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

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#41

Post by wazoox »

joakin wrote: post #28
wazoox wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have to admit that as I last used Photoshop around version 4, it's easier to do without these :)

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#42

Post by DrStalker »

julian37 wrote: post #25
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 th…

> With higher bit depths, less rounding errors accumulate > over time as the image is processed,

This could also be solved by another photoshop feature, adjustment layers. Basically instead of applying a filter like levels to an image you make a levels layer that applies the levels affect to everything underneath it. The original data is untouched, and you can tweak the levels at any time.

I'm strictly a hobby user for photos I take, but without support either 16 bit colour or adjustment layers GIMP is not good enough for me. My solution is to use an older student version of photoshop I picked up cheaply; I don't need all features in the latest version.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#43

Post by jkahn »

tintin wrote: post #27
webuiarchitect wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's probably not the best example, as Blender was initially closed-source until the creators went bankrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#44

Post by wazoox »

machrider wrote: post #33
julian37 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 th…

Yes. It matters a great deal if you're trying to recover information from underexposed or nearly overexposed regions of an image. Adjusting the levels of an image is something photographers do all the time , and having 14bits per channel allows you to do it without producing a grainy-as-hell image. Throwing away almost half of the information on the initial import is unforgivable and relegates GIMP to being merely a…

Oh please stop the flame, this is ridiculous. Photoshop didn't support 16 bits before CS, in 2003. Did it prevent people to use it ? Would you say that all magazine covers were "child play" before then?

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#45

Post by eru »

gsivil wrote: post #17

I would be curious to see similar posts for Octave and OpenOffice. I am really happy that they exist but "inadequate" would be a fair word to describe both. Comparing of course with Matlab and MS Office .

Yes, though you can also compare MS Office to something like TeX, and find that either option is inadequate, depending on where your focus lies.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#47

Post by dagw »

wazoox wrote: post #44
machrider wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It matters a great deal if you're trying to recover information from underexposed or nearly overexposed regions of an image. Adjusting the levels of an image is something photographers do all the time , and having 14bits per channel allows you to do it without producing a grainy-as-hell image. Throwing away almost half of the information on the initial import is unforgivable and relegates GIMP to being merely a…

Oh please stop the flame, this is ridiculous. Photoshop didn't support 16 bits before CS, in 2003. Did it prevent people to use it ? Would you say that all magazine covers were "child play" before then?

Not true. Photoshop has had support for 16 bits since at least version 3. What CS brought was full 16 bit support for all layer adjustments and painting features. Before that 16 bit was only supported by a subset of the available editing options.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#48

Post by shooll »

Dear friends, do you want to have some different things? Whether you want to give your relatives and friends, take a few different exotic gifts? Whether you want to buy some cheap benefits of thing? So please, let us begin now!

Click on our website

(=== http://www.findsoso.com =====)

Will bring you different surprise

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com =====

=== http://www.findsoso.com ======

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#49

Post by T-R »

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...

I've been using GIMP for prototyping instead of Paint Shop Pro lately, and while it works well enough and I've gotten used to it, I have to say, there are dozens of small issues that add up to a UX disaster.

The Toolbox isn't dockable, but "brushes" is both a dropdown button on the toolbox and a dockable window. "Show Grid" and "Snap to Grid" are in the View menu, while "Configure Grid" is in the Image menu. The Color Tools are in both the Tools menu and Colors menu.

It just seems convoluted at first because there's so much duplication and so many areas where the wrong UI element was chosen - it's just a mess. On top of this, a lot of common tasks, like copy-paste-moveSelection, have at least one extra click compared to PS or PSP, and it all adds up to have a dramatic effect on productivity.

I don't think Gimp will die, but I'm guessing that, at least for hobbyists, it'll probably be dethroned by whichever web-based solution gets to the head of the pack.

Re: Why GIMP is Inadequate

#50

Post by anthonyb »

jkahn wrote: post #43
tintin wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's probably not the best example, as Blender was initially closed-source until the creators went bankrupt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)

But it's been open source for 8 years and under active development:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#Development

There can't be a huge amount of the original source left, surely?

Post reply on HN