4 ms·

Does 2,9 (or the forthcoming 2,10) have non-destructive editing yet? It not, they can make all the other improvements they want, but Gimp will still be lagging

Does 2,9 (or the forthcoming 2,10) have non-destructive editing yet? It not, they can make all the other improvements they want, but Gimp will still be lagging a decade behind Photoshop.

dagw 10y ago
2.9 and 2.10 is about moving completely over to GEGL, the new image processing engine that allows for things like high bit depth images, better color management, OpenCL image filters and Non-destructive editing. Unfortunately actually exposing the non-destructive editing parts in the application has been pushed back to 3.2 on the current road map.
nkuttler 10y ago
Does Photoshop have an open source license yet? If not, they can make all they want, but Photoshop will still be lagging 20 years behind GIMP. See how silly that sounds?
- Finnucane 10y ago
  The difference is that when I am sending files to the press, the press cares if I have sent CMYK, and they do not care if I have used an open-source program. Personally, I prefer to use open-source when I can, but if it doesn't do what I need to do, then the difference is not 'silly'. It's an obstacle.
  - nkuttler 10y ago
    You're absolutely right. OP picked an arbitrary feature though without telling how it affects the world around him and resorted to hyperbole. You actually have a point.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    Almost no workflow involves Photoshop to press. It's Photoshop to some other application, like InDesign, exporting PDF then to press. Likewise GIMP to Scribus, which can convert your RGB images to CMYK before producing the PDF. While common, it's increasingly antiquated for printing companies to insist on CMYK. There are print standards that enable hand off of PDF for blind transfers where all content is defined in a device independent color space.
    - Torgo 10y ago
      Not gonna matter if your printer can't print the color you used, which is a lot of them. You'll just be surprised when your prints come back looking like shit I guess.
      - cmurf 10y ago
        They could print the color, they're just inept. There are amany printing companies around the world, even in the U.S., who can properly print properly prepared files, as I've described. And no doubt they'd like to have your business. The attachment to printing companies that do things wrong is why they continue to do things wrong rather than modernize.
      - Torgo 10y ago
        Downvote me all you want, I did it for ten years and I know what I'm talking about. Take a couple illustrations in Photoshop and convert them from RGB to CMYK and look at what goes out of gamut and looks like shit. You can waste a ton of time going back and forth same-daying samples from the print shop, or you can use a tool that can do CMYK and can utilize the proper printer color profile and have a good idea of what you can do during the creation process.
virtualritz 10y ago
If you want non-destructive editing of images, you'd use Nuke (or Natron if you want something OSS). Darktable is now also an option for many tasks since they have a powerful mask manager and module duplication. Which makes the app sit somewhere in the middle between something like Lightroom and PS. While still being completely non-destructive. Photoshop non-destructive? That's a good one. PS is less destructive than Gimp. But far, far away from a non-destructive app like the ones mentioned above. Caveat: I am pro PS user. Since the time before it was called PS (Barneyscan) – aka ~25 years. And I have a BG in blockbuster VFX. An industry where image editing truly is non-destructive.
- phaemon 10y ago
  Oh, thanks! I hadn't heard of Natron but it looks pretty cool from the tutorial videos.
the_af 10y ago
Out of curiosity, what is non-destructive editing of a digital image? I'm not familiar with the concept. Is it like some sort of infinite undo or what?
- virtualritz 10y ago
  Short answer: yes. Long answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIS3pYeWr3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIS3pYeWr3g
- HoopleHead 10y ago
  As the OP, what I meant by "Non Destructive Editing' is the ability to go back and adjust mask/filters etc independently of each other and without permanently altering the original image. Photoshop does this with 'Adjustment Layers' which sit on top of the original image and apply things such as masks, colour adjustments, filters, etc to it. Over-cooked one of your previous tweaks? Just open the corresponding adjustment layer and change the settings. Wish you hadn't applied that filter 10 operations ago? Just switch off or delete that adjustment layer Removed a bit of someone's ear while deleting the background? Just paint it back in on the mask layer And if you really want to start over again, just delete all the adjustment layers and you're back to square one. The original image is untouched. Someone disdainfully said I'd picked an "arbitrary feature" to complain about. For a professional designer [which I am] NDE is not just a "nice to have" feature, it's an essential one. Hence why Gimp will never be taken seriously by design professionals —no matter how many pointless icon themes it comes with.
  - the_af 10y ago
    Thanks for the in-depth response! Yes, it seems like a very useful feature to me. I don't see why GIMP can't have it, eventually.

Does 2,9 (or the forthcoming 2,10) have non-destructive editing yet? It not, they can make all the other improvements they want, but Gimp will still be lagging a decade behind Photoshop.

dagw 10y ago

2.9 and 2.10 is about moving completely over to GEGL, the new image processing engine that allows for things like high bit depth images, better color management, OpenCL image filters and Non-destructive editing. Unfortunately actually exposing the non-destructive editing parts in the application has been pushed back to 3.2 on the current road map.

nkuttler 10y ago

Does Photoshop have an open source license yet? If not, they can make all they want, but Photoshop will still be lagging 20 years behind GIMP. See how silly that sounds?

Finnucane 10y ago
The difference is that when I am sending files to the press, the press cares if I have sent CMYK, and they do not care if I have used an open-source program. Personally, I prefer to use open-source when I can, but if it doesn't do what I need to do, then the difference is not 'silly'. It's an obstacle.
- nkuttler 10y ago
  You're absolutely right. OP picked an arbitrary feature though without telling how it affects the world around him and resorted to hyperbole. You actually have a point.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Almost no workflow involves Photoshop to press. It's Photoshop to some other application, like InDesign, exporting PDF then to press. Likewise GIMP to Scribus, which can convert your RGB images to CMYK before producing the PDF. While common, it's increasingly antiquated for printing companies to insist on CMYK. There are print standards that enable hand off of PDF for blind transfers where all content is defined in a device independent color space.
  - Torgo 10y ago
    Not gonna matter if your printer can't print the color you used, which is a lot of them. You'll just be surprised when your prints come back looking like shit I guess.
    - cmurf 10y ago
      They could print the color, they're just inept. There are amany printing companies around the world, even in the U.S., who can properly print properly prepared files, as I've described. And no doubt they'd like to have your business. The attachment to printing companies that do things wrong is why they continue to do things wrong rather than modernize.
    - Torgo 10y ago
      Downvote me all you want, I did it for ten years and I know what I'm talking about. Take a couple illustrations in Photoshop and convert them from RGB to CMYK and look at what goes out of gamut and looks like shit. You can waste a ton of time going back and forth same-daying samples from the print shop, or you can use a tool that can do CMYK and can utilize the proper printer color profile and have a good idea of what you can do during the creation process.

virtualritz 10y ago

If you want non-destructive editing of images, you'd use Nuke (or Natron if you want something OSS). Darktable is now also an option for many tasks since they have a powerful mask manager and module duplication. Which makes the app sit somewhere in the middle between something like Lightroom and PS. While still being completely non-destructive. Photoshop non-destructive? That's a good one. PS is less destructive than Gimp. But far, far away from a non-destructive app like the ones mentioned above. Caveat: I am pro PS user. Since the time before it was called PS (Barneyscan) – aka ~25 years. And I have a BG in blockbuster VFX. An industry where image editing truly is non-destructive.

phaemon 10y ago
Oh, thanks! I hadn't heard of Natron but it looks pretty cool from the tutorial videos.

the_af 10y ago

Out of curiosity, what is non-destructive editing of a digital image? I'm not familiar with the concept. Is it like some sort of infinite undo or what?

virtualritz 10y ago
Short answer: yes. Long answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIS3pYeWr3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIS3pYeWr3g
HoopleHead 10y ago
As the OP, what I meant by "Non Destructive Editing' is the ability to go back and adjust mask/filters etc independently of each other and without permanently altering the original image. Photoshop does this with 'Adjustment Layers' which sit on top of the original image and apply things such as masks, colour adjustments, filters, etc to it. Over-cooked one of your previous tweaks? Just open the corresponding adjustment layer and change the settings. Wish you hadn't applied that filter 10 operations ago? Just switch off or delete that adjustment layer Removed a bit of someone's ear while deleting the background? Just paint it back in on the mask layer And if you really want to start over again, just delete all the adjustment layers and you're back to square one. The original image is untouched. Someone disdainfully said I'd picked an "arbitrary feature" to complain about. For a professional designer [which I am] NDE is not just a "nice to have" feature, it's an essential one. Hence why Gimp will never be taken seriously by design professionals —no matter how many pointless icon themes it comes with.
- the_af 10y ago
  Thanks for the in-depth response! Yes, it seems like a very useful feature to me. I don't see why GIMP can't have it, eventually.