4 ms·

Gimp does have 48-bit colour, ever since they added GEGL support. And really, Pantone? You can't even accurately display Pantone on monitors, as Photoshop tell

Gimp does have 48-bit colour, ever since they added GEGL support. And really, Pantone? You can't even accurately display Pantone on monitors, as Photoshop tells you if you've even used that feature. You only use Pantone colours for the printer. Lastly, gamma? You can apply a gamma layer if you'd really like to. I don't see what the big deal is. I guess I should conclude this by saying "Stop spreading the FUD" but you likely just heard those buzz-phrases from a friend and are repeating them here. Gimp is a wonderful and professional program that performs quite well for most people's needs. It most certainly is "on the table".

tdonia 18y ago
while it is true that you cannot accurately display Pantone on screen, Pantone colors are essential for getting things printed correctly & good graphic (print) designers know exactly how their screen representation might differ from the paper prints. I agree that the gimp is functionally good for many users, but right now it's caught in a weird space splitting 2 markets rather than committing to one. if it is intended to be a complete alternate to photoshop, great, make it so. you can start with the list above, but there are many other features beyond those that are similar but not the same. if the intent is not to be a replica of photoshop & rather to provide a photo editing tool that covers a wider market (that maybe doesn't need Pantone/print integrity) that's fine too - but then they've got a lot of work to do in making the experience friendly to that wider/non-photoshopper market. I don't think the parent was spreading FUD, rather, i think gimp needs to be more clear about setting expectations. maybe it's just a me-problem that doesn't apply outside this anecdote, but i've tried to get convinced by gimp many times through many versions and it's always hit that uncanny valley that inspired too much fear, uncertainty & doubt to become part of my everyday workflow.
gaius 18y ago
I don't see what the big deal is. Evidently not. Whereas I am a photographer and I speak from having evaluated GIMP for my own use (and I'm hardly a high-end fashion or advertising pro, I do a few weddings a year) and found it lacking. It's hysterical claims that free-X is a perfect substitute for commercial-Y when it's simply not true that do the most harm to free software's credibility.
- kaens 18y ago
  Could I inquire as to how much time you put into "evaluating" the GIMP?
  - kaens 18y ago
    Or I guess you could just downmod me. I was curious, that's all. I'm not a image-manipulation person (the largest amount of image-manipulation I've done involved porting an algorithm to do some stuff from C++ to python), only have cursory experience with both Photoshop and the GIMP, but have heard both "It's no replacement!" and "It's a perfectly good replacement" from people I know who do have a lot of experience with image-manipulation. I know, for instance, that the interface is wildly different than photoshop's, and was curious as to how much time you had invested into examining it.
    - gaius 18y ago
      I dunno who downmodded you but it wasn't me. I suspect it was your use of quotes around evaluating. If your friends are targetting web output, GIMP may be perfectly adequate.
      - kaens 18y ago
        Yeah, re-reading my comment, I'm not sure why I put quotes there in the first place.
  - gaius 18y ago
    I ran my wedding workflow through it. Don't get me wrong, GIMP is not a bad program. I particularly appreciate it being scriptable in Python, which is my day-to-day bread-and-butter language. But for professional (i.e. stuff that people pay money for) photography targetting print output, it's nowhere near Photoshop - and it's very clear that the authors of GIMP don't understand why. At Adobe, they listen to photographers and designers and the programmers understand that they're not the domain experts. In the GIMP camp they suffer from the same problem as most open-source projects; people who can't code aren't really taken seriously.

tdonia 18y ago

while it is true that you cannot accurately display Pantone on screen, Pantone colors are essential for getting things printed correctly & good graphic (print) designers know exactly how their screen representation might differ from the paper prints. I agree that the gimp is functionally good for many users, but right now it's caught in a weird space splitting 2 markets rather than committing to one. if it is intended to be a complete alternate to photoshop, great, make it so. you can start with the list above, but there are many other features beyond those that are similar but not the same. if the intent is not to be a replica of photoshop & rather to provide a photo editing tool that covers a wider market (that maybe doesn't need Pantone/print integrity) that's fine too - but then they've got a lot of work to do in making the experience friendly to that wider/non-photoshopper market. I don't think the parent was spreading FUD, rather, i think gimp needs to be more clear about setting expectations. maybe it's just a me-problem that doesn't apply outside this anecdote, but i've tried to get convinced by gimp many times through many versions and it's always hit that uncanny valley that inspired too much fear, uncertainty & doubt to become part of my everyday workflow.

gaius 18y ago

I don't see what the big deal is. Evidently not. Whereas I am a photographer and I speak from having evaluated GIMP for my own use (and I'm hardly a high-end fashion or advertising pro, I do a few weddings a year) and found it lacking. It's hysterical claims that free-X is a perfect substitute for commercial-Y when it's simply not true that do the most harm to free software's credibility.

kaens 18y ago
Could I inquire as to how much time you put into "evaluating" the GIMP?
- kaens 18y ago
  Or I guess you could just downmod me. I was curious, that's all. I'm not a image-manipulation person (the largest amount of image-manipulation I've done involved porting an algorithm to do some stuff from C++ to python), only have cursory experience with both Photoshop and the GIMP, but have heard both "It's no replacement!" and "It's a perfectly good replacement" from people I know who do have a lot of experience with image-manipulation. I know, for instance, that the interface is wildly different than photoshop's, and was curious as to how much time you had invested into examining it.
  - gaius 18y ago
    I dunno who downmodded you but it wasn't me. I suspect it was your use of quotes around evaluating. If your friends are targetting web output, GIMP may be perfectly adequate.
    - kaens 18y ago
      Yeah, re-reading my comment, I'm not sure why I put quotes there in the first place.
- gaius 18y ago
  I ran my wedding workflow through it. Don't get me wrong, GIMP is not a bad program. I particularly appreciate it being scriptable in Python, which is my day-to-day bread-and-butter language. But for professional (i.e. stuff that people pay money for) photography targetting print output, it's nowhere near Photoshop - and it's very clear that the authors of GIMP don't understand why. At Adobe, they listen to photographers and designers and the programmers understand that they're not the domain experts. In the GIMP camp they suffer from the same problem as most open-source projects; people who can't code aren't really taken seriously.