Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Gimp

GIMP 2.2 Released 577

Posted by michael
from the bring-out-the... dept.
wongn writes "Several weeks since the splash screen contest was first announced, the latest milestone release for GIMP has come about - GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released. Only the linux binaries and source have yet appeared. From the website: 'The GIMP developers are proud to announce the availability of version 2.2.0 of the GNU Image Manipulation Program. About nine months after version 2.0 hit the road, we have completed another development cycle and can bring a new stable GIMP to our users' desktops.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP 2.2 Released

Comments Filter:
  • icon (Score:4, Funny)

    by 2MuchC0ffeeMan (201987) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:08PM (#11131904) Homepage
    Alright, animated topic icons!

    I thought i was seeing things.

  • by Eudial (590661)
    ... just as i was finished emerging gimp-2.0.

    I know, these jokes are getting old, and in reality it took only a few minutes to emerge gimp-2.0.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:10PM (#11131913)
    If GIMP was not open source, would you use it? Does it have anything over Photoshop in terms of Functionality or Ease of USe?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:13PM (#11131938)
      There is one feature that Photoshop has, that GIMP is seriously lacking.

      A $650 price tag!

      Seriously though, nobody is going to take The Gimp too seriously until it costs $650. High prices for software bring a placebo effect that simulates quality.
      • I'll sell you The GIMP for the bargain basement price of $649.99. Just write out a check or money order to CASH and mail it to the address in my whois record.
      • by bersl2 (689221) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:25PM (#11132024) Journal
        Selling The GIMP [gimp.org]
      • by happyemoticon (543015) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:30PM (#11132057) Homepage

        See http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html [cryptonomicon.com].

        Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp? My department, for instance, bought two licenses for CS so that we could crop and size some photos, and do some very basic web graphics.

        The boss turned down my suggestion, I think, because of the usual suspicion and fear that surrounds GNU software: "What? It can't be free. There must be some catch. It might even be illegal." The only downside that Gimp has is the annoyance of, "Oooh I don't like it the interface is all different" from my coworkers. But like they say, nobody ever got fired for buying (insert your favorite 800-lb gorilla corporation here).

        • by sahonen (680948) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:48PM (#11132168) Homepage Journal
          For that you should have bought Paint Shop Pro, though admittedly every version since 6.0 has been junk.
        • by csritchie (631120) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @04:02PM (#11132272) Homepage
          "Seriously, do you think a perponderence of people even use the features that Photoshop has over Gimp?"

          Yes, the _preponderance_ uses the features not found in the GIMP. This is mostly due to the fact the preponderance of people using the GIMP are not entry level web weenies in need of a better crop tool. The PS native format PSD files are standard for AE, Print design, 3D imports and exports. I can edit my PSD and have live updates posting out to my media work.

          Photoshop isn't just the 800lbs gorilla for web, it's the 800lbs gorilla work _all_ media work.
          It integrates with just about anything an artist needs to work with. From Greg Martin, to SKG, Photoshop's utilization goes far beyond web work and is flexible enough to accommodate the movie industry, the print industry, advertising, multimedia and web.

          Ask any artist, if he can only have two tools to do all his work: video, print, advertising, tv, dv, web... It will be Photoshop and After Effects, hands down.

          The GIMP is very good at what it does, but don't go jumping out of your /. jeans thinking you're an Art Director just yet ;)

        • Why use Photoshop?

          Speed
          CMYK support
          Colour management
          48bit colour

          If you're working with images a lot, it's simply worth the money assuming your time is worth something.

          I find the GIMP very handy and like it quite a bit, but IMO it's no Photoshop substitute.

        • I have been using it for most of my image manipulation, but I often get frustrated, and here's why. Say you need to crop an image. You select the Crop tool, and click at the upper left corner of the cropped region, ready to drag a rectangle around the region of interest. Up pops a damn dialog that completely OBSCURES what you're doing! The same thing happens with the dropper tool. I was also reminded just yesterday that you cannot select more than one layer at time (say I want to move a group of objects), a
    • by happyemoticon (543015) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:18PM (#11131969) Homepage

      It runs on Linux, and it doesn't cost $650.

      Adobe really is an 800 lb gorilla. Even their educational prices for Photoshop are $300. By comparison, Macromedia Director Pro is $100 (educational), with the full suite for only 150. Even if you factor in the base price of Director, it's a helluva better deal. The only reason Adobe charges so damn much is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.

      • by darrylo (97569) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @04:06PM (#11132300)

        As much as I like the gimp, it's seriously handicapped when it comes to even moderate digital camera photo processing, because it can only handle 8 bits per color channel (for the math-handicapped out there: "8 bits times 3 three color channels" is "24-bit color"). Good digital photo processing often needs at least 12 bits per channel (actually, to be "future proof", programs should probably suport at least 16-32 bits). In other words, moderate digital camera photo processing needs at least 48 bits per pixel, if not more.

        (And, for the comprehension-impaired out there: "processing" is
        not the same as "printing" or "displaying").

        Unfortunately, this is one area where photoshop is significantly better than gimp. (And, yes, I do know about CinePaint, but it seems to be virtually dead.)

      • by Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @06:47PM (#11133366) Homepage
        I didn't realise anyone actually used legit copies of PS...
      • by SuperBanana (662181) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @08:08PM (#11133853)
        The only reason Adobe charges so damn much is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.

        Sorry, I use photoshop quite often, and GIMP is, among other things, exceedingly slow; filters that take a second or two in Photoshop CS take a half minute in GIMP. I got tired of watching the filter progress bar all the time, and switched right back.

        Professionals buy new $3k Macs when there's a new model out if there is even 2-3 seconds difference in how long a task takes. Why should they "save" $650 on something that will take them ten times as long?

        Nevermind that macros in GIMP are a royal pain in the ass. In Photoshop, you just do the action while recording it, and Photoshop makes the macro for you. You can then apply the macro to images in the image browser instantly, control where things go, have a report generated on failures/successes, the whole nine yards.

        If the GIMP team wants Photoshop market share(which I don't think they do), then repeat after me: productivity, productivity, productivity. They'd do well to sit down with a bunch of pros and write down everything they say, and weigh it very heavily into future plans.

      • by EchoMirage (29419) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @11:12PM (#11134776)
        The only reason Adobe charges so damn much [for Photoshop] is because they know a certain number of people will buy it regardless.

        Sorry, but this is a patently false argument. There's a lot of really incredible engineering and mathematics that has gone into Photoshop. Consider the optical kerning engine - simply the best typographical kerning mechanism ever invented. It analyzes the shape of every letter and determines on a per-character basis what degree of kerning is necessary to prevent collisions and preserve a consistent look. Brought to you by years of analytical geometry. Or consider the cloning brush - a tool in Photoshop that blends dischordant pieces of an image with its surroundings. Brought to you by lots of doctoral-level calculus. The list goes on.

        The expertise that produces the engineering and math marvels found in Adobe products does not come cheap. You can criticize Adobe for spending too much on marketing or unnecessary litigation, but you can't claim that Adobe charges a lot of money "just because." They have a very high salary line in their annual budget, and the quality of their products reflects this.
    • Well, depends on the situation.
      Me, I actually use GIMP sometimes because of it's excellent scripting functions.
      Then, on the other hand, I usually use Photoshop or ImageReady when it comes to editing the files sent to me by the AD (I'm doing sites for a PR company).
      I sure wish Photoshop had the same or similar scripting stuff that GIMP has though (no, droplets doesn't count since I can't edit them the same way).
    • When did Adobe release a Linux port of Photoshop?
    • by Hatta (162192) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:23PM (#11132003) Journal
      If GIMP was not open source, would you use it?

      No.

      If linux wasn't open source, would I use it?

      No.

      If firefox wasn't open source, would I use it?

      No.

      If X wasn't open source, would I use it?

      No.

      I think you get the picture.
      • That's great to only use open source, but if there is no opensource program for what you want to do, what do you do? Wait? Write your own? These may be fine ideas, fundamentally, but certainly not pragmatically.

        Luckily, the GIMP is a useable program, and if you don't want to use PS, you probably don't have to, but that's not the issue. If PS is better for the job, even considering its price, it makes sense to use it.

        If you're a fundamentalist, and refuse to use anything non-open-source, that's your ch
        • That's great to only use open source, but if there is no opensource program for what you want to do, what do you do? Wait? Write your own? These may be fine ideas, fundamentally, but certainly not pragmatically.

          Luckily, the GIMP is a useable program, and if you don't want to use PS, you probably don't have to, but that's not the issue. If PS is better for the job, even considering its price, it makes sense to use it.

          ERROR: illegal logic operation

          That's great for you to only eat mexican food, but if

    • by MrRuslan (767128) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:29PM (#11132055)
      Well I can tell you for me it worked great. I use it for banners and logos and it is much easier to use than PS plus it works on windows and linux so thats a big plus. for me photoshop is overkill but gimp is just right.
    • Angle measurement is better than Photoshop I think. And if it is not open source but still free, I will use it eiter.
    • Other than that, I can't think of anything offhand that it does better/easier than Photoshop.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:56PM (#11132224)

      Does it have anything over Photoshop in terms of Functionality or Ease of USe?

      Yes, the GIMP supports the does-not-get-russian-programmers-unfairly-arrested plugin.

    • The GIMP is a very powerful tool that I love, but even I will admit that Photoshop was a lot easier to learn and has many more options. However, there is one benefit of The GIMP that I am surprised more people don't point out:

      The GIMP: Free
      Photoshop: $650 [adobe.com]

      Yes you can get the cracked version all over the web but to truly compare the two you need to compare the legit versions. I for one will take TheGIMP and $650 in my pocket anyday.
    • by msevior (145103) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @04:57PM (#11132651)
      I've never used Photoshop and I never will because I don't have $650 to spend on a photo retouching program. I'm amazed that so many people here on slashdot have paid $650 to touch up their digital photos which is basically all I use the GIMP for.

      I mean professional graphic artists make up less than 1% of the population but judging from /. they're like 50% of the population.

      So anyway, GIMP works fine for me. I have no idea about PS and suspect I never will.
    • Why would I use Gimp? Well, because there isn't much of an alternative on Linux, neither non-free or free. From the useability and feature point of view Gimp has enough problems that I wouldn't think to long to switch to a better alternative when it comes across, but so far its the best we have and its not that bad once you get used to it.

      However since there are just two many things that Gimp won't address in the near future and since, unless I missed, something, there isn't another alternative on the hori
    • The biggest problem that I have with the GIMP is the complete lack of CMYK support. RGB is all well and good if what you're working with will only be displayed on a computer screen or printed on an RGB prtiner (which most home printers are these days). Big, high quality pro level printers on the other had use CMKY and if you try and print an RGB image on a CMKY printer it will look like crap. A big, steamy pile of miscolored crap.
      But it's ok for other stuff and does have some cool features and plugins th
  • What's New in 2.2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:10PM (#11131916)
    Details of the release: http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/WhatsNew2 [gimp.org]
  • Does it support (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kickasso (210195)
    gimp-print 5.0.0 yet? Yeah it's beta but so what?
  • Download? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jeffkjo1 (663413) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:13PM (#11131934) Homepage
    GIMP 2.2.0 has just been officially released

    Anybody have a link to a torrent?


    Oh.... wait
    • Funny, I'll admit... but there's no good reason why there shouldn't be a torrent for this. Or the latest Debian ISOs, or anything else open source. So how about it - would SlashTorrent work? How about TorrentForge?

      I know that it would lack the oodles of sci-fi movies, Enterprise episodes and hentai clips that everyone loves, but it'd be genuinely useful and prove that BitTorrent can be used in a legal manner.
      • I'm surprised that sourceforge doesn't offer up bt downloads, I guess source code is generally small enough that bandwidth isnt to much of an issue.
      • I agree... Bittorrent is a perfect method to distribute Free Software, especially programs as large as the Gimp.

        Since a huge chunk of bandwidth is used by downloading, using Bittorrent could really reduce the costs of hosting the Software.

        OpenOffice is available via Bittorrent [openoffice.org].
        Most Linux distros are available via Bittorrent.

        If I had the time I would start up "legittorrents.org" or something, but then you'd need to spend alot of time policing-- make sure that people aren't using your tracker/index to dist
  • by dominion (3153) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:24PM (#11132013) Homepage
    Overall, GIMP is an incredible feat of OSS, so I dno't want it to seem that I'm being completely negative.

    But, there's two problems I have with GIMP, and one of them might have been fixed and one definitely hasn't.

    First is the interface. Much has been said about it, but it really is not intuitive at all. A UI overhaul would be very helpful, and could go a long way to get a lot of Adobe enthusiasts to check it out. I've been using Mac OS X a lot lately, and it's really pointed out a lot of the really horrid UI decisions that have been made with Linux-grown software. The right-click menu is horribly unintuitive, there's too many options cluttered on one screen instead of giving them a heirarchy of use and seperating them by tabs or other methods. There's a whole bunch of things that could be done to make the the interface better, enough to fill a whole research document, so I'll leave it at that.

    Second is the name. It needs to change. This is not about being PC, it's about reaching out to as many people as possible, and getting them to try out the GIMP. Will universities ever teach classes in a program that's called 'the gimp?' Will companies ever take seriously an employee who says that he wants to install 'the gimp' on his computer? Y'all have to have gotten the same weird looks as me when you've suggested that people try 'the gimp'. Have you ever told it to someone who uses a cane or crutches or is in a wheelchair?

    If you have, you probably felt like a real jerk right after it slipped out of your mouth.

    C'mon, change the name, we're not kids anymore, alright?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:31PM (#11132065)
      I agree that the biggest problem GIMP has for widespread acceptance is the name. Frankly, it has labored without the benefit clever self recursion for far too long!

      So, in the interest of its long term viablility, I formally propose a name change:

      GIMP Isn't Microsoft Paint

      will, I believe, catapult GIMP onto desktops around the world.
    • by agent dero (680753) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:40PM (#11132109) Homepage
      If you have, you probably felt like a real jerk right after it slipped out of your mouth.

      C'mon, change the name, we're not kids anymore, alright?


      Most of us know we're talking about an application if we ever mention "The GIMP" to a handicapped person, and are mature enough to handle it.

      That's almost along the lines of getting nervous about talking about the civil rights movement with a black person.

      Give me a break, we're not kids anymore, remember?
      • civil rights movement with a black person.

        The civil rights movement was a positive thing. The word 'gimp' is a negative slur. How are these related?
      • Most of us know we're talking about an application if we ever mention "The GIMP" to a handicapped person, and are mature enough to handle it.

        This isn't about us. This is about them.

        How long do you think Linux would have lasted if Linus had decided to call it Linus's Effecient Simple Binary Operating System? Do you really think that "LESBOS" would have ever gained the marketshare that Linux has?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:47PM (#11132162)
      Please no, not again!

      Gimp developers seem obsessed with user interface stuff, scripting langugage stuff, etc. Not that I'm saying they are getting everything right the first time, but please, please do the important things first:

      1.) My consumer digital camera delivers 12bit color channels. I hate being forced to throw away 4bit of image information before I even start editing a file in Gimp.

      2.) Sometimes I want precise control over the colors in my prints. With Gimp this is impossible: It doesn't do color managment, so the colors I see on the monitor are never the same as those in the printout. That's especially annoying when printing portraits.

      These are real, important, technical limitations of the Gimp. I really don't care for the name, and I'm capable of learning where to click. But when it comes to making use of all the information in an image and to correctly display it on the monitor I have much trouble making compromises.
    • Here went my moderations and I just started having fun.

      Anyway, tabbed menus are patented by Adobe. Tough luck in trying to use them in an image editing program as quite a few people have understood (unless you have a good portfolio for crosslicensing)
    • Second is the name. It needs to change. This is not about being PC, it's about reaching out to as many people as possible, and getting them to try out the GIMP. Will universities ever teach classes in a program that's called 'the gimp?' Will companies ever take seriously an employee who says that he wants to install 'the gimp' on his computer? Y'all have to have gotten the same weird looks as me when you've suggested that people try 'the gimp'. Have you ever told it to someone who uses a cane or crutches

    • Done to death (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Craig Ringer (302899)
      While I can't really argue about the name, I think your UI criticisms are somewhat less valid.

      Almost everybody I know with a problem with the GIMP's UI is an experienced photoshop user. I learned both apps at roughtly the same time, and find the GIMP 2.0's UI acceptably usable in comparison to that of Photoshop (on MacOS - the Windows photoshop UI makes the GIMP look like UI heven). I'm hardly one to claim it's perfect, but the GIMP 2.0's interface is IMO quite usable. (Lets just not talk about 1.x - ugh).
  • by Anonymous Coward
    At last, ALSA support in the midi control module!
    Now I can draw pictures while playing my 80's strap on casio keyboard!!!!
  • Splash screen (Score:5, Informative)

    by mstefanus (705346) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:32PM (#11132075)
    The splash screen that won [nyud.net]the contest and some others that worth [nyud.net] mentioning.
  • by Quattro Vezina (714892) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:49PM (#11132175) Journal
    Anyone willing to make a patch for GIMP 2.2 that will replace the horrific new open and save dialogs with the old ones?

    Please...the new ones are completely unusable.
    • I thought so myself... then I actually started using them. Not so bad, after all, and the ability to add bookmarks rocks.

      And most of the time, I click or drag&drop images from my filemanager anyway.
  • Torrent links! (Score:3, Informative)

    by schnits0r (633893) <nathannd@sasMENCKENktel.net minus author> on Sunday December 19, 2004 @03:54PM (#11132203) Homepage Journal
    Windows torrent [oxynova.com]

    Linux [oxynova.com]

    And for the sake of everything holy, reseed and be nice to my tracker and server
  • Ok, so I've got a bit of free time so if you wanted to know why we Mac folks don't like the Gimp (yet), here are my first impressions just from looking at this picture:
    http://www.gimp.org/screenshots/macosx_ s creenshot1 .png

    - The toolbox. No floating mini-windows with little tiny titlebars etc. Wastes space.
    - Toolbox: Tool selection: It should be very easy to see which tool is selected at any time. Compare it to photoshop, which has every tool in a white box and the selected one is inverted, which tells yo
    • Re:Mac Version (Score:3, Informative)

      by ubiquitin (28396) *
      A fair number of those issues have been resolved with MacGIMP [macgimp.org]. You might give that a try. I know it puts the proper icon in the dock, and you install it via drag and drop etc., so it is a much more mac-like install.
  • by dankelley (573611) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @04:31PM (#11132476)
    Don't get me wrong. I love having the gimp available for my work, at no cost. But there are aspects of the user experience that I think are flawed, needlessly.

    My problem is that I do not use the gimp daily, and therefore I forget where things are hidden. But, surely, it needn't be so difficult to guess.

    One thing I do a lot is to edit the contrast of an image that I've scanned. But, every time, I have to try a lot of menus to find that function. Image? Layers? Tools? Dialogs? Filters? All of these seem to be likely candidates. So, each and every time I want to adjust the contrast, I click each of these things, often a few times, missing the brightness/contrast function I'm looking for.

    Does it really need to be this difficult?

    I am not writing to suggest a reconfiguration of the menus -- folks have got used to the present state -- but rather to suggest something simpler. How about a menu action that stores recently chosen menus? In my case, a buffer of previously-selected menu items would contain just 3 items: "open", "brightness/contrast" and "save as". I imagine quite a few folks would have a small list of recent commands.

    Q: is it technically feasible to store recently-used commands in this way? It would seem to be, since so many applications have recently-used file menu items.

    • by levell (538346) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @05:10PM (#11132747) Homepage

      If you have your mouse over a menu item and you press a keyboard combination (e.g. ctrl+;), it will assign that combination to that menu item.

      It's not quite what you want but you could use ctrl+1, +2, +3 for your three functions (Open, save and gamma coorection or whatever ) and as long as you can remember that then it should work.

      Hope that this helps?

      • I should point out that in modern versions of the GIMP this isn't turned on by default. You need to turn it on by Choosing the File>Preferences menu item of the tool-box. Then In the interfaces pane, check the item "Use Dynamic keyboard short-cuts"

        Sorry for any confusion.

  • GIMP v competitors (Score:3, Insightful)

    by YrWrstNtmr (564987) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @08:31PM (#11133950)
    I think GIMP compares more to PaintshopPro instead of Photoshop. GIMP and PSP are more of a very compenent second rank tool, with Photoshop being the first rank.

    And for most peoples needs, GIMP or PSP is more than enough.

    I'd guess that most of the people using Photoshop do so just because a) they got/pirated it for free, and b) it's popular. Pros use it because there is no viable alternative. And then there are the non-pro fools that actually shelled out all that money for it.

  • by shish (588640) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @08:38PM (#11133977) Homepage
    The "unintuitive interface" argument seems to apply in reverse as well, for me at least - I've been using the GIMP for several years, and recently ended up using photoshop because that's all our art dept had. I found the UI to be quite horrid; nothing was where I expected it to be, getting anything done was slow and painful, overall it just felt wrong - having seen things from the other side, I find it hard to take PS user's complaints about the GIMP seriously; I'd think it change that they (and I) don't like, not the new UI itself.
  • by tdhillman (839276) * on Sunday December 19, 2004 @10:12PM (#11134472)
    I've been using the Gimp for four years now in an educational setting. For a variety of reasons, it is a compelling choice. 1. Students can use the Gimp at school and at home. It's a natural to stop them from violating copyright law. 2. The Gimp is a remarkable testimony to GNU software's ability to create powerful application software. 3. With limited documentation, The Gimp is perfect for teaching kids how to actually learn a software package. 4. Once they "get it," they appreciate what the Gimp can do for them. 5. There's no better way to teach them the real nature of cell animation. 6. For Unix kids, the Gimp is an awakening. When they move from Windows Gimp to Unix Gimp, they suddenly discover that the difficulties inherent in Windows file structure are an impediment to their computing. 7. Even of they move on to Photoshop, learning on the Gimp provides them a much better understanding of the nature of image manipulation. 8. It's not an easy answer. Kids like easy answers. 9. Nobody can figure out what the icon is, and it's hilarious when a kid shouts out "I love the gimp!"
  • by wobblie (191824) on Sunday December 19, 2004 @10:26PM (#11134551)
    Can you please, in the future, consider an emergency reserve of "Redundant" moderation points so that we will have enough to use when stories like this get posted? This story was a true disaster, overwhelming moderators with 537,221,400 unique posts all saying the same thing within 4 minutes and twenty-two seconds. The regular amount of mod points simply didn't cut it. Experts estimate that over one billion "redundant" and "off topic" points were necessary due to massive number of posts about Adobe Photoshop in a gimp release story, and there were only a few dozen.

    I know this shortfall of redundant points is a completely false scarcity and there is dire need for redress, unless somehow the number of assholes who feel the need to post crap about photoshop in a gimp story is reduced.

"Flattery is all right -- if you don't inhale." -- Adlai Stevenson

Working...