings before, and if you haven't, you're not about to start now. Suffice it to say you saw the FBI warning, can you please skip it already?)
Like I said, GIMP definately has serious disadvantages over Photoshop. But a lot of the other tools that are out there are not as lacking. 99% of the stuff I use that's open-source is in most cases as good as and in many cases better than its proprietary counterpart. The one thing people seem to forget is that in the geek world aesthetics take a back seat to functionality. I don't mind learning curves myself so I find myself able to do a lot more with a fully open source system over a system loaded with its proprietary counterparts.
Early Photoshop (Score:5, Interesting)
The hot "paint" program back then was something called "PixelPaint" and it seriously grabbed the Architecture and Industrial Design students of the day. Everyone wanted it because of it's large pallete size, gradiant fills, and razor-like precision.
One day, a program called PhotoShop showed up in the labs (legally installed by a student who forgot to delete it before s/he left). It was cool, but PixelPaint still out classed it. Every line you drew was "fuzzy". The pallete size was so big, that it was hard to select a particular color. And overall, things just seemed blurry even when printing or copy/pasting to another app.
The designer's names were in the about box and I actually saw the lead developer post to the comp.sys.mac.* usenet newsgroups so I wrote him some email to complain about this horrible little app in both it's interface and ability.
He actually responded to my critiques and spent some time explaining just how programs like "PixelPaint" could really only make good-looking "on-screen" graphics due to low colors and resolutions. His app "PhotoShop" was aiming at photographic images where razor-sharp lines looked fake. He even replied about my suggested interface improvements and told me what they had planned for the next version which was even better than what I suggested.
This really impressed me. I know that this type of interaction between commercial programmer and user doesn't exist anymore, but it was amazing the patience that he used to point out my misunderstandings (and I wasn't even a real customer at the time).
The interaction I've had with the GIMP community hasn't impressed me. I'm a little more technically savvy than some of the Mac users out there, but getting the GIMP installed and usable is a pain. The GIMP is capable of a lot of things, but its defaults really don't impress me. I feel like I really have to work to get it out of PixelPaint mode into Photoshop mode (and I'm not really knowledgeable enough to say that I get those changes right). The online communities just aren't as open or friendly to answer the questions that I've asked even if I've tried reading TFM and FAQ.
If I were tight for money, I think I'd pay my bucks for GraphicConverter (a Mac shareware app that has a similar PixelPaint feel) rather than waste the time on the GIMP.
I'm a big supporter of Open Source software, but I've thought for a while that a group of people really need to decouple the engine from the interface and produce a "better" photo manipulation software in the way that Camino (and later Firefox) successfully rebuilt alternative user experiences on the Mozilla web-browsing engine.
I too prefer photoshop (Score:4, Informative)
I do a lot of graphics work. I've also used a large number of the true graphics programs (3d, 2d, vector, etc... not MSPaint) out there at one point or another. In addition to this, I also do freelance development from time to time. It is the user interface alone that makes or breaks the program, in my opinion. Without a good interface, it doesn't matter what the rest of the code does.
Here are my remarks on a few of the ones I've used at one time or another:
Photoshop [adobe.com] - Easy to use interface. Provides an easy introduction for those unfamiliar with the program and provides the power necessary for advanced users.
GraphicsConverter [lemkesoft.de] - Another easy to use interface. Though it lacks the power photoshop has, it makes up for it in the large number of image formats it can read and write.
Paint Shop Pro [jasc.com] - I am not overly fond of this interface. For one, I think there are far too many icons used. Drowning out interface buttons and such with icons is very irritating for a novice user as they generally have to hover the mouse and wait for the tooltip to figure out what something is. Further, it has the "too much help" syndrome that seems a standard on windows. I much prefer that the help system be delegated to something else and not be built into the program.
Poser [curiouslabs.com] - This is definitely a unique interface, but it still provides simplicity for novice users and control for advanced users. The largest downside is that by not using default system-provided user interface widgets, some of the details you would expect are not there whereas they would be there if the system versions were used.
Bryce [corel.com] - Bryce is extremely easy to use. It was my first 3d program and is still one of my favorites due to its simplicity. I have yet to find another 3d program with an object placement system that I like more than bryce's.
Blender [blender.org] - Not a big fan. Though it is quite powerful, the learning curve is very steep. On Macs, the interface text is quite small in some places and hard to read. The interface is also a bit clunky. Sections are not as clearly divided as I would like.
Carrara [eovia.com] - I have not used this one for some time (and as such, newer versions may be different than what I remember), but I found it quite user-friendly when I did. All tools were placed in a context-sensible place and it had the camera system that I liked from bryce.
The Gimp [gimp.org] - I don't like it. The user interface is extremely clunky by my standards. Consolidating a number of the windows into one and reorganizing the tools would go a long way towards helping it. There is also the fact that I am used to my nice Aqua interface and it has the drab sharp bevels and general lack of detail that is natural to most x86 OS's under default configurations.
Illustrator [adobe.com] - I do not use this program frequently, but being from adobe, it has a very similar interface to photoshop that makes it very easy to use.
Fireworks [macromedia.com] - I'm apathetic about this one. It provides no real functionality that I cannot get in a program whose interface I like better and has more stuff I can use.
Freehand [macromedia.com] - Pretty much the same as Fireworks. I've only mostly toyed with this one as I found Illustrator more appealing.
One other feature I like about photoshop is that it is extremely easy to do image versioning. When doing web designs, I will
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
Crossover Office. [codeweavers.com]
I use it all the time under Linux with no problems.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. Photoshop has gotten a lot of attention [slashdot.org], and it's payed off.
And let me just say that, as a graphics editor, I find myself using GIMP more and more. I still, easily, use PS quite a bit more than the GIMP. However, GIMP continues to pile on desirable features, and at the very least, I am compelled to save all my final works using GIMP's superior compression for JPEG, and PNG (and probably more).
Even though I love my photoshop, I hope to one day see it replaced with GIMP or another Free Software (RMS' definition [gnu.org]) solution.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because Linux is more than an OS. It is part of an ideology as well. Perhaps Open Source fits the poster's philosophy of life or maybe they just want to save some bucks. It's doubtful any of those things would apply to someone moving in the other direction (unless you're a programmer who sees Open Source as taking bread from their hungry children's mouths or something).
For me, the GIMP works well enough (I don't see anything wrong with it) and hey, it's $0 and I can see the source code. For that reason (the source code) it will ALWAYS be better than photoshop.
The key here is your first two words. Hey, if it works for you, great! I started with the GIMP and thought it was wonderful. Then I got ahold of a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 and all I could do was say "Wow". I was so impressed I bought a copy. I've since tried Photoshop 7.0 and been even more impressed. However I'm not impressed with the cost of entry. For that reason I'd love to have GIMP come up to speed. So, put me in the column with the parent (except that I already use Linux) in wanting certain things to work better than they do now.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Put another way, no one is really 100% concerned with what the masses want, since some of the desires of the public are at cross purposes, but they will certainly want to know what the public wants so that they can emphasize those areas where their will and those of the masses coincide. These become obvious areas of strength.
Photoshop is clearly one of the killer apps of all time. It was even ported to one or two kinds of Unix (likewise, FrameMaker) due to the fact that there was no (and still is no) superior product, and at the time Unix workstations were more powerful than PCs. Those days are gone, and so there is little to no motivation to develop new versions of Photoshop for Unix systems. On the other hand, Linux market share is growing, and people are starting to demonstrate a willingness to pay for software which runs on Linux. Not just corporations mind you, but also individuals and small businesses.
So, not only is it a waste of your time to complain about people complaining about the one last thing missing from Linux, but your will actually runs counter to the companies pumping money into Linux, or put another way, the hand that's feeding you.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither barney the purple webdesign website nor slashdot are the right place to reach either of these groups. (sorry couldn't resist the Barney thing, that website looks like it should be seeing feminine hygene products not giving advice on web design)
"The latter group, including companies like Adobe, are interested in what Linux users want for two reasons."
A little offtopic wouldn't you think, since the parent wasn't talking about linux users, he was talking about non-linux users saying they'd use linux if it weren't for this or that.
Also because this article was written by a MacOSX user, NOT a linux user. 99% of the things he complained about were really one thing, it didn't have an OS X interface, it's designed for X11.
"So, not only is it a waste of your time to complain about people complaining about the one last thing missing from Linux, but your will actually runs counter to the companies pumping money into Linux, or put another way, the hand that's feeding you."
That hands that feed the linux community are open source developers. While some of those are being paid by corporations, for the most part they are not. Corporations having money only means so much in this crowd, after all while there are exceptions, they've managed to produce mostly crap. Look at Microsoft for instance, they've managed to produce ONLY crap and they've got more money than any of the others.
"Photoshop is clearly one of the killer apps of all time. It was even ported to one or two kinds of Unix (likewise, FrameMaker) due to the fact that there was no (and still is no) superior product, and at the time Unix workstations were more powerful than PCs. Those days are gone, and so there is little to no motivation to develop new versions of Photoshop for Unix systems. On the other hand, Linux market share is growing, and people are starting to demonstrate a willingness to pay for software which runs on Linux. Not just corporations mind you, but also individuals and small businesses."
A piece of killer app proprietary software is great for linux adoption which ultimately ends up being good for the community, since it helps yield more open source developers to work on things like gimp so it eventually can get that proprietary app out of our otherwise clean open system. A better solution of course would be for Adobe to open the photoshop sourcecode.
Since I don't see that happening, opening the Acrobat reader source would be nice. The linux version of Acrobat reader is pretty shoddy to say the least, it's ugly, unpolished, and bugridden. If Acrobat reader were opened then we could either fix it (if it was worth fixing) or get a look at it's pdf handling, since actually opening and rendering the pdf is the only thing it does in a superior way to the other dozen pdf reading linux apps. AR is faster and has better print options. I think it could be salvaged myself, open source would quickly eradicate the bugs and fix the UI.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a bonus, just for jrockway, here is something else you might think works better than photoshop. It is pretty crappy for graphics, but you can see the source code. ;-)
In the real world, when your living is on the line, the best tool you can afford is the one you use. Whether you can see the source code or not doesn't even come into the picture. 99.999% of computer users can't do anything with the source code anyway.Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that easy yet; they are making headway, but the GIMP is still straggling behind somewhat in this area. They have grand plans to move to GEGL (GEneric Graphics Library) http://www.gegl.org/ , which is a graphics processing library that will apparently (among other things) make it easier to use ICM profiles and work in CMYK.
I've heard that GIMP 2.0 has CMYK support, but I've also heard that it's not quite useful enough yet. ICM profiles have been in GIMP for a while though. As far as LAB colour and stuff... haven't seen anything like that yet.
All in good time... for my fairly modest stitching, retouching, and modifying needs, GIMP works great. I'm an RGB man.
Never say Never again (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux already has a market share the size of Apples (OS wise). At some point, there will be enough graphic design folks who have migrated from the windows side that Adobe will make a linux native version of Photoshop.
I think it would be **foolish** to ask someone to wait for that day. Because it won't be soon. But that day is comming.
Linux is not going away. Windows holds 95% of the market. But only 10% of the world is using computers. China, North Korea, Brazil have all decided Linux is the way to go. If in the next 5 to 10 years, 2 out of every 3 new computer users outside of the developed western nations chose Microsoft, and the other 1 chooses Linux. We will soon be living in a world where Linux will hold 10-25% marketshare.
Unless Adobe is going out of business, I would not say "Never"
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Funny)
Developer #1: "Watcha doin' today? Wanna work on improving GIMP usability?"
Developer #2: "Nope. I refuse to acknowledge the vast consensus that PS is much faster and more usable."
Developer #3 [bursting through door]: "Have you guys SEEN? An AC on Slashdot is refusing to use capital letters when referring to the GIMP!"
All: "HOLY FUCK! Let's get coding!"
(A week later, GIMP 3.0 is released to worldwide acclaim. AC contends that "gimp still suxx0rz" but after intense negotiations agrees to capitalize the M and the P.)
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, there are performance problems with Notes (6.5.1 at any rate) on Wine, but they are not severe. I find it perfectly usable.
Regardless, you cannot draw conclusions based on your experiences from one (1) app run under Wine to all apps. I also run Office XP on Wine and it runs just as fast as it does on Windows. The same is true of Photoshop.
They are different programs, work in different ways, and use different codepaths. It's not surprising they run at different speeds.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:4, Informative)
Free does not mean much to a professional who needs to get things done. Would a pro photographer use a quikimart freebe camera to shoot promo material?
Also, Photoshop *does* have a complete API in the lastest CS version (Using a JavaScript implementation--no cludgy C). I'm pretty sure it can perform all the actions avail. from the GUI. Map generation would be pretty trivial if this is the case.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
Adobe hasn't just made Photoshop well, but they also have quite a few professional tools that I don't think I could live without.
Illustrator, InDesign, AfterEffects, and Acrobat(files) are other leading softwares that are essential for me (as a graphic designer). And once you get used to the way Adobe feels and organizes tools, you get accustomed to it, so much so that it becomes a pain to try to use other non-Adobe programs. This familiarity comes in handy, however, when you think to yourself, "How would I do [x] in InDesign or AfterEffects?" and the first thing you think of, it's there.
Adobe has a monopoly on my graphics editing.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Insightful)
Starting from the bottom, I'll first mention that while Acrobat is simply a reader, which many hundreds of alternatives exist for, it's primarily the .pdf files that it's based around that are so important. I'll admit pdf's aren't an exclusive Acrobat format, but they are very handy to export data to, as a universal file format. While most printer's will accept just about any files you need, the reproductions stand a chance of being wrong if opened on the wrong software. Pdf's are extremely versatile, which has led me to use them anytime I send anything to the Newspapers or Printers. So, yes Acrobat itself isn't that great, but the native file format is.
As for AfterEffects, I've seen plenty of competition, even from Premiere, as well as many apps for the Mac, not just Motion.
I agree wholeheartedly that Quark is InDesign's rival, and would go a step further to note that Quark has been the industry standard for many years, but I have never met one person who actually liked it. It's a terrible program that has far outlived its usefulness, especially since InDesign has now become the favorite of most every print designer, and kicks so much ass.
I've heard from several people I respect that they prefer Freehand to Illustrator, and I don't doubt that it is the best for them. But those people are almost always Macromedia people, the ones who publish to the web and interactive cd's more than to print. While I also use most of the Macromedia products, I still prefer Adobe for any use I can get away with, which brings me back to my original point.
Adobe has made excellent products that work with each other in an intuitive fashion, and it is extremely easy to get to know it in a way that makes you never want to use other programs, regardless of near-equal rivals.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
This is the company that invented PostScript after all.
And before anyone brings it up--multiple monitors (Score:5, Informative)
Never mind that Photoshop works just fine with multiple monitors! It has as far back as I can remember. I've seen five-monitor Mac setups arranged in order of the artist's graphics processes, moving from one monitor to another, going from area to dialog to area and so forth.
I get WHY people justify GIMP's interface. I just don't agree whatsoever.
Re:And before anyone brings it up--multiple monito (Score:5, Informative)
Thank goodness I have a mac. :)
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
MDI has got to be the lamest interface idea ever. And what is MDI anyway? It's Microsoft's workaround to put the menu bar where it belongs: At the top of the screen, for all windows in a single application.
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
That's been pretty much my take on MDI for many years. MDI was, as far as I can tell, Microsofts attempt to imitate the Macintosh layout in a multiple-window environment. Just maximize an MDI window and, apart from the title bar at the top and the main window covering everything else, you pretty much have the Macintosh style.
Now, IMNSHO, perhaps one of the main reasons the Macintosh did things this way was to save screen real estate. The original Mac was 640x480 or less, on a tiny 12 or 13 inch screen. Keeping one menu for all your windows saved space. With large screens and higher resolutions being so common nowadays, I think this style of screen layout is less justified. It's a style and some people like it, yes. There's just less of a reason to do things that way. And, once again IMNSHO, the Microsoft Windows method of having one window covering everything is just plain ugly and clumsy.
Give me virtual desktops, lazy focus-follows-mouse, and multiple top-level windows please. That's the way I like to work. Then again, I am a long-time Linux geek and my name's (still) in The Gimp credits. I may be just a little biased :)
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason to put the menu bar at the top of the screen hasn't changed. It's based on solid research, and a little principle called Fitt's Law. [asktog.com]
And a hefty helping of Kudos to you for contributing your time and skills to freeasinbeerandfreedom software, but if you think good interface design is "...a style and some people like it, yes - then you're part of the problem. The user interface matters and too many programmers - Open Source and commercial - treat it as though it's just a matter of personal preference, or worse, as though it doesn't matter at all. And I'm not just talking about GUIs.
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, thank you for missing the main point of my post. My aim was to simply discuss the single-menu Macintosh interface and Microsofts MDI. Instead you seemed to have reacted to my little $0.02 comment at the end and have even quoted parts of my post out of context. Lovelly. Well since you brought it up, here's a little rant about interfaces.
People should never forget:
Intuition n. (power of) knowing without learning or reasoning.
Intuitive adj., intuitively adv.
I think people often get mixed up when they talk of intuitive interfaces. I know you didn't mention the I word, but it sounded like you were coming close. When people talk about something being intuitive, they really mean that it's familiar. They've already used something that looks or acts like this new thing and they can carry over their experience. That's all. The human brain is a wonderfully flexible thing. Just look at how far our science and technology has advanced in a few thousand years with little to no biological evolution. I seriously doubt there's anything hard-coded into our hunter-gatherer brains that prefers MDI over multiple top-level windows. Or any other GUI element over another. How can it be anything else than preference and experience? Unless things are very different in your part of the world, there's nothing else in real-life that looks or operates anything like an image window. Or a drop-down menu. Or bucket fill. Or scroll bars. Or even a mouse for that matter. People developed these things over time and we learned how these things operate. Get over it.
</rant>
On a more constructive note: Can people be a little more constructive and descriptive in their criticisms of The Gimp? Saying that PS is a more positive experience or somesuch doesn't really help. For me, all the negative posts here just sound like a bunch of whingers. wah, it's not like PhotoShop! To hear a lot of people complaining with little or no detail doesn't help. Not one bit. Provide some constructive help or STFU.
Re:Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Umm, I was discussing the single-menu Macintosh interface. You made a guess as to why Apple did it that way, concluded that it was no longer necessary, and implied that it only persists because some people like the "style."
I posted a link to an article which includes the reason why Apple did it that way, and why it's arguably and measurably superior to the way Windows does it - even with the MDI - written by the original lead Mac UI designer and researcher. Your "NSHO" is wrong, and I'm telling you why, and pointing you towards a resource which might just teach you something useful.
Instead you seemed to have reacted to my little $0.02 comment at the end and have even quoted parts of my post out of context.
Nope, the first half of my post would have been identical even without your "little $0.02 comment at the end." And as for "out of context," the bulk of your reply was a rant on something you yourself admit that I didn't even say! Guess what - I agree with your rant about "intuitive" interfaces!
The irony here is that your own intuition sucks. Apple didn't make their UI design decision for the reason you think they did; and I didn't say anything about, imply, or even glance in the direction of "intuitive" interfaces. Did you follow the link and read it? You should. Fitt's law is about speed. "Intuitive" is irrelevant.
But since you brought it up (really!), just because you can make a case that there's no such thing as an "intuitive" interface does not imply that a UI doesn't need to be logical. Tools for similar functions and tasks should be grouped together. Something I use all the time shouldn't be buried three dialog boxes deep. Those sorts of things appear to be consistent criticisms of The Gimp.
Can people be a little more constructive and descriptive in their criticisms of The Gimp?
Just so we're straight on this, I defy you to show me where I've criticized The Gimp - in this thread or in any other post anywhere. I was criticizing you.
If you demonstrate your ignorance of well-known UI principles in a thread where people are criticizing an application for having a deficient UI, and then go on to claim credit as a programmer for that application, you need to be a little less thin-skinned when reading a reply which is intended to help enlighten you.
Unfortunately, it is clear that you must have taken my Kudos comment as sarcasm, which is regrettable, because I was entirely sincere. I respect and appreciate the contributions made by people like you. But I don't believe that the fact that you're contributing work for free means that you are above criticism. It certainly doesn't work that way for any of the volunteer efforts I'm involved in.
I've never used The Gimp. I did use Photoshop on a daily basis starting from version 1.0 up until a couple of years ago, but that's not really relevant. What is relevant is that I use Open Source software on a daily basis that is as good as or superior to highly priced commercial applications, both in performance and feature sets. So it demonstrably can be done. But the the areas where Open Source software is consistently deficient are
in the UI - because most programmers have no UI design training, and/or don't think it's important, and because many of these projects begin as something that the programmers wrote for themselves. Naturally, it makes sense to them. To the larger audience, "intuitive" means "works like something I already know," exactly as you say. Certainly, ignore convention if you wish, or especially if you think you have a better idea, but don't be surprised when the great unwashed masses slam your "confusing" interface.
the documentation - most programmers are not writers, and even if they can wri
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The only things that dont need to be learned in a baby are crying, peeing, pooping and sleeping, and I'm not sure about the last item.
Re:And before anyone brings it up--multiple monito (Score:4, Insightful)
All this article tells us is that the author is too inflexible to make an informed or useful comment. If this were to be taken seriously, all the people who have been coming up with great ideas for desktop usabilility should just hang up their keyboards and let Redmond dictate what we are supposed to like.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
Also Illustrator, InDesign, and a little thing called the Adobe Type Library.
Photoshop is a wonder, yes, but it's not the only horse in Adobe's barn. Hell, in my opinion it's not even the best one. InDesign 3 takes that accolade. (Optical kerning: hellooooo, nurse.)
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Informative)
Between optical kerning for display type and optical margin alignment for justified body type, InDesign 3 just kicks typographic ass.
Optical kerning in InDesign (Score:5, Informative)
Optical kerning was around at least as of InDesign 2.0. In theory it is a very nice method for kerning; in practice it doesn't seem to make as big of a difference as you might think, at least with fairly typical serif and sans-serif fonts. In the print environment in which I worked, we used optical kerning for our newsprint, with our two dominant fonts being Calisto MT (serif) and Gill Sans (sans-serif); neither of those fonts suffer serious colisions with normal metric kerning, so optical kerning didn't make a night-and-day difference.
Also, optical kerning does add a modicum of additional spacing over the flow of a story or document, as in a 100 line story might end up 102-105 lines after being optically kerned (again, as of InDesign 2).
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
I often find myself holding the space bar and trying to pan down a Web site or a list of files in Explorer, or trying to use Alt to grab a colour in Paint/Flash/whatever, or trying to use X to switch colours. :/
That's not to say that i don't have problems with Photoshop (and/or Adobe in general). One of my biggest problems with Photoshop (for Windows, at least) is that the program doesn't seem to save its settings in an INI file (or, if it does, it does it extremely poorly). So if i log out of Windows without specifically going into Photoshop and hitting the close button, or if Photoshop crashes for some reason (rare, but it has happened), or whatever -- if Photoshop isn't absolutely perfectly shut down the proper way, it resets all of its settings. It's extremely annoying.
The slow progress with Photoshop is getting a little ridiculous too. I definitely like CS, of course, and i can appreciate not adding every single little thing that comes along, but i think they could stand to add more useful features than ever-improving image browsers.
I also hate that gAMA bug Photoshop has with PNG. I know this isn't really Photoshop's fault, per se, but i wish there were a more graceful way of dealing with it within the program. Having to run pngcrush -rem gAMA in.png out.png every time i save a PNG in Photoshop is kind of annoying. :(
Also, maybe it's just the CS version, but ImageReady is a buggy piece of shit. It's usable, but i constantly have problems with it, like the screen not redrawing when i zoom in, or the options bar getting stuck in random places, or various windowing glitches. Also annoying is that fact that disabling anti-aliasing on the Magic Wand in ImageReady does not actually disable anti-aliasing. But maybe this is just my copy, heh.
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One thing about photoshop! (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a scripting system for photoshop - but it is lame and incomplete.
For example layer objects in Photoshop have no size or position properties under the automation interface.
Corel by contrast has supported objects with usual properties under automation since 1995 - that's almost ten years before Photoshop and they still haven't caught up.
The argument that nobody uses scripting is lame - since it doesn't work - its a given that it won't be used - so nobody uses it - so it - the point is that its in there. Actions have been an important part of Photoshop for a lomng time - but actions are limited - they can't do referential manipulation (reduce resolution on n number of dissimilar images).
They can't be data driven.
and they support no logic whatsoever.
Pretty silly overall.
AIK
Re:I agree with the Mac artist (Score:3, Informative)
And besides,... Gimp environment is Linux friendly not OSX friendly (Gimp behaves completely different than any other software on OSX).
To sum it all up, writer had just as awkward position as I had when I run Photoshop (tryed to use my alerady paid versions) on crossover office on Linux (something just didn'
Re:The author is a moron. (Score:5, Insightful)
All he does need to know is how to do his job: designing.
and Gimp failed on this, so whatever you say, it's useless. The guy is a pro designer, and found the Gimp inadequate. Deal with it.
No, YOU go to the chalkboard... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "subjective intuitivity" argument is a very valid response against people complaining "but it's not what I'm used to". But this is not what is happening here. The "subjective intuitivity" argument cannot be used as a shield to protect applications that-- rather than unfamiliar-- are simply poorly designed.
No, there is technically no such thing as a naturally intuitive interface. However, there is such a thing as a naturally unituitive interface. The Gimp is one. Just because some amount of learning is requisite in using an application like Photoshop (in that it requires a basic familiarity with the graphical computer interfaces popularized in the last 20 years) does not change the fact that the GIMP's UI blows goats.
Re:Love Open Souce but..... (Score:5, Funny)
And if you have a problem, you can't just get a tow from the nearest garage, you have to get a volunteer to do it. On his own time in whatever haphazard way he knows how.
Oh, and I almost forgot, if you complain publicly that you didn't like the Saturn, you'd get hundreds of anonymous replies from people who don't know a spark plug from a brake light, never mind not having drivers licenses telling you that it's all your fault.
Re:[Nelson] HA-HA! [/Nelson] (Score:5, Informative)
Isn't that sort of reaction kinda par for the "Mac user tries anything else" course?
You're a troll, but I'll bite. The author of the article is not just some Mac user, he's Joe Gillespie, an established pro in graphic design and typography. By "established", I mean for the past 20 years or so he's been doing this kind of thing. Link 1 [digital-web.com], link 2 [netdiver.net]. Nothing a little trip to google [google.com] won't clear up if you're looking for credentials.