Comments on: GIMP vs. Photoshop - What still needs to be done?

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:23:03 +0000

I need to cast an additional vote to do something about the name. As an IT manager working to get more open source software in my company, how can I expect any of our graphics design types to switch to a software whose name implies ‘lame’? (Aside from some of the other professional features it’s lacking, though I know is being worked on.)

“A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But try selling that same flower as stinkweed and see how far you get.

If the GIMP project isn’t willing to change the name, then maybe a rebranding of the software is in order. If the GimpShop people had taken it one step further and given it a marketable name, then I’d have something I could promote.

By: Narga

Narga — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:37:15 +0000

Yes! GIMP is very, very safe to download, You can use as well ’cause GIMP lead on top Open Source Graphic editor programs

By: DEEFGHOEEN

DEEFGHOEEN — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:37:37 +0000

HI GIMP IS IT SAFE TO DOWNLOAD?

By: mel

mel — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 05:10:52 +0000

It’s so very easy to complain about features (or the lack thereof). Not so simple to help correct them. The GIMP could be one of the most under resourced development efforts in the Open Source realm when compared to the size of the user base.

By: Des Traynor

Des Traynor — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 23:17:56 +0000

To “nobody”

I don’t see anything there that implies any of the complaints listed here will be fixed anytime soon. They are looking for a Usability Architect, sure, they haven’t set any goals yet. The NEWS link doesn’t mention much about anything regarding this post

By: nobody

nobody — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:29:38 +0000

A simple macro recorder would be nice.

By: nobody

nobody — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 17:21:02 +0000

I agree with the vector/layer tools, it’s the one set of tool I personally use myself most and think photoshop is needed there.

Though most of the valid arguments here are being solved sooner or later, see the links:

http://www.gimp.org/announcements/open-usability-gimp.html
http://developer.gimp.org/NEWS

By: Gsu

Gsu — Tue, 05 Sep 2006 11:12:17 +0000

I don’t normally like to shout, but:

COLOR MANAGEMENT!

Yeah, that should include CMYK and 16-bit channels…

By: Des Traynor

Des Traynor — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 23:27:19 +0000

I’ve written before about the usability of the Gimp. Here are a few serious issues that need to be addressed in my opinion…

1) Make the program easy to download
If you want to be popular you have to give it up easy

2) Make it obvious how to draw a straight line.
Things that puzzle me

3) Include proper text support. The Gimp can’t underline text. I’ll say that again in case you missed it, The Gimp can’t underline text. Nor can it do bold/italics/strikethrough.

If you are doing a comp for a website, you need to create a different layer for every different piece of text. If you want to italicize a word in a sentence you actually create a new layer. If you want to have one word a different color to the rest, you have to create a different layer.

In short, the Gimps ability to handle text is stuck somewhere in 1994, and until that changes it’ll lose the web designer market. Thats a reasonable size market.

Thats just three, I’m sure if they were fixed I’d remember the rest, but they’re the ones jumping out at me.

Good post,

All the best,
Des

By: Lionel

Lionel — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 10:54:30 +0000

The usability issues are more important. GIMP needs to be as good on both ground.
Graphists learn the craft on photoshop, they don’t want to learn another complex tool. A photoshop-clone mode needs to be there by default (GimpShop is a step in that direction, but it is not enough).

Because even if GIMP becomes more powerful the Photoshop, it won’t change much if people are still less productive with it.

I have asked many time why graphists never used GIMP, each time the answer was : the interface is weird. They didn’t go farther, they didn’t have the mean to evaluate the power of the software, the interface was a barreer instead of an “enabler”.

sad, sad, sad…