
Open source graphic design - damaru
http://www.ponnuki.net/2011/07/open-source-graphic-design/
======
biot

      > The code is open, if you want your tools to do
      > something different you are welcome to change it.
    

So there I was, deadline from the client looming and my publishing piece still
wasn't finished because using Scribus takes way longer than using InDesign
since it lacks key features, UI polish, and usability. Rather than purchasing
InDesign and get the job done so I could get paid, I decided to take several
years off work, learn software development, and improve Scribus.

Wait... do people consider that a serious argument? Have they been drinking
the open source kool-aid a little too much?

~~~
damaru
this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not in the corporation
plan - you won't ever see the change you want. And I also think that everyone
should learn programming too ;) but that's another story!

~~~
pvarangot
I'm actually both into development and photography, and also have sort of a
history in the opensource movement in my city, so I stumble into this way of
thinking pretty much. I actually call it "anti-humanist" software development,
because for me it serves as an excuse for developers to stop thinking about
how their software affects other people with the excuse that "well they should
fix it themselves... it's not that i'm an evil corporation that doesn't
release source code".

    
    
      > this is mainly a comparison to closed source - if it's not
      > in the corporation plan - you won't ever see the change
      > you want.
    

Replace _corporation_ for _open source project benevolent dictator_ and you
have a counter-argument. I don't know how much experience you have interacting
with Gimp developers, but they are consistently conservative and anal when it
comes to interacting with actual users of their software.

Also, it's not that closed source design applications are a walled garden,
Photoshop supports plugins since way before Gimp was released. I beleive it
was a feature the Knoll brothers worked on from the first version.

    
    
      >  And I also think that everyone should learn programming
      > too ;) but that's another story!
    

I don't beleive it's another story. Yes, basic programming should be in the
curricula of secondary or maybe even primary education, in fact I beleive it
is in most developed countries... But that doesn't mean everyone should be
able to understand, even less modify, the code for complex tools like a raster
image editing software.

------
lysol
There's a reason Adobe is so entrenched in this market -- The products are
actually good. They include new features that take the OSS alternatives years
to implement, if they ever do.

~~~
jamesteow
If someone made a Photoshop equivalent except faster, more stable, with only
the core functional elements (thus, no need for slew of filters, 3d, video
layers) and intuitive UI, I'd switch. And I've used Photoshop for... god it
must be like 12 years.

BTW, I'm not saying it's easy I'm just saying what would get an entrenched
person like me to change. There are plenty of designers I know who feel the
same.

i.e. <http://dearadobe.com/index.php?id=113>

------
momotomo
At one point last year I went all-out open source and dumped my W7 machine w/
photoshop and illustrator to switch over to GIMP and inkscape. I stuck with
this configuration for about 9 months or so.

After getting through the UI differences and learning curve, I was still
disappointed. Most of these apps feel like they've only been handled by causal
users.

The worst memory was in GIMP working with layer sizing and floating objects,
so many things were fixed and required hunting through menus or googling
shortcuts to get them to resize or to place an object out of edit mode. The
equivalent in photoshop is the enter key, or automatic layer boundary
resizing, etc. The application does a much better job of staying out of your
way.

If you're noodling about with a few photos its no big deal but the first major
file I had to tackle with a few dozen layers and objects burned me out
completely. I literally stood up, went to the shops, purchased a copy of
windows and got my old setup back.

The secondary issue in the background of all this was the time invested to
work around rendering speed issues, video drivers, wacom compatibility etc;
none of which earns me any coin but needed to be resolved before doing any
work. Unfortunately this will always be measured against the ease of getting
Windows setup on a machine (less than half a day to a production ready box
versus a solid week of problem resolution under the Ubuntu/Suse/Gimp combo).

I aim for open source usage whenever I can, and the quality is there, my main
gripe always seems to be workflow. If more professionals start using it and
providing feedback, yes, it will mature. However I think at this point to
claim they are a straight replacement (in the case of Gimp and inkscape) is a
bit short sighted when you consider the workload some of these tools support.

------
geon
I just can't take anyone seriously when they call Gimp "a really solid image
retouching and photo editing software".

And it's not about features (apart from the retarded "layer size"
micromanagement Gimp forces on you), but the UI is so confusing and
inconsistent even Photoshop 5.0 is lightyears ahead.

~~~
Xurinos
Did you learn Photoshop before playing with Gimp?

~~~
pvarangot
I'm not parent, but I learnt GIMP before Photoshop (actually really got into
Photoshop in CS1) and I agree with him. GIMP just really doesn't cut it. It's
kind of cute the first week or so you are into it, with it being opensource
and sort of fun, but really a usability nightmare after that first impression.
Also, its handling of big raster images (like 500mg tiffs which I handle
really often) is really disappointing.

Disclaimer: My main use is photography. I have friends more into drawing that
have different opinions.

~~~
Xurinos
Thank you. It tells me there is a significant enough difference.

You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big raster images. Does it
run out of memory quickly in comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue? I
thought I remember gimp not being able to handle 16-bit tiffs or something
along those lines.

~~~
pvarangot

      > You mentioned a technical issue, the handling of big 
      > raster images. Does it run out of memory quickly in 
      > comparison to Photoshop? What is the issue? I thought I 
      > remember gimp not being able to handle 16-bit tiffs or 
      > something along those lines.
    

Its memory usage gets high enough for Windows to start trashing on my box with
4 gigs of RAM, and brings everything to a halt. It's not only GIMP's problem
BTW, I have to disable thumbnails on the folders with big TIFFs because
Windows itself trashes. I don't know how Photoshop avoids this lame behaviour
but it does.

I haven't tried on Linux but was told it has the same problem. I won't try it
because color management in Linux is a PITA even if you are only interested in
calibrating your monitor, which is my only need as a hobbyist without money
for a decent printing setup.

I believe support for 16bit TIFFs is already built into yet-unreleased GIMP 3,
but yes, having only 24 bit colour is also another _huge_ problem with GIMP,
and totally a dealbreaker once you get serious with photography. Most prosumer
flatbeds or DSRLs already take measurable advantage of 48bit colour. I didn't
comment on that because the original post was on usability.

------
jcromartie
I've found serious problems with those tools. Often there are visible quality
differences in the output vs the commercial alternatives.

------
duopixel
Please please remove the clouds, they detract from the reading experience.

What I'd really like to see from the Open Source Community is a Fireworks
alternative. It has just the right blend between bitmap and vector editing in
a speedy lightweight package.

------
blhack
I've been a pretty heavy GIMP user for the last 10 years or so, and I love it.

Or loved it.

A few years ago, they decided to drastically change the UI without any
apparent way of changing it back (2.6 vs 2.4 -- the way the windows are layed
out has changed).

I think this was probably done to make it easier for people to transition from
photoshop to GIMP, but what the gimp people are neglecting is that there are
lots of people, like me, who grew up using GIMP. I've probably put about an
hour of photoshop time in in _my entire life_ , all of it happening while I'm
sitting at the photo shop waiting in line to talk to a tech (they have a huge
wacom tablet there to play with as a demo).

Same goes for inkscape, same goes for scribus.

I think what's important to understand is that the OSS solutions aren't _just_
for people transitioning away from adobe. There are a lot of us who have been
using them all along. When the maintainers make changes to these things to
make it easier for new users, they're also making it harder for us.

Which sucks.

------
Silhouette
The trouble is, the FOSS packages simply aren't as good.

See this related discussion from Slashdot the other day, which highlighted the
practical flaws fairly well:
[http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/12/1855250/Interview-
Wi...](http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/07/12/1855250/Interview-With-the-
Editors-of-Libre-Graphics-Magazine)

------
mtogo
The awful, distracting design (especially the weird cloud thing) almost got me
to quit your article, but i ended up stopping here:

 _Free software – meaning you don’t pay for it (you still can donate what you
want!)_

------
chris_engel
Yeah, I tried them. And I personally like Inkscape more then Illustrator for
vector-related things. But Gimp vs. PS? No thank you.

------
luminarious
Yes, these programs have existed for a number of years, slowly improving and
getting better. But every time I try to use them.. they feel clunky. There is
just too much friction when I try to do the simple things. Maybe it's because
I'm used to PS and AI, but I think Gimp and Inkscape would both be much better
received if they invested more into being easy to use/ good-looking. Much like
Sketchup did for 3D, where building basic models is easy and complex models
possible.

~~~
tintin
It's all about easy to use. Easy to use saves time (and money).

Gimp can do what Photoshop can do but it will take you twice the amount of
time. If time is not an issue it's not a problem.

Some things slowing you down in Gimp:

    
    
      Working with text.
      A layer has a size.
      Out of focus problems of your tools and working area.

~~~
dimmuborgir
Text and out of focus problems are solved in the upcoming Gimp 2.7.

Try it: <http://gimpusers.com/tutorials/compiling-gimp-for-ubuntu>

------
gallerytungsten
While it may be possible to use these tools as a solo designer, if you work in
a larger context then file interchange is a requirement. Good luck getting
corporate clients to download, install, and use this stuff. Instead, they'll
be asking why you can't deliver according to their specs.

~~~
damaru
yeah totally agree on that one - open source graphic design still only for
solo act -

------
5hoom
I have tried to like gimp, I really have.

Every time there is a major release I'll download it & try it out but it
always ends the same. The UI is clunky. The workflow with complex documents
(lots of layers & shapes, etc) is a byzantine & obscure click-a-thon. Wacom
support is glitchy. Users of the Mac version (some graphic design types run
macs, btw) get to enjoy the fun of x11 non-nativeness & all the weird
behaviour that brings (my 'favourite' being having to click each UI element
twice: once to gain focus & then once to actually click the desired item.
Grrr).

The whole thing feels disjointed & I find it hard to just get down to making
images. I hate that this is the case as I would love for gimp to be a world
beating graphics tool (OSS FTW, and all that), but there are just too many
rough edges for it to be considered best of breed.

The problem is, who is working on an alternative open source graphics app
that's better? Guess we're stuck with photoshop…

------
bithopper
Should we compare technology with or without the ideological context in which
it exists?

What if humankind got better results with an unethically (to some) produced
program. Would it then be unethical to promote software or technology that
would hinder our advancement, just because it doesn't promote certain
ideologies that this person believes in? (This applies to any technology).
Should the ideology of software be more valued than what the software itself
does?

------
keithpeter
@blhack

Why not just carry on using the old version? Bob Staake apparently keeps an
old Mac running OS 9 so he can use Photoshop 3.

General point: open source can't be taken from you in the way (say) Final Cut
Pro was.

------
nvictor
please please please GIMP can't still be compared to Photoshop.

------
damaru
ok I am done with the could ;)

~~~
shareme
its not the cloud graphic but how you implemented it..I think what yo u meant
was to use CSS to float the cloud and left middle of screen..which would have
been perfect.

~~~
damaru
thanks for the idea - I guess, my design and creativity get under a lot of
pressure when you get 2000 visits - I'll keep that idea in mind since i also
like the idea of smooth animated background

~~~
catch23
I kind of wondered what it looked like before, now that there's no more cloud,
but there's still all these comments about how the cloud is annoying.

~~~
damaru
hehehe yeah not putting it back for now ;) wasn't a deal breaker here or on
disqus !

------
clistctrl
What the hell is that floating moving group of penises? I can't read the
article, my eyes keep moving to look at it. Waiting for the lasers to shoot
something.

~~~
chris_engel
You need a laser? Try this one:

javascript:var%20s%20=%20document.createElement('script');s.type='text/javascript';document.body.appendChild(s);s.src='<http://erkie.github.com/asteroids.min.js;void(0)>;

------
rorrr
For the 100th time, GIMP is not a Photoshop replacement. Not even close. I've
tried to switch to GIMP like 10 times now, and every time I download the
latest version, I give up within an hour.

