Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Gimp IT Technology

Gimp Turns 25 (theregister.com) 121

New submitter thegreatbob shares a report: The General Image Manipulation Program, GIMP, has turned 25. A brief celebration post detailed how the package started life as a July 1995 Usenet thought bubble by then-student Peter Mattis, who posted the following to several newsgroups: Suppose someone decided to write a graphical image manipulation program (akin to photoshop). Out of curiosity (and maybe something else), I have a few (2) questions: What kind of features should it have? (tools, selections, filters, etc.) What file formats should it support? (jpeg, gif, tiff, etc.)" Four months later, Mattis and fellow University of California Berkeley student Spencer Kimball delivered what they described as software "designed to provide an intuitive graphical interface to a variety of image editing operations."

The software ran on Linux 1.2.13, Solaris 2.4, HPUX 9.05, and SGI IRIX. The answer to the file format support question turned out to be GIF, JPEG, PNG, TIFF, and XPM. The rest is history. Richard Stallman gave Mattis and Kimball permission to change the "General" in its name to "GNU", reflecting its open-source status. Today the program is released under the GNU General Public License. As the program added features such as layers, it grew more popular and eventually became a byword for offering a FOSS alternative to Photoshop even though the project pushes back against that description. The project's celebration page says volunteers did their "best to provide a sensible workflow to users by using common user interface patterns. That gave us a few questionable monikers like 'Photoshop for Linux', 'free Photoshop', and 'that ugly piece of software'. We still can wholeheartedly agree with the latter one only!"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gimp Turns 25

Comments Filter:
  • It's been a long time since I fucked with the Gimp.

    • It's been a long time since I fucked with the Gimp.

      From "The Prisoner" (German "Nummer 6"):

      The Prisoner: “Who is Number 1 ?”

      No. 2: “You are . . . Number 6.”

      And now, for something completely different:

      BAReFO0t: "Who is the Gimp . . . ?"

      No. 2: "You are . . . "

      "The Economist" recommended watching "The Prisoner as required viewing at the Academy during the lock-downs.

      They also recommended the two Stanley Kubrick films "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Shining". Both films have a common connection: When three people are loc

    • Gimp's sleeping
  • by OffTheLip ( 636691 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:15PM (#60758394)
    I use it but don't claim to begin to understand it.
    • by ZiggyZiggyZig ( 5490070 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:55PM (#60758572)

      I learnt using Gimp before even hearing about Photoshop, and I am completely confused and helpless whenever I have to do anything with the latter. I really don't understand claims that Gimp is ununderstandable. I think it's more a matter of being used to other tools and finding it hard to master a new one.

      • by Shinobi ( 19308 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @05:34PM (#60758758)

        It's more that GIMP is designed and implemented by programmers of a certain mindset for programmers of a certain mindset, many of them with a further philosophy of "I only need these 5 functions and no others, therefore noone else needs those other functions either", and the workflow is thus quite out of line with how many artists think. Compare it with Krita, which does a FAR better job of listening to artists on what the workflow should be like. Many artists are now using Krita+GMIC to perform the work GIMP is intended for, due to better workflow. For me, GIMP gets in the way of my work, much like Blender's UI did for over 20 years, until 2.8 was released and they started using a more sane workflow.

        I originally learned with Photon Paint, ImageFX and Art Department Pro on the Amiga, but then learned Photoshop and GIMP(and learned to loathe GIMP....)

  • I guess I'm a "new submitter"... learn something new every day!
  • by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:21PM (#60758418)
    The GIMP may have shown that it's possible to have powerful software in FOSS, but it's also shown how not to do things.

    These days look to Blender and Krita for the pinnacles of FOSS desktop applications. They're clearly made for artists and BY artists, whereas The GIMP was clearly made by engineers who have a flawed understanding of what an artist might want, with a lack of flexibility when artists complain about it.

    You can only tell them so many times "there's no reason to have layer boundaries and the image size be different" before it just becomes pointless. Or, of course, "I can't recommend The GIMP to anyone professionally because the name is retarded."
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:41PM (#60758500)

      Or, how about, "Photoshop's interface might not be the most intuitive, but The GIMP's interface is demonstrably, and substantially, worse."

      It's rare that I come across a program that has such a poor interface for so long. Pretty quickly, the developers realize from overwhelming feedback that they've made a mistake. With The GIMP, it took what, three or four major releases before the single pane interface became standard? And then when it did, the default color selection for the tool panels has such low contrast that it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish one tool from another. Sure, you can change it, but why punish your users? With the most recent release, many of the broken ways I had learned to find things have disappeared and been replaced by even more broken behavior: when you click on a tool, God knows why you wouldn't want the parameters for that tool to be immediately displayed somewhere, like every other successful package, ever.

      If I didn't know any better, I'd say they don't want users.

    • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:41PM (#60758502)

      You can only tell them so many times "there's no reason to have layer boundaries and the image size be different" before it just becomes pointless.

      Except that there may be a subset of users (albeit small) that finds this capability useful. If you don't need that option, don't fiddle with it.

      Userland is full of people who cry that they don't use a feature (network capable displays, scriptable init systems, cars with manual transmissions, etc.) and whine until someone steps forward and deletes them. Yeah, Gimp was written by software engineers. People who think along the lines that if some option might be useful to someone, allow them access to it.

      • Except that there may be a subset of users (albeit small) that finds this capability useful. If you don't need that option, don't fiddle with it.

        Please explain how it's logically possible to use it to do something you couldn't do just as easily by stacking transparent layers.

        You have to fiddle with it daily, because you have to go through and tell it to expand the layer to the image size every single time.

        • by PPH ( 736903 )

          You have to fiddle with it daily

          No. I'm no expert user. So I don't know what you might have unchecked. But when I create a new layer, it always defaults to the image size. Now I'm not one of that small subset of users that might need to change it. So I just leave the size alone. And everything is good.

          • then you don't understand the issue. the issue is, if you create a layer, paint something on it, then move the layer, it now has an area outside the image, which sure, no biggie, BUT, now there's a part of the image that isn't covered by that layer. so now if you want to paint on it, you have to go and expand the layer manually. Also, if you create a new layer, draw something, and then want to rescale or rotate the thing you painted by having the transform tool surround just the thing and not the entire lay
            • by mark-t ( 151149 )

              I would suggest that your workflow for proposed layer usage with GIMP may be non-optimal.

              If you frequently need it, assign a hotkey to the Layer To Image Size function, and then after moving any layer around, you can expand/re-crop the layer to the image size as needed.

              Ideally, IMO, layers should typically just always be cropped to content until you need to paint on them outside of their current content. Again, you can attach a hotkey to this function if it is needed frequently. But regardless, that'

      • by sjames ( 1099 )

        THIS! If you don't need a feature, don't use it, but leave it for others who do.

      • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

        Funny, way too many software engineers, even on here, are of the philosophy "I only need these 5 functions, therefore noone else should need anything other than those 5 functions either!", and label any software not fitting those criteria bloated, useless etc. Just go back through all the various GIMP/Blender posts here on Slashdot, and you'll find hundreds of examples.

        • What on earth are you talking about? On my gimp installation there are over 400 entries in just the Filters menu.
      • Userland is full of people who cry that they don't use a feature (network capable displays, scriptable init systems, cars with manual transmissions, etc.) and whine until someone steps forward and deletes them.

        I don't see that in userland very often. I see that in UXland all the time. Normal people don't want features deleted, they just want them out of the way via sensible defaults.

        Software engineers tend to be bad at making interfaces, but usually they seem to care about doing the right thing. UX people are artists, and pretend to care, but ultimately just like to stroke their own egos. That's why today's web is a mess and the pinnacle of UI design was about 15 years ago.

        • Exactly. I actually like GIMP's UI even if it's a bit dated. To me flipping between full-screen single pane apps is a step backwards. I use multiple monitors, often have multiple apps open, drag and drop objects between them to get things done, etc. Just because the average user is computer illiterate and a moron doesn't mean we have to cripple all of our desktop apps until they look and act like useless poke and drool tablet apps. Modern UI's suck across the board. I was incredibly fast and productiv

    • by sjames ( 1099 )

      On the other hand, I find it to be quite usable in many situations. I'm not looking to create a digital Mona Lisa, I just need to get some practical work done on existing images.

      Personally, I found the first few versions of Blender to be unusable. It's improved a bit since.

    • You can only tell them so many times "there's no reason to have layer boundaries and the image size be different" before it just becomes pointless. Or, of course, "I can't recommend The GIMP to anyone professionally because the name is retarded."

      Wait, doesn't Photoshop do this too? And isn't this incredibly useful when working with pasted / resized content, or are you talking about something different?

    • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

      Eh, Blender were INCREDIBLY obstinate about their UI until the last couple of years. I'd say that it wasn't until 2.8 that they finally caught up with 1999 era Maya in terms of useful UI and workflow.

    • by jonwil ( 467024 )

      Inkscape is another open source program that seems to have gotten the UI right.
      I have used commercial vector drawing programs in the past and Inkscape is just as good.

  • 25 years later (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ludux ( 6308946 )
    Still gimped by its stupid name and shitty interface.
    • Re:25 years later (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caseih ( 160668 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:55PM (#60758566)

      I only use Gimp on occasion. However, the UI seems rather normal and conventional to me, not too different from most other applications on my desktop. What's wrong with it, other than it's not identical to Photoshop? It's got nice tool palettes on the left side of the window (hide-able), the usual menu, and a very normal tabbed document interface. Even has a dark mode. What exactly makes it such an awful interface?

      As for features, it is certainly missing things like 16-bit channels, no CMYK, etc. But for every day photo processing, it's probably on the heavy side of features.

      I don't have any real problem with the name. GIMP isn't the name that most people will actually see on the program either. Menu and window title say "GNU Image Manipulation Program." No big deal.

      • Don't know where you got a version with that interface, but for the rest of us it doesn't have tabs and tools all open in different windows and float around and get buried every time you open another image or raise one to the foreground.

        • Re:25 years later (Score:4, Informative)

          by Bradmont ( 513167 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @05:42PM (#60758800) Homepage

          Make sure you have a reasonably recent version (though it's been available for a while now) then click the "Windows" menu on the menu bar, followed by "Single Window Mode."

        • by caseih ( 160668 )

          Have you used Gimp in the last 10 years? Gimp has been the way I describe it for nearly a decade now by default. Since version 2.8 or so, released back in 2007. If I uncheck Windows->Single Window Mode, then I can get the old floating palette interface (which I actually liked just fine).

          Here's a picture of the latest stable version: https://www.gimp.org/release-n... [gimp.org]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Really the old UI criticisms of Gimp are way out of date. But if you can describe how to improve the cu

          • by caseih ( 160668 )

            I am mistaken. The single window mode with tabs certainly was introduced in 2007 but it was not the default for some time after that. The single window interface was made the default more recently with the release of 2.10 I believe. 2018. So it's likely many older, long-term distributions are still defaulting to the older, more confusing interface. Users running a recent distro (Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS 8) probably have 2.10 now.

    • Still gimped by its stupid name and shitty interface.

      Clearly you haven't used it in a long time. The interface went through a major redesign years ago addressing some of the biggest problems people had with it. On the flip side the workflow and the way it works is still very much a testament to the fact that engineers think they know better than end user.

    • I'm reminded of the Nintendo Wii, which was a huge success probably due to the publicity caused by everyone making fun of its stupid name.

  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:47PM (#60758528) Journal

    It has a horrible interface design, but one gets used to it out of rote and it becomes second nature. One just memorizes the arbitrariness.

    For example, why is "Color Management" under "Images" and not "Colors"? View also has "Color Management".

    Why is Transform under both Images and Tools, and similar but not the same in each case? It's also under Layer, which kind of makes sense because layers may be manipulated independent of the entire image, but other potential commonalities are not mirrored between Layer and Image.

    "Image" is vague, it's all images: it's what the software does. It would be like MS-Word having a "Word Processing" menu. (Knowing MS, it probably does.)

    If it's a scope: entire image versus layer, then make the scope an option selection for each feature.

    And what's the difference between filters, tools, colors, and "images"?

    I would perhaps split it into "colors", which changes tint, brightness etc., "shapers" which alters coordinate positions (distortions), "Content" which adds extra elements such as texture or shadows, and "Media", which controls input/output/storage formats. There may be better words for such, but it's a more natural taxonomy in my opinion.

    • by olau ( 314197 )

      Perhaps somebody just need to do the work to figure out what to do about it and then go clean it up.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Tablizer ( 95088 )

        Another approach is to make the menus customizable via XML and/or a "menu editor". Users could select from pre-built templates and/or make their own layout. However, the features would have to be designed to be re-composable in terms of context.

        It also makes how-to's difficult when every users' menu is different. One solution is a "feature ID": You can type in "234" for feature 234, and the corresponding screen pops up (or is instantly executed if no screen needed). Then tutorials can give a list of feature

  • by Max_W ( 812974 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:51PM (#60758544)
    I like GIMP very much. It has a bit unusual interface, but I got accustomed to it.

    In my opinion, GIMP is one of the best computer programs in existence.
  • I like The GIMP but not being a trained graphic designer i do find Krita's interface easier to use. For the little use i have.

    • I like The GIMP but not being a trained graphic designer i do find Krita's interface easier to use. For the little use i have.

      If you were a trained graphics designer you would find GIMP even harder to use after training your brain to use Photoshop for years, and putting hours of work into researching how to do cool stuff with it that can't actually be done with the GIMP because it doesn't implement the functionality of Photoshop's Layer Effects...

      • I like The GIMP but not being a trained graphic designer i do find Krita's interface easier to use. For the little use i have.

        If you were a trained graphics designer you would find GIMP even harder to use after training your brain to use Photoshop for years, and putting hours of work into researching how to do cool stuff with it that can't actually be done with the GIMP because it doesn't implement the functionality of Photoshop's Layer Effects...

        That all depends on what you want to do with GIMP at any given time.

        My wife is a trained graphic designer (BFA and lots of experience). She uses Photoshop, Illustrator, and the rest of the Adobe suite constantly. Photoshop is as straightforward to her as breathing.

        Yet one day we were traveling and I had only my laptop with when she was asked by a friend to do some photo manipulation. My said laptop was running LInux so all I could do was offer her GIMP. It really didn't take long for her to do

  • Say WHAAATTT??!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fish_in_the_c ( 577259 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @04:58PM (#60758598)

    "intuitive graphical interface "

    I've used GIMP many times. Still do sometimes I have also used and long ago taught people to use photoshop.
    To me what makes a GUI _intutive_ is given a specified unfamiliar operation, the speed at which someone can discover how to use it through simple trial and error.
    This is NOT a virtue I would have ever CONSIDERED as something the GIMP designers were trying to accomplish.

    As a free, open source, relatively useful product with all kinds of cool features it does quite well. I like it , but intuitive it IS NOT.

    • Re:Say WHAAATTT??!!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by DMJC ( 682799 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @07:10PM (#60759304)
      Intuitive user interfaces aren't always the best. I always hated Blender (for years tbh) coming from Caligari trueSpace. But the reality is it took me 3 days and some YouTube tutorials to completely replace my workflow with Blender. I finally bit the bullet two weeks ago and already I am making fantastic art equal to or better than my best trueSpace work. Investing in your skills is an important part of migrating to Open Source. I find these tools are not intuitive but they don't need to be. Once you get going in them the workflow becomes very streamlined and you can crank out tons of work without much effort.
      • Every program has two types of users:

        1. People who use the program as their main tool. Every day, they spend multiple hours in the program. For them, an unintuitive interface is annoying in the beginning, but they can expend the 3 days of training it needs to get to the point where they're productive.

        2. Casual users: these use the tool for anywhere between a few hours per week to a few hours per year. For them, an intuitive interface is crucial, because they'll never get over the steep section of the learni

        • by jabuzz ( 182671 )

          The problem is that intuitive interfaces might be less productive interfaces with some level of training in the unintuitive interface.

          Was Word for Windows more intuitive that WordPerfect 5.1? I am sure it was, but at the law firm that my brother worked at the productivity of the typing pool dropped dramatically with the introduction of Word for Windows.

          Alternatively is it better to write your thesis in Word or LaTeX? Looking about when I was at University the former was a shit show.

          • That's not an argument for either. Given the same amount of experience in both programs, the typing pool would be as productive in Word as they were in WP. Of course productivity is going to fall while your personnel is being retrained.

            This is an argument in favor of standardization (which is closely linked to intuitive interfaces). When every program has the same basic menu structure, familiarization with one program also brings benefits in other programs. Word (even back then) had interface commonalities

          • I think there is such a thing as having both worlds in this case. Just because you have an easily discovery-able interface, doesn't mean you need to expose every feature. Nor does it mean you need to have only 1 interface. You can have a 'advanced' interface and a 'novice' interface, you can allow the assignment of hot keys and all kinds of customizations that speed the workflow of 'professionals' while at the same time supporting discoverability for novices.
            I think if you want to write a good UI, the qu

  • by Hasaf ( 3744357 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @05:00PM (#60758608)
    I am at a school that is going remote in another day (when they leave for Thanksgiving). I had to find a substitute for Photoshop. The reality was that switching them to GIMP was just too complicated. This is particularly important considering that knowing the Photoshop controls is preparing them for a later class.

    I ended up using Photopea. I realize the developer puts his heart into it, so I am not going to say anything bad. All I can say is that for my needs, teaching basic photoshop, it is better than GIMP.
    • The reality was that switching them to GIMP was just too complicated.

      That's kind of a damning report isn't it. It's one thing to be unique and innovative in a world of unique innovation. But it's quite the other to be needlessly different when implementing standard features in an otherwise very standard world.

      I've jumped between a lot of image programs, but I can't figure out GIMP.

      • I've jumped between a lot of image programs, but I can't figure out GIMP.

        What I can't figure out about GIMP is how to accomplish the stuff I do with Layer Effects in Photoshop. They make creating certain types of content trivial, that I can't do at all or can't do in reasonable time in GIMP.

        Layer Effects make Photoshop powerful and easy. It's obvious how they work, and how to use them. GIMP is so counterintuitive it hurts. I usually don't even bother to install it any more, instead leaning on CS2 under Win7 in a VM.

  • "Four months later, Mattis and fellow University of California Berkeley student Spencer Kimball delivered what they described as software "designed to provide an intuitive graphical interface to a variety of image editing operations." ...and it took 15 of those 25 years just to become moderately usable to those who know Photoshop.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TreeSlayer ( 6364510 )

      I don't understand the hate.

      I have been using GIMP since i abandoned Photoshop 4.
      It has been improving in Function, GUI, and stability at a constant rate the entire time.
      I don't find it hard to use, but maybe that is just because I have used it for my hobby for so long.

      • by Shinobi ( 19308 )

        I learned GIMP and Photoshop in parallell, back in the 90's, after originally having learned image manipulation with packages on the Amiga, and I quickly learned to loathe GIMP, not for its lack of features, but for how clunky the UI/workflow was, and still is.

      • > I don't understand the hate.

        Every year GIMP inches along, but it is still shit for professionals.

        Specifically, I've been using GIMP on and off again since the Photoshop CS2 days. I use it for new projects when I can, but I keep coming back to Photoshop.

        * Multi-monitor support was crap until ~2.10.20. Placing tools on the 2nd or 3rd monitor would NOT be saved / restored in the correct location when restarting GIMP
        * I have a Photoshop file created back in 2006. GIMP 2.10.22 still can't import it properly

        • > I don't understand the hate.

          Every year GIMP inches along, but it is still shit for professionals.

          Specifically, I've been using GIMP on and off again since the Photoshop CS2 days. I use it for new projects when I can, but I keep coming back to Photoshop.

          Lets see why you do so:

          [...] Photoshop file [...]

          [...] import my Photoshop files [...]

          No option to have default Photoshop key bindings [...]

          [...] behaves different from Photoshop [...]

          [...] blindly copies Photoshop [...]

          Your argument is a tautology, the type of argument made only by idiots, clowns and/or politicians: "I prefer photoshop because I prefer photoshop".

          Geez, Captain Obvious, any other arguments to make?

          • Your argument is a tautology, the type of argument made only by idiots, clowns and/or politicians: "I prefer photoshop because I prefer photoshop".

            What you don't get is that Photoshop is the industry standard because it is the best, and that thousands people have each spent thousands of hours using it, and they have literally built structures in their brains for that purpose. To expect them to throw all of that away and use a less-featured replacement which won't even faithfully load their existing Photoshop documents is idiotic and clownish.

            • Your argument is a tautology, the type of argument made only by idiots, clowns and/or politicians: "I prefer photoshop because I prefer photoshop".

              What you don't get is that Photoshop is the industry standard because it is the best, and that thousands people have each spent thousands of hours using it, and they have literally built structures in their brains for that purpose. To expect them to throw all of that away and use a less-featured replacement which won't even faithfully load their existing Photoshop documents is idiotic and clownish.

              It doesn't matter if something is the industry standard, the de facto standard, or an ANSI standard, the argument that you prefer $FOO because you prefer $FOO is idiotic. You could change it to "I prefer $FOO because it is the de facto standard", and that would make sense.

          • What part of I use it for new projects when I can do you not understand?

            Photoshop, for better or worse, IS the gold standard. If it can't even match the functionality of a Photoshop file made ~15+ years ago then it will NEVER replace Photoshop.

            For GIMP to succeed it not only needs to 100% match the functionality of Photoshop it needs to surpass it. It STILL isn't there in 2020.

            • What part of I use it for new projects when I can do you not understand?

              What part of

              "I prefer photoshop because I prefer photoshop".

              is a good argument?

              Photoshop, for better or worse, IS the gold standard. If it can't even match the functionality of a Photoshop file made ~15+ years ago then it will NEVER replace Photoshop.

              For GIMP to succeed it not only needs to 100% match the functionality of Photoshop it needs to surpass it. It STILL isn't there in 2020.

              Neither is photoshop - after all, it can't surpass itself. You are exhibiting the lack of logic that I am pointing out. Well Done!

              • Not sure if stupid or if trolling.

                What part of can't even match the functionality of a Photoshop file made ~15+ years

                Do you even use GIMP???

  • I searched for "that ugly piece of software" and the only links I found that referred to it in the context of GIMP were other forums talking about GIMP turning 25 today (or two days ago, according to some). I can't find a case of anyone calling it by that name prior.
  • I stared with PS 3 and used it for quite a few years so yes trying out GIMP in mid 2000's was a learning curve yet no matter how much I've tried to switch and even removed PS I still can't get used to the tool icons vs PS. Found Krita and had no problem after some time to know which icon belong to which too, GIMP fuck me still can't remember.

    Either way Dark Table is all I need for any photo development.

    • Just use Partha's GIMP build. I recommend that to everyone looking for "free photoshop." He makes lots of little changes to make it more photoshop-like.

  • by hamburger lady ( 218108 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @06:15PM (#60758998)

    a register article where they don't once refer to someone as a "boffin". this is a special day, my friends.

  • by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @06:23PM (#60759046)

    It's hard to believe anybody enjoys it enough to keep using it. FWIW, I've used it most of the time it's been available and always enjoyed it, even when the learning curve was steep. I've heard good things elsewhere about it too. But, man, Slashdot would make me believe it's not useful at all.

    • Seems like most of them haven't used it since 2010 or want it to be exactly Photoshop. Tough pleasing some people, but I like it.

      • It doesn't have to be exactly Photoshop, it just has to be as easy to use. There's no excuse for the interface to be a PITA.

        There's also no excuse for the name, which alone has kept it from adoption at many sites which would have struggled through using the interface.

  • last used in 2001, was a shitshow. does it look better now?
  • For the MacOS (Score:3, Informative)

    by VladTepid ( 781725 ) on Monday November 23, 2020 @06:36PM (#60759110)

    GraphicConverter, which costs little money, has expanded to become a "poor man's P-shop." It converts any of the world's graphic formats to any other. I've used it through several versions and find it capable of what a photo-hobbyist needs. Its manual answers most of my questions. GIMP perplexed me so much I deleted it years ago.

  • GIMP is a fantastic piece of software and so is Blender. Well done guys. I use GIMP on a daily basis and I have never missed not having Photoshop.
  • If you stick to a UI shitshow like GIMP for 25 years, there must be some real dictators running GIMP.

  • I've tried about 10 different photo editors that run under Linux. My primary needs are sharpening and noise reduction. No other photo editor I've tried has as many and as effective filters for those purposes.
    • If you only want to run a couple of filters then it's great, many of them are very powerful. If you want to do a lot of stuff to an image, it's torturous. I've used it to good effect on occasion, but any time I try to get deep into it I find myself angry at the UI developers.

  • PBM, portable bitmap format, is 32 years old.

    Image editing, the UNIX way.

  • Let us not forget... (Score:3, Informative)

    by C0C0C0 ( 688434 ) on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @09:55AM (#60761064)
    While we're on the subject of how ugly GIMP is, let us not forget how freakin' expensive Photoshop is, and how powerful GIMP is. For all it's imperfections, it is a pretty awesome example of what an open source project can accomplish.
  • Three cheers for the GIMP. Please keep going. I've used the GIMP for most of its 25 years. When I need it, GIMP is a faithful pal that has done the necessary. Looks as though there are other opinions, so I wanted to see this one represented.
  • I think a lot of the people posting haven't tried GIMP recently. The 2.10 release (I think around 2018) has a much more standard interface that works really well out of the box, on Ubuntu 18.04 at least.

    I was a long time Photoshop user on Mac (since Photoshop 5.5), mostly for my web site design needs. I finally ditched Apple hardware and went to Dell running Ubuntu a few years ago. Originally, getting the older version of Gimp up and running was an ugly beast. Since 2.10 though, it looks a lot like the Phot

  • I gave it up long ago, when 3x16bit images were promised for like 30 years in the future, while the GUI was utter crap.

    Maybe it's better now? But at the time it sure looked like it was being developed by incompetents.

  • Nor is Gimp helpful.

    For example, I wanted to use a capture feature, to bend some of the picture. I'd created the picture from several others. No matter how many times I told it to flatten all layers, it seemed to work only on an invisible layer.

    I finally got it to work by, IIRC, exporting it as a gif, then converting it to jpg, then pulling it into the GIMP.

    Now arnings, no clues.

"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner

Working...