Hack turns GIMP into Photoshop Look-alike 749
Mr_Silver writes "One of the many complaints about the GIMP is that of its user interface and how it should be more like Photoshop. If you feel that this is true then Scott Moschella has hacked together GimpShop which turns GIMP's user interface into something more akin to Photoshop for OSX. However, if you're not running that operating system, fret not, because there is a version for Linux too."
Does... (Score:2, Insightful)
Torrent perhaps? (Score:4, Insightful)
It might be a good idea to seed a torrent for this before the 40Mb downloads crush his server.
Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fanstistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually totally copying photoshop is taking things pretty far! I'd have settled for a simple normal window model for each platform. Cool though.
This WILL reduce barriers to entry very dramatically. Always was curious that GIMP put together a nice package, but made it so awakward to use.
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:1, Insightful)
This is cool but... (Score:2, Insightful)
shame about the name (Score:1, Insightful)
calling someone a "gimp" is an insult, in a lot of countries it usually means "idiot"
The old interface (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it doesn't (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HIG conformance (Score:1, Insightful)
Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:3, Insightful)
I never understood the point of a pure RGB program. Nobody uses just plain old RGB. Even Web designers are all using RGBA now.
Re:If you put a pig in a dress (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, but if the pig won't charge you $500 for the privilege of taking it out to dinner...
Hello negativity (Score:5, Insightful)
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't look like photoshop!"
Dev: "Here, we recreated the photoshop interface for Gimp. You may be more comfortable with it now"
User: "Wah! Gimp doesn't act like photoshop!"
Holy shit people. The Gimp rocks, be thankful for that. Yes it doesn't have some of photoshop's features, but most people don't need those features anyway. You can't tell me most people are professional graphic artists or work in a print shop. For those people, get Photoshop, for everyone else, get the Gimp. Would you rather spend 700 bucks, or an extra 5 minutes figuring soemthing out?
Unless of course, you have no ethical problem with illegaly copying software, in which case you might as well get Photoshop for your l33t h4x0r graphics.
Re:Does... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what you're talking about, and thus should probably keep your mouth shut.
Oh, and for the PS fanboys who'll probably mod this a troll, note that a) setting up a keyboard shortcut in Gimp takes all of a second and b) the UI everybody hates so much works very well when you use them instead of the mouse. Far better than PS, and yes, unlike you, I do use both programs regularly.
Re:Open source proves it again (Score:1, Insightful)
It has? How?
It's been a long time since I've used an open-source tool wherein the interface didn't feel remarkably similar to a piece of commercial software that pre-dated the application I was using.
That's a problem to you? Most of us like the fact that we do not have to learn a new interface each programme we encounter.
It's really no wonder the majority of the world views OSS tools as "cheap knock-offs" of the real thing
You may (erroneously) think so -- I dispute that he "majority" of the world views it as such. Utter BS. Are you an MS astroturfer or something?
It's thievery, it's dishonest, and it should be illegal (in many cases, it already is).
I guess you want every model of car to drive significantly differently as some form of ?innovation?!?
Clutch on left in sedan, in middle on SUV, on the right on the coupé? Is that really what you want? Sounds like it, but somehow I don't think so...
vice versa (Score:1, Insightful)
Adobe's interface (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, can we PLEASE get a name that doesn't contain the world "GIMP"? Pretty please? Pleeeease?
Re:Seconded (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember that his saving a few grand is going to cost YOU. The good news, though, is that what it costs you depends on what you do with the app. Me, personally, I create textures with Photoshop, and GIMP is sorely missing out on the transfer modes that I need. Hopefully with that example, you'll understand how my math works.
Or a professional (Score:3, Insightful)
Computer (AMD 2400, 1GB RAM, 200GB HDD): AUD$450
19" CRT monitor: AUD$300
Linux: AUD$0
The GIMP: AUD$0
OpenOffice.org: AUD$0
TOTAL: AUD$750 vs
Computer: AUD$450
Monitor: AUD$300
Windows XP Pro OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
PhotoShop: AUD$1399 [Adobe.au]
MS Office Basic OEM: AUD$240 [PLE]
TOTAL: AUD$2629
DELTA: AUD$1879 or 250% extra.
Note that PS is more than half of the total system cost and cashing in either MS Win XP Pro or MS Office Basic would almost equal a second screen. Cashing in both would allow a second computer sans screen. Buying a virus scanner and a few other MS Windows necessaries would drive that past AUD$2000 easily.
The basic startup choice she was facing was: shall I buy software or a second camera? At each step along the way, the choice has been things like shall I buy software or a long-distance lens? or shall I buy software or backup my work?
The short story is, if she'd had to save an extra AUD$1879 before she got started, she wouldn't have got started.
Now she's so used to The GIMP that PS feels very awkward. There's a zillion little things which are easy to do in PS and hard in The GIMP, but there are another zillion little things which are easy in The GIMP and hard in PS.
ALERT! ALERT!! 1 April Approaching!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Methinks this is an April Fool's Day joke.
1. Don't you think Adobe would sue the pants off of anyone who did this?
2. For those of us used to GIMP, redoing the look and feel to be like Photoshop won't do much good.
Re:For better or worse (Score:0, Insightful)
What it will actually do is make a lot of people realize that GIMP is a waste of time which should only be considered if budget or ideology is your number 1 criteria in selecting an image manipulation suite. Since professionals overwhelmingly use Photoshop it is obvious that those who need actual usability and results have already made their choice.
In this project we see the proof of several things:
- Nobody is even pretending that there is a real alternative to Photoshop any more
- Design is at least as important as execution
- Open source software could not exist without closed source to lead the way
Isn't it about time we dropped the pretence and simply supported those companies that actually innovate and deliver? If imitation is the greatest form of flattery why bother with a copy at all? The answer of course is, as I said, ideology or penny-pinching.
Cheers,
GNU/Wolfgang
But want I really want is an MDI interface (Score:3, Insightful)
I've tried to have a somewhat similar environment with having all the gimp tools in one workspace and the image in another but it's just not the same.
And I've seen this mentioned before with stating why an MDI interface is inferior. Well, it's hard to swallow something you know you don't like after multiple attempts at getting used to it, no matter who tells you 'no what you've liked all this time, no no, that way is no good, this is the way.'
But, from what I understand, this functionality is beyond most (all?) current window managers for X.
Sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't just expect people to do this for you. Those who run Linux and OS X have no real need for Windows. It might be frustrating, but, well, tough.
Re:Hello negativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Dev: "Here's a version of GIMP that acts like photoshop."
User: "Wahhhh! Why can't the Open Source community ever do anything innovative instead of just copying commercial software!"
Pricing (Score:4, Insightful)
For most of the crowd, Elements will be more than enough. For photography/graphic arts/etc students who need more, there's an educational version.
If you're one of the few image editing professionals that needs the full Photoshop, you're probably making enough to justify Photoshop as a business expense.
Photoshop is one of those apps that targets the professional class. Adobe doesn't care about that 90% of the pirates who warez the software and use it once a month to airbrush themselves into Natalie Portman's publicity shot. Adobe cares about the design shops who buy the legal version and use it eight hours a day, every day. There are enough of these folks paying full price to cover the development costs, and turn a nice profit besides. Everyone else can use Elements, or the GIMP.
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically Adobe runs into the problem where every person that wants to do image editing is now thinking "photoshop or bust". And all of those types will end up pirating it or not doing any image editing at all. I think my dad went the no editing at all route, because he wanted to only use photoshop for editing (not that he knows how).
(OT) Artists and berets (Score:3, Insightful)
The people you see in front of the Starbucks dressed in fashionable black with the berets cocked on their brows are probably art dealers or self-styled critics, not artists.
Re:Finally... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, I understand that it'd be a lot more convenient for a lot of people if GIMP was a $0 drop-in replacement for Photoshop, but it's also not a whole lot of fun to just clone programs.
Re:Does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Which one? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:HIG conformance (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:700$. (Score:3, Insightful)
Another experiment: take someone like me, who doesn't know the first god damn thing about graphic design. Tell that person to open the GIMP, and draw a fucking circle. Honestly, I'm not sure if Photoshop has this ability -- like I said, I know precisely jack shit about graphic design. However, I do know that I have flipped over to my Windows machine on several occasions, just to use Microsoft fucking Paint to draw a circle. Maybe it's not what the tool is designed for, but considering that it's bundled with so many distributions, it seems like a big omission.
Re:Does... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they are generally equal, it doesn't make sense to switch back and forth. If one is superior to the other, it doesn't make sense to switch back and forth. The only reason I can think of to use both regularly is that they each have strengths that you prefer over the other; that neither meets your satisfaction all the time.
I don't mean to attack you or either software package, but your comment made me wonder about the general usage of competing software packages like this.
Jokes aside... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Impressive (Score:3, Insightful)
As a OS X user, I would also say anything that requires X11 is not a native OS X application. With no core OS X technology support (little things like colorsync, quicktime, etc), Gimp will really never take off on OS X. I personally will stick to using photoshop.
After playing with OSS a while you realize that more than one person usually wants what you want, provided its a reasonably common problem you're addressing.
GTK2 is being ported to OSX (without needing X11 [figuiere.net].
Re:Seconded (Score:1, Insightful)
So?
Re:Gimp is no Photoshop -- a photographer (Score:3, Insightful)
16bpp is nice, but for most of its life, Photoshop didn't support 16bpp either, and yet professionals were using it widely.
it doesn't support "Crop and Rotate" the way Photoshop does (very convenient trick to implement both in a single keystroke)
You can implement features like that in a couple of lines of scripting. Or you can just turn on "dynamic menu shortcuts" and pick more convenient shortcuts.
Re:Hello negativity (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the important thing to remember is that, even though the GIMP is an excellent resouce for its price, it's far from the be-all, end-all of photo manipulation. Therefore it makes sense for users to offer constructive criticism, and I think it important to distinguish between that and whining. The former helps form a direction for the GIMP developers, and not everyone has the hacking skills or time to make a direct contribution. This is the sort of situations where, while users should be thankful for what they have, they should also look ahead at what they need. Without that second part, there cannot be progress.
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For better or worse (Score:3, Insightful)
Adobe did not invent photo editing, nor did they invent most of the features in Photoshop. They were simply the first company to ship this kind of software for popular PC platforms.
That is why it is particularly annoying that Adobe has such a lock on this market. If you think it is time that we dropped the "pretence" and we "supported those companies that actually innovate", then you should not support Adobe. Adobe did not invent most of what they are making big bucks with.
I generally have a more relaxed attitude than yours: let Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and all those other companies clone to their heart's content. But I draw the line when people like you claim that those companies invented it all; they did not--they mostly just package other people's technologies.
Nobody is even pretending that there is a real alternative to Photoshop any more
For 99% of people working with images professionally, the Gimp does everything they need. One reason to see that is that the Gimp has already more functionality than professional versions of Photoshop of only a few years ago already.
Re:Does... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:8 bits for red, green, blue, and ALPHA (Score:1, Insightful)
We don't have 4 channels in computers, we have 3. Our displays are RGB. Period. If you want to count CMYK output to special devices, that's fine, but it's a special scenario... And 99.9% of the time we take this into consideration, our source material isn't CMYK. It's RGB. It gets converted to CMYK in the printer driver, the printer itself, during a RIP process, or otherwise... This is, of course, not counting professional pre-press operations in photoshop or analogous programs, where it's actually useful to work in CMYK, but again, that's a special case that 0.001% of computer users ever face.
Maybe one day we'll move away from displays that act on addative RGB primaries (perhaps to an active ink--some sort of CMYK subtractive system), but that day is not now, and it's not in the forseeable future.... And even when that day comes, it would be far, FAR more simple to have whatever display controller convert RGB to CMYK on the fly, you know, instead of rewriting every program ever... But that's just me, what do I know?!
24bpp = 8 bits per channel on an RGB system. That's all folks.
Re:Seconded (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sheesh! (Score:2, Insightful)
It always seems to be an uphill battle getting away from Windows, since the OS is preinstalled on PC's , and has drivers for the hardware provided. The driver problem affects those of us who use LiveCD linux, especially.
I don't like the idea of connecting Windows to the internet, however.
Wall Street Journal ran a story today about do-it-yourself virus kits, websites with virus source code and CD's of virus code being sold. WSJ said the FBI has it's hands tied in trying to stop this activity. It seems, then, that there is no end to the viruses that can infect Windows.
I like GIMP as it is, and I think I make good use of what it can do. Always learning, however.
Don't know about Photoshop, costs too much for me.
Re:adjustment layers are the way to go... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Gimp still needs CMYK, let alone stuff like that.
Re:Does... (Score:1, Insightful)
PSP is no slouch these days, by the way.
And PSE is cheaper than PSP.
> I told him he does not need those features, and his response was what if I do.
Then he should pay for them. Duh.
Re:Seconded (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sheesh! (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure you aren't trying to be rude, so I will try as well.
Your response is at the social edge of the uppity 133t h4x0rs out there that think we should all pitch in a help, and if we don't we are a bunch of lazy leacher punks.
I simply have no skills in programming this kind of thing what so ever. Period. And there are a ton of people that use OSS every day that would never in a million years _ever_ be able to help port anything.
So you know what I and every other lazy bastard out there that "expect people to do this for us"? A user base that makes OSS work.
Without a userbase, there lacks popularity, without popularity there lacks the free advertising, marketing, etc.. that drives new programmers, bug testers, quality feedback, etc.. back to the those "that can do this for us".
Yes it's free software, and guess what? That's the only reason I use it. Call me selfish, but I'm a spokesman and advocate of OSS to the normal schmoes. I defend our rights with my speech. I encourage non-techie users to use OSS. I feel that I, and many others, that can't "do this for ourselves" add a huge aspect to the OSS community that the core programmers perhaps take for granted.
If only people that could compile linux used it, it would absolutely pathetic community supporting by comparison to the current reality.
Re:Seconded (Score:3, Insightful)
60% Insightful
30% Overrated
10% Flamebait
Here's the "So?". Windows users seem to think it's their god given right that everything should have a windows port. Well guess what? The times are changing. Instead of crying, change with them. Truthfully, it warms my heart to see a lack of a windows version. Though I'm sure someone will help you all soon on GimpShop -- someday you windows junkies will have to go into rehab.
Indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose my original question was stupid, to be honest. Really, some type of colour management should be applied at a different level - like into GNOME or KDE in a similar way that Apple does their colour management via ColorSync. Still Adobe has their own colour management engine. They spend money on them and probably patented various things, but I see no reason why Gimp couldn't have SOMETHING. But then again, I'm not a developer. Oh, and this isn't a whinge - I'm VERY happy with Gimp and the developers should be congratulated on a mighty fine application.
Re:Gimp 1.2 sure, but Gimp 2.0? (Score:5, Insightful)
Gimp has a nice interface in itself, but when you switch from PSP/Pshop (or to them, as uncle), the softwares are so many worlds apart UI-wise that you're plain and simply lost.
And you therefore consider the new software (whichever it is) to be "a damn load of crap cause i can't find any of the tools/options/boxes of chocolate i'm looking for"
In a nutshell, the interface elements people don't like in The Gimp (when they have issues with the interface) are: all of them, because they're too different from Photoshop/Paint Shop Pro's
Ah, the usual fallacy, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
And bear in mind that the BSA is basically a sock-puppet that exists only to whine about piracy, and how some chinese kid pirating 3DSMax to mod a $40 game actually represents a $6000 loss for a company. (Surely _everyone_ would pay $6000, even in countries where it means 6 years' salary, to mod a $40 game, if it wasn't for piracy. Not.)
BSA's only reason to exist is to cry wolf. So they do it lots. The'll even classify the neighbour's dog as a wolf because it sorta looks like it. Or as I usually say, there's a reason there's BS in BSA.
So if even their inflated numbers don't say 100%, sorry, I don't believe the fallacy that goes "they've all pirated <insert software title>".
The fact which some people fail to understand is that a helluva lot of us actually pay for software. Or, to open that can of worms too, for music.
Why would someone in their right mind pay for commercial software instead of (A) using some free crap, or (B) pirating it?
Well, point A is easy: because often we actually don't find the free one to do the same, or have the same usability. Sometimes it's cheaper to pay for something than to spend weeks making the free version work, or learning its quirks. Time is money, and mine is pretty expensive.
Point B actually boils down to personal ethics: either you're a thief or you aren't. If you are, I don't expect you to understand why someone would prefer buying stuff if shoplifting it was easy. If you aren't, then you can understand that most people wouldn't shoplift even if shops were completely non-supervised.
It also illustrates another point: true, not everyone can afford Photoshop. So some buy Paintshop Pro instead.
The world isn't made of only extremes. In the real world there are a lot of shades of grey in between owning a Ferrari and walking to work.
The same applies or rather should apply to software too: there are (and should be more) choices between the most expensive version (even by piracy) or something free (again, sometimes "free" via piracy, as in using a SN generator on a shareware version.) Paintshop is just one such example of an in-between piece of software. Others include, for example, using Milkshape instead of 3DSMax.
Re:Or a professional (Score:1, Insightful)
That's a ridiculous price. Don't add $300-400 just to make the total look gaudier. The first online Aussie vendor listed on Adobe's site (citysoftware.com.au) has it for around a grand. And there's no reason to shell out extra cash for XP Pro when Home works just as well. Now use OO.org instead of MS Office. It's still more expensive than a totally free (beer) setup, but it is hardly a 250% markup.
As someone who has dropped thousands on a single lens, I understand that good glass isn't cheap. We all have to make choices. I chose long ago to purchase Photoshop, so it's now a matter of $150 for the upgrade or $600 for a backup camera body.
If your friend is happy with the GIMP, I'm happy for her. If I'd had to use the GIMP instead of Photoshop, I'd have stayed away from digital altogether.
Re:For better or worse (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure there is ICC profiling, either outside the Gimp or as a plug-in. However, few people seem to use it or want it.
No adjustment layers makes it laughable as a professional editting tool.
Photoshop didn't use to have those either, yet plenty of professionals, even of your ilk, used to use it.
To say that 99% of professionals could use gimp and not lose anything compared to photoshop is just ridiculous. Why would you even suggest that.
You lose lots of functionality, it just happens to be functionality most people who work with images for a living don't actually need. (Note that most people who work with images for a living are neither photographers nor graphic designers nor prepress professionals.)
You obviously don't work with images professionally.
You obviously share the uninformed arrogance so common to many photographers and designers. I'm neither a photographer nor a designer, but I work with images professionally and almost certainly know a lot more about color than you do. I have never needed more color management than I get on Linux. If enough of the Gimp user community needs color management, it will be added, hopefully in a better way than in Photoshop.
Re:Seconded (Score:5, Insightful)
Truthfully, it warms my heart to see a lack of a windows version.
What a stupid comment.
I have seen many people decide that moving over to Linux is a good idea after they try a good open source application on windows. Open office or firefox do a great job of lessening a users fear of open source, and once that fear has gone, the move to linux seems much more acceptable. The trick is to show the windows user that other OS's and their software can be as good or better as their windows counterpart. Now while I use GIMP myself (on windows and linux), it isn't exactly the kind of program thats going to convert users. That 90% is still 90%, and if they can only ever try GIMP with its current user interface on windows, then its highly unlikely that they will feel the urge to move from PSP or PS. However, if they can use GIMP with a familiar UI, then they may stick with it, and then they have one less application keeping them bound to their OS.
Re:the only gimp upgrade i want (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seconded (Score:2, Insightful)
I think you are looking at this wrong. People should be porting this stuff left and right, why? Because the more open source, cross platform apps a person uses will decrease the dependancy on windows. And as a person learns that he/she can use the applications on linux, and not have to pay MS for it's OS, then people will be more likely to switch.
It makes me laugh that people who want to spread the love of FOSS and Gnu/Linux want to do it only on their terms. "Times are a changin, repent or die! Linux is teh new god!!"
Baby steps my friend.. Baby steps.