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

GIMP 2.9.6 Released

gimp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 87 posts

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#51

Post by nkristoffersen »

kazinator wrote: post #49
disconnected wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can GIMP load psd files correctly? I seem to remember that there was some trouble loading psd files, but I don't remember exactly what. Edit to add: I ask because if GIMP cannot handle the de facto standard image file type without too much fiddling, people won't touch it. It is the same problem LibreOffice has, actually.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

In this case standard meant industry standard. If you are working in the graphics industry (and web industry in agency world) people will send you psd files ALL the time. If you cannot open it accurately then you work off inaccurate designs and deliver a poor product.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#52

Post by kazinator »

yborg wrote: post #50
kazinator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

Anybody in graphics design for more than 5 minutes any time in the last 25 years knows what a PSD file is. Because you are not familiar with a (defacto) industry standard doesn't make it non-standard. The Adobe PSD file format is documented in painful detail here https://www.adobe.com/devnet-apps/photoshop/fileformatashtml... The format is binary and extremely convoluted, in part because it attempts to maintain compa…

> Anybody in graphics design for more than 5 minutes any time in the last 25 years knows what a PSD file is. Because you are not familiar with a (defacto) industry standard doesn't make it non-standard.

True. I haven't used any program for image editing other than GIMP since 1996 (which I first installed on a GNU/Linux system running on a Sun Sparcstation 20!)

> I am in fact aware of no non-Adobe program that will read and write a Photoshop file with editable text layers (including Gimp).

That's just a consequence of being so incredibly standard.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#53

Post by zokier »

jordache wrote: post #32

GIMP doesn't support Smart Objects. This alone makes it not usable for professional work, when compared to Photoshop. The cost of the latter is nothing if you are getting paid for your work. https://design.tutsplus.com/tutorials/10-things-you-need-to-...

That makes me feel old; I remember quite well the time when PS didn't have smart objects either. Was about to make a comment along the lines of "it isn't that old feature in PS either" and then checked the timeline and oh, smart objects were introduced a decade ago. Although I do think that they weren't all that popular (or good) from the get-go.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#54

Post by [deleted] »

nkristoffersen wrote: post #51
kazinator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

In this case standard meant industry standard. If you are working in the graphics industry (and web industry in agency world) people will send you psd files ALL the time. If you cannot open it accurately then you work off inaccurate designs and deliver a poor product.

[deleted]

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#55

Post by yarrel »

disconnected wrote: post #17
prathiks wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always advocated for Gimp but people esp designers want to stick to photoshop. Hope they understand the power of this open source

Can GIMP load psd files correctly? I seem to remember that there was some trouble loading psd files, but I don't remember exactly what. Edit to add: I ask because if GIMP cannot handle the de facto standard image file type without too much fiddling, people won't touch it. It is the same problem LibreOffice has, actually.

"Better PSD Support The PSD plug-in now supports a wider range of blending modes for layers, at both importing and exporting: Linear Burn, Linear Light, Vivid Light, Pin Light, and Hard Mix blending modes. It also finally supports exporting layer groups and reads/writes the Pass Through mode in those. Additionally, GIMP now imports and exports color tags from/to PSD files."

I don't use GIMP to load PSDs, but I don't remember the last time I had a problem with a Word doc in LibreOffice.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#56

Post by darkandbrooding »

kazinator wrote: post #49
disconnected wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can GIMP load psd files correctly? I seem to remember that there was some trouble loading psd files, but I don't remember exactly what. Edit to add: I ask because if GIMP cannot handle the de facto standard image file type without too much fiddling, people won't touch it. It is the same problem LibreOffice has, actually.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

A .psd file is not an end-user asset. I can think of no use case where someone would point a browser at a hosted .psd and expect that binary file to render as an inline image.

A .psd file was, for a good chunk of the past twenty years, the "de facto standard" file format for teams or entire departments of graphic artists who spent all day, every day in Photoshop. I once worked for an online ad agency and Photoshop was used more often, by more people, than MS Word and Excel combined. The Network Effect was in full force. Graphics teams at three different companies cooperating on the same campaign would assume that their counterparts were using Photoshop, and would expect to send and receive .psd files. Man, Adobe must have been printing money in those days.

If you worked in print publishing, digital publishing, advertising, marketing, there was probably a graphics department of people who spent all day in Photoshop... and an IT department that was constantly trying to add new server capacity as fast as those artists were consuming it. Back when we measured server storage in GB, not TB, fifteen different versions of the same massive PSD file could cause real heartburn.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#58

Post by taco_emoji »

kazinator wrote: post #49
disconnected wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can GIMP load psd files correctly? I seem to remember that there was some trouble loading psd files, but I don't remember exactly what. Edit to add: I ask because if GIMP cannot handle the de facto standard image file type without too much fiddling, people won't touch it. It is the same problem LibreOffice has, actually.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

I think you need to look up the meaning of "de facto", since its presence in GP's comment renders your entire complaint moot.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#59

Post by kazinator »

taco_emoji wrote: post #58
kazinator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never heard of PSD until your comment. Not so standard. Wikipedia: "A .PSD file is a layered image file used in Adobe PhotoShop." Oh, that's what you mean by "standard". Not "standard" as in, I can put onto a server, point a web page's IMG at it, and be confident it displays on everyone's browser. Or "standard" as in, documented in some RFC or other standard document. How well does Photoshop open the "standard" GIMP…

I think you need to look up the meaning of "de facto", since its presence in GP's comment renders your entire complaint moot.

de facto and standard are basically opposites. Except when standard is used as a synonym for "the way things are due to some hegemony or similar situation".

My complaint is basically: fuck off with the Adobe in a thread about Gimp. If you think the Adobe program is better or must work with every possible instance of its files, or you just feel good to use a de facto standard, go use the Adobe program.

Gimp is its own thing; it is not an open source clone of Adobe Photoshop. Never has been.

Re: GIMP 2.9.6 Released

#60

Post by batisteo »

izzard wrote: post #43
Kjeldahl wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'll just add this: https://artplusmarketing.com/gimp-and-inkscape-on-retina-mac... Long story short; if you're on retina screens (which most Macs have) there are bigger issues than just missing macOS builds. It's really not usable on Macs at all.

Probably sounds silly, but I absolutely love Gimp and Inkscape, and use them both everyday. Their poor support on Mac was one of the reason I switched back to Windows. It's odd, because I've read all the arguments about how OSX is a unix, etc., but in the real world I've found better success running user facing open source application on Windows.

I don't understand, GNU is not Unix, Unix is not open source, OSX is a +/- closed source of a fork of BSD. How using a Mac supports Free sowtware or even open source?
Post reply on HN