digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Digg up if you think GIMP needs a facelift

newlinuxdesktops.blogspot.com — The GIMP has the power to bring more people to Open Source. First it will need to clean up it's tarnished image to attract serous users. I've never been a Photoshop user but I find even the change from any photo editing software frustrating with it's strange interface that doesn't seem to be based on standard computer interface design at all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • stonyhill, on 11/01/2007, -4/+136GIMP needs nondestructive features like adjustment layers and layer folders, and vastly improved text tools. If that happens, I don't care what it's called or what it looks like.
    • SamuelDr2, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14The GIMP could be the best program for editing image (excluding the fact that they would miss CMYK) if you could have anything as an "effect layer" like the parent needs. I mean, we search through the menus for an effect, apply it as a layer and you can still edit the source layer. Sure, it would be CPU intensive, but you could still do it the old fashionned way.
      • championchap, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Anyone likely to use such a feature would have a pretty good CPU anyway, so it certainly wouldnt be a turn off.
      • lengau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Maybe they should make the preview only do the effect to what's visible (so the (mostly)
      • dragon76, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Apple calls this technology "Core Image" and the effects are called "Image Units". It will not run on a computer that does not have the graphics card to support it because the work is offloaded to the GPU, being so FP heavy. It took Apple 2 years to develop it and it's embedded in the OS. No offence but I doubt Open Source could whip up anything like it within a decade. Closest thing to come to it AFAIK is the destructive nature of Image Magick.
    • HeroreV, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12Yes! I want to add shadows, glow, and borders, with the ability to change the color, opacity, thickness, etc at any time, and have it automatically updated when the layer changes. Currently you have to redo it again and again. It's ridiculous!
    • bebop717, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23A facelift would only be the start.
    • ubuwalker31, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3Gimp should have different skins/personalities. The expert mode can be its current interface. A beginner mode would allow any user a one click solution to getting rid of redeye, resizing a picture, cropping, and other common tasks.
    • miffe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Non destructive layereffects will come when gimp moves over to using gegl.
      http://www.gegl.org/
      • stonyhill, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You're right. And that's at least two years away, considering the current development pace. That puts GIMP at least 6 years behind Adobe.
    • yagidem, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Agreed.
      Facelift is useless, the interface works well. But some things should be rather easy to implement and increase the greatness a lot.
      I would add a request for some (at least decent) options to use brushes too. Right now you can only create fugly patterns with brushes, no randomisation, no "smooth". :(
    • squidi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4All these things could be done by independant groups if GIMP had a Firefox style Extensions system.
    • Shando, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Or you could just torrent Photoshop
  • baalzebub, on 10/11/2007, -42/+11The GIMP looks and feels just fine to me, --no-digg-buried...
    • XVampireX, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8bah, you too...
    • olddirtycr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9It's cute that an expert such as yourself like it, the point is that if you want people to take open source seriously, it can't look like ***** and needs to be usable for an average person.
      • theragu40, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8I think the point is that he IS an average person, not an expert. You're trying to appeal to the masses, right?

        Take me for example. I'm no expert. I've never used Photoshop (can't afford it). GIMP works fantastically for me, because that's what I learned on. I'm sure it's missing some more advanced features, but I like it a lot. Too often, people who are 'experts' think that 'usable by the average person' means including every feature possible.
        • championchap, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5This post is less about features and more about making the image editor more user friendly i think.
          But point taken.
    • Meep3D, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Show a caveman a single shot musket and he'll think it's the most fantastic thing ever. Show it to anyone who's used any modern weapons and you'll get laughed at. If you knew and understood why people use Photoshop over Gimp you wouldn't be acting like it's fine. In reality its complete crap, even compared to an antique such as Photoshop 5, let alone CS3. It's literally a decade behind.
      • Audacitor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1That doesn't mean it should be abandoned. Maybe it needs to be completely redone, from the ground up. Using todays modern development tools over what they were using X number of years ago should make it easier to create a version that's more user friendly.

        In the meantime: http://gimpshopdotnet.blogspot.com/
      • gandhii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ps5? ps3 is better than gimp.
  • trogdoor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+91It is already happening:

    http://svenfoo.geekheim.de/index.php/2006-11-09/gimp-openusability-student-project/
    http://gui.gimp.org/index.php/GIMP_UI_Redesign
  • agrabob, on 10/11/2007, -6/+34And if you're used to Photoshop, there's a project trying to make a replacement UI that mirrors that look and feel:
    http://gimpshop.blogspot.com/

    For the record, I have not tried it, so no idea on the quality.
    • shanevendrell, on 10/11/2007, -11/+2gimpshop is a hacked together piece of *****. buried.
    • VVho, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0I can tell you it is certainly different enough from GIMP to annoy me (trained only on GIMMP, not PS) - it is still not photoshop! It does do something good with a main window...
    • tnoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13The last time I tried gimpshop, all it really did was change around the menus. All the keyboard shortcuts and UI features that Photoshop has are not transfered over. If you're a "power Photoshop user" its not going to do anthing to help you; it /helps/ but not enough to make it that useful. If you're like me, and mostly just use keyboard shortcuts and edit in fullscreen, just skip it.
      I've since just been using the vanilla GIMP, I feel its better in the long-run to know its interface.
      • stalefries, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4For the Mac version of Gimpshop, there's an Applescript that changes all the keyboard shortcuts to those used by Photoshop, fyi.
        • tnoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I just gave gimpshop a fresh download, and they now include a batch file that replaces a lot of shortcuts (I hope I didnt just miss it before). Thanks for the tip!
    • kaffein, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4If only they could make gimpshop even more like photoshop, I'd be all over it.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8IMHO neither the GIMP nor Photoshop have a well designed interface.

      With most open source GUI software I almost kind of expect it, as most open source software projects are engineering driven and many have absolutely no HID professional, graphic designer, or hell even a producer who oversees the project without the bias of voluntary coding time.

      Thats one of my main complaints about open source desktop software - that there is this pervasive idea that programmers are the only element to software..

      Now Photoshop doesnt have these excuses so why their interface and shortcuts (even copy/paste handling) are so significantly different then other software is just weird.
      • dragon76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1With Photoshop, it doesn't matter if it has a well-designed interface because it was the FIRST interface of its kind, it's like arguing about the interface of MS Office. If it's so bad, why do OO.o imitate it? Adobe has not screwed too much with the base interface until CS3 which arguably IMPROVED the interface by exposing more of the applications abilities.
        • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Because Photoshop has never followed the common design interface principles of the individual platforms it runs on which is critical to usability. I can pick up any Windows application which follows the common design guidelines and pick it up and be productive instantly - but Photoshop requires the user to invest in an a unnecessary learning curve.

          I have always owned Photoshop but dont use it every day - as a result every time I go back to it I have some re-learning to do with the interface - this is the antithesis of good Human Interface Design.

          The first time I used Paint Shop Pro, and realized I could actually cut and paste and it worked as any Windows, Mac, or Linux user would expect it to work, I knew I would use it more often - and I do. I only use Photoshop when the its advanced features, filters and text manipulation are absolutely necessary.

          "If it's so bad, why do OO.o imitate it?"

          What now OO.o is a poster child for Human Interface Design?
    • brokencrystal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I don't see why GIMP just doesn't add this as an option under their settings. I mean, would it really be that hard for them to make an option in the settings to have all (3) of your windows grouped together as Photoshop or other leading graphics software does? I hate when I click on a window and it takes focus leaving my other windows in the background so I have to search around for them later. This should be an option. It is all about usability right? This doesn't take away from the interface they are using now, but only adds features. This would be a huge turn-on for users like myself, and my brother-in-law who just finished school for graphics design as this was his only complaint with GIMP.
    • eatbeefjerky, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1From what it sounds like from the rest of these folks, this GUI alternative doesn't work like it should - but I am definitely a PS power user and a number of things about the GIMP interface annoy me, namely the lack of similar shortcuts (which, incidentally, can be changed) and the fact that each "palette" is a different window. How irritating that is! I'm also not a fan of their gradient editor, though that could be lack of experience with it...
  • natrium42, on 10/11/2007, -14/+16What about a new name?
    • npsken, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2GPCA (Gi-PICA)
      GNU Picture Changing Application
    • st3vo, on 10/11/2007, -3/+11I like gimp and I like the mascot.
    • spiffyfitz, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7In my experience, Joe User is afraid of anagrams and would never consider opening up something called GIMP or GPCA unless a geek explained it to him.
      • theragu40, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Except GIMP is a word. They never have to know it's an acronym.
        • Ignignokt01, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20and what a positive word it is.

          not.
      • Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2"Zed, get the Gimp."
        "But the Gimp's sleeping!"
        "Well, wake him up then!"
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13They should call it GNP. GNP's Not Photoshop.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You make a great point ther natrium, open source temps to lean towards lame in-joke names and clumsy acronyms rather then taking the time to select a well-designed name for their project which helps guide users to it.
    • mastertop, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Hey what's up Natrium42 :)
  • chrisinsocalif, on 10/11/2007, -7/+16Oh, I thought you meant that guy on Pulp Fiction.

    "Bring in the GIMP!"
  • nsjoker, on 10/11/2007, -6/+1Serious*
  • MisterNetHead, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6There's a "standard computer interface design"? Huh... I never seemed to notice.
    • dichotom, on 10/25/2007, -4/+23"I never seemed to notice."

      That is the beauty of it.
    • rlee0001, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Well on windows standard computer interface design means using a different toolbar control for every application (MFC style, Office Style, Explorer Style, etc...). On linux standard computer interface design means using a hole group of completely different widget toolkits for each application (GTK, QT, etc...). On the mac it means some windows have a white-ish background while others have a brushed aluminum looking background. On the web it means...well...heh.
      • OrangeTide, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I accept Athena and Motif as standard X11 desktop before I'll accept GTK and QT as being any thing beyond de facto standard.

        Seeing as GTK used to be the GIMP Tool Kit and originated from the project I'd have to say it fits in as a standard Linux desktop, seeing as more linux apps these days use GTK than anything else. (QT is not nearly as popular)
  • acid0426, on 10/11/2007, -20/+10Features are more important than beauty. See: Windows Vista.
    • goblindegook, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6This isn't just about beauty, it's about usability and familiarity. People who don't give two hoots about HMI design or are too incompetent to do it properly like to say things like that or blame other's stupidity for wanting "dumbed down" interfaces, but the fact of the matter is that some of us use our computers to work and have better things to worry about than learn to bend over backwards so that GIMP can perform some trivial task.
    • Nick22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7The least that they can do is have it all in a single window rather than have 1 window per file opened, 1 for tools, 1 for layers etc. Its so incredibly annoying having the entire program split into multiple windows its nto eve funny
    • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I *prefer* the multi-window mode. It works well for me. I am not going to claim it is *better* or *worse*, because that is subjective.

      GIMP *does* need a facelift IMO. The HMI issues of GIMP are obvious and have nothing to do with multi-window usability. Look at the size and position of the preview windows of the filters and script-fu? Sometimes they are the size of a postage stamp and can't be resized, other times are a more useful size. Sometimes the accelerator keys on the buttons work, sometimes they don't. Buttons are in different orders depending on the filter. Sometimes the tab-order of controls is right, sometimes it is all over the place.

      In terms of features, it does *most* of what I want as an amateur photographer who sometimes wants to clean things up again, but the lack of 16-bit mode means I can't get the most out of working with RAW images, and the colour spaces need some work. If I was a pro, these things would probably be much more annoying.
  • toasterwaffle, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5HDR and tonemapping would be rockin' too!
    • spect3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You can do HDR with GIMP - just use dark/light layers and desaturation - there are tutorials all over about how to achieve it
  • deafmute, on 10/11/2007, -11/+5This is blog spam you ass. No one cares what you think about the GIMPs ***** interface!!!
  • electioneering, on 10/11/2007, -17/+55it needs a name change. i don't care what it stands for.
    • stalefries, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27I filed a bug on that a while back, and it was closed. :(
    • tnoy, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Here I thought I was the only one that thinks it needs a name change..
    • DonCarcharo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11What I find amusing is that the same people who create open sourced solutions like GIMP question the success of commercial products like the iPhone. Are you serious? Your application is named after a derrogatory term for a disabled person. What's next, a vector illustration application called Oozing pustule?

      Like it or not, marketing is an important component of almost any wildly successful product.
    • mitrovarr, on 10/11/2007, -1/+29Seriously, this is one of the number one problems with the GIMP. You cannot mention the current name in polite or business conversation without everyone looking at you like you just brought up rape porn. You have to go into a long, uncomfortable discussion of the acronym and background. Even after that, the name reveals that the developers and the project itself are extremely unprofessional, which isn't a good impression to have when attempting to use it. Add the train wreck of an interface and the GIMP is pretty much doomed from the start, no matter how well it actually works internally.

      Seriously, developers, bite the bullet and name it something respectable. It doesn't matter if you pick a totally lame, soulless name like OpenImage or Gnu Imager or whatever, it's still better than the freaking GIMP. You could not pick a worse name if you tried.
      • duckfigg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I am a long-time Linux/OSS user and advocate, and love the gimp.

        I have to say that mitrovarr makes a very good argument. I agree.
      • championchap, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1Raster
        And
        Photo
        Editing

        Ok, so i pulled it out of my ass.. point is, there are pleanty of worse names for it.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Why not make a dramatic change, like GAIM to Pidgin? From GIMP to Sun Flower, Sky, Monarch, or something artistic?
      • OrangeTide, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
    • linuxpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've heard/read all sorts of people commenting on how much they don't like the name. Personally I have no problem with it, even if it is a word for a sexually submissive person.

      But so far I haven't heard of anyone starting a poll or anything on names to change it to. . . rally up support for a particular name, and then try to convince the project leaders to switch to a nice catchy name?
    • linuxpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I've heard/read all sorts of people commenting on how much they don't like the name. Personally I have no problem with it, even if it is a word for a sexually submissive person.

      But so far I haven't heard of anyone starting a poll or anything on names to change it to. . . rally up support for a particular name, and then try to convince the project leaders to switch to a nice catchy name?
  • TheRealAlzabo, on 10/11/2007, -14/+14The thing it needs the most is the ability to install on Intel Macs without all the X11 etc etc, THEN regular folks would be interested....
    • PwnisherX, on 10/25/2007, -17/+22Regular folks don't use Macs.
      • MadOtaku, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Why is he being buried? I love my MacBook Pro, but most people don't use Macs. So any change to the Mac version wont make GIMP more appealing to "regular folks".
        • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6> Most people don't use Macs.

          That may be true, but there is a significant number of Mac users in that industry.
          • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Yes, but those in the industry are also the ones who actually *use* all the features in PS, which leaves GIMP in the dust anyway. If they want to make a name for themselves, they need to appeal to the "regular folks", which leads us back to square one.
  • zgregoryg, on 10/11/2007, -20/+15In my opinion Gimp rocks! What the heck do you want for free? A rubber biscuit?
    Let's see, FREE and unencumbered or almost $900 and encumbered with a bunch of crap... Gimme Gimp!
    • renegadeafk, on 10/11/2007, -12/+6Photoshop is free.
    • micahbell, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9Yes, GIMP is great. It still needs some serious help on the UI.
    • goblindegook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Screw that logic, zgregoryg. If we can make it better through user feedback, then we should. Just because GIMP is free doesn't mean it has to be a second-grade product.
      • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Indeed the point is we can make high quality equivalents to proprietary projects. The problem is this one of the internal GNU projects (as opposed to things like GNOME which are largely independent though affiliated). Most GNU projects seem to go very slow these days and follow a very cathedral like model (they've always done that, a simple reality of the process for handling copyrights they have).

        I think a 3rd party will eventually get it right. GIMP will probably remain a dead end.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I know its a long shot but PS plugin support somehow?? would be great. Other than that, A more familiar interface like PS and improved layer control would be the thing...
  • pdeco, on 10/11/2007, -2/+18I am not sure how powerful KDE's Krita is compared to GIMP, but it looks like a good alternative.

    http://www.koffice.org/krita/
    • omarciddo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8It doesn't have quite as many features as GIMP, but there's no question the UI is easier to use.
    • morphir, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1krita is first and formost a vector editor/drawer. While gimp is for pixmaps.
      Adobe illustrator is a vector editor/drawer, while adobe photoshop is for pixmaps.
      • roggor, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Nope, Krita is a bitmap editor just like the GIMP. Maybe you are confusing it with inkscape?
        • morphir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3yes, you are right. I confused krita with inkscape.
  • liquidcola, on 11/01/2007, -12/+55Isn't GIMP open-source? FORK IT if you want a change.
    • jwkane, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13just in case some freakjob doesn't understand the sarcasm... forking a project to implement a feature is nearly always a miserable and horribly wrong choice.
      • VenTatsu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Yeah, the right way to do it is to call it a 'branch' that way you can claim that your code will be merged into the trunk.

        /sarcasm
      • morphir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Forking is nearly always a stupid thing. But have you ever considered that the current committers and maintainers don't have time/resources to sit down and improve the gui? They who really want it and can do it, should join the project and start working on it.
        • dragon76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But have you ever considered that the current committers and maintainers don't have patience/humility to sit down and let people improve the gui?
    • stonyhill, on 10/11/2007, -2/+22Genius answer. Because every single person in the world who is in need of a decent image editor also happens to be a crack developer who can decipher the 10 years of spaghetti code that is the GIMP source.
    • Dhalgren, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13FORK YOU!!!
    • GMorgan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Lets be fair. The last time somebody created a fork of a GNU project there was a lot of politics over it. Most would prefer not to go there now.

      Also most forks tend to do better than or really enhance the original (though this wasn't the case with XEmacs, both versions sucked equally as well in all but Lisp development, for Lisp development they are quite good thanks to Slime).

      I mean forking X11 was clearly a bad idea.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1(Coughs) Compiz -> Beryl -> Compiz Fusion
    • adameros, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1I second that opinion. Open Source is not a democracy, it's a DO-ocracy. If you think something should be done, get off your ass and go do it.
  • xmilky, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1If you find the GIMPs many windows intimidating, it is probably because you are using an outdated window manager (e.g., Windows or Gnome). Learn about "rolling up windows". Get over it.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think Vector control similar to Xara would be great, I know most would never have used it but its extremely fast and a better system than fireworks...
  • slonkak, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Oh my gosh. I wish I could digg this story like a million times.
  • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5Paint.net FTW!
    • Blarbo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Paint.net is good and all, but it has limited features compared to GIMP.
    • grumpyrain, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Paint.NET is a nice product, loads sub-second if the .NET libraries are already in memory, and looks great. I also imagine it is not too hard to get it working with Mono.
      But seriously, it is not aimed at the same audience as Gimp. It is like suggesting those sick of Open Office try out Wordpad.
  • Muncher, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I've never had the disdain for GIMP's interface that many seem to express, but it could definitely use a makeover. The development builds are improved, but they're far from "normal."
  • xenoploid, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Oh, GIMP fans, when will you ever learn.
  • shuffle2, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3KRITA FTW
  • schestowitz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12The next version of the GIMP will have a UI overhaul.
  • ourhomeplanet, on 10/11/2007, -10/+40If you had actually tried Gimp, and are not a complete dumb-ass, you'd realize it's really not that hard to learn. I find to be amazing actually; and for something that's free that even more amazing. It's UI is actually quite user friendly: all the icons are pretty much intuitive, and the rest just takes a bit of fiddling around. Also, when a person tries Photoshop for the first time its interface is seems alien and confusing, and like any program (like Gimp) you have to simply put in a bit of effort.
    • link_36p, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2I agree. When i work with the GIMP i minimize everything else, get a white or black background up (on my desktop). Then i hide the task tray and move the gimp tool window to the left and stretch it out. Gives it a feel like gimpshop or Photoshop (or morish of a feel)
      • calculoid, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8So you just have to minimize everything else, change your desktop background, hide your taskbar, then move around and stretch the tool windows whenever you want to use GIMP... I can't imagine why anyone would think that GIMP needs a UI overhaul. I must be a complete dumbass.
    • linuxdaemon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I agree. It comes down to getting used to one and not liking the other. I have used both, though primarily GIMP now as I don't have a license for Photoshop at work anymore. Personally, I am not a fan of the flyout menus in Photoshop. I understand there are a lot of tools, but hiding tools with a little arrow indicating there are more options doesn't seem all that intuitive. However, after you use it and get used to it, you come to expect the tools to work that way.
    • OrangeTide, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I find GIMP way easier than Photoshop, but I don't really use Photoshop much.

      I use lots of hot keys in the GIMP anyways.
    • skankyBacon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think you're confusing "It's [sic] UI is actually quite user friendly" and "I've now figured it out so anyone who hasn't gotten used to it is a dumbass."
      You can be reasonably efficient even with the worst UI once you spend enough time with it. But a first time user will find Photoshop way more intuitive. As linuxdaemon says, it comes down to getting used to it. If you sit down with Photoshop for the first time, odds are you can do some basic things immediately. With GIMP, it's like you have to figure out how the interface even works before you can perform the most rudimentary tasks.
      • DoubleMike, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I disagree. I recently tried the GIMP and several different versions of Photoshop (elements 1.0, CS1, CS3) with little prior experience with any of them. I find the Photoshop interface to be much less intuitive than the GIMPs (especially the older Photoshops, like 7.0). I have had to assist several people with basic tasks in Photoshop (one guy spent an hour figuring out how to crop in PS 7), then I introduced them to the GIMP. They seem to have much less trouble with basic tasks (hey, there's a crop button!). Photoshop does make some things easier (and it has much better support for things like CMYK), but for the total image-editing noob the GIMP wins hands down.
  • pogfreak, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3The fact that photoshop still sells for hundreds of dollars is proof of how open source can utterly fail in certain areas. And no its not just name recognition / branding: the GIMP is a POS and years behind photoshop. The day theres a free open source clone of PS is the day adobe lowers their prices.
  • ROFLance, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11The title should be "Digg up if your name is Captain Obvious"
  • centx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Personally I've been using the GIMP as a hobbyist for a few years now, and before that photoshop, and even though I'm more used to the GIMP interface, I have to agree with this, GIMP needs a serious facelift. This way it will be easier to adopt, and maybe in the long run be easier to use over all. (not to mention for GIMP to start using GEGL, but thats another story, or not?)
  • CNSecrest, on 06/02/2008, -8/+5It's not very user-friendly. It needs an overhaul. DUGG.
    • brucemanly, on 10/25/2007, -3/+1 Feel free to digg me down but seriously why did you digg canedewey down? he agrees. I swear you need to make a joke around here to get dugg up

      thanks for listenning
      • AlanOrozco, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No, we buried him for stating the obvious and then saying that he dugg the article.
        • brucemanly, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well since the article is about asking for people's opinions I'm not sure how it's obvious. Or are you stating you can read minds? :D
        • PARAPA, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I wonder how deep the commenting system goes. Digg me down, suckers
  • jonr, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Adjustment layers, and color management. Until then, GIMP is for doodlers to create flashy buttons for websites.
    (IMHO, of course)
  • TheRealToma, on 10/11/2007, -5/+14Instead of digging it, why dont you file some usability bugs or even submit some patches? Thats how open source works. And if you cant code it, learn it.
    • link_36p, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7The people who made the GIMP arent stupid, they know people complain about the UI. But i think you might mean making suggestions to them? Telling them there UI sucks isn't telling them anything new.
    • neonkow, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Digging and coding aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe this will garner enough attention that the people who made GIMP will put some hours into rethinking the interface.
      • linuxpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The people who made GIMP (and any other open-source project) most likely already "put some hours into" thinking up the current interface, and see nothing wrong with it. Bitching about it won't help. Tell them how it should look/act and maybe they'll redo it.

        Saying "Photoshop's UI is better" most likely won't help much either because a) the programmers would've changed it by now if they agreed, and/or b) the programmers haven't used Photoshop and have no clue what its UI looks like.
    • mitrovarr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah, and if public health pisses you off, go to medical school!

      Seriously, they want the interface that way. People have been bitching continuously about it for years and years, and people hack together fixes like Gimpshop, but it stays the same way. If you fix it, you'll just fork the project and your fork will die without maintenance.
      • linuxpenguin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1If you care so much about having the UI look a certain way, then why aren't you maintaining the fork?
  • Steeple, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16it's interface is no where near as bad as Painter, which I gave up on.
    GIMP is terrific for what it is, it feels like maybe photoshop 5 or 6, to me, but in the end "being free" wasn't really a good enough reason to use it.
    Pros use a legit copy of photoshop and we're pretty happy with it (adobe buttrape pricing aside), casuals use a pirated copy until they go pro, it's an upgrade system that kinda works...i don't see where GIMP can fit in unless it starts actually doing something better than photoshop

    it's a willfully awful name though
    • Continuum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3"Pros use a legit copy of photoshop and we're pretty happy with it (adobe buttrape pricing aside), casuals use a pirated copy until they go pro, it's an upgrade system that kinda works"

      I have always suspected that Adobe doesn't crack down on Piracy for this very reason. Make your product easily accessible to home users, charge a ***** load for businesses to use it.
      I think Quark Xpress did something along these lines in the beginning, no?
      • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1As the mainstay working tool for the graphics industry it isn't even particularly expensive.
    • DrawingTheSun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no way you can compare Painter with the GIMP.
      What version of Painter did you use? the latest version has a very standard type of interface, i can switch between Photoshop and Painter quite easily, apart from some of the hotkeys not being the same, whereas i can't even use the GIMP unless i spend more time figuring out the stupid UI than actually getting something done.
      And Painter is for Painting things, you can't really do much painting in GIMP, the lack of brush controls is horrific.
      (By the way, when you use painter, your meant to use a pen type input device, its not very good with a mouse)
  • possum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I would have to agree that it needs a face lift. I would use GIMP alot more if the UI was more user friendly.
  • bigbird, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The biggest problem with it is that theres no CMYK(atleast in the last version that i saw) Without CMYK you can not design anything for print! Well atleast not right anyway.
  • IntellEJent, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4I personally think Photoshop needs a facelift as well, but that may just be my opinion, having used GIMP for awhile for serious work.
  • seandfeeney, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Digg this if you think pidgin needs a face lift.
    • cdmarcus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Actually, it has the best UI of everything on the market except for Google Talk. Dugg down.
      • cdmarcus, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Damn, I was trying to reply to someone who said something about Pidgin, but their comment seems to have been removed. Has anyone else noticed this random removal of comments? Not just buried, it's completely gone.
        • morphir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2stop smoking crack, the comment is still there. It's been buried.
    • brokencrystal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It could use webcam support.
  • spltimg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3I only have one request and I am sure it isn't legal but I sure would like it if Photoshop pallets and styles worked in GIMP. I am trying to learn C++ but it is not going so well so I guess I will just sit around and complain. After all it is the American way :)
  • nikhilnidhi, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9or...you could just torrent photoshop cs3..hypothetically of course
  • aboutb, on 10/11/2007, -4/+0i like gimp's uber simple gui ... for the same reasons(whether its simply aesthetic or otherwise on gimp) i use minimal gui in windows
  • Achdine, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3The multi-panel interface is ideal for working on multiple monitors. I love it.
    • inkubux, on 10/25/2007, -0/+2It should be as an option IMHO because I personally hate having 23 millions of objects in my taskbar when running the gimp
  • MBHoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Windows that lock together = happy me
  • DesuKN, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18Digg is the new PetitionOnline
  • MavRevMatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I would use gimp if it had a regular interface...
    • DoubleMike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1define regular...
      • skankyBacon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Remotely similar to any sort of recognizable standard.
        • DoubleMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What standard? Is there a W3C for software interfaces? Does it have to look like office or photoshop? There are copycats and there are interface designers that care. Take your pick.
  • cantormath, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2I use gimp everyday and never have a problem........
  • ZeitMachina, on 10/11/2007, -5/+20How about a f**king LINE TOOL.
    • linuxdaemon, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17OK...this is a very non-intuitive thing. To draw a line: Select the brush or pencil tool, click an endpoint of your line, now hold the shift key and click your other end.
    • OrangeTide, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2RTFM nubsauce.
      • PlancksCnst, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You have to read a manual to DRAW A LINE?
        • DoubleMike, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I totally agree. The GIMP may be great, but the vast majority of it's capabilities are hidden in cryptic keyboard shortcuts and non-intuitive sequences. A lot of open source software does things like that because it makes for a very efficient workflow, but it completely alienates any new users. Blender 3D is the same way: it's an awesome and extremely powerful app, but the learning curve is very steep even for basic tasks. Better documentation would help, but it's not the solution. The hints that shows up in the GIMP statusbar are very helpful, but they are too subtle and unobtrusive. I want a program that shows me how to do what I want to do, then gets out of my way to let me do it efficiently. I have yet to see any app that meets both of these requirements. For example, most commercial software gets the first part right and misses the efficiency part, and most open source software is the other way around. I, personally, don't mind taking a week to learn the software if it means I can do things ten times faster, but most people don't see it that way.
  • ho0ber, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9I wish I could dig this up more than once...
  • ray73864, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14GIMP needs better text tools and the interface needs to be bound by a master window, i hate this floating crap, dreamweaver of the old had it till they tied it all into a nice window, now GIMP seems to want to mimic that, other than those 2 things i love GIMP.
    • linuxdaemon, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2"Floating crap" works much better on multiple monitors.
    • lunartech, on 10/11/2007, -3/+0The floating separate windows can be handy on a multi-monitor setup. It lets you have the image on one screen and all the toolbars etc on the other. Although it's annoying alt-tabbing through them all...
    • morphir, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I agree to the window part. What should be a nice compromise is letting the user chose whether to have one window (windows style) or several (mac style)
      • ray73864, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Indeed, I believe Dreamweaver did it that way for a while, and i could agree to that idea, i only have 1 monitor and would love to have the main window, i can however see how it would be an advantage for multi monitor people, you could have the palletes in one monitor and your work in the other (although with a main window this would still sorta be possible)
        • DoubleMike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I recently switched to a dual-monitor setup, and it is obvious that this is what the GIMP was designed for. You can throw all the control windows onto one monitor and then full-screen the image on the other (plus you can have several different viewports for the same image!) I usually have the toolboxes and a full image view on the left 17" monitor and zoom in to work on the right 22". I can see what I'm doing in both places at once, which minimizes zooming and panning. I'm looking into getting mpX (I run Linux), which would mean I could attach two input devices (maybe a mouse and a tablet) and use both at once (one for each hand). It looks like the GIMP interface has some great advantages, but not for the average user.
  • mothos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The GUI is not the best, but it's the least of my concerns with it. What I want to see first is already being worked on. I would prefer to see GIMP running without X11 and CMYK support before any interface overhauls. Add those two and I could start using GIMP in a print environment.
    • ray73864, on 10/11/2007, -2/+0True, if GIMP was to use something other than GTK (as nice as it might be, the UI elements are a bit ugly) and use something like wxWindows which has very nice UI elements.
  • polyGone, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think we should just take Adobe's office by force and make the port to the linux kernel.

    Yeah, that's fascist, whatever.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.