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

GIMP 3.0 is on the way

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 204 posts

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#191

Post by vanderZwan »

cmyk_student wrote: post #114
chongli wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t make any sense to me. If I have 2 CMYK images open I should be able to colour pick and copy/paste between them and do any other sorts of manipulations with them without any colour space conversions taking place. The only colour space transformation that should happen when working with a CMYK image is when the image is displayed on screen. The CMYK data is interpreted with the attached colour profile (per…

Hi! That's actually what we were doing for GIMP 3.0. Originally, GIMP stored pixels in structs that just contained the pixel values (like GimpRGB's r, g, and b values). Now all pixel data is stored in GeglColor objects, which contain the color model, space, and profile information in addition to pixel values. So you can just request, say, the 8bit CIE LAB or 16bit CMYK version of the pixel and retrieve it from the ob…

You might want to send in a correction to the LWN article then, since the wording there is giving the wrong impression.

Good luck with the implementation of CMYK mode, I'm certain it will make GIMP a lot more attractive to many users!

(are CieLab and OKLab also being considered?)

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#192

Post by cmyk_student »

vanderZwan wrote: post #191
cmyk_student wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi! That's actually what we were doing for GIMP 3.0. Originally, GIMP stored pixels in structs that just contained the pixel values (like GimpRGB's r, g, and b values). Now all pixel data is stored in GeglColor objects, which contain the color model, space, and profile information in addition to pixel values. So you can just request, say, the 8bit CIE LAB or 16bit CMYK version of the pixel and retrieve it from the ob…

You might want to send in a correction to the LWN article then, since the wording there is giving the wrong impression. Good luck with the implementation of CMYK mode, I'm certain it will make GIMP a lot more attractive to many users! (are CieLab and OKLab also being considered?)

Yep - in fact, when discussing the idea for CMYK mode it was brought up that we should make it flexible for CieLab and other color modes. Unless someone beats me to it, I'll likely try to make a merge request with CMYK mode first, then use it as a reference commit for implementing other color models.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#193

Post by cmyk_student »

carlosjobim wrote: post #135
mixmastamyk wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given enough resources, floss tools are often best in class. With your short-sighted attitude, Linux, Firefox, Blender, etc wouldn’t exist and we’d all be a lot poorer for it—fully controlled by the Oracles of the world without option.

FOSS tools are usually worst in class for the actual user, with some exceptions. The exceptions are generally dev tools and sys admin tools. Linux is not best in class in anything unless you're a developer or a server admin. The free market is a much more effective process for getting quality tools for the rest of us. There's nothing short sighted about it. As a professional I pay a fair price for my tools and the de…

If those new users report new problems, I think it's helpful for everyone. As an example, I helped add support for importing Adobe's ASE palettes into GIMP. Now that we have this feature, I just got a bug report for improving it. The reporter had a palette with a color model that we didn't have when testing it, and that sample enabled us to fix the import problem.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#194

Post by tuna74 »

James_K wrote: post #190
tuna74 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who are doing the work, or a paying for the work, on GTK think that other tasks are more important or fun to do than the tasks you wish should be done. You might think that they are wrong and that other features are more important than a modern accessibility stack or whatever else the GTK devs have been doing, but the only way to change that is to actually engage in that project.

This is far from a personal opinion. It's probably the number one complaint about GTK, and it affects almost all software that runs on Linux since the GTK file chooser is often the default system file chooser. Almost all software opens a file at some point. Web browsers, chat clients, etc. Photos on user's computers rarely have meaningful names because they are often taken with a camera and the default image name isn…

People complained but nobody put in enough work to get a good solution until someone actually did.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#195

Post by 0points »

cxr wrote: post #89
0points wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would recommend Krita instead of a website. Websites are not automatically free or opensource, they also require internet access and can sneakily copy the files you are working with. If photopea is free today, it may cost money tomorrow. Krita exists for Windows and macOS too nowadays. https://krita.org/en/

> Websites[...] can sneakily copy the files you are working with You have made one of the most baffling logical errors that commonly crop up when people criticize browser-based apps. Browser-based apps execute in a sandbox. They are more constrained in what they can do in comparison to a traditional program running on your machine. Any nefarious thing a browser-based app can do, a local program can do, too, and not j…

I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response.

Certainly a website is allowed to process files you upload to it and the javascript are allowed to XMLHttpRequest in that sandbox.

This is outside the control of the user. While had it been an app running locally, I could restrict network access or other resources.

Of course the web developer can chose to process the file client side only, but generally when you upload a file to a website, it gets uploaded and processed by their servers.

Surely you can verify this yourself while using the website, but I am confident that most users of a website wouldn't do that and be none the wiser how their data is being processed.

TLDR: I don't believe the average web user is capable of distinguishing a webapp that works in offline-only mode from a ordinary website.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#196

Post by lovegrenoble »

david_draco wrote: post #47
lovegrenoble wrote: post #46

affinity is the best one: https://affinity.serif.com Affinity V2 Universal Licence For macOS, Windows & iPadOS

Doesn't seem to be open source: https://opensource.org/licenses?ls=affinity

Not open source, but too good for a few bucks...

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#197

Post by lovegrenoble »

rmsaksida wrote: post #84
lovegrenoble wrote: post #46

affinity is the best one: https://affinity.serif.com Affinity V2 Universal Licence For macOS, Windows & iPadOS

Affinity is good but it's a shame they don't have a Linux version.

To run on Linux: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/182758-aff...

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#198

Post by James_K »

em-bee wrote: post #189
James_K wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> compared to the larger number of users asking for more CMYK support, shape tool, built-in Resynthesizer etc This is because people with the complaint about text tend to open the software, see how bad moving text is, then close it and never open it again. They aren't the ones going onto your forums to complain. And when they do the bug stays open for 8 years (and counting) with the best response currently being to t…

This is because people with the complaint about text tend to open the software, see how bad moving text is, then close it and never open it again. more likely they just didn't feel as strongly about it as you do. difficult to move text is an inconvenience. and just to be clear, i have experienced the problem myself and got annoyed by it, but never annoyed enough that i would report an issue or look for alternative so…

Then I think you are the outlier. Most people who use GIMP for the first do so from the position of already having a (potentially non-legally obtained) copy of Photoshop. They are trying the software out and stuff like this quickly turns them off the idea of using it. If I had to guess, you use Linux and so don't have the option of Photoshop. This seems to be the case for most GIMP users.

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#199

Post by cxr »

0points wrote: post #195
cxr wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Websites[...] can sneakily copy the files you are working with You have made one of the most baffling logical errors that commonly crop up when people criticize browser-based apps. Browser-based apps execute in a sandbox. They are more constrained in what they can do in comparison to a traditional program running on your machine. Any nefarious thing a browser-based app can do, a local program can do, too, and not j…

I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response. Certainly a website is allowed to process files you upload to it and the javascript are allowed to XMLHttpRequest in that sandbox. This is outside the control of the user. While had it been an app running locally, I could restrict network access or other resources. Of course the web developer can chose to…

> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response

In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perversely favored by those who lack the attributes they're trying to project. Don't do it.

I know how browsers and web apps work. I'm a former Mozillian, and among other things, I wrote, edited, and maintained the JS docs on developer.mozilla.org.

Even aside from The Move, nothing else that you wrote out here is especially relevant. The central observation I made is that users have more reason to be circumspect of non-browser based programs that they download and run than they do of browser-based programs because any nefarious thing a browser-based app can do, a native executable can do, too—or worse.

Anyone who has a gut feeling to the contrary is doing exactly that: operating on vibes and intuition and trying to reason with their gut instead of using actual reason to do what is ultimately a straightforward calculation.

(And the thing is, you and everyone else in your camp already knows the truths I've written out here. If you disagree, then we'll set aside one day a year that we'll call Native App Day. For Native App Day, browsers will refuse to execute browser-based apps. Instead everyone who publishes a web app will agree to publish programs packaged in the native executable format for Mac, Windows, and Linux, and everyone who typically uses the web app will run these executables with the same alacrity they apply when they undertake to use the web app. This will be strictly enforced, and there will be no cheating by folks who just refuse to use the computer on Native App Day.)

Re: GIMP 3.0 is on the way

#200

Post by [deleted] »

cxr wrote: post #199
0points wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response. Certainly a website is allowed to process files you upload to it and the javascript are allowed to XMLHttpRequest in that sandbox. This is outside the control of the user. While had it been an app running locally, I could restrict network access or other resources. Of course the web developer can chose to…

> I am not sure about your level of computer literacy, so sorry in advance if I give a a overly detailed response In technical discussions, this is what I call "The Move". It comes from a desire to position the person making The Move as more knowledgeable and experienced and therefore correct and the other person as relatively new, inexperienced, lacking in wisdom, and naive. It's extremely sophomoric and perversely…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN