Talk:GIMP/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about GIMP. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Industry dominance

Intended as a free replacement for Photoshop, the GIMP has not challenged that program's industry dominance in the print world, perhaps for any of the following reasons:

the professional preprocessing of print graphics is hindered by the GIMP project's inability to license the patents on industry-standard color mapping schemes

This is very weird statement. With exception of one country there are no software patents in the world, so if this was the real reason, it would be widely used in Europe, and I don't see it being much more popular in Europe than in USA. Taw 12:14 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Which country would that be? There are no software patents in the US, but a judge has upheld a patent on software granted by the US patent office. Similarly, the patent offices in Europe and Japan grant patents on software, whether these can be upheld or not. branko

The whole "free replacement" paragraph looks bias. There are two speculative points I'm going to remove now:

Some say the support of digital tablets .. is superior in Photoshop.

Some say ...?

Many people are doubtful of .. free software.

I tend to disagree. nikai

I think it's failed because the interface is awful and the windows port not part of the official releases. It's a joke to talk about industry dominance when the gimp team has always treated windows like it didn't exist. 66.87.1.3 03:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Failed or not there were many articles written citing GIMP as the example of a free software GUI app, not just a console app and the perception did exist without getting into questions of how popular the interface itself actually is. Horkana

I think the "The GIMP was intended as a free (as in speech) competitor to Adobe Photoshop, but the latter still dominates the printing and graphics industries." comment is somewhat inaccurate. I think it's more accurate the say it was intended to be a free alternative instead of a competitor. Alikins 20:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Competitor is a poor choice of wording, users can choose both. The original intention may have been to create a photoshop competitor but current developers strongly downplay that idea. Horkana

151.x.x.x

Hello 151.148.136.103, here's why I reverted the following two of your changes:

1. You changed The GIMP is quite popular [...] into Because it is free and cross-platform, The GIMP is quite popular [...]

Have you got any proof, for instance based on polls, that this is why the GIMP is popular?

2. Unlike most other similar programs, GIMP can be controlled by writing a program, not just interactively. A Scheme interpreter is built in, but Perl, Python, Tcl and (experimentally) Ruby can also be used.

became

Many other programs can do batch processing of files, but The GIMP excels by providing not just a Scheme interpreter built in, but Perl, Python, Tcl and (experimentally) Ruby extensions.

First, I don't like the word 'excels', because it is a qualitative statement. Although I don't mind such statements in an encyclopedia per se, they need to be used when you can be sure that a lot of people will agree. (Or when you want to be provocative, but in a collaborative encyclopedia you can then be sure that your text will be changed.

Second, script-fu is for automating anything that can be done with GIMP functions. This is not just batch processing, as a matter of fact I would say batch processing is only a small part of the tasks script-fu and the other scripting extensions are used for. The old text mentioned the batch processing, your version did not mention all the other tasks that can be automated.

Third, I don't agree with your suggestion that the GIMP is the best tool for batch processing, and others with me. If you will check the GIMP newsgroup or the GIMP IRC channel, you will discover that a lot of the times when people ask 'how do I script this so that I can batch process it', the answer is 'don't bother, use ImageMagick/IrfanView/what have you'. Apparently, for a lot of tasks these tools are better than the GIMP for batch processing.--user:Branko

I am 151.x.x.x;

1. I don't object to the first change. You are correct that I have no polls to indicate this is why. I don't even have any proof that it is popular at all, considering how subjective that word is. It's certainly _not_ popular on Windows. It does seem to be popular on Unix, but thats a small chunk the of the graphic design world.

2. I was elaborating on the previous batch processing content. I'm sorry I didn't add more on other script-fu uses. I use it for batch processing. I do not use it for generating dynamic web page graphics, etc. Someone who does can feel free to write about it. Omission is in the nature of this project. If I eliminated a comment hinting that it can be used for more than batch processing, I apologize.

I was comparing The GIMP to other "image editing" programs (not batch processing progs), I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I'm sure that programs written specifically for batch processing are much better at batch processing. But again, they are really not, as those programs you mentioned really don't have the abilities of The GIMP, maybe 10%. I still feel that The GIMP is excels at this (I also don't feel this means it is the "best", but is really good) because it offers far more image manipulation features, not the least of which is extensive layer handling. It may be easier to automate certain tasks in other programs, but The GIMP is more flexible and comprehensive.

By the way, I resent the implication I was trying to be provacative.

I am sorry if I suggested you were. With (1) I felt you were not being factual, with (2) I felt you were a) removing important information about the nature of Script-fu and b) were misrepresenting the importance and role of the GIMP in batch-editing raster images.--user:Branko

I hope I didn't come across as liking The GIMP too much, because I really don't. The interface sucks--it's terrible. It doesn't have the wide range of plugins available on Photoshop. I only like the fact that it can be automated on my Linux server, doing batch processing of files outside of photoshop.

I do a bit of digital art--digital art pad support in The GIMP is substandard. (disclaimer: its been a long time since I tried this, The GIMP may have substantially improved since then). I think I would be hard pressed to see any digital artists switching from Photoshop (or Painter) to The GIMP.

It's really no substitute for Photoshop. I've avoided writing this in the article thus far because though it is a fact, but is provacative with many people that bluntly, don't understand everything that Photoshop does. Print work is the biggest part of what Photoshop is good for (indeed, web based work or paletted graphics are weak in photoshop) and the GIMP has _no_ claim against photoshop in that area.

I've but minimal formal training in the graphic design world, having changed my Major after a year and a half to something I liked more, programming. I do however maintain friendship with several others who do now work professionally. I was talking about the GIMP to one of them, a newspaper man--when I mentioned The GIMP had no CMYK support, he laughed out loud. He might enjoy his job more not having to deal with CMYK plates and color matching errors, but he would be far, far less productive.

What I'm saying is that I didn't really perceive my statements as non-NPOV, because I don't even like the program, though I use it. You sound like you work with it more, and I defer to your changes. Incidentally, what server is this IRC chat room on? I actually would like to try using my artpad in it again, and wonder what the support is like now (the The GIMP FAQ maintainers don't know).

Let me give some background too, then. I am not an artist, but I am a GIMP-contributor. I show my face in a lot of GIMP forums (the newsgroup, the developers' mailing list, the IRC channel, the GUG's forums, the GIMPI mailing list), and my experience is that almost without fail people, including the core developers and power users, refer others to software like Image Magick and Irfanview when these others want to do batch processing.

Granted, the latter tools are much less verstatile than the GIMP, but for the actual purposes we get questions about they are more than adequate (file type conversion, image scaling, adding captions, etc.). The extra functions of the GIMP are mainly usable in an interactive environment. You cannot batch-retouch photos, for instance, you have to do that manually.

The IRC-channel can be reached at irc.gimp.org (port 6667). Search the GIMP news group (news:comp.graphics.apps.gimp) on http://groups.google.com for the make of graphics pad, perhaps someone else had the same problem.

Good luck and thank you for your extensive answer.--user:Branko

I'm a photographer and I've just downloaded gimp and install it. I agree that one of the reasons GIMP is not a professional tool like Photoshop, is that photoshop can do accurate color management for print (press) work. Gimp is very good to develop web photos and personal prints, not for press work. It needs good ICC profile color management (CMYK, RGB, LAB), pantone integration and a monitor calibration tool like Adobe Gamma.

I understand ICC and calibration, but why would it need Pantone Integration ? Isn't Pantone just one way of doing something ? Or is it needed for "familiarity" reasons ?

A little thing called industry standards. In a sense, it is just one way of many to do something, but then so is the English language. Given the need to precisely specify colors across projects and between different media and applications, support for the industry lingua franca is a must. Hex codes or HSV (or RGB w/out CM) will not suffice.

But, then, without CMYK support in the first place, it's almost beside the point. 69.211.126.39 16:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all those who work on GIMP

I downloaded the programme yesterday, with some trepidation: I still use Win98 which is not supported by GIMP 2. And I am so impressed by it. I don't do graphics in a professional capacity, so I'm just using it for graphics for my website. And I really love it. And it's so wonderful to have it here on my machine with no trial period countdown or limited functionality.

So, in short, thanks to all involved. I'll be trying to write more directly to those at the head of the project to thank them too. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 12:24, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Hi all -- it would be nice of someone would add a release history listing the month and year of the release of each major stable version (1.0, 1.2, 2.0, 2.2). Thanks, and sorry if this is in the wrong section.

Question

Yo people I have a question which one of Gimp / Paint Shop Pro is better to remove white pixels on a night photo and also to increase the level of details? I have to play with this picture and remove those noisy pixels. [[1]] ***Xhamlliku

GIMP will do that just fine. Ojw 20:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looking at that image, though, I think you'll have your work cut out.-Ashley Pomeroy 09:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I was curious and couldnt resist - not as much work as one might think - see this:

[[2]] (sorry, no direct link to the picture) Iridos

Screenshot of v. 1.x

The GIMP v. 1.x "recursive" screenshot is ridiculous-looking; it does not give a realistic impression of what the program's interface normally looks like. And anyway, it's from an old version of the program. Does anybody think it should be kept?

GNOME would like to define itself in a way which was inclusive but based on the older techincal distinction of not using any Gnome libraries the GIMP developers have claimed they are not part of GNOME.

POV

A limitations section instead of a features section... (Limitations compared to what?), and on top of it, one of the limitations is "Photoshop includes blah blah". Isn't this out of place Photoshop propaganda? Because it looks like so.Rvalles

GIMP mascot

it's not a dog, not fox, not mouse, then what is it? A gimp = spirit?? Is there a larger size of the mascot logo? i.e 200x200? Xah Lee 22:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's Wilber. There are some images at [3], but I can't find the page on his history. Ojw 11:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll just put a bookmark to GIMP's history though, while I remember.

Limitations

We've got a section that has been variously named "Limitations", "Limitations against Adobe Photoshop", etc.

Why not just "Comparison with Adobe Photoshop"
Why not move the whole lot to Comparison of bitmap graphics editors?
If it were to stay, do we need Limitations compared with [next-best product] sections on all the other bitmap graphics editor pages?

Ojw 11:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

A "Comparison with other Similar Tools" section might make more sense, and it wouldn't hurt to include some Advantages as well (multiple scripting languages, cross platform, free/open, wide variety of file formats supported, etc" Alikins 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to have an Advantages section too? --PopUpPirate 23:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Help files?

I downloaded GIMP for Windows and need help. My help files were not included in the download. Where might I download these files?

First of all, Wikipedia talk pages are not help forums. Second, sign your comments. Third, use Google (or whatever else search engine) to search for such help. BDWill Talk Contribs 07:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

GIMP For Windows

Why is there so much discussion of GIMP's failings on Windows, but so little about its unique strengths on Unix/Linux?

Please elaborate here on the strengths and maybe move them to the main page later. Horkana

WinGimp

so is wingimp just selling a free product? if so, why link to it? It will only help its placement in google searches. There are 1000s of sites that sell free things on the internet, and none of them deserve the attention of wikipedia because they are all crooks.

Later visitor: Agreed, so I'm deleting it. If someone cares enough to restore it, we can ask them. --Crid 04:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

gimp.org does not seem to have a problem with third parties selling gimp, see http://www.gimp.org/about/selling.html

File Association trap section

This section seems kind of out of place. For one, it doesn't mention that this is an issue on Windows (I assume it's windows, as I've never heard of it). It's also specfic to particular versions and distributions of GIMP. Alikins 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot of GIMP on OS X

The Mac screenshot looks nice and all, but it's using X11, so doesn't fit in with the usual Mac look (menu bars on windows, etc). Does anyone else think that a screenshot of it on native GNOME would be better? --Shen 14:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Features

Shouldn't we list some features of the GIMP in this section?

i.e. what we currently have looks a bit like:

Q: What does The GIMP do?
A: It uses scripting, it runs in GTK, and its logo is Wilbur

It's also rather odd to see that section used to praise Photoshop. Why not just say that "GIMP was developed as a Free alternative to Adobe Photoshop", and let people follow the link if they don't know what PhotoShop is?

Ojw 13:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Good edits - the article's looking more balanced now, and should be much more accessible to people who don't know what GIMP is already.

I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the following text for now:

Compared with all but the most expensive graphics tools, the benefits of GIMP include:

Better range of editing tools and effects than most graphics editors
Better support for layered images and transparency than most graphics editors

The reason is that all this actually says is "GIMP has more features than some other unspecified cheap/free graphics editors", and I think anyone who's read through the feature list, noted that many people consider GIMP a viable replacement for Photoshop, and observed that GIMP is also free in every sense, will have realised that already. ;)

— Haeleth Talk 17:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Be bold - this page hasn't changed much for a long time. I was slightly worried that by comparing only to photoshop, we might skip over lots of information not related to that comparison. Plenty of artists reading this page will be using something like Paintshop Pro and not be aware from the tone of this page that GIMP is actually better than most programs in general use.

We might also consider updating Comparison of bitmap graphics editors with feature lists -- there's lots of stuff here which is about more than just GIMP. Ojw 18:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of windows

How does Windows XP's "group similar windows in the taskbar" affect the GIMP interface? Does it solve any of the problems with GIMP using lots of windows, or do people still prefer to use separate desktops, X-Windows-style? Ojw 22:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

GIMP sucks

Anybody else waiting for the day The GIMP comes up with a usable GUI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.59.210 (talk • contribs)

Yes, you and every other armchair commentator. If you don't like The GIMP, go back to your pirated copy of PhotoShop. Imroy 14:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, they came up with GNOME, so you might say that anyone trying to run GIMP in Windows or Mac or KDE is misinterpreting the designer's vision... Ojw 19:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tried The GIMP on a family members' Windows machine and it is indeed awkward and difficult to use. I think the two important features that make The GIMP usable are "focus follows mouse" (actually, "sloppy focus") and multiple virtual desktops. Without the first you can't easily use keyboard shortcuts. And without the second, the mulitiple windows do get cluttered (as mentioned in the article). But I'm not going to blame The GIMP for those problems. It wasn't designed for Windows. It works just great on my main Linux machine though, with the two aforementioned features. Imroy 04:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Try using the XP Virtual Desktop PowerToy. It allows you to toss all your GIMP tasks on one virtual desktop, making it much easier to manuever around.

Focus following mouse can be mimicked with just normal settings tweaks, although I find doing so more destracting than useful - your mileage may vary. Gattsuru 4:54, June 11, 2006.

Oh, for crying out loud! First of all, this is not a discussion on whether or not you like using GNOME. Second, it is not a discussion about replacing X11 features with Windows programs. Oh, and let me just add that I never had any problems using the GIMP's GUI and don't see why everybody is complaining. Lgrinberg 05:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cost

How much costs GIMP?/82.209.156.16 17:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You can buy it off me for $500 :) Imroy 18:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I can sell it for $450. :) Den fjättrade ankan 22:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In seriousness, GIMP is free, both in being open source, and being available for no monetary charge. However, Wikipedia talk pages should not be used for such questions. They should be used to discuss important matters related to the article, not discuss the price of something.

--BDWill Talk Contribs 01:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Idle GIMP screenshots

It seems silly to have nice screenshots of the GIMP sat there displaying an unmodified, flat, single layered image. Wouldn't it be a better use of screenshots to show the GIMP in action with some, at least moderately, complicated multi-layer compositions? I would be more than happy to assist in providing such images in the future. Let's go for "Hey The GIMP can do this" as opposed to "Hey, here's the GIMP on OSX posing for the camera while displaying some Apple Advertising material" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.85.54 (talk • contribs)

I made this screenshot last year while editing a large stitched panorama (click on the preview to bring it up full-size). I'm not sure if it's what you're looking for, but it's certainly not your typical open lots of pretty things-type screenshot. If people think it's suitable I can upload it here. Imroy 20:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's pretty much the kind of thing, while the screenshot is rather large it shows nice use of the dock system, most screenshots fail to do so and just make the GIMP look like a chunkier version of photoshop, you should definitely add this to the wiki entry, do you have a less JPEG'd version, or PNG you could use?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

logo

The three small images of Wilber above the screenshot are confusing. Without reading the filenames, it's impossible to realize that the first two icons are specific to certain operating systems and not the general logo. Wouldn't it be much better to just display the one official logo, if there is one? Is the first Wilber in this image usually accepted as the GIMP logo? Herorev 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's normally the standard GIMP logo, and i agree that it's the only one we need.

Newby

I am trying to make maps with GIMP, and was succesful at it (see Lucius Paullus). The problem is that i don't know how to change the colours. I know how to use colours that are part of the original picture, but i haven't been able yet to get new colours into the picture. Another problem is that in my attempts to change the colours, i clicked on many things and now it appears that i the changes are remembered by GIMP and i don't know how to reset them. I am not a programmer and have very limited experience in mastering programs. The reason that i was able to master GIMP is completely based on simple Microsoft experiences. The only thing i need to make my maps better in the future is the ability to change colours and to reset changes to the program.--Daanschr 09:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I have figured it out. Now i have to decide which of 16.7 million colours i will pick.--Daanschr 11:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but it sounded like you were using an indexed colour mode originally. That can be useful for quickly changing colours later. Just allocate an index for each type of element (text, outline, land, water, road, border, etc). However a vector-based program like Inkscape would ultimately be more appropriate for creating/editing maps. Imroy 11:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

People, please understand that this is not a bloody forum! It is a discussion page for the creation of an encyclopedia article. Use Google for your support needs. Lgrinberg 05:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I just go this program and...

Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing

The Gimp

Isn't the program called "The GIMP" rather than just "GIMP"? --Oz1cz 18:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A simple Google search would have told you that the answer is "no". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the program calls itself, "The GIMP". Does this make it the name? --Will Mak 050389 20:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case in all versions: Image:GIMP-lt.png. In any case, it may be a deliberate ambiguity created by the developers, in which case, I would suggest to ignore it. The GIMP already redirects here, so no cause for action. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The simplest solution is to go by the usage on the program's homepage. And that begins with the unambiguous sentence "GIMP is the GNU Image Manipulation Program" -- i.e. the official name is just "GIMP". — Haeleth Talk 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the home page is not consistent. On their documentation page they write, for example, "When you run the GIMP for the first time", and, "The cache tells the GIMP..." The Readme file for version 2.2 fairly consistently uses the term "The GIMP", but, obviously, the GIMP hompage does not. Maybe they changed the name? --Oz1cz 21:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also on this screenshotfrom the GIMP web page, you can clearly see the title "The GIMP" in the upper left corner. --Oz1cz 21:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So what if they change it again with the next release? Show me an official mailing list post from the lead developer saying they've changed the name for good (do they even appoint a lead developer?) and I'll support the proposal. I'm just not seeing the evidence. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But I'm not trying to prove anything. If you look at my original post, it was a question, "Isn't the program called 'The GIMP'?" That question was not rhetorical, but sprang from a geniune desire to know. I was hoping that some of the learned people who contribute to this article could provide a definite answer, because I don't have it. And if this discussion has proven anything, it seems to be that the question is quite reasonable, seeing that even the official documentation is inconsistent.--Oz1cz 06:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the OS X screenshot you posted is a beautiful bit of evidence. Look at the bottom right rather than the top left, and you'll see that the "tips" window uses both forms in a single dialog!

I will stand by my suggestion that we take the name used at the start of the official homepage as the "official" name, in which case we can view the form with "The" as a common alternative. I agree with Samsara that the article itself should not be renamed (not that anyone has suggested it should be), but might it perhaps benefit from a mention of this ambiguity somewhere...? — Haeleth Talk 09:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

.psp

The article says GIMP is compatible with the .psp format, but I get an error message saying "unsupported PSP file format version 5.0", so apparently it's not completely compatible. If anyone could say with what exactly it is compatible, that would be a nice improvement to the article. Ergbert 03:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I've never had PSP files work on GIMP. I suspect that it might support the PSP format prior to 5.0 because nothing I've saved from 5.0 and up has ever worked. At one point, I altered my workflow to use PSD format instead which opens in GIMP nicely. Kyouryuu 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pantone color matching system

Why has GIMP no support for the Pantone color matching system? --84.61.57.90 12:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Because it is proprietary. Pantone guards its colour matching system very closely and it would not allow it to be used in any free/open source software project. Doing so would be like giving away the crown jewels. --Imroy 16:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Why can the Pantone color matching system not used in free software? --84.61.3.0 08:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Adobe doesn't really "support" Pantone anyway, their Pantone colors are just RGB additive color approximations of the subtractive CMYK color you see in the Pantone books. I believe Adobe even has a disclaimer to that effect. 68.20.20.19 16:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because

the name is trademarked, so GIMP could not claim to support Pantone without Pantone's permission (which would cost money);
the list of Pantone numbers is copyrighted, so GIMP could not include it without Pantone's permission (which would also cost money); and
even if some rich benefactor were to offer to give the GIMP project enough money to pay Pantone's license fees, they would run into problems with the free software license, which requires anyone to be able to copy and modify the program and all its data -- Pantone would never agree to allow absolutely anyone to copy and modify their list of colours, because its only value comes from the fact that they control it completely themselves (so anyone requesting a specific Pantone number knows exactly which ink they will get).

— Haeleth Talk 18:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)