Good Stuff From GIMP Magazine

Gimp Magazine has lots of interesting and useful information about what can be done with GIMP but this news blew me away…
“The aforementioned company recently announced that in roughly a three month timeframe they had received one million new subscription clients. In the grand scheme of things this is actually a pretty large revenue, assuming that all clients will remain loyal clients indefinitely. However, in that same approximate timeframe, GIMP absolutely crushed those numbers, with reports of 3.5 million downloads of the latest version ( from the CNET source alone, not including, other sources).”

It’s no secret they are discussing PS v GIMP. Adobe just changed from perpetual licensing to subscription and it is interesting to consider whether hammering users month after month to pay up in good times or bad will alert them to the possibilities of using Free Software ($0 as well as permitting use, examination, modification and distribution). This change also came out just before some really neat improvements are planned for GIMP, making it even more useful.

Don’t give me this garbage about PS being “essential” or “so superior people will pay any price to have it…”. No software is irreplaceable. GIMP is fully configurable, extendable and it’s FLOSS. If there’s something that must be added or changed, it will be. The result? GIMP is converging to be the GoTo software for image-manipulation and Adobe is milking the cow as fast as it can before it dries up.

See GIMP_Magazine_Issue_5_DIGITAL.pdf.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Good Stuff From GIMP Magazine

  1. oiaohm says:

    http://www.pantone.com/pages/index.aspx?pg=21129

    If you are looking for a few pantone numbers and names. 19-1557 chili pepper is a interesting color.

    “Da Vinci” would have used one of the historic precessors to pantone when ordering paint. Yes pantone you use when you order a can of paint from some paint shops. Pantone does not even require a computer to use it.

    http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/CAD_tools
    I have see some people here not order a cad in a while. They are from 500 dollar a seat per year for the likes of Autodesk Inventor Professional. To you solidworks and most cad level pricing that is about $2000 dollars a seat. Then the next step up is NX 9 that its can I please rent for a few days. NX 9 is serously price tag is that bad. You are talking millions of dollars a seat with NX 9 if you want to have it on your own premises. NX 9 is generally you cannot afford it.

    NX 9 does not just design the parts NX 9 does not just create the files to machine the parts. NX 9 tracks the complete items life cycle including planned recycing. NX 9 is your manfactures class CAD/CAM.

    Most cad software you hear of is just the kiddy pool end. High end cad is still Linux. Linux has taken over from Unix here. NX 9 will use a super computer for rapid processing. There are very few High end cads.

    In fact most of the $11000 a seat you hear about from cad/cam operators is the hardware to turn it over well. 8000 dollars worth of hardware is very common.

    Cad operators talk in total cost per seat. Software + Hardware to run it is the price they are taking about all the time.

  2. dougman says:

    So you admit, you don’t know how to use Google and you never used Bing. That seems rather strange, that you do not use the software you developed, doesn’t it?

  3. DrLoser says:

    Seems BING-A-LING, knows how to use Google to look up all the information.

    Nope, Dog-Brain. Just native intelligence and a tiny bit of education.

    You should try the latter some time: it helps. Regrettably the former is beyond help.

    (I didn’t even Bing that stuff on Dali/Picasso/van Gogh — of all possible choices, you unconscionable cretin –/Leonardo.)

    This may come as a bit of a surprise to you, Dog-Brain, but some of us have a hinterland. Some of us just pick this stuff up for fun.

    Some of us are dedicated to making sense of the world and helping people.

    And yes, sometimes that involves using FLOSS, and why not?

    But we don’t see it as a religion. And we don’t see it as a massive money-grabbing tit, like you do.

    The truth is not in you, is it, Dog-Brain?

  4. dougman says:

    Seems BING-A-LING, knows how to use Google to look up all the information.

  5. Ted says:

    Pogson wrote; “Ted wrote, “BOLLOCKS.”, when I wrote that most folks don’t do colour printing”

    You didn’t write that. I quoted what you actually wrote.

    I disputed your frankly ridiculous claim that “most of the world has given up on ink and paper and have no need of such nonsense” . I gave lots of examples as to why it was bollocks, too.

  6. DrLoser says:

    Just when I thought you couldn’t possibly outdo yourself in sounding like a cretin, Dougie, you go and do just that. Congrats!

    So, the Doctor, thinks that anyone NOT using Photoshop, is somehow unprofessional?? I guess Picasso, van Gogh, Da Vinci or Dali are not professional enough in his eyes.

    Alas, not what I said at all. You really are incapable of reading a single sentence without mangling it hideously, aren’t you, Dougie?

    However, let us accept your premise for the sake of argument.

    Backwards: Dali was an incredibly gifted draughtsman with an eye for the market (much like Andy Warhol). At the end of his life he churned out prints so fast that he had to teach himself to sign them with both hands to maximize profit. Do you really believe he’d have used GiMP ahead of a $1000 package? No, he would not. You are obviously a total idiot.

    Da Vinci, sadly, was unable to use either GiMP or Photoshop, so I guess we’ll never know. On the painting side of things, I don’t think that either one would work for him, given that he produced around eleven of the things. On the draughtsman-ship side of things? You are correct. He wouldn’t have used Photoshop. He wouldn’t have used GiMP, either. He’d have used a proper CAD/CAM application (I believe these cost upwards of $10,000 per seat). Here, as always, your “point” is moot and demonstrates an admirably thorough-going stupidity.

    I’m weary of this ignorant shit. Go on, Dougie, tell us all how eithervan Gogh or Picasso (you can pick the blue period or the cubist bit or whatever) could possibly have benefited from a piece of amateur crap like GiMP?

    Not at all believable, is it?

    Try again, dimwit.

  7. DrLoser says:

    Whatever did pros do before PS?
    Let me tell you. I was there. They didn’t use that other OS and they didn’t use PS. They were still pros.

    What an absurd argument, Robert. Whatever did deer hunters use before the invention of gunpowder? They used the best tool available, which I would assume was a longbow.
    Now, fast-forward a bit and assume you want to travel, by air, from (say) Manitoba to (say) Florida. Whatever did passengers do before the invention of the 747?

    Let me tell you. I was there. They didn’t use that Boeing thing and they didn’t use jet engines. They were quite happy spending five days of their life flying in a biplane.

    For once, this is an exact simile.

    Only a fool would pick a biplane over a 747. Only a fool would go through that much grief, considering that in the end it will still cost the same or more. Feel free to advocate foolishness. See how far that gets you.

    Once again: there is not a single “pro” out there who uses the GiMP. (Quote one, please.) Why? Because it’s a guaranteed money pit. It will lose you (as a pro) money, every single time you use it.

    Look, this isn’t about freedom of choice (actually it is, because the pros have chosen). It’s not about FLOSS. There’s no shame in admitting that sometimes, just sometimes, you have to pick a commercial alternative, because that’s what rakes in the bucks. And sometimes it’s not necessary, and in that case FLOSS might very well win. Is that so hard to accept? And if so, why?

    Incidentally, GiMP is still available on TOOS. Pure freedom it ain’t.

    But it still looks and works like ass. You just get to choose which variety of OS platform you chew on that ass. Hey, a win for GiMP!

  8. ch says:

    “Whatever did pros do before PS?“
    Sigh. The same thing people did before the steam engine was invented: They worked their a**es off.
    “Let me tell you. I was there.”
    Where exactly, since you were not in the field? Did you have close contact to graphics pros? (And please let me point out that I am not that much younger than you: Been there, done that too.)
    “There’s a reason Gimp exists. Pros wanted something other than PS and they got it.”
    Which pros? Did you meet them and ask them?
    “They were programmers and web-page designers.”
    Mattis and Kimball? To be more precise, they were students and hobby-programmers.
    “Mattis works for Google. Do you think Google hires amateurs?”
    I think they hire good programmers, but what has that got to do with GIMP’s capabilities compared to PS?

  9. bw, putting words on my screen, wrote, “You were a commercial artist, too? Wow!”

    I am not now nor have I ever been a commercial artist nor have I ever claimed to be. I was alive for decades before 1990, using technology and watching others use technology. I was there, whereas bw sounds as though he’s 3 and believes repetition will get him his way.

  10. bw says:

    I was there.

    You were a commercial artist, too? Wow! You do get around.

    I seem to recall that these folk were constantly fooling around with scratchboards and gluing pictures and text blobs onto things that could be photographed and touched up to make “camera ready art”. It was a very manual process.

    Quark and Photoshop came out for Macs and revolutionized the whole industry. GIMP was a hobby project that appealed to wannabes, just like Paint Shop Pro, only with a lot fewer users.

  11. ch wrote, of PS, ” if you are a pro, you need it –bad.”

    Whatever did pros do before PS? “Initial release February 19, 1990”

    Let me tell you. I was there. They didn’t use that other OS and they didn’t use PS. They were still pros. QED There’s a reason Gimp exists. Pros wanted something other than PS and they got it. They were programmers and web-page designers. GIMP is ideal for what they wanted. “The GIMP was started because I wanted to make a Web page. GTk was started because I was dissatisfied with Motif and wanted to see what it took to write a UI toolkit. These are purely selfish reasons. That is probably why the projects progressed so far and eventually succeeded. I find it much more difficult to work on something for extended periods of time for selfless reasons. “ Mattis works for Google. Do you think Google hires amateurs?

  12. ch says:

    OK, time to set some things straight.
    – “Not everybody needs PS!”
    Right. It’s a tool for professionals – people who make their money with serious graphics work. You don’t do that, you don’t need it – seems to apply to most folk on this blog. But if you are a pro, you need it –bad.
    – “So how bad is it really?”
    Not so long ago, German C’T magazine did a round-up of image manipulation programs. (C’T is a magazine whose reviews you can trust, never mind a certain bias in favor of everything FLOSS. It’s from the same people who did “The H”.) Verdict? The GIMP has *almost* the features of *PS Elements* (a feature-crippled amateur version that is easier to use and costs less than €100) and almost as steep a learning-curve as the full PS, and – as already discussed – it is ssslllooowww. Juicy quote: It’s “for people with a high threshold for pain”. (They must have been thinking of you, Mr Pogson 😉
    – “But the GIMP is free!”
    PS costs about as much as the pros charge for a few hours of work. If a pro loses a few hours because of GIMP’s abysmal speed, it’s not cheap anymore – and if he loses a customer because of GIMP’s missing features …
    – “Nobody needs Pantone, my printer can print snappy colors without it!”
    That’s the point people were trying to get to you: Those colors may be snappy, but are they correct? Imagine ACME corp. asks you to print some stuff that includes their company logo. Said logo needs to be in an exact color – a shade somewhere between magenta and scarlet, say it’s Pantone 4711 (random number since I don’t know Pantone colors any better than you). Now you tell them that “I can make it a snappy red!” What’s gonna happen?
    – “But … but nobody prints stuff anymore!”
    (.me looking around the room, seeing lotsa printed paper)
    Sure … guess that’s why you have a printer that can do snappy colors?

  13. Ted wrote, “BOLLOCKS.”, when I wrote that most folks don’t do colour printing.

    It may not be obvious but a lot of folks now carry a digital camera, aka a smartphone, on their person and can instantly create, send and receive digital images. They have little or no need of paper. Further, many businesses since the late 1990s scan papers coming in to avoid storing paper. Then they did it in B&W, now it’s colour. In my own home, we have a professional/business-suitable multi-function colour printer/scanner/fax machine and it has been more than a year since we changed the colour toner cartridges (I think the warning that toner is low has been on for almost a year), yet this home deals with thousands of colour images, photos we take, photos sent to us, and stuff to and from the web. We are not alone. Many homes do not have printers of any kind. Many businesses do as much as they can to avoid printing because it costs way more than e-mail/web-sites.

  14. Ted says:

    “Fortunately, most of the world has given up on ink and paper and have no need of such nonsense.”

    BOLLOCKS.

    Even leaving aside documents and things like newspapers, magazines and comics (tell any comics fan the world has no need of those), what about paper labels on tins/cans/bottles? Or other food packaging – wrappers and bags? Books? Obvious, but lots of ink on lots of paper.

    How about putting ink on cardboard? There’s most packaging in the world. Then there’s putting ink on other materials – metal (drinks cans? lot of those!), plastic (bank/credit cards, drinks bottles, bags, and almost any plastic appliance will have some form of printing on it), glass, ceramics, etc.

    Ink is everywhere – “printing” is not just you and your cheap inkjet.

  15. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson proper Pantone is not printed from 4 colours ink. Pantone is not CMYK.

    You are looking are 400 + inks when doing proper Pantone.

    4 colors does not represent Metallic or glow in dark or may of the other specialist Pantone colours. Basically no home printer can do Pantone properly. Home printers can do CMYK.

    DrLoser the simple reality the fact that RGB is additive does not matter a rats to Pantone. Why because Pantone does not operate that way. You have fixed percentages off particular colour points. Pantone is exact. There is no addition or subtraction when working with Pantone colours.

    http://www.amazon.com/Pantone-GPC105-Reference-Library-Complete/dp/B00BM67MIY/ref=pd_sim_sbs_hi_5

    Yes Dr Loser Pantone comes with SRGB

    2,868 CMYK table from Pantone is also compatible with Gimps CMYK support.

    Dr Loser once using Pantone all that additive and subtractive stuff is bogus. Pantone is a list of colours. You use a colour somewhere from the list. That colour is an exact colour.

    DrLoser Pantone CMYK is exact even with GImp. Due to is fixed reference points.

    Pantone is used when you need high amount of exact repeatability. Pantone does have its defects. Pantone is completely useless to print photos in not enough colour range.

    Robert Pogson you don’t understand what Pantone is either. Pantone is a very limited subset of colours. You can do Pantone from MS Paint and make a Pantone print shop acceptable file. RGB is all that is required. There is a very limited number of Pantone colours. 24 bits is more than enough to represent this. Heck Pantone work can be done in 16 bit images.

    DrLoser the reality is no image editor on a computer properly supports pantone. Because pantone is a physical non computer thing.

    Dr Loser the joke here is the complete arguement about gimp not support Pantone has been bogus from day one.

    Anyone raising lack of Pantone support in gimp as a issue mostly proves they are not a profession working with Pantone. Pantone is editing application neutral.

    Due to the fact Pantone sux at doing photos it common not used with tools like gimp or photoshop. inkscape and other vector based graphics tools are the ones commonly used with Pantone.

    If you are correct for photos and the graphics types photoshop handles you would be complaining about lack of Hexachrome support. Yes Pantone Inc did invent Hexachrome but its not Pantone.

    Hexachrome has 6 colors not 4 like CMYK. Very few programs properly support Hexachrome.

    CMYK and Hexachrome not being fully integrated is a weakness in gimp.

    DrLoser Pantone is not WYSIWYG on a computer screen. So even if your program comes out box with Pantone colour maps installed you still need the physical books to see what the colour is going to look like.

    DrLoser so you would be a idiot to use Pantone in photoshop then complain at the print-shop when the result comes out looking slightly wrong. Because you where too dumb to spend 1000 dollars buying the colour books.

    Sorry a profession artist cannot use Pantone without the physical books either. The idea of Pantone is the print shop and the artist have identical books. Software issues in the middle are cured by this. Pantone is software neutral.

    Pantone is the old fashioned code book solution.

    DrLoser pantone in the USA is a trademark. To use on packaging and other places in the USA requires paying licensing. Yes having a pantone color map but not claiming pantone support means not having to pay trademark licensing. Most other countries don’t allow a trademark to be used this way.

  16. dougman says:

    BING-A-LING wrote, “if you run a business, even a small business, that involves professional graphics, you do need Photoshop.”

    So, the Doctor, thinks that anyone NOT using Photoshop, is somehow unprofessional?? I guess Picasso, van Gogh, Da Vinci or Dali are not professional enough in his eyes.

    Replace Photoshop, with ‘Windows’ and you will find the same exact MVP idiots that I come across now and then. They also state that removing M$ Windows is somehow magically ‘illegal’.

    LOL.

  17. DrLoser wrote, “I listen to the knowledgeable professionals in the field”

    …all ~100 million of them? How come that’s all the licences Adobe could sell? Clearly others are using Gimp.

    DrLoser wrote, “if you run a business, even a small business, that involves professional graphics, you do need Photoshop.”

    Nope. Don’t confuse having a product being useful as being necessary. Those are different things. Gimp is useful too but neither are necessary. Obviously the world got on for billions of years without either.

    oiaohm wrote, ” a RGB file with correct colour maps produce what pantone print shops require.”

    Here, I disagree with oiaohm. Pantone printshops print four colours, three primaries and black. RGB doesn’t do that. RGM is good for screens. Printshops work with ink and paper. Fortunately, most of the world has given up on ink and paper and have no need of such nonsense. My printer has four colours but I’ve never had any need of Pantone. It’s a matter of what is acceptable output. Not many care that the colours are not reproducible on paper. Any reasonable facsimile will do. Black and white will do, after all.

  18. DrLoser says:

    First of all, this is a foolish argument conducted between non-professional ignoramuses. And I am certainly a non-professional ignoramus in this field. The first difference is: I admit it up-front. And the second difference is: I listen to the knowledgeable professionals in the field.

    Strangely, not a single one uses GiMP.
    And secondly, all Linux enthusiasts miss the point. Yes, Robert, you do not need Photoshop to edit a picture for domestic use. But if you run a business, even a small business, that involves professional graphics, you do need Photoshop.

    It doesn’t matter what I think. It doesn’t matter what oioahm thinks (does it ever)? It doesn’t matter what anybody on this board thinks.

    The people who use a graphical manipulation program for professional reasons and who require full support for printing (amongst other things) have spoken. They use Photoshop. You may not have noticed, but it’s an inordinately successful (and expensive!) product. Why? Because no professional is going to skimp $500 when the alternative is a botched print run that costs $500 and has to be junked.

    This isn’t FOSS vs the World. That’s a dumb argument. This is simple economic sense. It doesn’t even undermine the FOSS model, so I have no idea why there’s even an argument here.
    But: to the ramblings of oiaohm. Sigh.

    Dr Loser you love proving your self as under researched.

    Indeed. It’s my primary goal in life. Every day I aim to equal your astounding ability to combine being under-researched and pig-ignorant at the same time. One day, perhaps, I shall achieve that Satori.

    While I wait, I must point out that random links to bits of the GiMP site don’t really qualify as “research.” Still, if it keeps you happy, I suppose.

    Yes CMYK is possible to be used with GIMP.

    “Possible” does not imply “likely” or “accurate” or even “popular,” oiaohm. However, at least you’ve got it through your noddle that CMYK (subtractive) is essential to printing.

    Of course you would not be aware of RGB mapping to pantone.

    What a shame: all of a sudden you lose that rational chain of thought.

    I try as hard as I can to be unaware of the more foolish and absurd efforts of the IT world. RGB is additive. RGB is an awful model for printing, and no amount of mapping will make it otherwise.

    Unless you have some fresh “research” that indicates otherwise?

    Or the fact Gimp does have pantone color maps. More interesting is pantone color maps have existed for gimp for years. The legal questions only apply in some countries. Where robert is interesting enough the protections don’t apply.

    Look, anybody can produce a “pantone color map.” Even we can do that.
    Are they any good? Do professionals use them? Do print shops accept the result with a warranty on what comes out the back end of the printer?
    I’m going to be generous and say “maybe, no, and probably not.” You have to sell people on the “maybe.” Not on the “you might lose us $500, but what the heck, it’s a darned spiffy product and it’s not warrantied but at least it’s free!”

    Dr Loser you are in the USA so pantone is required to be licensed

    No I’m not. You are thoroughly incapable of paying attention, aren’t you?

    You used paltone by colour book. Please remember paltone includes metallic duel colour and other colour types computer screen cannot reproduce.

    Spelling awry again as usual. Yup, I’ll bear that reproducibility issue in mind. Just one small question, which I know you will fail to answer: why should it matter? You don’t need wysiwig with a professional image editing system (why would you? It will never look the same on the screen as on the printed result, by definition). What you do need is predictability.

    GiMP doesn’t give you predictability. GiMP just gives you a mapping via (I believe) plug-ins, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But a mapping is a mapping, nothing more. It’s useless to a professional, who understands what “metallic duel colour” means. (Unless we’re back to the Spartan triangle formation, btw, the word is “dual.”)

    Paltone does not require a super good graphics editor. DrLoser by the stupidity you have been talking you don’t own Pal-tone colour reference books.

    Hey, you don’t need to call me stupid: you could have just asked me. No, I have no need of a “Pal-tone” colour reference book – for some reason you have introduced a supererogatory hyphen to your misspelling – and I would happily admit that I don’t have one.

    And you know what? The question is moot. The print shop requires a Pantone colour reference book. I, assuming that I am a professional graphics artist (I am not), require nothing more than a graphics manipulation program/suite that supports Pantone natively.
    Photoshop does. The GiMP doesn’t.

    So shockhorror right Dr Loser that a RGB file with correct colour maps produce what pantone print shops require.

    Shockhorror, oiaohm, it doesn’t. Here’s the perfect place to prove me wrong with “research” and a link.

    Just once. One single instance of what you claim. Heck, go ahead and spend the $500 yourself, and see what comes out of the print shop.

    DrLoser the issues is bit depth, Speed and advanced pantone operations that even Photoshop is a little sus with.

    No, that is not the issue. You have spent an entire WallOfGibberish™ “addressing” a completely different issue (Pantone compatibility, spelt however you like). Address these “issues” later if you want, but right now I’m expecting you to address the present issue, which is that GiMP does not support Pantone (or Paltone, or Pal-tone, or The Four Subtractive Tonettes) in any way useful to a professional in the field.

    Don’t change the subject. Man up and present a reasonable argument.

  19. d. says:

    Some Loser wrote,

    And the reason I am not a billionaire is because the Underpants Gnomes failed to honor their contract.

    Puh-leeze.

    “We’re still adding boffo features” is a perfectly reasonable defence if your software product has been out there for two years and possibly has momentum.

    Well, it seems like Pogson’s blog is as troll-infested as ever.

    It’s quite apparent you don’t know the first thing about graphics programming, software development or history of FOSS software.

    My guess is you’re one of those butthurt entitled little guys who think they should get software served to them on a silver platter, and when the developer makes a change you don’t like, you storm to the forums to complain like the world owes it to you. Saw plenty of guys like this when GIMP 2.8 was released, complaining about something as small as the change of save/export behaviour (which btw is now much more consistent with most other software out there, and seriously it took me like a day to get used to pressing ctrl-E instead of ctrl-S when exporting non-native files).

    Anyway, long story short, software development takes a long time, and on the case of GIMP, a bit longer because the GIMP devs started out literally from scratch: when GIMP was started, none of these fancy toolkits, libraries and pieces of infrastructure people take for granted now existed. They started from zero. You know GTK, the toolkit that GNOME (and a gaggle of other desktop environments, as well as a myriad of FOSS software) uses? It started out as GIMP Toolkit, which the GIMP developers wrote to be able to create a UI for GIMP.

    A lot of the GIMP code has had to been rewritten many times over the years. Lots of the surrounding software and libraries have changed.

    GIMP is in an interesting point because it’s just now getting to a point where the developers can pursue modern features. It’s caught up to proprietary competitors a lot over the last few years and is likely to catch up a lot more in the near future.

    GiMP has been out there for seventeen years, has no traction, doesn’t even win oiaohm’s vote for “best FLOSS image manipulation suite,” and traditionally lacks anything a professional graphics artist would need to do their job. And has done for all seventeen years. Don’t you think that selling this nonsense to a graphics artist fresh out of college, say aged 21, is going to be a bit of a push? Because I do.

    Many professional artists and designers use GIMP as a part of their workflow.

    But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of your rhetoric…

    Get real. The thing is dead in the water. “We’ll get around to it eventually” is not a selling-point.

    Only if you’re blind or stupid, or purposefully misrepresenting or twisting the facts in order to further some agenda (or to just be a shitty troll, take your pick).

  20. oiaohm says:

    Dr Loser you love proving your self as under researched.

    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP

    Yes CMYK is possible to be used with GIMP.

    Of course you would not be aware of RGB mapping to pantone. http://www.ve3syb.ca/software/gimp/2.4/pantone.gpl Or the fact Gimp does have pantone color maps. More interesting is pantone color maps have existed for gimp for years. The legal questions only apply in some countries. Where robert is interesting enough the protections don’t apply. Dr Loser you are in the USA so pantone is required to be licensed. Welcome to the fun in countries laws.

    You used paltone by colour book. Please remember paltone includes metallic duel colour and other colour types computer screen cannot reproduce.

    Paltone does not require a super good graphics editor. DrLoser by the stupidity you have been talking you don’t own Pal-tone colour reference books.

    So shockhorror right Dr Loser that a RGB file with correct colour maps produce what pantone print shops require.

    DrLoser the issues is bit depth, Speed and advanced pantone operations that even photoshop is a little sus with.

  21. DrLoser wrote, “And the results? Well, you wouldn’t want to see the results. Let’s just say that anybody who wants 21st century professional print-shop capabilities is going to be … er … mildly disappointed.”

    I guess no small business has a colour printer these days eh? Mine seems to work and the colours are snappy.

  22. dougman says:

    Sorry GIMP does not work for you, maybe you feel better spending hundreds for Adobe products, knowing that somehow it magically makes pictures better.

    Why does the BING-A-LING ‘DR’ care about the feasibility of GIMP vs ADOBE or a 21-year old starving graphic-artist that needs to spit out kick out 1000’s of graphics.

    Do you honestly think that any business cares whether said graphics was done on GIMP, KRITA, PS or any other program, they do not, they just want their damn graphic.

  23. DrLoser says:

    What consumer or small business needs any of those? Only folks who advertise on glossy magazines likely have much need of those. Know anyone who does that? The vast majority of image-processing can be done with GIMP just fine. Check out some examples. Real people seem to have no problem doing amazing things with GIMP.

    An exemplary defense of a bit of ancient rotted software with very few features, Robert.

    OK, here’s the counter-example: I’m an SME (maybe only five or ten employees) and I take my artwork down to the local printing shop.

    They’ll happily accept it without either CMYK or Pantone. They’ll charge you through the nose.

    And the results? Well, you wouldn’t want to see the results. Let’s just say that anybody who wants 21st century professional print-shop capabilities is going to be … er … mildly disappointed.

    Why don’t you just focus on the successes of FLOSS? No way is the GiMP successful. It hasn’t been for seventeen years, and there’s no clear reason why it should start now (despite all those “interesting developments in the pipeline”).

  24. DrLoser says:

    GIMP’s performance issues are mainly because the OpenCL backend is still being worked on, and the port to GEGL (the image manipulation library which will eventually run at the core of GIMP and use OpenCL) is still unfinished.

    And the reason I am not a billionaire is because the Underpants Gnomes failed to honor their contract.

    Puh-leeze.

    “We’re still adding boffo features” is a perfectly reasonable defence if your software product has been out there for two years and possibly has momentum.

    GiMP has been out there for seventeen years, has no traction, doesn’t even win oiaohm’s vote for “best FLOSS image manipulation suite,” and traditionally lacks anything a professional graphics artist would need to do their job. And has done for all seventeen years. Don’t you think that selling this nonsense to a graphics artist fresh out of college, say aged 21, is going to be a bit of a push? Because I do.

    Get real. The thing is dead in the water. “We’ll get around to it eventually” is not a selling-point.

    There are far more worthy FLOSS projects to back.

  25. Ted wrote, “If graphics work needs Pantone, CMYK or 16bpc, then GIMP is NOT an equivalent to Photoshop.”

    What consumer or small business needs any of those? Only folks who advertise on glossy magazines likely have much need of those. Know anyone who does that? The vast majority of image-processing can be done with GIMP just fine. Check out some examples. Real people seem to have no problem doing amazing things with GIMP.

  26. Ted says:

    “Never have used PS in any deep fashion but it seems about equivalent”

    If you’ve never used Photoshop in a “deep fashion” then you are in no position to judge.

    If GIMP does the job for you, then good for you.

    But please do not tell others what their needs are. If graphics work needs Pantone, CMYK or 16bpc, then GIMP is NOT an equivalent to Photoshop.

  27. d. says:

    GIMP’s performance issues are mainly because the OpenCL backend is still being worked on, and the port to GEGL (the image manipulation library which will eventually run at the core of GIMP and use OpenCL) is still unfinished.

    What this means is that GIMP is not able to fully take advantage of the hardware, ie. GPU-side rendering, parallelization is still unfinished. It’s a wonder it performs as well as it does now, using only CPU-side rendering, and a testament to the skill of the developers.

    OpenCL and GEGL are planned for the next version of GIMP, 2.10, according to the roadmap.

  28. oe says:

    Plus Libre/Open Office, and GIMP are extensible (easily, FOSS makes it so) in by means of plugins and it seem’s you can find a GIMP plugin for virtually anything you want to do in it. Never have used PS in any deep fashion but it seems about equivalent

  29. Yonah wrote, ” Let’s take a 4,608 x 3,456 image in both Photoshop and GIMP. 64 pixel Gaussian blur: GIMP, 6 seconds, Photoshop, instantaneous.”

    I just did a 64-pixel Gaussian blur on an image 1500×1300. It took a bit more than 2s, so your numbers seem reasonable, but it’s not a problem for me and probably most of the billions of people with a snap of the new baby. We don’t usually want our images blurry…

    Yonah also wrote, “Scale the image up 400% to 18,432 x 13,824: GIMP, took a whopping 1 minute and 15 seconds to compute and is using 2.2 gigs of RAM.”

    My image wanted 2.6 gB of RAM exceeding my preferences. Probably only those with large-format printers would ever want to do such a thing. GIMP still works for me. I am retired and go for lunch if something takes too long. I have swap. It works if needed.

    You can take all the special cases you want but that only makes PS viable in a few niches. The large bulk of humanity live out in the open where cropping, resizing and changing brightness are the big tickets. On web-images GIMP works perfectly.

    BTW, I used to make my living doing number-crunching so I know how these things can be improved but it involves a lot more man-hours coding in assembler/machine-language instead of a high level language like Pascal or a scripting language. I remember, on the old IBM s/360, I used to do integer maths instead of floating-point because the FP instructions took about 3 times as long as the integer… Now, how does PS do on ARM?

  30. Yonah says:

    Downloads don’t mean much. Even I downloaded GIMP just to see how bad it was. What amazes me though is how slow GIMP is in just about every way. Let’s take a 4,608 x 3,456 image in both Photoshop and GIMP. 64 pixel Gaussian blur: GIMP, 6 seconds, Photoshop, instantaneous. GIMP only shows you a tiny preview window, and still has to compute the effect after you click “OK.”

    Now let’s really push things. Scale the image up 400% to 18,432 x 13,824: GIMP, took a whopping 1 minute and 15 seconds to compute and is using 2.2 gigs of RAM. Photoshop? Are you ready for this? 5 seconds, done! And Photoshop is still using less than a gig of memory (979.7 MB).

  31. d. says:

    And also, higher bit depths (as well as CMYK and other non-rgb colourspaces) are already supported by Krita, which also has tons of other features GIMP lacks (dynamic filters, clone layers, vector layers to name a few).

    Krita is more oriented for digital drawing/painting though, and isn’t a replacement for GIMP. But for drawing/painting, it’s the best there is, even better than proprietary products.

  32. d. says:

    Correction, 16-bit and higher bit depths already work in 2.9 (dev branch), and will be available in a stable release in 2.10.

  33. Brownieboy says:

    Gimp needs 16-bit colour (and higher!) support. Slated for Gimp 3.

  34. Gimp is one of the best FLOSS applications.

  35. dougman says:

    I once over-heard someone say that they needed Photoshop and a new PC.

    IT Idiot stated it will cost $1000’s to the COO.

    I walk back to my desk, pull up GIMP and make the graphic and hand it the COO.

    IT Idiot was let go for being incompetent, mainly for pushing Crackberry when BYOD and Android are far less costly.

Leave a Reply