4 ms·

My hope: whichever direction Gimp development goes, they should try doing something similar to Blender - where they bring a bunch of developers and artists into

My hope: whichever direction Gimp development goes, they should try doing something similar to Blender - where they bring a bunch of developers and artists into a space. While they're in that space (for a limited amount of time) work on some big project involving Gimp. Develop Gimp to suite that project's needs.

buovjaga 8y ago
So far ZeMarmot is such a project in a smaller scale (1 dev + 1 artist), but extended amount of time: https://film.zemarmot.net/ https://film.zemarmot.net/
120photo 8y ago
I believe this is a key reason Blender is as good as it is today; they developed a tool that addressed the needs of artist that use their software (scratching a need).
MrEfficiency 8y ago
Can we streamline the controls? Thats what GIMP needs. After 9 years of using GIMP I switched to photoshop because I was doing many photos and couldnt hand the inconsistency of what each button does.
- dotancohen 8y ago
  If you'll provide more detail as to which inconsistencies you've found, I'll take the time to test and write up an actionable bug report.
  - emmelaich 8y ago
    That would actually be a valuable service. Many users don't know where or how or what to put in a bug report. If some had a site that you could just write free-form prose others more experienced could convert that to actionable bug reports.
    - dotancohen 8y ago
      The KDE bugtracker has a few users, I think pinex and pino, who actually read almost every bug report, test, and clarify. That said, I'll _happily_ take any mention of FOSS bugs, verify, and file them at the proper place. Hit me!
amelius 8y ago
They could also get some inspiration from Krita. https://krita.org https://krita.org
themodelplumber 8y ago
Blender has always been very project-focused, and you could even say it's really project-identified. That reflects a particular kind of psychological reward system working within the development team. GIMP developers have long demonstrated more of a GIMP-is-GIMP approach. This kind of approach looks at GIMP as a very unique thing--there's nothing else quite like it, and that's worth celebrating and understanding and working on. Users who get the most out of GIMP will learn GIMP and its leverage points, rather than discovering that GIMP works the way they do or "shows something big" to demonstrate that it is in sync with what makes something cool or interesting to others (the area of fitting the user's style, be it Maya or whatever, has become a Blender specialty since at least the last decade+). So the broad decisions about what will be done and in what way have already been made at the team- and individual-psychology level, assuming this money doesn't radically change the core team composition. While the objective manifestation of the spending is yet to come, this money was already spent by the team psychology, and the further we depart from GIMP's past in wishing for changes, the less likely our wishes will match with the actual outcome of the expenditures. And let's take the polar opposite into consideration--even if the idea of becoming more like Blender and gathering people and putting a big project together makes the GIMP team members recoil in horror, the most well-founded hope would be that the GIMP team builds on past successes and learns from past failures, or gains more momentum in the direction that will likely bring it the most success _given the team's psychological makeup & personal resources_. That would probably bring about a really good outcome even if it doesn't result in a highly-visible project.
- boudewijnrempt 8y ago
  So... I've had to read this about eight times, and two or three of those together with someone to figure this out... But what you're saying is "gimp developers work on gimp because they like gimp, while blender developers work on blender to see what people can do with it -- so they will not be able to spend this money effectively." -- or am I still misunderstanding you?
  - themodelplumber 8y ago
    (Of course it would be Boudewijn Rempt)--much respect to you and thank you for your question. > gimp developers work on gimp because they like gimp I'd say: GIMP has always been good enough for GIMP developers as its own world to explore--what is it, what can we make it become for the sake of GIMP. I remember the good old days (frankly I'm not sure if this still happens) when a mailing list suggestion like "look, Photoshop does X and GIMP sucks at X" would almost always result in a "hey, the source is open" comment from core devs. This drove some users absolutely crazy, because _if it was their project_, one of the core goals would be fitting the project to user expectations (probably rooted in Photoshop use-experiences) rather than setting a sort of psychological boundary around GIMP that is less permeable to that kind of encouragement to change for the sake of some externality like "a frustrated Photoshop pro" or "a mom who never knows where her toolbars go". There generally hasn't been a pressured response to that kind of pressure from the GIMP team except in slower, measured ways. This tells us that GIMP developers feel less pressure from that feedback (positive pressure or negative) than other developers on other projects might. This kind of internally-protective outcome reminds me of a bumper sticker that I saw that said "Keep Portland Weird." I think there's a benefit to that line of thought. Maybe "Keep GIMP GIMP--while also working on meeting Photoshop-level expectations _whenever we feel like it_" is more representative. And this is completely separate from looking at GIMP as a low-quality project, or even a weird project. It's an awesome project _in its own way_ is what I'm saying. To understand it and its unique leverage points is to enjoy using GIMP. > while blender developers work on blender to see what people can do with it First, I don't know about individual developers, as this is more of a comment of "type and generality". But I think the project outcomes make it clear that Blender developers really enjoy the feeling of making a big impact in the world, and building bridges to the outside-of-Blender world, as opposed to more internal focus on bringing a special, unique thing into existence. (Every project will have a blend of both, but this is speaking in terms of project-type, where it helps to cast a project into one bucket or another in order to get at what makes them different.) The former, a focus on the outside impact, results in something with which it's easy to objectively identify and praise, because it's more objectively "compatible" with more people and teams. A Maya team goes "we get this" partially because it works with them on a level. It crosses the objective barrier and works with people who prefer another set of keyboard shortcuts and window layouts. And so the Blender team gets more of that outside-in encouragement from a broader base, IMO. And again, this doesn't make GIMP faulty, just different. The latter type of focus, the internal focus, asks "what do _we_ want to do, what interests _us_ as a team, what's next for _us_" and I believe that's always been a feature of GIMP's existence. When you understand GIMP you can talk to core developers. When you begin to push on it, and compare it to Photoshop, you become the problem much faster than you would in other communities, because you're not focused on what GIMP is. So the GIMP project might have this objective-world blind spot, as evidenced by a HN thread full of change requests :-) but it's a trade-off for a high level of internal, subjective quality which can be observed if you _look at GIMP for what it is_ and really figure it out. I mean, I use the software every day, and there are so many little things that make me miss it when I have to use something like PS. > so they will not be able to spend this money effectively Quite the opposite--I'm certain it will be spent effectively. No doubt about that at all. What I'm saying is that it would probably not be realistic to hope that it is spent the exact same way that a Blender fan would really appreciate. And that's OK and even a good thing.

buovjaga 8y ago

So far ZeMarmot is such a project in a smaller scale (1 dev + 1 artist), but extended amount of time: https://film.zemarmot.net/ https://film.zemarmot.net/

120photo 8y ago

I believe this is a key reason Blender is as good as it is today; they developed a tool that addressed the needs of artist that use their software (scratching a need).

MrEfficiency 8y ago

Can we streamline the controls? Thats what GIMP needs. After 9 years of using GIMP I switched to photoshop because I was doing many photos and couldnt hand the inconsistency of what each button does.

dotancohen 8y ago
If you'll provide more detail as to which inconsistencies you've found, I'll take the time to test and write up an actionable bug report.
- emmelaich 8y ago
  That would actually be a valuable service. Many users don't know where or how or what to put in a bug report. If some had a site that you could just write free-form prose others more experienced could convert that to actionable bug reports.
  - dotancohen 8y ago
    The KDE bugtracker has a few users, I think pinex and pino, who actually read almost every bug report, test, and clarify. That said, I'll _happily_ take any mention of FOSS bugs, verify, and file them at the proper place. Hit me!

amelius 8y ago

They could also get some inspiration from Krita. https://krita.org https://krita.org

themodelplumber 8y ago

Blender has always been very project-focused, and you could even say it's really project-identified. That reflects a particular kind of psychological reward system working within the development team. GIMP developers have long demonstrated more of a GIMP-is-GIMP approach. This kind of approach looks at GIMP as a very unique thing--there's nothing else quite like it, and that's worth celebrating and understanding and working on. Users who get the most out of GIMP will learn GIMP and its leverage points, rather than discovering that GIMP works the way they do or "shows something big" to demonstrate that it is in sync with what makes something cool or interesting to others (the area of fitting the user's style, be it Maya or whatever, has become a Blender specialty since at least the last decade+). So the broad decisions about what will be done and in what way have already been made at the team- and individual-psychology level, assuming this money doesn't radically change the core team composition. While the objective manifestation of the spending is yet to come, this money was already spent by the team psychology, and the further we depart from GIMP's past in wishing for changes, the less likely our wishes will match with the actual outcome of the expenditures. And let's take the polar opposite into consideration--even if the idea of becoming more like Blender and gathering people and putting a big project together makes the GIMP team members recoil in horror, the most well-founded hope would be that the GIMP team builds on past successes and learns from past failures, or gains more momentum in the direction that will likely bring it the most success _given the team's psychological makeup & personal resources_. That would probably bring about a really good outcome even if it doesn't result in a highly-visible project.

boudewijnrempt 8y ago
So... I've had to read this about eight times, and two or three of those together with someone to figure this out... But what you're saying is "gimp developers work on gimp because they like gimp, while blender developers work on blender to see what people can do with it -- so they will not be able to spend this money effectively." -- or am I still misunderstanding you?
- themodelplumber 8y ago
  (Of course it would be Boudewijn Rempt)--much respect to you and thank you for your question. > gimp developers work on gimp because they like gimp I'd say: GIMP has always been good enough for GIMP developers as its own world to explore--what is it, what can we make it become for the sake of GIMP. I remember the good old days (frankly I'm not sure if this still happens) when a mailing list suggestion like "look, Photoshop does X and GIMP sucks at X" would almost always result in a "hey, the source is open" comment from core devs. This drove some users absolutely crazy, because _if it was their project_, one of the core goals would be fitting the project to user expectations (probably rooted in Photoshop use-experiences) rather than setting a sort of psychological boundary around GIMP that is less permeable to that kind of encouragement to change for the sake of some externality like "a frustrated Photoshop pro" or "a mom who never knows where her toolbars go". There generally hasn't been a pressured response to that kind of pressure from the GIMP team except in slower, measured ways. This tells us that GIMP developers feel less pressure from that feedback (positive pressure or negative) than other developers on other projects might. This kind of internally-protective outcome reminds me of a bumper sticker that I saw that said "Keep Portland Weird." I think there's a benefit to that line of thought. Maybe "Keep GIMP GIMP--while also working on meeting Photoshop-level expectations _whenever we feel like it_" is more representative. And this is completely separate from looking at GIMP as a low-quality project, or even a weird project. It's an awesome project _in its own way_ is what I'm saying. To understand it and its unique leverage points is to enjoy using GIMP. > while blender developers work on blender to see what people can do with it First, I don't know about individual developers, as this is more of a comment of "type and generality". But I think the project outcomes make it clear that Blender developers really enjoy the feeling of making a big impact in the world, and building bridges to the outside-of-Blender world, as opposed to more internal focus on bringing a special, unique thing into existence. (Every project will have a blend of both, but this is speaking in terms of project-type, where it helps to cast a project into one bucket or another in order to get at what makes them different.) The former, a focus on the outside impact, results in something with which it's easy to objectively identify and praise, because it's more objectively "compatible" with more people and teams. A Maya team goes "we get this" partially because it works with them on a level. It crosses the objective barrier and works with people who prefer another set of keyboard shortcuts and window layouts. And so the Blender team gets more of that outside-in encouragement from a broader base, IMO. And again, this doesn't make GIMP faulty, just different. The latter type of focus, the internal focus, asks "what do _we_ want to do, what interests _us_ as a team, what's next for _us_" and I believe that's always been a feature of GIMP's existence. When you understand GIMP you can talk to core developers. When you begin to push on it, and compare it to Photoshop, you become the problem much faster than you would in other communities, because you're not focused on what GIMP is. So the GIMP project might have this objective-world blind spot, as evidenced by a HN thread full of change requests :-) but it's a trade-off for a high level of internal, subjective quality which can be observed if you _look at GIMP for what it is_ and really figure it out. I mean, I use the software every day, and there are so many little things that make me miss it when I have to use something like PS. > so they will not be able to spend this money effectively Quite the opposite--I'm certain it will be spent effectively. No doubt about that at all. What I'm saying is that it would probably not be realistic to hope that it is spent the exact same way that a Blender fan would really appreciate. And that's OK and even a good thing.