High bit depth support, non-destructive editing (so called “effect layers”) and colour management. Three hot topics in photography editing – that users have been waiting for for a long time now to appear in GIMP. Today Linux & Photography blog features an exclusive interview with Martin Nordholts, one of the core contributors to GIMP. Nordholts speaks about the current state of affairs, explains what is going on deep inside the GIMP (and GEGL) and also lifts a corner of the veil about what is to come.
High bit depth support and non-destructive editing will be delivered through GIMP’s integration of GEGL, the Generic Graphics Library, which is a graph-based image processing framework. “GEGL provides infrastructure to do demand based cached non destructive image editing on larger than RAM buffers,” GEGL’s website explains, “Through babl it provides support for a wide range of color models and pixel storage formats for input and output.” GEGL also plays a role in enabling GIMP to have a high-quality colour management workflow, but this last feature will also require a lot of work on the GIMP core.
Nordholts explains that the GIMP already has a core fully capable of offering high bit-depth and non-destructive editing, but that “What needs to be done is adapt code so that users can make full use of this currently isolated core.” He added: “It is impossible and pointless to speculate about a specific date when this will be complete. We can only establish that work is being made and will eventually be finished.”
As for the bit-depth issue, Nordholts assures that the legacy code in the GIMP that assumes 8 bits per channel doesn’t need to be rewritten- it needs to be replaced by GEGL. Some wrappers might need to be written in order to provide support for legacy components within the new framework, “but that’s not really rewriting code”. “I don’t really see any major challenges regarding higher bit depth, code just needs to be written.”
Another common complaint regarding the GIMP is its rather diffused and unintuitive interface, with its multiple windows. Nordholts says work is also being done in this area. “There have been discussions about a single-window tabb-based interface that can probably interest a few people.”
This also asks for a question about UI design – image editing is a complex task and a simple UI for a complex task is not easy?
The UI team (mostly Peter Sikking) is giving valuable input. I know there are plans for a user interface to non-destructive features but I don^aEURTMt remember any details right now.
So are they going to do something about the GUI? In my opinion this question was not clearly raised.
How about “One of users’ biggest concerns is the GIMP GUI. You have probably read comments on forums where people winge about the GIMP not having a friendly GUI. Are the GIMP developers agreeing with this and if so are they addressing the issue, are they doing something about it?
Edited 2008-12-28 11:14 UTC
Further along in the interview, he does mention it. I summarised it like this in the OSAlert article:
Thanks for that! To me a tab-based single document interface is just as good as an MDI if not better. One thing they need to pay attention to is the menu bar. There needs to be one menu bar and everything should live inside a window. The Paint.Net concept isn’t too bad. Put that toolbox/sidebar inside a window (docked to the side with the ability to undock it) and create a tab bar on the right side and for each window, a new tab is created. The tab index would correspond to the window/form index. You click on a window and the same tab as the window index gets activated and vice versa. This can easily be achieved by storing the address of each window in an array that would hold memory addresses. So, tab with index 0 would activate the address in the first element etc etc. Be creative! Make sure the tabs are good looking with nice bevels and when you maximize the window it does *NOT* cover the tab bar but it stretches until just under the tab bar. Once this is done, the GIMP might become the most popular painting application.
Edited 2008-12-29 00:40 UTC
A tabbed based interface would be horrible for an image editing application, if I am working on multiple images then quite a lot of the time I want to see multiple images, not have them hidden behind tabs. Although this is just a personal preference.
As for a single menu bar, 2.6 does only have 1 menu bar on the image window, there is no longer one on the toolbox.
I don’t like the Paint.NET UI but that is a reasonable idea, but I suspect that the toolboxes etc. would be undocked and on a different monitor in a lot of cases.
Sigh. One of the things I like about Photoshop CS3 is the efficiency of the UI. The narrower toolbox is an example of this. I mean Sweet Jesus can’t GIMP actually save some screen real estate for the work area? That unnecessarily square toolbox in GIMP is an example of why I hate GIMP’s user interface.
Here’s an example:
http://gimp.org/screenshots/windows_crop.jpg
I bet there is some way to change this, but the default arrangement sucks.
I’m no GIMP apologist, but you can resize the toolbox. What’s disturbing is the clumsy looking interface design, with big controls just thrown around, and tens of not so little windows that leave little room to image editing.
CS3 for Windows is interface heaven. CS3 for Mac, I’m not so sure. The fact that there is no title bar or main window is really annoying, but still way, way, way better.
I don’t know how almost every other image editing application has a sane UI, one you can actually work with from the first time you see it.
And I’m really sick of people saying that they work better with GIMP than with Photoshop. I’m a professional designer, I know other professional designers and neither them or me would touch GIMP with a ten foot pole. And, NO, it’s not suitable for regular people either. Don’t kid yourselves – GIMP aims much higher than the regular gradma who wants to crop her holiday pictures. And anyway, if gradma will try it, she won’t make heads or tails of that UI.
Try a newer version of gimp
You can resize the toolbox and make it thin, anyone who does graphic design doesn’t usually stick with the default layout anyway.
I have GIMP layed out like this http://imagebin.ca/view/MVZWr9s.html
Adjust the layout to fit your needs, thats what it’s there for.
Edited 2008-12-29 13:17 UTC
Thanks for the reply. I do wish that the *default* user interface were made more… usable. I’m sure a lot of negative remarks are regarding issues that are easily remedied.
Is it just me or is that interview somewhat dry? Almost seems like he answered all of the questions reluctantly, or mechanicaly. We all know it’s a matter of volunteers writing code but, how about some info on how many dedicated contributors they have, or what feature is the most susceptible to get attention based on contributer profiles?
GIMP has progressed well on the feature side but in my opinion the UI is still a pig. Please do some serious work in this area and let us know when we may see some improvement.
I think that’s a matter of taste. I don’t think the UI is as bad as you make it out to be. Plus I love the separated windows (SDI interface) vs the clunky MDI interface of PhotoShop and most Windows programs.
Also as an author of open source software myself, it is very irritating when users simply demand features! That does not help the cause and does NOT help motivate developers either. Open source software is driven by contributers, so stop b*tching and contribute by submitting patches.
As an open source developer, you’re going to have to get used to it. As evangelists continue to preach that open source software is the only true path to God, you’re going to get some converts, and those converts are going to start bitching if/when they notice any shortcomings in your software. Very few of them will be able to contribute code, because they’re not programmers, nor should they be.
Wow. Those darned users. Always demanding improvements. The nerve. Things would be ever so much easier and quieter without users.
In all seriousness though — open source software can’t, nor should it, operate in a vacuum. Without feedback from people using the software, it’s never going to improve, at least not at any rate that would satisfy the targeted audience.
While I can understand the irritation and/or annoyance expressed, it’s also not realistic — the vast majority of software users are not, nor will they ever be, programmers capable of contributing to an open source programming project.
I know from my own experience that when I’m working on a pet project, it’s very, VERY irritating to have someone come along and suggest that there are missing or broken features — I get a serious set of blinders on, and just don’t see any problems until they’re pointed out … much to my chagrin
Of course, everything I work on is perfect *cough* and doesn’t need any “steeeeenking users” to voice an opinion.
The open source community can sometimes show the same behavior — anyone not intimately involved in the nitty gritty details of programming the underlying guts of the project is unfortunately viewed as an impediment. Yes, lots of times the opinions voiced aren’t very well thought out, and sometimes they’re far beyond practical; and yet, painting all opinions with the same brush is doing users, past, present & potential, a pretty serious disservice.
Enough pontificating … I’ll climb down off of my soapbox — the altitude is giving me a nosebleed
Sure, I’ll just pull my trusty old C book and learn programming and submit a patch. Or … maybe I’ll try another project, or maybe I’ll buy a commercial application. Or maybe if the developer is not an ass, I’ll make a donation.
Nothing wrong with SDI, but they could do it right, you know. I mean … I want to see only documents on my taskbar, not the toolbox, the layer palette, the swatches and so on …
Also, let me tell you, as a user of some open source software, it is very irritating when developers ask people to submit patches just to shut them up. Reality check – probably only 1% of the users of most open source applications are programmers. And probably only half of them have the skills to submit patches. And probably only half of that would also have the time.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Mr. Developer.
If the toolbox palette etc. are appearing in your taskbar then either the taskbar is broken, or the gimp preferences are set for them to be normal windows (can’t remember what the default is). Under preferences->Window Management you can set them to be utility windows, then only image windows will appear in the taskbar.
2.6 come preset to Utility windows.
Im not agree, user opinion its very important because most of the time the final user is your target.
What is GIMP.. A Image Manipulation Program …. from developers to developers? …
Sorry but some times “Been able to modify source code” its an advantage for developers, but no for final users.
Do you think that a graphic designer will stop doing his job to learn programming & Python to submit a patch to GIMP ?
edit: typo
Edited 2008-12-29 14:17 UTC
I think “from developers to non-bitching users” would be a more appropriate description. Non-bitching users are listened to while bitching users are ignored. I don’t think it’s a very unreasonable thing to do seeing that you’re essentially asking the programmer to invest time and skills for you for free.
The problem is this:
The user asks for some feature. Some developer(s) arrogantly claims the user doesn’t know what he/she wants and that he/she doesn’t really want the feature asked for. The user gets annoyed by the arrogance and gives his/her reasons for wanting the feature in question. The developer(s) sees this as criticism and labels the user as a “bitching user to be ignored” (possibly after a round of “then do it yourself” – “I can’t, I’m not a programmer” – “then pay a programmer to do it” – “I can’t afford it (and besides, for that kind of money I could afford 10 photoshop licenses)” – “then learn how to program so that you can do it yourself and stop bitching about it”).
Edited 2008-12-29 18:49 UTC
The problem is this:
The user asks for some feature. Some developer(s) arrogantly claims the user doesn’t know what he/she wants and that he/she doesn’t really want the feature asked for. The user gets annoyed by the arrogance and gives his/her reasons for wanting the feature in question. The developer(s) sees this as criticism and labels the user as a “bitching user to be ignored” (possibly after a round of “then do it yourself” – “I can’t, I’m not a programmer” – “then pay a programmer to do it” – “I can’t afford it (and besides, for that kind of money I could afford 10 photoshop licenses)” – “then learn how to program so that you can do it yourself and stop bitching about it”). [/q]
I read this and I was somewhat surprised. It has always worked that those who can supply code or actively work over the project have the control; “Scratch your own itch”. Ignoring the fact that open-source in general allows access to users easier access to developers through your distribution vendor; mailing lists; irc; forums;email at an unrepresented level.
What I find somewhat bizarre is these developers are painted in a bad light by you. Without picking a case its comfortable to say that any user expecting a developer to bend to his will is being arrogant, without demonstrating any expertise.
The exception possibly to this would be GUI experts who would lend there expertise to an open source without actively contributing.
Thats not to say that the develops aren’t arrogant. Develops regardless of what type of development are just people, as are the users. In fact most on Linux are both Users and Developers, and all mainly users.
The bottom line is though if you want something done in this world there are ways to ask, threatening the developer with an alternative proprietary choice as suggested is unlikely to cut any mustard.
Exactly what about what I said did you find bizarre? I didn’t say anything about bending any will or expecting something like that. What I said is arrogant was to default to the assumption that other people don’t want what they say they want. (That is often the case, but one should never assume it without strong indications of it.)
And as for the “problem” which I tried to highlight (but which you perhaps didn’t understand); it’s that while the devs may ignore bitching users the devs are unjustly labeling users as “bitching users” even when there is (virtually) no cause for it.
Who has suggested to threaten devs with anything? Implying that getting one feature implemented into gimp isn’t worth as much to one single user as the money for 10 photoshop-licences, even if the user could afford it but really can’t, can hardly be regarded as “threatening”.
The fact is that the “Then pay someone else to implement it!”-way just doesn’t work with normal people, and although developers know it some still continue to use that card for some reason (perhaps to assert their dominance or to highlight their indifference or who knows?)
Interestingly why not choose another alternative open source package, why does it have to be the expensive proprietary alternative…hell why not a cheap proprietary alternative.
“There have been discussions about a single-window tabb-based interface that can probably interest a few people.”
Please, don’t! Really.
I don’t get this obsession with the GIMP’s multiple window interface… This may be a problem in retarded OSes that don’t have virtual desktops, but is anywone seriously using the GIMP on Windows? For real?
I’m not saying that it couldn’t use some improvements, but that doesn’t mean switching to a single window interface, or even worse, a tabbed interface.
Just check out Pixelmator [pixelmator.com] for what the GIMP’s interface should evolve to. It is mostly the same interface, but with the “document” as the pivot point (i.e. the floating windows are hidden when there’s no focused image, and they always appear next to the focused image whatever the virtual desktop in happens to be on).
Summing things up, multiple windows are great for separating work through virtual desktops, it’s just that the app should interact with them better.
I don’t think that whether or not having virtual desktops is a measure of retardedness.
That being said, I don’t know of any operating system that does not have virtual desktops. Windows has them too, you know, just pick one of the ten million billion 3rd party implementations.
“Windows has them too, you know, just pick one of the ten million billion 3rd party implementations.”
Do they actually work correctly? I still haven’t found one that did.
No, they don’t. They are just awful.
As strange as it may sound, Gimp probably has a lot more Windows users than Unix users. That is the case with Inkscape for example; Windows users outnumber Linux users 10 times even though Inkscape is a GTK program originally written for Unix.
That’s directly proportional to the total deployed Windows systems and Inkscape allows a free tool to offset costs for Graphical Designers who aren’t moving to Linux/OS X/FreeBSD/*nix because their bread and butter applications require them to still use Windows.
Inkscape has a better shot of moving forward on OS X if someone forks it and does a Cocoa port.
First, let me state that I think that the GIMP has improved nicely. Second, let me also state that I think GIMP is a great solution altogether for image manipulation.
On the feature side I am quite fine with it and I think it is going on the right direction.
On the UI side though, I am not totally happy. My biggest gripe is that I am forced to use multiple windows. I want to have the option to use only one window, and arrange the widgets in a way _I_ would like to choose. That also includes removing menu options (!) when I do not need them.
Some people do not understand why one window is needed. I could elaborate why, but I tell you one thing – I dont WANT TO. I dont want to CONVINCE others that one window only like Photoshop is better.
I want to use it, because I _want_ to use it. I am not interested in people who try to convince me that I dont want it. I WANT IT. And I would love if developers could understand this wish.
This is not everything to it, for example I also would like a better keyboard integration. It would be better to select filters without using the mouse, in a way I could select and designate.
Last but not least, I want an alternative to Script-fu. I do not think Script-fu is the right way to go about it. Either I would like to use ruby, or I want a totally image-centric pseudo language. Both solutions would be fine for me. However, compared with the one-window thing, this is very low on my priority list, and as I wrote, I think the Gimp is improving continually. So things are GOOD, not bad!
When I write widgets, I actually mean inlaid widgets which do not popup, and I also mean that I could composite the widgets with functionality how _I_ want it.
I know that this is currently not easily possible, however I hope that in the year 2008/2009 we slowly realize that different people want to have different things. I want to remain as flexible as possible. The core GIMP can remain as it is, but I would like to have options available to designate and set it up how i want to use it (on every important level)
If you want that, nest it inside of Xepher. That’s the only sane (orthogonal) way of doing it. Window management belongs to the window manager. MDI is brain dead. End of story.
Tabs are almost tolerable; however, when you’re running a tiling window manager (e.g. Ion), you still want the individual panes to be addressable by the window manager. Tabs break this because the application shouldn’t be doing window management. That tab idea is good, but it should be implemented in the proper place.
That said, GIMP still isn’t Ion friendly because of the toolboxes being independent windows shared between each document window. I think the right way to solve this problem is to have each document window have its own toolbars as sub-panel elements around the perimeter of the window.
Well I don’t know about You but I’d still want to do something useful with a program, in this case the GIMP, not spend my time “managing windows” because of this kind of orthodox thinking.
Somehow the “Photoshop way” of doing things suits me more than the “GIMP way”. I’m kind of used to the convenience of having all of the program disappear to the taskbar with one click rather than having to minimize (and later maximize) them one by one. The toolboxes are logically connected to the application anyway so why not visually arrange them so, too? Again, this might be because of the artificial limitations on my imagination but I cannot imagine a situation where I’d like to have, say, the GIMP window with the layer palette alongside an Explorer (or Konqueror for other human beings) window.
You can already group windows through the window manager, and use virtual desktops so you don’t have to minimize stuff.
If you still really really want MDI no matter what, maybe you should try GimPhoto+GimPad.
The thing with good WMs is that THEY DO IT FOR YOU.
> nest it inside of Xepher.
No, I am not interested in Xepher.
> Window management belongs to the window manager.
> MDI is brain dead.
> End of story.
Your opinion is irrelevant. Why do you attempt to tutor me about this?
End of story.
The biggest problem is that your opinion is not the only radical one about it. I have seen it with many old time hardcore users. The whole Linux community is fractioned with people that have such strong opinions which attempt to prove other opinions as wrong.
Your arrogant “end of story” is a mark of this.
> Tabs are almost tolerable; however, when you’re
> running a tiling window manager (e.g. Ion)
I respect Tuomov. He has many good points. But I
would see no point in using Ion or any tiling window manager BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO.
The only sane way is for a full environment, be it KDE or Gnome. (I prefer KDE, but I have no serious ill bearing for Gnome, although I think that they should simplify the compile & run process. I am typing this on a self compiled kde 3.5.10 right now, and I almost finished the latest kde 4 cmake based install, though two errors stopped me.)
> you still want the individual panes to be
> addressable by the window manager.
No, I do not want to. In fact, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO FULLY DESCRIBE HOW COMPONENTS SHOULD INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. Sure, Kde and Gnome do not allow this level of fine tuning, but I am 100% sure about this.
> Tabs break this because the application shouldn’t be
> doing window management.
See above. I want to fine tune how I, as user, want things to handle.
> That tab idea is good, but it should be
> implemented in the proper place.
You know what will happen? People will argue about it, and eventually only the developers get to decide what will be done. This was how things were running since years, this is how things will be running for years. We as users can not do much to change it. If we are developers, we have a higher chance to influence things.
But in principle I really think that it should be up to the people who want to use things, how they use it. Granted not even windows allows this, but then again I am not a fan of windows software in general (Mac is a bit better in this UI regard IMHO)
> I think the right way to solve this problem is to
> have each document window have its own toolbars as
> sub-panel elements around the perimeter of the
> window.
You see, in a way I agree with you, that I think as long as the Gimp developers constantly “play” and re-evaluate, then things will improve. One thing I loved was the rectangular “snapping” tool around selecting something. It was unexpected for me at the time, and I fell in love with it. I cant even use the old gimp anymore because I dont like it compared with the newer gimp versions, as a result.
These little improves do a lot and distract from the crappy UI (which annoys me too btw, because there was a time when menus were heavily rearranged, and I had to update my gimp tutorials to reflect those changes, that certain aspects could no longer be found under this or that menu subentry)
Weird… that was supposed to be a reply… seems to be a standalone post now …:/
wow. what a self-righteous post.
i really like the current gimp ui. to borrow your logic, i could elaborate why… but I don’t want to, either.
i’m fairly sure, with your attitude, the gimp developers wouldn’t mind losing you as a user. demanding an (arguably unnecessary) feature from a group of volunteer programmers while simultaneously adamantly refusing to justify yourself will score you no points. ***cringe***
Granted, I’ll say I’ve never been too fond of Photoshop’s layout, but then I’ve only used it a few times here and there. I really appreciate the way the Gimp is. It doesn’t need to be one Window. When you have multiple images opened that you are manipulating, it’s great not to need the tools to be duplicated over and over again.
I guess it all depends on how your work flow is.
I personally love the Gimp and believe it to be one of the best open source projects out there. Though some time the development pace is rather slow.
For those that want an interface “just for me”, program it in yourself, it is Open Source. When you say “this is the way I want it” then you have the power to make it that way. I’m sure if you don’t have the programming skills yourself, you could always pay a developer to do it for you.
For those that want an interface “just for me”, program it in yourself, it is Open Source.
Pfft. This is where the Open Source community needs some serious help. How many people have the programming skills to do this (or the time to learn)? On a project this large? What percentage of Photoshop or GIMP users can do this? Then ask yourself how your smug comment serves to make GIMP a better product for the target audience?
GIMP has some real usability issues. There are some things that only a few people want to see (“just for me” interface), but then there are changes that would benefit a large majority of users (and potential users).
There is an HCI community (human-computer interface) that the Open Source community needs to reach out to. Instead of telling people to “program it in yourself” (unrealistic for the vast majority of the target audience), why don’t we discuss how to enlist some HCI help? I’m sure programmers aren’t the only people willing to help out.
SIGCHI has chapters worldwide. I’m barking up their tree. I’m learning as much as I can about usability. But it’s gonna take some time before I can contribute. How can the Open Source movement bring in usability experts?
Why the heck would you need to duplicate the tools? Take Paint Shop Pro for example. In some ways its layout isn’t that different from Gimp. But, it uses a single MDI which has the main menus, the currect tool settings, as an auto-hidden (optional pinned open) bar under that. Left side is basic tool selection, narrow, not much space taken up. Left side is pallete, layers, etc., which you can set to autohide to a tiny thin line of tabbed names. The document browser is at the bottom, and you can hide it too. All other space on the screen is available to open as many images as you want, with easy switching between them.
My only gripe is that the image browser is harder to use in X than earlier ones, due to it being a pop-up, instead of working like before, where it “acted” like an image window, and sat in the main work space (where you could minimize it like an image, and you had a view of bigger, and more thumbnails). X2 is even worse, since some bozo decided to have it auto-search sub folders, and to search and partly decode frames in “video”, never mind that the damn program can’t edit video. I think this is likely to integrate it with some cheap video editor, or something, but it lags the damn program so badly it froze of 2-3 minutes trying to read all the video files I had in a subfolder for the folder I *was* looking for…
Before Corel took it over, it was a potential threat to Photoshop, even supporting its plugins, now.. Its a cheap alternative to their Painter application, but not too bad even so.
Point though is, Gimp has a lot of similarities in layout, but it doesn’t put the main menu where its common, some of its tool selection windows take up more room that necessary, or sane, its harder to work with images in it, since the image doesn’t “know” where any of the toolbars are, so parts you want to edit always end up under them, when zoomed especially, and some of them you can’t get out of the way, or have auto-hide, without actually closing them, and then, unless you use it a lot, you can’t remember how the hell to get them back again. With a single “underwindow” you have better control of that, since the windowing code tends to keep your “image” in the window, instead of underneath other things. And that means the only issue is how much real estate the toolbars and such take up, which in PSP, with the image browser closed, and all but the tool select set to “autohide”, is almost nothing. If they would just fire the bozo that works on the image browser part of the project… lol
Have to agree with you Shevegen, the “best” solution would be some way to clearly define how the windows interact, even of the level of specifying “if” another window can move over or under it, and if its location is fixed. In fact, that is actually what annoys the hell out of me with Gimp. Since all the windows are functionally independent, and some tend to have limits on how you can size them (for example, it would be nice to have a thinner toolset, with “sub-option”, for less used tools, not the monolithic “all tools are shown” you get with gimp, if I remember right), you can’t “tell” it to keep the menu bar at the top, and always visible. You can’t tell the image windows to behave themselves by not going over or under ones you don’t want them to, etc.
If the GUI elements all allowed you to adjust how they actually behaved together, so you could “tell it” to work like Photoshop, without an MDI at all, it wouldn’t be a problem. There might even be a superior arrangement, but since they all operate in total ignorance of your preferences, or each others behaviors, they are just a total pain in the ass. And.. if its fixible at all, its not via preferences you can set, but by changing code and recompiling, which some of us either can’t, won’t, or don’t want to, do.
last time i tried to use Gimp it was about 1.5 years ago, trying to just draw a friggin circle… one of the most simplest things in the world to draw, even ms paint can do that easily.
About half an hour later and a few less hair on my head, i gave up.. You can tell me about endless improvements and i can ignore the seriously horrible 1980’s interface of Gimp, but if it still can’t draw a circle, it’s a shite app to me and probably many others.
for everything more sophisticated, there’s the unlimited trial edition of Photoshop that doesn’t expire, and no need to crack it or be branded a thief… And don’t look at me that way, that’s what the majority do nowadays.
Huh?
I thought there was NO WAY of directly drawing circle (or other shapes like rectangles) in Adobe photoshop?
From what I remember, to draw a circle you have to select a circular area and stroke pixels around it (Edit->Stroke) and this is exactly same in gimp–sure, menu arrangement is different but it is Fun-da-Mentally same thing.
Actually, you can do it that way still, but you can also draw vector shapes in Photoshop (it’s been a feature for several versions).
Easily draw vector circles, rectangles, polygons, lines etc.
Please don’t top-post. It messes up the systems of organization used by the elinks-using folks. As if <img> tags in WWW pages were not bad enough.
Edited 2008-12-30 02:27 UTC
This is one of the best comments I’ve ever read here. The steps required to make circles in both apps is pretty much identical. Maybe you should go back to MS Paint and learn how to use the Circle Selection tool before moving onto something as complex as PS or Gimp?
I’m not using windows, so I can’t use ms paint… Ahtough shame to admit that it does a task as simple as this in a much easier way than Gimp or photoshop…
Anyway it was my input. If Gimp or Photoshop make it much easier to do such simple tasks, I’ll consider using them.
I don’t see a problem. With the three windows, it feels a lot like Photoshop. On the Mac.
Yes, Photoshop has been around on the Macintosh for longer than it has been around on Windows, and on the Mac it uses three windows just like The Gimp.
The only little quibble would be that the toolbox and palettes should disappear when the program is backgrounded, but on a system with workspaces it’s not a huge issue anyway.
I don’t see why the Gimp should change its interface just to be a little more familiar to the people with pirated Photoshop for Windows.
Oh, and the person trying to draw a circle in the Gimp should try it in Photoshop. It’s accomplished in exactly the same way.
I’ve been following this gimp ui related thread for a while. It has some interesting ideas.
http://gimp-brainstorm.blogspot.com/
I think inkscape and anjuta use the gnome gdl library for docking which I guess the gimp could also use.
Nice but does the GTK support those features? The one with the little arrow where you can hide buttons or dockable toolbars – in the same manner as Windows etc.
Edited 2008-12-29 19:31 UTC
Its free but not open-source, Photofiltre is only 1.6Mb download. I use this even on Linux (through WINE) rather than GIMP or a cracked Photoshop.
For all those slagging gimp off, 2.6 did introduce better and cleaner GUI. Although the default setup should be an all in one window approach, or at least this way for Windows users!!! Paint.Net isn’t as mature but still seems to get this right. I welcome the day, Paint.net is bundled with Ubuntu.
To be honest 2.6 was the first version of gimp I actually started to like. A few more of the aforementioned UI improvements and you might call me a fan.