What is Digg?328 Comments
- jwoelich, on 10/12/2007, -50/+252"Does GIMP have what it takes to dethrone Adobe Photoshop as the standard?"
I'll stop laughing long enough to answer that question with a simple 'No'. - fugazi, on 10/12/2007, -11/+78Although I agree with you in most cases there are some who do some damn good work with gimp, better than most can do with photoshop. Still photoshop is by far better than gimp in almost every way possibe except for the price.
- alexp2ad, on 10/12/2007, -5/+66On CMYK: "It needs to be added, and I'm sure it's on the list for inclusion. Actually, It might already be, but I havent tried the newest version recently."
Wow, great, an article by someone who hasn't done the research before writing, great. :/ - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -22/+68the first thing they need to do is get rid of that name.
I can't go to buy boss and say "we need GIMP"... wtf is that. - bludo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47Don't let the programmer design the interface.
- hourigan, on 10/12/2007, -40/+78This should be “GIMP vs MS Paint”. Photoshop is so far ahead it is silly for GIMP to be compared to it. If you are an amateur making some graphics GIMP is fine because it is free, but if you are doing this for a living, it is a joke to say GIMP is even in the running as a professional tool.
- smitting, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40I tryout Gimp once a year to see if I can stop buying Photoshop for my web developers. Trust me, it has nothing to do with the name for me.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -27/+59Let's be frank: anybody working in graphic arts as a profession is *not* going to be running linux desktop. Most likely they're on OSX with Windows a distant 2nd.
I tried messing around with Gimp on my Ubuntu box and I was shocked to see how poor it was after I had read so many glowing reviews about it. It's just yet another reminder that despite how great Linux's underpinnings are, the applications out there are for the most part crap. - XVampireX, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I agree with everything in the article except the name change.
I would also like to add that it's not very comfortable to have 3 different windows on the screen without something to connect all of them together... kinda messy. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+36"Let's be frank: anybody working in graphic arts as a profession is *not* going to be running linux desktop"
Oh, sure, like here:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/high_performance/2003100201126OSBZHE
Yes, I'm very sure Peter Jackson and LucasFilm don't know ***** about professional image work and you know everything. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -11/+40BassCadet:
It's not so much that the applications for Linux are crap, it's that the developers who make them perform almost no research into what the users want, what the user find good/bad, and what the users find simple/difficult.
The reason for this is that Linux and Unix as a whole is essentially a programmer-centric environment, and has been since it's inception. In all reference documents and even school textbooks, you will notice that when they use the term "USER", it will explicitly refer to a "PROGRAMMER". This definition was very true in the early days of computing, when the users of a computer really were the programmers, but this is no longer the case.
It's true that recent strides have been made by the open source community to try to make Linux and many of its applications more user-centric ("user" in terms of the average computer user, as the modern definition of the word implies). Ubuntu is probably the most famous example. However, all these attempts have only REALLY started making a difference in literally the last 2-5 years. Give them time. I'd say that in about 7-10 years, it will start to become difficult to tell the difference between the quality of a commercial application and an open-source one.
Until then, have patience and avoid the mistake of completely embracing the open-source movement as the superior choice (as some people, especially on Slashdot, advocate). Pick each of your applications on a program-by-program basis. If the open-source alternative is good for you, that's great. If the commercial equivalent is the superior choice (as is the case with Photoshop and MS Office), then you should not feel any "shame" in using it. - noksagt, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32If you read the article or even the summary, you'd know that it talks about the major features that PhotoShop has which the GIMP lacks. What features does MS Paint have that GIMP lacks?
I agree that most commercial graphic designers use PhotoShop & wouldn't use GIMP. But there ARE people who use GIMP or GIMP-derived projects for their professional work. One very good example is Cinepaint--because GIMP is open source, the film industry was able to modify it to suit their needs. Something they can't do with PhotoShop. - hotdamn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25After "I havent tried the newest version recently." I stopped reading.
- kerrle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28@BassCadet: Hi; I'm a graphics professional, and I do most of my work on Linux, using Gimp and Inkscape. Just letting you know we're around.
Yeah, currently, if you're doing print work, Gimp ain't the best tool - but if the vast majority of the graphics you create are for the web or video, I've found it entirely up to the task. I can honestly say I prefer Gimp's docks to Photoshop with it's dozen floating pallets - and I started with Photoshop on version 3.
I do have a mac mini with Photoshop, but that's essentially just to ensure I can exchange documents with clients. - bonked, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30@BassCadet
Actually, you are only somewhat correct - many professionals myself included regularly make use of the GIMP - most people write it off because they already know PS, I know I did more than once. Then after forcing myself to switch completely to Linux I thought back to my early days with PS and how frustrating it was to learn the keyboard shortcuts, how to do this effect, etc. and realized that it was only really a week or two of work to get comfortable in the environment. I decided to go through that learning process again with the GIMP and give it the same chance I gave PS.
After about 4 days, my opinion of the GIMP was drastically different. I know many people wouldn't give it a shot or be up for the frustration, but there are many things that the GIMP does in my opinion now, better than Photoshop. Each has it's strong points, but over-sweeping generalizations like the one you made are insane. It is a poor workman that blames his tools. - BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -8/+30And thus the problem with 99% of linux applications...
- noksagt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22Linux and Mac users are used to managing multiple windows & palettes. However, there have been several single window hacks, not the least of which is GIMPshop.
- hotdamn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26I think for people who use Photoshop in a professional manner, the new features in CS and CS2 make sense. (selecting multiple layers, anyone?)
That being said, the only app to kill Photoshop CS2 will be CS3. - stonyhill, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24Some programs, like GIMP, should have an inferiority complex. They're inferior. Other F/OSS apps, like Amarok (note the correct capitalization) actually improve on their mainstream counterparts.
- nogami, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23I absolutely agree that changing the name from "GIMP" to something professional-sounding is probably the first thing they should do...
The guys working on "FilmGIMP" thankfully clued-in on this earlier changed the name to "CinePaint". While "GIMP" is a cute name (I suppose), "image is everything" (no pun intended), and they really should try and be a bit smarter with their product image if they hope to be taken seriously. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Notepad vs. Word - What still needs to be done?
- jas8522, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I'm not about to say that Gimp is as good as Photoshop, nor is it as clean, but for adding layers, making signs, and editing photos, I have been able to do just as good a job with the Gimp as I have Photoshop - albeit a little more difficulty due to the differences in keystrokes and menu's for where to find things. And yes, there's more manual work to be done (like older versions of Photoshop) because it's not quite as clean at it's automated processes.
At work it's a fantastic picture adjustment, or sign editing tool, since the electronics store I work at will never store use a copy of Photoshop due to it's price, and they sure as hell don't condone pirated software!
I would never even consider creating anything from scratch with the Gimp (like you can do with Photoshop), but it will allow you to 'get by' if you can't afford (or don't want to pirate) Photoshop.
Jordan - rickbauls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18I agree, but the gimp is nice is that it's free. Does anyone know if it's possible to run scripts with Photoshop? That's what I like most about GIMP.
- netburnr, on 10/12/2007, -13/+26Well we are all agreed, we would all prefer Photoshop over Gimp.
Even GimpShop which is supposed to make it more PS like, still sucks. And the comment about the 3 floating windows not tied together, thats my #2 complaint with the program, its just stupid design to have it like that.
#1 reason I dislike it, it won't do ANYTHING as cleanly as PS. For example, try to do the exact same thing on both, and you will be able to tell the difference. Paintbucket works completely different on them, etc etc. - TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Nothing, notepad is too powerful enough as it is.
- faulkner, on 10/12/2007, -11/+23"I don't care what it's called, but naming a professional level graphics tool after the dorogitory term for a person who can't walk is not smart business."
first, learn to spell 'derogatory', and, second, the name is the GNU Image Manipulation Program. - noksagt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Same here. The article might have valid criticism, but it would mean a lot more if it came from someone who was intimately familiar with both products. This seems to merely rehash criticism that he's read elsewhere.
- mojaam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13They have to take OpenOffice approach. Change is not a good thing in this areas so all the short cut keys and what not have to be very similar.
- chazcross, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12As a programmer i have to agree with you on this. I have no design talent what-so-ever.
- kerrle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Burmask:
Yes, really - Cinepaint is a fork of gimp. There are some people that have been a bit bitter because they would have preferred them to make their additions and work with the "main" gimp tree, rather than having two separate projects - but that's free software, they're allowed to, and it's a good program. - alpinista55, on 10/12/2007, -7/+16How much would you be willing to pay for the tools necessary to be an auto mechanic, a welder, or maybe a brain surgeon? As in any profession, a photographer, designer, prepress professional, or anyone who works professionally with bit-mapped images are more than willing to pay for the best tools. Those who complain about $500 for the industry standard tool (for so many reasons) are merely exposing their amateur status.
- Jarrod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Why does it keep the three-windowed insanity version after version? I've never met anyone who says "I just love manipulating three windows while working with Gimp." If no one ever likes it, why don't they change it? Just steamrolling it into every release, on and on, makes no sense to me. "YOU WILL LIKE IT!!!"
- Eoxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I think this article is not very informative ...
I was waiting for a real "in depth" comparison between Photoshop and Gimp and we just get several remarks that are not new nor informative ...
Gimp is a good piece of software ... it does the basic stuff as good as Photoshop but is not in the level of photoshop yet in terms of possibilities ... It's interface (like the Photoshop one) is not very intuitive, but Photoshop gives a better feeling when using it... In photoshop the real power lies in the details of the interface... If you know it you can do marvelous things .. I bet Gimp is able to do marvelous things as well ... But it would be great if some specialist made a complete revamp of the interface so it is intuitive and more beautiful than the current one. Eye candy in the icons could make a big difference with the very same background tools ..
The limit is never the tool, it is the imagination and ingeniosity of the artist that uses it ..
If a feature is not present it can always be done using workarounds ... or by using more time to get the best result ...
Nevertheless interface is the way to enhance Gimp users experience and extends the popularity of the tool as it is. The interface must be consistent, intuitive, informative and beautiful.
Open source projects are first focusing on the efficiency of the product but not always on interface ... If you look on projects that have a rising popularity - the interface is very well made : Firefox is a good example ...
In the other hand Commercial applications (Windows, Apple Mac OS) are making interface that sometimes look better than what is running in background (see Windows for example) ... - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -17/+25Does GIMP have what it takes to replace Photoshop?
Does OpenOffice have what it takes to replace MS Office?
Does amaroK have what it takes to replace iTunes?
Does XINE have what it takes to replace Media Player?
Does OpenGL have what it takes to replace DirectX?
Does GnuCash have what it takes to replace Quicken?
How about, does Linux have what it takes to get over its inferiority complex and excel on its own merit instead of trying to clone Windows badly? - pimterry, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Click somewhere with the pencil (or brush, or airbrush or even blur or sharpen or any tool), hold shift and if you click somewhere else, it'll draw a line to there. Not so hard...
On a side note i do web design for various businesses and things and I use gimp. I LIKE the interface even if nobody else does, its a bit wierd but it does mean i can have an image open, with firefox visible the background that i can look at and the tools available either visibly or with just an alt tab. It's particularly good with two screens though. And the entirety of the options available in the other windows of the interface that everyone is complaining about can be got at by right clicking the image itself.
To be honest, i think most of the complaints about GIMP are because people have used Photoshop first and when trying to use GIMP have got upset that they're NOT THE SAME PROGRAM. I learned GIMP well before i ever used photoshop simply because it was free and poor students like free things. I tried photoshop a little while back and it just felt odd after GIMP...
But hey, each to his own =).
PimTerry - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13smitting, I agree with that.
I'm not saying you can't get anything done in GIMP, because you can. But I'm not even a power user of Photoshop and the GIMP still falls a lot short of what I need. - reddevil3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Ok I would like to ask a simple question.....how does EVERYONE get access to Photoshop? I am a bit of a 'noob' when it comes to image editing but doesn't photoshop cost like $500+ (not sure about the price). I guess everyone downloads it illegally.
- Majdaa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9In my opinion, the gui simply needs to be redesigned and there has to be better psd file support. Meanwhile i'll still be using Pixel, which is basically a photoshop clone for lots of OS's...google for it
- totorototoro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7the most difficult thing to overcome isn't any one feature, but inertia. i've used photoshop since v2.51, and its just second nature to use it. GIMP could provide 95% of the features and functionality of Photoshop, and it would still feel "off" for production work to me.
If you took the two versions and gave them to a complete beginner to choose? good question. - ishmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I see so many "GIMP needs feature X" posts, but no "how do I help GIMP to have feature X?" You don't need to be a programmer to contribute to Open Source projects. Translations, artwork, package building, web site stuff, or maybe even cat herding would help. Helping hands are the fuel of progress, not bitching (for which "advocacy" is sometimes the euphemism).
True problem analysis not only identifies the problem itself, but also considers plans for overcoming it. Look at where GIMP is now, determine where you want it to be, make the plans, gather the resources, and get to work.
Someone mentioned Inkscape. It is still young, but it is progressing quickly because of the participation of many people contributing many different talents. And it has happened several times that a person wanting feature X on Inkscape ends up later supplying feature X himself, and becoming a valued member of the project. Healthy Open Source projects work that way. - hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Yes, but dropping the MP and just calling it "Gnu Image" is cuter!
- skidooer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Even Photoshop itself uses the multiple window approach on the Mac and the old UNIX versions. It might feel weird on Windows because of that, but it would feel weird on every other system out there if it was any other way.
- thepxc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Does GIMP have what it takes to replace Photoshop?
Does OpenOffice have what it takes to replace MS Office?
Does amaroK have what it takes to replace iTunes?
Does XINE have what it takes to replace Media Player?
Does OpenGL have what it takes to replace DirectX?
Does GnuCash have what it takes to replace Quicken?
Maybe.
No.
Yes!
Xine isn't a Media Player clone. It's design to copy Winamp. That being said, it's much better than Windows Media player because it has a good backend which I use with other players instead of installing the Winamp-esque GUI.
Yes.
Don't know.
Linux filesystems don't attempt to "clone Windows system's badly." They are faster, handle bigger file sizes, and don't need defragging.
Windows' ipconfig is a cheap imitation of Linux/Unix's ifconfig.
Linux desktop environments are varied, and there are some (many/most) that are nothing like Windows.
Lastly, those examples aren't _Linux_. They're Linux _applications_, and I'm willing to bet that many of the developers are people who switched to Linux and were used to using the Windows products and wanted to use something comparable. Linux itself (outside of its Unix heritage, of course) remains its own beast. - clickwir, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9If the product works and does what it's supposed to, the name really doesn't matter.
I work for a company that uses over 2000 different applications. Some of the names are just plain stupid, racey, sexist and funny. That doesn't stop a major corporation from using them.
The name The GIMP is fine. The only problem with the name is some peoples individual scoffing. That's their own problem.
Name never stopped Apache. - nazsco, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13You sir, is limited to the ms paint. don't assume the rest of world is too.
it's like saying that ion3 is more limited then windows' explorer because it doesn't have all the buttons on your face to click.
Now, just wake me up in the century that photoshop has a plugin interface like gimp. thanks. - JamesBond007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Having both used the Gimp and Photoshop, I find the Gimp is easier to use because it is the one with I am most familiar. Though, I think when people invest a lot of money in software, such as Photoshop, they get defensive if someone suggests they could have just saved the money and used a free alternative -- which is understandable.
The Gimp, like most Open source stuff are projects that take more time learning and effort to get good if not equal results (yes, there is a script to resize brushes in the Gimp). More time is needed, just like for any project like Linux, Blender, Open Office, etc.
When you pay for software you expect complete documentation, support, organization, blah blah blah. That's why people still pay high dollar for Windows, Flash, Photoshop software. But, it's nice to have a free alternative, especially when your job doesn't count on the software or you have a lot of time to screw around. - ISVDamocles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If they do remove it, I hope they keep the option in place. The three window design isn't the best, I admit, but I can put all the tools on my second monitor, and then maximize on the image I'm currently editing, which is very nice.
- BassCadet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I am 2% amused.
- Jacob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7People keep complaining about the interface, because they think a program that isn't photoshop should have the exact same set-up. I personally prefer the multi window interface, I keep them all on one workspace and It is easier to control for me. The Gimp isn't going to be accepted as the standard because as they grow they don't necesarily grow in the same way as photoshop and they started late in the game as well, plus the biggest thing I think is people don't want to learn a new system they just want a free photoshop. And if you want that you may need to head on over to thepiratebay cause it aint coming out of The GIMPs offices.
- burke, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you told them the price I think I know which they'd choose.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 325 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is