[url]http://www.gimp.org/news/2015/11/22/20-years-of-gimp-release-of-gimp-2816/[/url]
[quote=GIMP]This week the GIMP project celebrates its 20th anniversary.
Back in 1995, University of California students, Peter Mattis and Kimball Spencer, were members of the eXperimental Computing Facility, a Berkeley campus organization of undergraduate students enthusiastic about computers and programming. In June of that year, the two hinted at their intentions to write a free graphical image manipulation program as a means of giving back to the free software community.
On November 21st, 20 years ago today, Peter Mattis announced the availability of the “General Image Manipulation Program” on Usenet (later on, the acronym would be redefined to stand for the “GNU Image Manipulation Program”).
Since its public release the project has been evolving in many ways as a testbed for new ideas, which was considerably assisted by adding plug-in architecture. Over the years, GIMP amassed a huge amount of new features designed for all kinds of users and practical applications: general image editing, retouching and color grading, digital painting, graphic design, science imaging etc.[/quote]
20 years old and still shit
[QUOTE]
Newly released GIMP 2.8.16 features support for layer groups in OpenRaster files...
[/QUOTE]
Since when did The GIMP even do OpenRaster? Anything remotely related always seemed to be a separate plug-ins and it never worked on my ORAs.
[QUOTE=skzerk;49167991]20 years old and still shit[/QUOTE]nah you just suck at it
i tried to switch to Photoshop a while ago. it was horrible. i've used GIMP 2.6 (only updated once, from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12) for seven years now and can create magic with it, so i'm not giving it up any time soon.
Switching from gimp to photoshop was horrible, switching back was horrible too.
They're both so different.
[QUOTE=Joazzz;49168025]nah you just suck at it
i tried to switch to Photoshop a while ago. it was horrible. i've used GIMP 2.6 (only updated once, from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12) for seven years now and can create magic with it, so i'm not giving it up any time soon.[/QUOTE]
GIMP was unusable until they finally added single window mode in 2.8
[QUOTE=Teddybeer;49168118]Not really unusable just something you needed to get used to, like most problems people have or had with it.[/QUOTE]
And it's this mindset why Blender is the way it is
[QUOTE=Joazzz;49168025]nah you just suck at it
i tried to switch to Photoshop a while ago. it was horrible. i've used GIMP 2.6 (only updated once, from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12) for seven years now and can create magic with it, so i'm not giving it up any time soon.[/QUOTE]
you're severely limiting what you can do but you probably dont care about that
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49168221]you're severely limiting what you can do but you probably dont care about that[/QUOTE]i did notice that photoshop would be much better for digital painting and stuff like that. whenever i open any Photoshop, though, my first question is always "where the hell are all the tools?"
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49168221]you're severely limiting what you can do but you probably dont care about that[/QUOTE]
Gee imagine that, software with millions (if not more) being thrown at it having more powerful features. Not to mention that The GIMP is mainly good at what its name says: image manipulation.
Gimp pretty great. Makes me wish I was better at drawing or art or stuff. It's not very good at resizing gifs, but simple editing is great. I agree though, totally unusable before single window mode. No idea what jackasses decided multiple windows was the best UI
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49168281]but to say that gimp is better in really any way save for harddrive space and memory footprint, it would be a lie[/QUOTE]i've got one counterpoint to that, but it could be because i'm biased after all this time with GIMP: it's very streamlined and basically throws all the tools in your face. the PS interface feels cluttered and over-over-over-engineered in comparison
Photoshop probably takes a landslide victory in the amount of features, of course.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49168281]photoshop is just as good if not better
i understand that gimp is a free alternative, but to say that gimp is better in really any way save for harddrive space and memory footprint, it would be a lie[/QUOTE]
The GIMP is also libre if someone cares about the freedom of their software but that's a whole different can of worms. And nowadays, the memory footprint can be a big deal with as bloated as software gets.
[editline]e[/editline]
But I will admit that in a similar vein, Inkscape doesn't hold a torch to Illustrator.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49168355]all the tools you need for basic creation and manipulation are on the left toolbar, then everything else is in the top dropdown menus as needed[/QUOTE]i will not be converted
[QUOTE=Stonecycle;49168354]The GIMP is also libre if someone cares about the freedom of their software but that's a whole different can of worms. And nowadays, the memory footprint can be a big deal with as bloated as software gets.
[editline]e[/editline]
But I will admit that in a similar vein, Inkscape doesn't hold a torch to Illustrator.[/QUOTE]
You're unlikely to use the 16 GB of memory most desktop computers have. I've only ever come close when saving enormous images.
It was really frustrating to use gimp. Keystrokes depended on what window you clicked on last, drove me insane to no end.
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;49168399]I'm never switching from GIMP, it sits at under 200mb, its free, multi-platform and it does everything I need it to do.
Its appalling that proprietary software is considered the industry standard.[/QUOTE]
I agree but it's just that Photoshop is so far ahead of GIMP in terms of features. Adobe has the money to push it's products as "the industry standard" and GIMP as it is now can't compete with it.
GIMPs still pretty good though, I've used it for a couple years in the past.
[sp]why the fuck does Photoshop not yet have a "color to alpha" tool?[/sp]
[QUOTE=Octopod;49168472]
[sp]why the fuck does Photoshop not yet have a "color to alpha" tool?[/sp][/QUOTE]
This. Otherwise I pretty much think Photoshop is pretty much superior in every aspect technically. It isn't free of course, but that isn't the point for most professionals.
[QUOTE=Altimor;49168387]You're unlikely to use the 16 GB of memory most desktop computers have. I've only ever come close when saving enormous images.[/QUOTE]
"Most"? 16GiB is common/stock yet? Maybe on upgraded, built, or pre-builts ~$500+, but 4-8GiB is still a thing. Then again, I'm probably just a parnoid ninny who manages to not even use half of his RAM who's concerned about modern bloatware.
[QUOTE=skzerk;49167991]20 years old and still shit[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49168065]GIMP was unusable until they finally added single window mode in 2.8[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49168148]And it's this mindset why Blender is the way it is[/QUOTE]
:v:
You all must be terrible with these programs.
GIMP is on par with photoshop, but a good graphics designer will use BOTH. Each program has nice features that the other doesn't.
As for blender, yes, you have to get used to it, much like you would need to learn Max/Maya. Most modellers would agree that after learning max/maya, blender is a walk in the park once you learn how to hit spacebar, and becomes the ultimate modelling tool.
[QUOTE=skzerk;49167991]20 years old and still shit[/QUOTE]
I never could get the hang of it. Same with Photoshop, actually. I just don't like the interface at all. Paint.NET's... alright, but damn it, when are we gonna get something modern in the style of Image Composer?! Why is a program that stopped being updated in 1995 still the only raster editor that uses persistent sprites while every modern raster program flattens everything to the layer when you deselect it?
[QUOTE=Stonecycle;49168354]But I will admit that in a similar vein, Inkscape doesn't hold a torch to Illustrator.[/QUOTE]
On this note, I actually prefer Inkscape because again - I don't like the Adobe interface. I don't like how it handles object and node selection. Inkscape's the closest I've seen a modern program come to Image Composer in terms of interface, but it's vector instead of raster.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;49168572]microsoft paint is on par with photoshop, they each have their ups and downs
paint is more accessible to the inexperienced designer and is on a majority of computers by default, for free![/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/QlGpd.gif[/img]
Paint is better than Photoshop. Can you do this in Photoshop? I don't think so.
I still use GIMP when transparent images won't suffice in MSPaint.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;49168616]I still use GIMP when transparent images won't suffice in MSPaint.[/QUOTE]
I use Paint.net. It's a lot simpler if you don't need any of GIMP's extra features.
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;49168597][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/QlGpd.gif[/IMG]
Paint is better than Photoshop. Do this in Photoshop? I don't think so.[/QUOTE]
Why would you not be able to do that in Photoshop? Anything that can pick specific hues and save as .bmp should work.
i use gimp because im too lazy to pirate photoshop
[QUOTE=Medevila;49168594]it's hard to take GIMP seriously as a Photoshop competitor when it doesn't even support high-DPI displays properly lol[/QUOTE]
Why are you not using hotkeys?
[QUOTE=laserpanda;49168632]
Why would you not be able to do that in Photoshop? Anything that can pick specific hues and save as .bmp should work.[/QUOTE]
[del]you missed the joke[/del]
Nevermind, I completely missed that the animation is in fact plausible. You're right, this would work in photoshop/GIMP, too. You could even write a plugin to make it easier.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;49168533]:v:
You all must be terrible with these programs.
GIMP is on par with photoshop, but a good graphics designer will use BOTH. Each program has nice features that the other doesn't.
As for blender, yes, you have to get used to it, much like you would need to learn Max/Maya. Most modellers would agree that after learning max/maya, blender is a walk in the park once you learn how to hit spacebar, and becomes the ultimate modelling tool.[/QUOTE]
No actual graphic designer is ever going to use gimp stop lieing to yourself
The only time I use gimp is when I need the color to alpha feature
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49168922]No actual graphic designer is ever going to use gimp stop lieing to yourself[/QUOTE]
Part of the issue is that GIMP is just as powerful and while it doesn't have the internal support. If the community got together like a modding community does, it could easily blow Photoshop out of the park.
It also doesn't help that photoshop keeps things like 3rd party plugins and its own save file format locked away.
[editline]23rd November 2015[/editline]
GIMPs been ready to use photoshop plugins since 2.6 but Adobe keeps getting in the way.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;49168148]And it's this mindset why Blender is the way it is[/QUOTE]
"It's different therefore it's wrong"
If you're gonna be a whiney bitch about it, just change the control scheme to Maya.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
