Anyone Here Using GIMP?

[Albertese]

Yeah, I'm finding that GIMP is not really what I'm looking for. But I am glad I downloaded it, since some of those filters it has that PS doesn't have might come in handy.

Oh well, I'm saving my pennies. I'm really just one good tax return away from a legit PS CS5.

--Alex

 

[n3mes1s]

I am using gimp since years ago, and its maybe one of the best painting/image programs ive ever tested. Same functionalitty as photoshop, but by far more easy to use and a lot of possibilites. The only problem i encounter is the buggy dds filter, and some minor aspects, like the lack of editable preferences, not be allowed to "dock" the windows, and something else. But i dont think there is a better program than gimp out there xD. (And of course, its free ).

 

[Albertese]

Yeah, I hear ya. But I guess I'm so used to Photoshop that GIMP seems really unintuitive to me. The menu arrangement doesn't make sense to me and I don't want to have to learn a new set of hotkeys for fear of forgetting the PS ones. Plus the whole idea of floating selections just makes me want to shoot somebody.

Also I have a subscription to Advanced Photoshop magazine which cost me £80 GBP and I'd for that to go to waste. That translated to over $120 USD when I signed up so I don't want it to just lay idle...

--Alex

 

[Rett Mikhal]

I don't know what you're talking about, those floating selections have saved me a lot of time by allowing me to edit opacity on the fly to check the lineup on pasted images.

 

[Marie1]

I love GIMP. I have it and PS, and I usually use GIMP, the only thing I use PS for it to convert art that could be for print to CMYK.

 

[lennier1]

I'm a graphics artist and I've used both. I'll always take Photoshop hands-down. It seems to me that GIMP goes out of its way to NOT be like PS, down to using different quick key strokes to accomplish simple and repetitive tasks (zooming, tool usage, etc). When the brain is programmed for so long to operate a certain way (PS), acquiring speed and efficiency in that product, and then forced to operate another way with another product (unlearn what you have learned), it fails - epically. Additionally, going back to first product after re-training the brain then becomes problematic and all the things you knew without thinking you actually have to think about again - the muscle memory is gone - all that is left is infinite frustration. For you UNIX folks out there, it's like being in the "vi" camp and refusing to EVER use "emacs".

The one thing I do like about GIMP is its file-handling capabilities - it can naturally detect a file format at save-time without having to select it from a drop-down menu. It also automagically turns files you give a "GIF" extension into indexed coloring (you still have to choose the kind of palette, IIRC), but it does save some steps where PS requires more clicks.

That aside, I despise the way GIMP handles open windows and drawing tools. I find dealing with images with transparent backgrounds to also be quite clunky.

And I guess that's the core word I would apply to GIMP - "clunky". Yes, it's great for those who can't afford PS, but if the developers focused more on ease-of-use and intuitive interface design, it could definitely be a contender for the freeware graphics crown and maybe - just maybe - start chipping away at PS's ivory tower. At this point in time, though, not a chance. I have yet to really find any freeware app that comes close to PhotoShop with regard to usability.

In summary, yes, most of the same functions are there, it's just really hard to get anything done, IMHO, and I would think even someone who has never used PS before will also find it cumbersome.

QFT!


I usually try to avoid it but since I do most of my software development using Linux I sometimes resort to using Gimp as well.
From a feature standpoint it's almost as powerful as most commercial apps (Photoshop still doesn't have an equivalent to "Zealous Crop") but to me Gimp still suffers from the same problem as Blender: the user interface.

 

[B.J.]

GIMP's UI is getting a significant overhaul when they finally release the next stable version (2.8). Among other things, it will have a one-window interface instead of the floating toolbars like it currently has. (And I think there will be an option to go back to the old interface if you prefer that.)

I know that doesn't help anybody *right now*, but it's something to look forward to.

 

[Pauln6]

I used Gimp for my TMP photostory - it was handy for cartoonising (like the Rand avatar) and inserting speech bubbles. I didn't find it that intuitive to use to start with and I wont be sorry to see the floating section go.

 

[Psion]

Here's an early report on the next version of GIMP. While I'm not sanguine with the idea of a one-window-to-rule-them-all philosophy, at least they're keeping that optional.

 

[lennier1]

Here's an early report on the next version of GIMP. While I'm not sanguine with the idea of a one-window-to-rule-them-all philosophy, at least they're keeping that optional.

They get overly excited about a new splash image and praise a setback (XCF file format) as an advantage?

 

[B.J.]

^ How is that a setback? It's GIMP's native file format, like Photoshop's PSD. They're merely separating saving from exporting.

 

[lennier1]

The whole separation of those features never made sense in the first place. It basically duplicates functionality and introduces another source for bugs (as if that application weren't bug-ridden enough already).
It's actually counterproductive since many new users won't even bother to look at the export features. As if the usability of Gimp weren't bad enough they introduce another factor that could help to ensure that newcomers won't even give it a second try.

 

[Psion]

Here's an early report on the next version of GIMP. While I'm not sanguine with the idea of a one-window-to-rule-them-all philosophy, at least they're keeping that optional.

They get overly excited about a new splash image and praise a setback (XCF file format) as an advantage?

What's the problem with XCF? The application saves in its native format and exports to others, that's hardly a setback.

EDIT:
Ah, good! BJ already jumped on this. Lennier1, I think you're underestimating users. Of course they'll look at export functionality. If not, they'll do a quick Google and immediately understand what to do. And I don't see how relocating menu functions introduces bugs.

 

[lennier1]

I tend to see things from a developer's POV and duplicating functionality also means that you now have twice as many possible points of failure. Combined with years of experience in how unstable Gimp can react even in the most simple situations it's more like a safe bet.

Over the years I've often worked together with people in customer service departments. If anything, I'm still underestimating the stupidity of the average user.

 

[Psion]

I still don't see eye-to-eye with you on this. It's a user-interface change, not a duplication of function. The functions that were previously called through the clumsy save selection are now being called through a (potentially equally clumsy) export selection.

And with regards to customer support, my experience with supporting software in an education environment taught me the power of what's called a "confirmation bias". Everyone loved to joke around about the stupidity of one user or another, but didn't like to talk about the users who knew what they were doing. But when actual metrics were applied to measure the issue for training purposes, such legendarily stupid calls were actually in the strict minority and perpetually referring to customers as stupid was nothing more than institutionalized arrogance on the part of IT.

 

[lennier1]

I still don't see eye-to-eye with you on this. It's a user-interface change, not a duplication of function. The functions that were previously called through the clumsy save selection are now being called through a (potentially equally clumsy) export selection.

Basic math: Initially there was one save procedure where something could go wrong and now there are two. The more powerful one is in a place where almost 100% of the users won't look first. Nowadays users are pretty quick to give your software a bad rep, even if the fault for a problem is just a false assumption on their side. It's quite easy to drive a user back into the arms of Microsoft&Co and not nearly as easy to convince them that freeware is a suitable substitute for commercial apps.

And with regards to customer support, my experience with supporting software in an education environment taught me the power of what's called a "confirmation bias". Everyone loved to joke around about the stupidity of one user or another, but didn't like to talk about the users who knew what they were doing. But when actual metrics were applied to measure the issue for training purposes, such legendarily stupid calls were actually in the strict minority and perpetually referring to customers as stupid was nothing more than institutionalized arrogance on the part of IT.

Before I went into software development I had student jobs in first-level tech support, ranging from medium-sized companies to universities. So I have enough experience from the other side myself.
At least 60% of the time the solution was usually right in front of them and they were either too lazy to look it up (unless you consider things like the "Recover password" link right below the text fields not obvious enough) or should've never been let near a computer (like people who complained that the registration page didn't accept stuff like "www.gmail.com" in the "email" field). About 10% were actual technical problems and the rest was a case-by-case thing.
As a developer it helps to keep track of what's going on in customer service, but it also makes you wonder whether it should be mandatory to integrate an aptitude test into applications to keep out the morons.