Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GIMP – 2016 in review

gimp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 188 posts

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#31

Post by zo1 »

dsego wrote: post #17

Why stick with such an old codebase? Wouldn't it just make sense to start a new Rust project with editable shaders. It could have an extensible, clean task-based interface, instead of the antiquated control room with lots of buttons and switches. Or maybe even a dispatcher/server with protocols to send graphic commands from UIs to different image processors.

I upvoted you for your ambiguous sarcasm. GIMP has been around for a very long time, and I'm sure they're considered all the options with the amount of developer time they have available.

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#32

Post by booli »

pawadu wrote: post #23
odelomez wrote: post #18

You can help the maintainer and lead developer of GIMPs, Øyvind Kolås with a donation : https://www.patreon.com/pippin

Now I finally have a legit reason to join patreon. Thank you for reminding us! Are there any other FOSS developers on patreon?

One of my favourite project is by Gina Häußge, creator and maintainer of OctoPrint.

"OctoPrint is the snappy web interface for your 3D printer that allows you to control and monitor all aspects of your printer and print jobs, right from within any browser on your network."[0]

https://www.patreon.com/foosel

Disclaimer: I work closely with Gina on (open source) plugins for OctoPrint.

[0] http://octoprint.org

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#33

Post by computereye »

I think a good, free, open and multi-platform product that can help. However, I recently tried it again (after a couple years) for a professional project, and it's nowhere near Photoshop in terms of usability. I was expecting the software to have improved, hearing so many great things about it, but I was very disappointed...

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#34

Post by mathw »

Freak_NL wrote: post #28
dsego wrote: post #17

Why stick with such an old codebase? Wouldn't it just make sense to start a new Rust project with editable shaders. It could have an extensible, clean task-based interface, instead of the antiquated control room with lots of buttons and switches. Or maybe even a dispatcher/server with protocols to send graphic commands from UIs to different image processors.

> Why stick with such an old codebase? Because it works and is a full-featured mature product. Nothing stops anyone from starting a new project based on modern insights and try to become the next GIMP, but such an endeavour does not imply that this project should simply stop its development. The GIMP is used by a lot of people in their daily work or for personal projects. It's free, it works, and most crucially, it's…

There's a push by some GNOME community people to get a good story going for using Rust with GNOME tech, which could be applied to GIMP, being based also on GObject and GTK+. Hopefully that will work out.

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#36

Post by intoverflow2 »

aarontyree wrote: post #8
janvdberg wrote: post #2

Great stuff. I'm looking forward to 2.10. GIMP is my tool when I want to edit photos or create Christmas cards. Even though I hear this quote ringing in my ear, and I can't seem to shake it, mainly because of who said it: "Yet I think that a few programs, such as Adobe Photoshop, will always be superior to competitors like the Gimp—for some reason, I really don’t know why! I’m quite willing to pay good money for real…

I wonder sometimes if the reason GIMP development doesn't surpass other options is simply not having enough developers, having a user base that is more art centered than programming centered, and having a somewhat bottlenecked development culture. These could just be perceptions. I am hoping that when the transition to GEGL is fully implemented, there will be an acceleration. Its hard to use it for serious work. The…

> having a user base that is more art centered than programming centered

Sorry but I think it's more likely the opposite and the user base is more developer centered than artist centered. How are devs supposed to understand how to move this app forward if no one even uses it to it's full potential.

Getting tired of technies pointing fingers at the artists when they fail to understand how to make great creative tools.

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#37

Post by intoverflow2 »

Yaggo wrote: post #19
babuskov wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works really well, I have been using it for about 2 years. The only two minor problems I found so far: 1. when you start it up from launcher, it doesn't show up in the foreground, so you have to click the icon again 2. if you have multiple monitors and you plug out the monitor with the gimp window it sometimes crashes. It doesn't happen every time, but as I precaution I first move the Gimp window to the other moni…

Also it does not seem to support retina mode, making it practically useless for a big share of Mac users. Besides, Pixelmator has raised the bar really high.

Gonna have to agree with this, very few Mac users are going to use your application (assuming they have other options) if it looks blocky next to all their other apps. This goes for absolutely everything but especially so for creative tools.

2X displays might seem frivolous to non-Mac developers but they've been the norm on OS X for several years now.

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#38

Post by jononor »

blt wrote: post #11
bananicorn wrote: post #7

Glad to hear they're planning to work on non destructive editing - that might even convince some photoshop users to make the switch. Then again, I really like gimp for the incredible variety of work it does well already, like editing animated gifs.

Count me as one Photoshop user who avoids GIMP because it lacks non-destructive editing. Photoshop had Adjustment Layers since 1996, and using them is a widely accepted best practice. It is hard to imagine a valid reason why GIMP developers have taken so long to implement them.

That everyone working on it are unpaid volunteers is not a valid reason?

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#39

Post by AimHere »

Freak_NL wrote: post #22
pawadu wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inkscape on the other has started to show gradual decline in the UI department. For example every time you open a tool (the small dialogs on the right) all others will collapse. Since you normally jump back and forth between these tools during drawing you have to ask yourself what went on in their heads when they decided to make this change.

Have you tried using keyboard shortcuts to access the panels? I often switch between Layers , Align and Distribute , and Transform , but always use the keyboard shortcuts. Inkscape's UI is a point deserving of attention (the GIMP has a more elegant UI), but I can't say that I've found it to be in decline (on the contrary).

> the GIMP has a more elegant UI

GIMP must have come a long way for those words to form a sentence!

Not that it was ever necessarily inelegant, but GIMP's reputation has always suffered from a big chunk of it's natural audience being experienced Photoshop users who find the transition jarring, and trash the UI for that reason. Hearing someone praise the interface is a bit unusual, still!

Re: GIMP – 2016 in review

#40

Post by digi_owl »

coldtea wrote: post #26
janvdberg wrote: post #2

Great stuff. I'm looking forward to 2.10. GIMP is my tool when I want to edit photos or create Christmas cards. Even though I hear this quote ringing in my ear, and I can't seem to shake it, mainly because of who said it: "Yet I think that a few programs, such as Adobe Photoshop, will always be superior to competitors like the Gimp—for some reason, I really don’t know why! I’m quite willing to pay good money for real…

> Even though I hear this quote ringing in my ear, and I can't seem to shake it, mainly because of who said it 1) Photoshop had a 10+ year head start and tons of patents. 2) Adobe can pay programmers to work on it as their main and sole focus. GIMP is stuffed by volunteers. 3) Adobe can pay programmers to work on boring parts. OSS programmers tend to navigate to the "glorious" and "fun" parts. 4) Adobe has extensive…

> 3) Adobe can pay programmers to work on boring parts. OSS programmers tend to navigate to the "glorious" and "fun" parts.

Aka CADT...

Post reply on HN