the point of developing gimp is to eventually change its name.
GIMP development - What’s the point?
31–40 of 149 posts
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#32I use GIMP exclusively. Last time it allowed me to turn SVG animation into GIF. It literally took few seconds to complete. Many people bitch about GIMP, but like in arcticle, they just trying to hide their laziness to learn new things. I've nothing against them, but one thing, most of them in my circles are using pirate copy of Photoshop instead free GIMP. Some of them arguing about RBG/CMYK missing in GIMP, but most…
You can use the separate plugin to convert RBG to CMYK in GIMP. Not as good as Photoshop obviously, but I've made print ready images with it.
I doubt there are many people in the world who can tell the difference between a print printed from RGB vs CMYK. Maybe a few extremely good print professionals with perfect vision and a $4000+ monitor.
I've printed gallery quality prints from sRGB (online and at home), and nobody gives a crap.
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#33> In such cases I have to push down my annoyance with the tone
Don't. This would have deserved a rude answer.
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#34I'd like to see these features demonstrated too, without meeting a gimp developer. Maybe they could do a better job of that.
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#35Stories about an eloquent, suave believer enlightening a misguided, clearly-in-the-wrong naysayer may sometimes be true, but never very convincing. > In this case, I opted to give the fireworks/show. My weapons of choice this time included the unified transform tool, the handle-transform tool, and the warp transform tool Which prompts the leering, misinformed troglodyte to consider the error of his ways, to "imagine…
> Having used GIMP and Photoshop, the practical point of GIMP development, in my view, is to provide a baseline for other graphic editing software: i.e. your product's quality cannot drop below what GIMP offers. I think that this is one of the important things that Open Source software does, generally - it provides a steadily rising baseline of functionality that is freely available to everyone. LibreOffice is anothe…
I like that perspective. They're the 'Public Option' that keeps the commercial offerings on their toes :)
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#36After all these years GIMP still sucks. They waste time on developing features of low importance, while critical ones are still not solved.
Prime case: opening RAW files. The current suggested workflow is to use a 3rd party plugin UFRaw. Would you like to see the process of installing it on Windows?
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html
(Ctlr+F for "MS-Windows for geeks")
And then I see arrogant posts like that, claiming that GIMP is perfectly capable. It absolutely is not. GIMP will become popular when GIMP developers start thinking about the modern photographer's workflow. Till then people will keep pirating Photoshop.
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a way to add decent CMYK support to GIMP? Is it technically unfeasible, or is it something the main devs are simply uninterested in?
http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-do-a-lot-of-desktop-... there is however some cmyk support currently if you need it: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GIMP/CMYK_support
Thanks for this. I was very happy to read that they're making non-destructive editing a priority.
> Things like non-destructive editing are required by pretty much all users — photographers, designers, desktop publishing engineers, and even scientists. At the same time, CMYK is required only by a small subset of our user base. We prioritize our work accordingly.
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#38There's an excellent book published by No Starch Press that's full of ways to use GIMP. It's excellent because it is as comprehensive as the older Adobe Photoshop books that people used to buy.
Here's a link for convenience:
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#39I appreciate GIMP for what it is, and use it on the occasion that I can't quickly do what i need with ImageMagick or pixlr. But I'd gladly pay for Photoshop and other Adobe tools if they compiled natively on linux. One problem with the characterization implied in [a,b] is that it ignores the impossibility of opening a file correctly and completely that was originally compiled in a tool that's been the industry standa…
You blame GIMP for not opening PSDs correctly, but note that it's not an open format and it's not a standard. GIMP developers can do nothing but try to reverse engineer support for it.
You can go through a convoluted process to get the documentation for the standard from Adobe (Someone where I used to work did this so we could add support for PSD to a game engine). I'll concede that that's unpalatable, and that it's probably something you need to do regularly as PSD does get updates.
I'll also concede that its considerably easier to open a pdf for display vs for editing, and maybe all the info for the latter isn't there in the docs. Its also not a fun format to work with as its grown organically over many, many years.
All that said, GIMP usually bungs up the colors which makes it pretty unsuitable even for opening a psd for view. This shouldn't be acceptable at all.
(Sorry, I haven't had enough coffee yet to make this into a coherent point instead of a few random thoughts...)
Re: GIMP development - What’s the point?
#40I use GIMP exclusively. Last time it allowed me to turn SVG animation into GIF. It literally took few seconds to complete. Many people bitch about GIMP, but like in arcticle, they just trying to hide their laziness to learn new things. I've nothing against them, but one thing, most of them in my circles are using pirate copy of Photoshop instead free GIMP. Some of them arguing about RBG/CMYK missing in GIMP, but most…
I use Krita, except for a time when it had issues with my graphics tablet and I switched to Gimp. I think Krita is the proof that there's no good reason for Gimp to be as unusable as it is: Krita is free, has all the features I've ever felt the desire to try in an image editor and more (though I probably wouldn't bother loading up a GUI just to convert an SVG to a GIF), has the missing colourspace support, is exceedi…
I agree. Krita feels so much more intuitive to get into than GIMP. The current 3.0 version feels very buggy on my Mac (osx 10.11.6) though (and the older versions do not like my tablet).