
GIMP 2.8 (Stable) Finally Available For Download - mnazim
http://www.webupd8.org/2012/05/gimp-28-stable-finally-available-for.html
======
bad_user
I've been a GIMP user for several years.

It's not as friendly as Photoshop, but it gets the job done and it is
extremely flexible. I got so used to it that I can't switch back to Photoshop,
even though I tried.

One major pain point for me though has been the 8 bits limit, which was the
reason why I wanted to switch to Photoshop. I'm glad that they've worked on
solving it.

This is an awesome release.

~~~
diminish
the Batch filter is what we are using a lot for web site image processing.

------
okamiueru
I decided to give gimp a real go recently. Shifting my UI production from
photoshop to GIMP, and not giving in to temptation, regardless of how quickly
I knew I could do a certain task in PS.

There were a few headaches. For instance the half an hour spent in frustration
when trying to move a layer, only to find that the tool panel had an "Affect:
" followed by a small icon for the selection. I consider this expected pains,
and there certainly were a few of those in photoshop as well.

One thing that I just consider lousy implementation was when trying to create
a pattern and applying it to an image. I couldn't find a way to do this
besides creating the pattern as an image, and saving it to the
~/.gimp/patterns/, refreshing the pattern dialogue, and applying the pattern.

Also, the destructive workflow in applying effects is archaic... even
photoshop's linear (albeit dynamic) stack of adjustment layers feels old and
restrictive.

I'll keep sticking with Gimp for a while longer... it can only get better,
right? Still, at the moment I'd say it is far inferior to Photoshop regarding
my productivity.

~~~
exDM69
> I'll keep sticking with Gimp for a while longer... it can only get better,
> right?

That's exactly the reason you want to stick with GIMP for a while longer. If
you're willing to go the extra mile, start following GIMP development and
community a little closer. Join an IRC channel or a mailing list, for example.
That way, you can have a part in making it better.

------
marcusf
I first ran in to Gimp in what would have had to been the late 90's or early
00's, and ever since it's always befuddled me completely. I've always turned
back to Photoshop, if slightly begrudgingly, because the productivity
enhancements of a tool you really know far outweigh the price of it. These UI
improvements seem to be a step in the right direction though.

I'd love to hear if anybody's done the Journey PS -> Gimp (for UI stuff, not
photography), and if so how long it took and if it was worth it in the end?

~~~
Tichy
I've used both - for basic stuff, mind you. But I remember how hard it was to
pick up Photoshop. My conclusion from my limited experience is therefore that
it is simply what you are used to. Neither Gimp or PS are necessarily better,
they are just different. If you are used to Gimp, you will swear if you have
to use PS, and vice versa.

One problem for more advanced work could be that there are more tutorials for
PS than for Gimp.

(I only use Gimp because I don't want to pay for PS and I tend to be on Linux
at times).

~~~
Aozaki_Touko
Neither are necessarily better ? it shows how much use you have for a
professional image editing package : NONE. It has been a long time since I've
picked up Photoshop (as in I'm used to its interface) so I can't say whether
it's really hard to "pick it up" compared to beginning with the gimp but the
environment is FAR MORE productive than what the GIMP offers if you were to
master the two and compare their abilities. The amount of non-destructive
tools in Photoshop alone make it ten times better than the GIMP if
productivity is your priority.

The GIMP is like Photoshop 4 or 5. One of the worst "open source alternative"
to proprietary software. It's an antique piece of software that hasn't caught
up with the last DECADE of innovation.

~~~
Tichy
Obviously it depends on the level you work on. And PS 5 might have been the
last version I tried, don't even know what is current.

If PS is so much better, why don't you use it? What non-destructive tools are
you talking about? I don't think tools are typically destructive in Gimp?

But you are correct, I am not a designer, I am a developer.

~~~
Aozaki_Touko
If you don't understand what "non destructive" means in the context of an
image editor you obviously will never grasp why PS is actually better than the
GIMP, and it's only ONE of the bigger example I took to compare them.
[http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS2FD6768E-DB6B-4...](http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Photoshop/11.0/WS2FD6768E-DB6B-48a3-9859-46AB77DFC325a.html)
"Nondestructive editing allows you to make changes to an image without
overwriting the original image data, which remains available in case you want
to revert to it. Because nondestructive editing doesn’t remove data from an
image, the image quality doesn’t degrade when you make edits. You can perform
nondestructive editing in Photoshop in several ways:"

A Smart Filter will be reapplied to the object every time you make changes to
the object. But not in an "applied twice" way, because changes are not set in
stone, it doesn't degrade the original object.

Photoshop is so much more productive than the GIMP. Anyone who pretends that
those two packages are equal should keep from talking about image editors.

~~~
Tichy
I thought that was what non-destructive means, I was just surprised that Gimp
supposedly doesn't work that way.

Anyway, I am definitely not a power user - I think those already know if they
are going to use Gimp or PS, and will not be swayed by HN discussions. I am
just tired of the interface argument, because PS is definitely not easy to
use. You have to dig through some tutorials and then you suddenly know how to
do things, but it is not intuitive.

If you need specific PS _functionality_ , obviously you have to use PS. My
point was merely that the user interface is not really the big differentiator.
(Also, I don't know the latest PS versions so I might be wrong, but I doubt
it).

------
blt
They are going to have to support "Filter Layers" (Photoshop's Adjustment
Layers) before they get __any__ traction in the serious photo editing
community. Non-destructive editing with masked adjustment layers is a basic
best practice for photographers since the early 2000s.

~~~
zokier
I believe those are on the road map. But probably will take couple of releases
before getting there.

~~~
blt
I think it might be time for me to get the Gimp source and start messing
around...

------
nnq
dream: could a UI/UX genius and open-source hacker ever make an Inkscape+GIMP
hybrid that will have the straight forward, intuitive and productive UI of
Adobe Fireworks? (without the weird ireproductible "bugs" and "WTF?!" moments
that Fw sometimes throws in face of the user, making me dread to think of the
decade old can-of-worms closed-source code of this otherwise superb
application)

~~~
macco
Do it yourself: Use GEGL <http://www.gegl.org/> as the GIMP Backend and find
something for Inkscape or rip it apart.

------
reustle
These types of ads make my blood boil: <http://i.imgur.com/ZHzf9.png>

~~~
simcop2387
Wow that's a little scummy. Was it at least a copy of the gimp it linked to
even if it had more ads around it?

------
netrus
I am excited about the singe window mode. The multi window mode made GIMP
quite un-intuitive to me until now.

~~~
exDM69
Nice that you like it. I, on the other hand, have always liked GIMP's multi-
window interface. It works very well with multiple monitors.

But thankfully there's a choice between the two interface modes. The GIMP crew
should have come up with that earlier.

But the interface change is not that significant compared to all the other new
features (esp. >8bpp color).

~~~
lloeki
I liked the multi-window interface, but the choice of making the palettes real
windows and not floating panels always struck me as a mistake. See how
Pixelmator handles that for example: it's much more natural.

~~~
Avshalom
I don't know Pixelmator but I think there's an option for that. In
Preferences->window management you can change it from regular window to
utility window, then it's just a question of whether your WM cares.

------
harbud
Single window, ok cool. But after ages, still no tool to draw some boxes and
circles? This is proof that Gimp's goal is not designer's productivity. Pass.

~~~
exDM69
I knew someone would bring that up. Drawing boxes and circles is easy, first
make selection, then fill it. That's hardly a blocker for designer
productivity.

Sure there's an extra selection and a tool change but this way it's a lot more
versatile than having a simple single purpose draw-me-a-box tool. Learn the
keyboard shortcuts and get over it.

Need a pattern filled box? Do the selection and use pattern fill.

Need a box with a circular hole in the middle, with fill and outline stroke.
Select a box, then select a circle with difference selection. Then fill with
outline color, shrink selection by few pixels and fill with pattern. Or first
fill with pattern fill and do an outset/inset selection.

I'm sure Photoshop has a super versatile tool for doing boxes and circles. A
real swiss army knife that rounds your corners and does drop shadows. And
that's fine. But it's a different design choice than GIMP did.

In my opinion, GIMP is nice because it has simple tools that are composable,
repeatable and scriptable. Kinda like the unix philosophy gone GUI.

If you don't grok it, it may be difficult. If you do and don't like it, that's
your choice. But don't be impolite about it then.

~~~
mambodog
Photoshop implements these features using vector masks, which mean you can
scale your shapes after creating them without any resampling/pixelation. How
many steps would it take to do the same in GIMP? It's not just about not
grokking it, it's about having tools to _get shit done_.

~~~
exDM69
GIMP has a similar vector paths feature if that's what you want.

But the question above was about having a simple tool to draw boxes, just like
Mouse Paint on the Apple ][ had.

~~~
mambodog
I'm pretty sure GP was talking about being productive as a designer, which
means being able to do things really, really fast, with next to no effort,
while retaining as much flexibility as possible. I think it's great that GIMP
exists and is free and open source, but for people who actually have deadlines
the GIMP workflow just doesn't cut it a lot of the time.

~~~
gbog
I think you are wrong, a designer who is used to GIMP will have a faster
workflow with GIMP, it's that simple.

~~~
rrreese
If you take a GIMPdesigner and give them a weeks training in Photoshop will
they still be faster in GIMP? Will the additional speed offset the cost of a
weeks course? Are there many professional designers who aren't already
familiar with Photoshop?

Farmers who plough there land with an ox may initially be faster then when
they get their first tractor but that won't last long.

------
pjmlp
Still no installer available for Windows. :(

~~~
ecaron
There have been Windows installers for quite a while: <http://gimp-
win.sourceforge.net/stable.html> You'll see the 2.6 stable is available at the
top and 2.8 RC1 is at the bottom (I'm guessing 2.8.0 will be up by week's
end.)

~~~
pjmlp
I know, I just thought the 2.8.0 would be made available at the same time.

~~~
ExpiredLink
Why should they care for the 85% market when they can target the 0.95% market?

~~~
SquareWheel
There are a lot more alternatives on Windows though, Paint.net and Photoshop
being obvious choices. With Linux and similar Gimp is really the only image
editor. That I know of anyway.

------
zobzu
Actual link to gimp website... <http://www.gimp.org/release-
notes/gimp-2.8.html>

------
lifeisstillgood
Today GIMP made my day because I discovered it reads xwd format so my screen
capture is now as simple as I like it (xwd > ~/foo).

Thank you dev team, it's worth it really.

Cheers

------
philjackson
As an xmonad user the single window mode is a godsend.

------
andybak
Is there a non-Macports install guide for OS X?

------
deutronium
Is there 16 bit per channel image support?

