News: 1606117090

Never got round to using it.

However congratulations and I think the fact it's still being maintained and extended suggests that there is a real need out there that is being served.

It is a fantastic piece of free software with some very clever algorithms and plug-ins. A lot of comments relate to it being difficult and a steep learning curve and that's fair, but complex things are hard to learn - personally I've plugged away and got it to do what I want, not always on first go.

Complex things either prescribe how you use them, in which case its a pain to get them to do anything different from the author's intended approach, or they provide a tool-kit of options that you have to figure out, gives that steep curve, but is far more flexible. For beginners, gimp and photoshop are similarly complex...

so steep as to be nearly vertical. The problem is I rarely need to manipulate images other than doing the odd bit of cropping or image type conversion. I find pretty much anything else a real struggle to figure out how to do and GIMP not at all intuitive. I think part of the problem is that it is so sophisticated and offers so many features that I can't see the wood for the trees.

It's the old story:

writing complex software is easy. It's writing simple software that's difficult.

I find Pinta on Linux (similar to Paint.NET on Windows) useful for these kinds of small jobs. Either that or an old version of Paint Shop Pro under Wine.

If you couldn't do it in xv, you were spending way too much time manipulating images to print onto OHP acetates.

Yes, it's a great achievement, but just shows the problem of some open source software. Hard to use and the developers are more interested in adding new features than improving usability.

Every few years, I have a problem installing my old Photoshop Elements. While I'm trying to rouse Adobe support, I install Gimp to see if it's a replacement. Suddenly, Adobe don't seem to so bad.

Don't forget that Elements is the simplified version. You don't have the complete toolkit, so that Adobe can charge silly money for full-on Photoshop. I suspect you'd find full-fat PS just as confusing.

Besides the fact that Adobe offers Elements (simplified) and Lightroom (photo only) tools, for Photoshop you will find plenty of tutorials, books, tips, etc. to learn to use it. Far less so for Gimp.

"Silly money" now means about 150 $/€ per year (less with some discounts) - getting also the various Lightroom versions. Then, if for you silly money for software means any sum above zero, that's another matter.

Bit harsh. My long paid for version of Elements is used no more than once a month. Yes, paying for the new subscription would be more than it's worth for me. At that point, I'd probably spend some time trying to understand how to use GIMP properly.

Well I haven't looked for a long time. I was thinking about the purchase price rather than rental.

My definition of silly money is several times as much as a product that could have been the same, except that parts have been deliberately left out. Not a fan of [1]segmentation.

I'm much more interested in free as in freedom. I certainly wouldn't trust Adobe's cloud. How quickly did they get their password database stolen? Hardly any time as I recall.

[1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-duckies/

Used GIMP for a small project recently and just like every other time I’ve used it I spent as much time searching for help with using it than I did using it.

Lucky man. On the few occasions I tried it I usually gave up long before I actually got it to do anything close to useful.

I found out quite usable for what I had to do. But then I'm not doing any weird and / or advanced fancy stuff. Some map drawing for a rpg campaign, some photo adjustments.

But then I have never ever used the Adobe thing, so I cannot compare them. Only Corel Draw, maybe 25 years ago. Which I found hard to use then.

Exactly, not weird or difficult at all, unless you are doped up to the eyeballs on how photoshop or paint shop pro worked. The problem has always been people trying to use it who expect an exact photoshop clone, and even worse those fuckers who insist on a single window interface being the only valid approach.

Nah, it can be quite weird. Even a simple task like drawing a straight line isn't exactly obvious.

Having said that it's a useful tool and is free. I usually have it installed on all the machines I use. I do still use MSpaint for some quick cut-paste jobs but anything more complex and I bring out the GIMP.

I've used Photoshop in the past and it was more intuitive and probably still is. But anyone who isn't a professional isn't likely to want to fork out.

Exactly this. I still try to persevere with GIMP occasionally, like when I wanted to set a transparent background on some images, but I spent far more time on Google trying to figure it out than doing the job. It seems that anything I want to do is buried deep in the menu systems under incomprehensible names and requires arcane image manipulation techniques along the way.

I've often given up and used a basic drawing editor instead out of frustration just trying to do the most basic things. Back in the days of XP I used Paintshop and that simple program was intuitive and quick to use. GIMP on the other hand...

I owe you all so many drinks I'd put you in hospital.

You allowed me to go digital when the best computer I could afford was a (very) second hand 486, and have helped me to produce pictures that I love. (Competition judges, not so much.)

I've never got why so many people complain about its interface. Just a tiny bit of Photoshop experience was enough for me to understand it. It's very similar, perhaps too much because the PS style design can't be the best that could be achieved. Possibly it's just the uncanny valley thing, I get a bit confused looking for the equivalent command in PS.

One point that I've always found particularly helpful is the team's policy on UI changes. Every new feature that I didn't want (tool windows permanently on top, single window mode, traditional menu bar) has a config option to switch back. Great decision folks, I hope you can keep that up!

GIMP is one of the bright lights in the free software world, much kudos to you all.

As you I had some exposure to Photoshop in the past so some concepts like Layers came naturally to me when I started using GIMP 20 years ago.

Some tasks I need to lookup but those are the odd ones when I want some special effect or a task I rarely do.

Most normal tasks I just get on with it

I've never found it easy to use, but it will support anything that my limited creativity can come up with - and it is available everywhere for free. Can't fault that :)

Every time my PS license was up for renewal, I'd vow never to pay Adobe another penny and try GIMP. Then swear at the screen for a while and pony up the money for Photoshop or Creative Suite. All until CS4 wouldn't install on Windows 10 anymore and I found Affinity's suite - which is close enough to Adobe to make transition relatively pain free and is only 50 quid.

It's just a shame that the developers are so pigheadedly insistent on using an anti-disabled insult as a hah-hah-aren't-we-edgy acronym. They wouldn't use "New Image Generation and Graphical Editing Resource" and they shouldn't bloody use "GIMP" either.

Anti-disabled? It was a sex joke, and that's really not the most important thing. They are a tiny team and have many more urgent jobs to do.

OTOH, my local library's nanny filter won't allow access to [1]gimp.org . Bloody prudes should grow up, or else stop listing bad words so that they can disapprove of them.

[1] https://www.gimp.org/

It may have been a sex joke at first, but "gimp" as a derisory term for people with difficulties walking was first recorded by the OED in 1925. The development team know that perfectly well, and their decision to keep on using the slur was reported in El Reg fairly recently.

And, of course, if they want their software to be more widely used in professional circles (and there is no reason why they should want that, of course) giving it a sex-joke name really isn't any better than giving it an anti-disabled name.

It rather depends on what angle you are looking at it from, your preconceptions and biases, oh and your native language. I see no political angle, to me it's just the:

Graphic

Image

Manipulation

Program

It's very useful, does what it says on the tin, and yes, it's hard to use, but so are many things.

You know if the word is the worst thing in your view there is the [1]GLIMPSE fork, as mentioned in the article.

[1] https://glimpse-editor.github.io/

Actually used to choose Gimp over photoshop in a previous job.

For the most part it behaved itself much better than photoshop and I never had an instance of GIMP eating work files whole and spitting them back out.

Yes, there's somethings that are buried deeper than nessary (and having to use export rather than save is still needlessly frustrating) but minor quibbles on the whole.

That and it would run well enough on machines that photoshop would make whimper and cry.

GIMP icon. Obvs.

As someone who only has to do graphics occasionally, Photoshop & GIMP both about the same PITA in terms of learning how to do the things I wanted. Its different to Photoshop so presume some of the moans are from those who (as previously stated) expect a Photoshop clone. I'm glad it exists as only once have I had Photoshop licence via work that I could use at home (its too expensive to buy as an individual for my low usage) so GIMP has helped me create imagery, retouch old photos in a way that I would not have otherwise been able to, so a hearty thanks from me.

It's a right bastard to use but if you get into the way of it eventually it becomes not so bad.

Considering the price of buying full fat photoshop GIMP is a wee miracle.

Kudos, karma and beers for all involved.

Many of the important open-source programs suffer from terrible UI design, which make it difficult to learn, understand and get things done. I believe this stems from the fact that the developers are also designing the UI, whilst being unable to relate how new or novice users would use the program. I also believe they take shortcuts to get things working quickly without being concerned how this works out for the workflow.

Blender has the exact same problem. I've been using it for many years now yet even the newest version is frustratingly difficult to use. I've learned to cope with it, but the overwhelming number of sliders, buttons and checkboxes (many of which I'm completely in the dark what effect they have) and the illogical tab structure make it a struggle to get things done.

I always feel that commercial programs are easier to use because there's a dedicated UI design team that observe and record how users use the program. The KDE team has learned from its mistakes and now has a dedicated UI design team that oversees all KDE development.