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

Why GIMP is Inadequate

troy-sobotka.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 108 posts

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#21

Post by bobds »

samdk wrote: post #16

The 8-bit color limitation issue is well-known and has been for a long time. The solution is GEGL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEGL ), which has been under development for a (very) long time now and is partially implemented in GIMP 2.6, the latest stable version. It is a problem, but it's important to put it into perspective: almost all monitors display 32-bit color (EDIT: or less) anyway, so if you're doing work t…

>> almost all monitors display 32-bit color anyway

Actually, I was surprised to find out that this is not the case.

"The inexpensive twisted nematic display is the most common consumer display type."

"Also, most TN panels represent colors using only 6 bits per RGB color, or 18 bit in total, and are unable to display the 16.7 million color shades (24-bit truecolor) that are available from graphics cards."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD#Twisted_nematic_.28TN.2...

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#22

Post by samdk »

w1ntermute wrote: post #18
samdk wrote: post #16

The 8-bit color limitation issue is well-known and has been for a long time. The solution is GEGL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEGL ), which has been under development for a (very) long time now and is partially implemented in GIMP 2.6, the latest stable version. It is a problem, but it's important to put it into perspective: almost all monitors display 32-bit color (EDIT: or less) anyway, so if you're doing work t…

> Ars Technica did an excellent review of GIMP 2.6 about a year ago. From the article, seems like it was 2 years ago: "Last updated January 13, 2009". Might seem like an insignificant detail, but 2 years is an eternity in OSS. Are you sure things haven't changed significantly since that review?

Agh. Here's me still thinking it's still 2010.

Yeah, unfortunately things really haven't changed since the review: we're still on the same major version (2.6) that we were when the review was published. (Hence the comment at the end about development seeming to have slowed a ton.)

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#23

Post by dagw »

derefr wrote: post #7
david2777 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that for small stuff like that the difference won't be very noticeable,especially to the end user. If you get some designers to really look at it they might notice a difference, but I wouldn't want to pay for a Photoshop license for minor stuff like that.

A more interesting question is, to me: is The GIMP an adequate replacement for Photoshop Elements ? I believe they have the same target market—people who are "adding drop shadows, doing minor logo work, etc."

Purely feature wise they might might be comparable, but features isn't where PSE's strength lies. Photoshop Elements has done a lot of UI work to make common tasks really easy. Someone who has never done any photo editing before can probably sit down with PSE and quickly get pretty great results without any major problems. The same can definitely not be said about The Gimp.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#24

Post by tintin »

healthyhippo wrote: post #2

I don't know much about photo editing, but I've used Gimp for a little while along with Inkscape for editing. I use it for simple stuff- drop shadows, minor logo work, etc. Is there a noticeable difference vs. photoshop on that level?

In my opinion there is. In Photoshop you can attach dropshadows (layer styles) to layers. This will save you a lot of time when something changes. I used Photoshop and Gimp. I can create the same images in Gimp but it just takes a lot more time. For hobby that's ok, but for work it's not. Thats why people are willing to pay a lot for Photoshop. One thing that is bothering me in Gimp is that there is a layer size. Seems like a minor thing. But these are the little things that get in the way of working quick.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#25

Post by julian37 »

samdk wrote: post #16

The 8-bit color limitation issue is well-known and has been for a long time. The solution is GEGL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEGL ), which has been under development for a (very) long time now and is partially implemented in GIMP 2.6, the latest stable version. It is a problem, but it's important to put it into perspective: almost all monitors display 32-bit color (EDIT: or less) anyway, so if you're doing work t…

> so if you're doing work targeted at a computer screen, it probably doesn't matter anyway

Actually, it matters regardless of output device. With higher bit depths, less rounding errors accumulate over time as the image is processed, for example when effects are applied, yielding higher overall output quality.

Here is an example, although after many iterations quality loss can be much more dramatic than visible in that picture: http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/page-3....

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#26

Post by cookiecaper »

There are several good alternatives to GIMP depending on what you're doing. GIMP is probably the best for traditional photo editing, but there seems to be more programs oriented toward illustration. In particular, I like Krita.

I don't really know what the deal is with the low development interest in GIMP. I think maybe it's that Photoshop's professional niche generally isn't comprised of big fan of computers in the first place, so they are more like the Office crowd and just want to use what they're used to; they're hostile to any change from the start.

I also think that the extremely long development cycle of GEGL, which was necessary for the most commonly requested features like increased bit depth, CMYK, etc., may have turned developers off.

I'm merely guessing here, though. I definitely agree that GIMP has a lot of potential, and a few dedicated developers could really take it places.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#27

Post by tintin »

webuiarchitect wrote: post #3
healthyhippo wrote: post #2

I don't know much about photo editing, but I've used Gimp for a little while along with Inkscape for editing. I use it for simple stuff- drop shadows, minor logo work, etc. Is there a noticeable difference vs. photoshop on that level?

Yes, the noticeable difference is Gimp sucks!! Hats off to the Gimp development team for pulling off so many features and above all having an open-source product out there. But the problem is PhotoShop has set the expectations way too high. And I'm afraid, a non-commercial product will never be able reach that level.

I agree Photoshop sets the expectations high. But I don't agree that a non-commercial product cannot reach that level. Take a look at Blender.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#28

Post by joakin »

wazoox wrote: post #13
joakin wrote: post #9

I expected this to be a rant or flame, but in fact he has described wonderfully what needs to be said. Besides from all this pro features that GIMP lacks, in my opinion its biggest flaw its the UI. Its poor and raw, and makes sense if you are a programmer... Mainly this is what keeps it far from the regular users I know. Hope It doesnt die, its a very good open source multiplatform editing tool...

People keep talking about the GIMP UI, I find it quite good. I love the concept of "everything available from a right-click", alla Maya -- the top menu bar is a kludge that was added quite recently. The technical aspects mentioned in the article are more serious.

I agree with you, I'm talking about more specific but anoying things, like for example:

When using the Move tool, Instead of moving the selected layer by default, the option checked is "pick a layer automatically" which never does the job.

Text editing its a pain compared to photoshop.

Lots of filters dont have a real-time preview, which make applying them a futile exercise of guessing

Layers have bounds that doesnt correspond with the content of the layer (maybe somebody finds this useful, I hate it)

The plugins for Layer effects are all a mess and its easier to do it by hand

Its impossible to select a group of layers, and I dont mean to apply some filter or edit them, I mean to organize the layers. Move up a group, etc. There is no way to create folders of layers... There is no way to hide/show a group of layers...

All this kind of quirks make the program anoying to use for big projects, and I hate it because its completely capable of getting the same results (at my level) than PS, it just takes a lot of time because the UI...

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#29

Post by nailer »

samdk wrote: post #22
w1ntermute wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ars Technica did an excellent review of GIMP 2.6 about a year ago. From the article, seems like it was 2 years ago: "Last updated January 13, 2009". Might seem like an insignificant detail, but 2 years is an eternity in OSS. Are you sure things haven't changed significantly since that review?

Agh. Here's me still thinking it's still 2010. Yeah, unfortunately things really haven't changed since the review: we're still on the same major version (2.6) that we were when the review was published. (Hence the comment at the end about development seeming to have slowed a ton.)

Yes.

I used GIMP exclusively between 1999 and about 2009. There was always something coming in the next version that would fix GIMP. Color profiling, single window, better text tools, etc. They never did. GIMP doesn't even bother subscribing to GNOME's HIG. It's cast adrift in the world of Linux, and after a decade of using it I'm now happily on Pixelmator on OS X.

Post reply on HN