Live data from Hacker News

G'MIC, full-featured ImageMagick alternative

github.com

31–34 of 34 posts

Re: G'MIC, full-featured ImageMagick alternative

#31
post #16
post #9

I want to be nothing but encouraging, but I have simultaneous positive and negative reactions. On one hand, we need better FOSS alternatives to imagemagick, on the other hand, using imagemagick as the target to compare against means it's doomed to repeat some of IMs mistakes. And sure enough, using the online server's filter examples, so many of them seem to exist to fill a checkbox and increase the filter count, but…

Could you please mention good filters, both free and commercial, that you think "aesthetically pleasant to boot"?

Sure, though clearly I need to explain that it's not symmetric. I don't expect a filter to output a beautiful image. It is possible for some filters to be neutral while others spit out "ugly" results. And, of course, ugly is strictly my biased personal opinion, not an objective result.

What makes filters more ugly to me is filters that aren't very functional as a building block or a node in the middle of an image processing graph. When I said aesthetically unpleasant, I was thinking about design too, not just the aesthetics. Filters that include any aesthetics at all, frankly, are not very useful, and that is the main problem with many of G'MICs (and ImageMagick's) filters. Photoshop has some too.

I'm using https://gmicol.greyc.fr/ as the reference for filter names.

G'MIC Filters that are useful as a building block (filters you're likely to find used by professionals), and are not aesthetically unpleasant:

Basics, Colors|Channel Processing, Contours|Difference of Gaussians, Degradations|Blur, Details|Sharpen, Repair|Upscale

A small sampling of G'MIC Filters that are aesthetically unpleasant to me, primarily because they are poor building blocks (less likely to be used in professional work), secondarily because they add an aesthetic that I personally don't like, and try to do too much:

Arrays|Puzzle, Artistic|Ellipsionism, Deformations|Rain drops, Frames|Tunnel, Lights & Shadows|Shadow Patch, Patterns|Hearts, Rendering|Cupid, Sequences|Lava Lamp

Note that many of these could be re-created easily using proper image processing building blocks, like an over operator for compositing, or an expression node for image warping.

Re: G'MIC, full-featured ImageMagick alternative

#32
post #31
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please mention good filters, both free and commercial, that you think "aesthetically pleasant to boot"?

Sure, though clearly I need to explain that it's not symmetric. I don't expect a filter to output a beautiful image. It is possible for some filters to be neutral while others spit out "ugly" results. And, of course, ugly is strictly my biased personal opinion, not an objective result. What makes filters more ugly to me is filters that aren't very functional as a building block or a node in the middle of an image pro…

Ah, I see, thank you for detailed answer.

Re: G'MIC, full-featured ImageMagick alternative

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm my experience it has been the only plugin to help Gimp fill in the space of the advanced features Photoshop users enjoy such as Content Aware Fill.

The Resynthesizer plugin (Heal Selection, Heal Transparency) and Liquid Rescale work well as alternatives to the Content Aware system, in my experience.

Not only that, but these plugins existed years before Adobe implemented these algorithms in Photoshop.

Re: G'MIC, full-featured ImageMagick alternative

#34
post #7

So, a question: why? Just so that there is an alternative (not that there is anything wrong with that), or is there an issue with ImageMagick that discourages some people from using it?

Thanks for the replies, everyone. I have only used ImageMagick lightly, for e. g. resizing or merging simple bitmaps, and I never found it lacking. However, I recognize that there are users who need more.
Post reply on HN