Related to that, Jacob Boerema has implemented PSD Descriptor import support. Most of our current PSD support has been based on the the public Adobe specification. This document was last updated in 2019 however, and modern PSDs use a relatively undocumented text format called Descriptors to store many features.
The battle tested strategy of only providing old standards to others, like MS does.
Don't use PSDs? I know people will say, "it's not as simple as that, they're industry standard", but if you say you'll only accept professional work in an open format, and you're the client, you have the control to change things.
GIMP is all about letting people to open and edit any image files.
Whether it is a medical images format (DICOM), bitmap image only used on smart message, (Nokia's Over The Air Bitmap), to open experimental niche format (Jeff's Image Format).
My way into CAD software was 1. Dealing with DXF editors like QCAD. 2. Trying to tackle parametric CAD, I ran Onshape's tutorials, they have pretty good technique tutorials, like how to draft a paperclip, that are applicable to most parametric CAD packages. Then learning how FreeCAD's spreadsheet works.
FreeCAD has a full-on spreadsheet built in, now it's feature poor compared to Excel or LOCalc but you can store and calculate dimensions there and then use them in the main drawing. Other software has features that accomplish this but it's not as flexible and familiar as a spreadsheet. FreeCAD has some usability issues but everything else out there is either drawbackware or subscription.
This is true of pretty much all software. So many people expect to be able to pick up LibreOffice office and use it like they use MS office and then get immediately irritated the button doesnât look exactly the same and give up.
I got irritated by the differences, but I was more irritated by Microslop, so it was the lesser of two irritants. I mostly figured it out eventually. Finding H2 is always at the bottom of the entire style list though for some fucking reason like there's no excuse for that kind of mild irritation
Y'know what maybe I will. Fuelled by the power of irritation I'll try and fix it. If anyone's reading this in a few months and the header tags are in a logical order; you're welcome
you're right, but i need people to understand that this is simply not a workable solution for most people. the simple fact is if we want the average person to adopt more open source alternatives, it needs to improve usability even without their help. it's not really enough to only cater to us power user nerds with "good enough," and it doesn't win hearts and minds to handwave complaints and tell people to come back with a patch.
We are talking about software built by, in many cases, volunteers. The only way it will get better, or good enough for the average person, is if those who can help do so. The only real alternative in practice is open source the way IBM, Google, and Oracle do it, and they wouldnât do that anyway if the volunteers didnât exist.
I remember a guy telling me back in 2015 or so that Gimp was designed for having 2 monitors. At first I tought it made no sense but some yers after I got the chance to try and it way more comfortable to put all toollboxes in a separate monitor.
Expecting it to be the exact same and working in an expected way are different. Blender used to select with RMB instead of LMB like every other program in existence, is it really the users fault for finding that stupid?
Following expectations and having a "smooth" workflow is something to aim for unless the standard is really bad. No need to fix what ain't broken
Again, no, because Affinity is more similar to photoshop.
What exactly, is the "crap" part of gimps UX? I never had an issue with it.
Then again I really liked it when all the elements are not in the same space, it is very similar to high production work using multi monitors and having the actual canvas the focus.
As always, it depends what you're using it for and what your UI expectations are. But for me in particular, some people I've worked with, and presumably others, it can definitely "compete". It does everything I need it to, and my workflow is faster. And I can throw a copy onto any old machine without having to jump through licensing hoops or download a "download manager" or whatever bolt-on shit PS needs these days.
Early on, for me, the killer feature was that it started up about 10x as quickly as PS, so I could start it, work, close it, get on with other work, whereas PS was so drearily slow that I'd leave it running all day rather than wait for it to launch, which meant that I had about half my RAM available for other things. It's better now, and a lot of that has been obsoleted by faster CPUs and more resources in everyone's computer, but I still remember how much of a chore it was to use PS.
First thing I always do is set icon scheme to have colors. I don't know who thought monochrome for the tools was a good idea, but it takes me twice as long to find anything.
Personally, I struggled somewhat until I've found the Search and Run a Command action. It's bound to / on the keyboard by default I think. Otherwise accessible via Menu > Help > Search and Run a Command.
So if I'm clueless where a certain action is in the menu, I just press /, then type my action as I think it could be named, then try it out. This, together with simply my memory of how to do things, covers 97% of my needs. One time out of 20 or 50 I encounter something that I don't know, at which point I duckduckgo, and the experience can be much worse.
Would you say this flow sucks? Or actually, it's fine? It's up to you to decide that.
Using / is awesome. Even if you know where things are in the menu it's usually quicker to just type the first few letters and smash enter. I use it all the time.
which part do you dislike? maybe because it fits my mental model very well, but i find the ui to be very intuitive overall. keyboard shortcuts are also pretty simple..
and there's some user made config that makes its ui and keybinds work like adobe photoshop if thats what youre used to
Finding things just feels unintuitive. Like I can never find how to do a basic task like cropping. Or resizing a layer, it does shit like grabs the layer under sometimes, ir just resizes the selection box instead of the selection.
I've been using GIMP for over a decade. It's slowly starting to become one of the leading sources of frustration in my computing life. The more I learn about it the less it makes any sense.
Not trying to be negative here. Just saying that a modernization is much needed and I'm really excited for this.
ironically i find inkscape vastly more intimidating than gimp, inkscape's interface is barely comprehensible at all whereas gimp is just slightly clunky.
I used to work in schools IT and I managed to get a lot of FOSS tools into regular use amongst both staff and students; Audacity, Libre Office, Firefox, even Debian in a few IT labs... but the one that never stuck was GIMP because no teacher is going to tell their class they'll be using GIMP today.
I know this is a tired point and will probably never be fixed, but that name causes more problems than anything else.
This is always interesting to hear because as someone who went school in a non English speaking country, GIMP was obviously never an issue. In most of the world the name isn't an issue.
I only learned about that alternative meaning years later.
i completely switched to Affinity suit some 3 years ago at work. I was so excited when the affinity4linux install script dropped. but performance makes it near useless. slow and stuttering.
here is for hoping gimp and inkscape can one day match.
It is shocking how well-designed the Affinity apps feel on the iPad. I'm not entirely fond of everything being stuffed away in menus, but I see why they did it, and overall I've rarely felt so positively surprised about pleasant UX.
Now if only they hadn't been bought by Canva⌠well, at least I still have my old Affinity 2 Suite.
The hope is that over time, designers will get more comfortable and work on larger design challenges (like how new code contributors start small and hopefully grow to develop more complex features)
Blender is astounding at how much it can do, but boy does it feel like a project that suffered major scope creep. There seems to be years worth of "but what if it could also do this?" attached to it. As a novice Blender user I still find the UI incredibly difficult to work with.
@Hadriscus@phoenixz Just FYI, that's from our testing page (note the subdomain), so it'll give you a 404 again once we push it from drafts to the live site.
For the file format, would have been JSON instead XML not the better format? Its lighter and easier to parse and write, meaning more performant than XML.
XML is not really superior to JSON as an image editing file format. EDIT: XML is better, if you want to keep a readable source format with markup. But that is not what a format for an image editing tool like GIMP should be needed for in my opinion.
No, they are both not really suitable for that. But I don't see where the link in the OP implies they plan to store binary image data in XML, they're probably going to store that in a binary format and use XML to describe relationships and other metadata.
The GEGL buffers we use for image data in GIMP can be synced across files, so this new format will allow us to quickly auto-save the image/layer/etc to file as you make edits. Still in-progress work, but it's really cool.
Iâm gunna disagree with you XML comes with validators and versioning as part of the XML spec. You can validate XML files against XSD descriptors that can be published and even referenced by the XML file.
The only downside of XML over json is that XML is verbose AF.
Strict validators, versioning, checking, and definitions is EXACTLY what you want in a storage format.
JSON comes with builtin data formats that XML lacks, that's why you have such overhead with additional validation. Everything in XML is treated as strings, and there are lot of stuff like entities that is totally unneeded for a file format like in GIMP. XML Schema is needed because the format is extremely complicated unlike JSON, if you have no other validation. GIMP itself has validation builtin already.
You have it mostly backwards. XML has like 40+ types that are all standardized. JSON only has the basic JS types. XML is a superset of JSON when it comes to types.
How would you represent a double float, or binary data, or a datatime in JSON. You would have to use strings in JSON. In XML you would use the xsd:double, xsd:binary, and xsd:dateTime.
JSON only works if you think in JavaScript. For languages with more complete / complex data systems it does not do unless you resort to the string thing.
As for validation I think âright tool for the right jobâ is the best approach here. How do you know your validator is validating correctly? Thatâs the beauty of XML. Validation is part of the spec. XML is more complicated, but only because itâs more capable than json. Just like protobuf is more complicated than JSON. Itâs also more complicated and not centered on JSON types.
JSON items donât have attributes, which sometimes makes queries outside of a specific path or across domains difficult or impossible.
âBut if you take the time to design your objects correctlyâŚâ
Or they could just choose the format that already does what is needed instead of worrying about building and maintaining serialization layers to shoehorn in a functionality that they could get for free by picking the correct format in the first place.
Also why are we having this argument? XML isnât going away, REST already beat SOAP, and JSON is harder to read. Compressed XML is only about 10% larger than compressed JSON, and weâre talking about the metadata of a layered image file so thatâs like 16kb vs 15kb.
I found a Stack Overflow thread where people discuss this and actually test it. Further down the page is a 2026 test. The results are it's basically the same, very little practical difference in normal usage. If you're auto saving a file every 30 seconds you will not notice any difference between XML and JSON.
Personally, I like XML more for data files like this. I would not reach for JSON as my first thought for deserealizing a complex object hierarchy. Stuff like, a polygon can have a drawing of type vector which can have n paths which each have exactly 2 points⌠easy to store and validate in XML. Quite messy and complicated in JSON.
Performance doesn't matter unless you are dealing with gigabytes of xml. And ease of parsing/writing is irrelevant when it's done under the hood by the program.
Performance matters a lot, because program can autosave in quick sessions after simple steps. Even more important if multiple images are edited or loaded. While this is not the biggest improvement, it is still something to keep in mind. Performance should always be a priority. Programs will keep expanding and add bloat over time, so its good to have a format like that in mind.
You should always measure first before blindly following dogmas. I doubt that the choice of serialization format is what dominates processor time in this case.
You should always measure first before blindly following dogmas.
Then you follow it by doubting it without measuring:
I doubt that the choice of serialization format is what dominates processor time in this case.
Also note I was not just speaking of today, but with future additions and changes. You can't measure the future, but you can plan ahead and build upon a good foundation, that the small format can be used for extending it in future. That's the idea. Also to test what you suggest they have to build the entire system years and waste lot of time and effort.
That would produce so many priceless weirded out faces when you tell someone you love GIMP and use that acronym and they don't know what you are referring to.
Why should they change the name just for the vanity of Americans who have a dual meaning for the word, and make it difficult for the whole rest of the world to find tutorials and documentation going back decades?
It's not just awkward for Americans, but for the entire English speaking world - at least 470 million people. How can anyone seriously recommend a business use a program called GIMP? It is a massive hurdle to adoption in the corporate world. They should change the name, or at least create a business-oriented alias.
I mean my business has no problem using it here in the motherland of the English language...?
Any time we talk to a client about it they are just happy to hear that we're using software that doesn't ingest their work into AI, crash in the middle of consultations, and produces working files that will be usable forever.
This comes up every time GIMP is mentioned. To be honest, outside US and UK (and few others) for the rest of the world the word GIMP has no negative meaning (no meaning at all). So, yeah, maybe who cares about the name? Well, change it if it's really a problem. But, is it really a problem?
Fair point is GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) doesn't sound as a reasonable acronym. I would maybe find a better acronym, but changing the name itself feels like changing the name of the town of Bra in Italy or the town of Fuck in Austria, or why not, even the town of Love in Sweden... Good luck if we need to only find and use names that do not offend anybody in any language of the world.
Krita, the main FOSS competitor to GIMP, feels a much worse sounding name to me. By the way, i read GIMP with a soft G (like a j) not even as English speakers do pronounce it.
Honestly I think some people just want to be offended. "Oh I can't use this in class because of the name" is complete nonsense. If the faculty are going to immediately assume you're doing weird sex things with the kids then you've got bigger communication problems.
If we're considering just the US, Canada, UK, NZ and Australia, that's at least 470 million people for whom the name is problematic. As an enthusiastic Australian user, there's no way I would recommend a program called GIMP to my higher-ups.
Unlike the towns of Bra or Fuck in Austria, the acronym GIMP was chosen specifically because of its edgy double meaning.
in corporate environments i've worked in in aussie for decades, the worst you can expect is a chuckle at the name.
yes, i'm sure there are more prudish organisations.
but it's 100% wrong to equate all english speaking nations to the US dip shitery.
getting the average graphic designer to consider anything other then adobe is like getting IT to consider anything other then MS... that is holding adoption back far more then anything to do with the name.
139 Comments
SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml · 118 pts · 1d
The battle tested strategy of only providing old standards to others, like MS does.
moopet@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 6h
Don't use PSDs? I know people will say, "it's not as simple as that, they're industry standard", but if you say you'll only accept professional work in an open format, and you're the client, you have the control to change things.
nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 6h
It's not about not using PSD.
GIMP is all about letting people to open and edit any image files. Whether it is a medical images format (DICOM), bitmap image only used on smart message, (Nokia's Over The Air Bitmap), to open experimental niche format (Jeff's Image Format).
Damage@feddit.it · 74 pts · 1d
I've recently tried using GIMP again and, as a past detractor, I've gotta say it's improved significantly.
purplemonkeymad@programming.dev · 86 pts · 1d
Honestly so much better when they moved away from the "everything is a floating window" interface. I can find stuff now.
moopet@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 6h
I really liked the floating window approach. I don't mind the new way, but I enjoyed the floaties when they were the default.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 22h
exactly. i've used photoshop professionally and tried gimp then.
gimp is not quite there yet, but the potential can now be seen.
l3mming@lemmy.world · 16 pts · 18h
To be fair, Photoshop peaked about 10 years ago and has been steadily getting worse. It's only a matter of time before they're neck and neck.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 18h
i pin it around the time they turned it into a subscription with CC. is that 10 years ago already?
finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 16h
It was in the ballpark of 2014-15ish IIRC, so a little over ten years
freely1333@reddthat.com · 16 pts · 21h
Not to down on them too much but this comment is kind of funny in the context of a 30 year old program.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 20h
if you think about it, phones are where the "new" programs actually are.
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 47 pts · 1d
GIMP is shaping up to be (and actually already is IMO) the best editor out there for nondestructive work.
AmyAye@nord.pub · 23 pts · 1d
Does the UX still suck though?
moldy_rice@piefed.keyboardvagabond.com · 70 pts · 1d
Nope. You just made the mistake of learning something else first and expecting other tools to match it
holy_scroller@lemmy.zip · 28 pts · 1d
This is me with all CAD software đ
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 20h
My way into CAD software was 1. Dealing with DXF editors like QCAD. 2. Trying to tackle parametric CAD, I ran Onshape's tutorials, they have pretty good technique tutorials, like how to draft a paperclip, that are applicable to most parametric CAD packages. Then learning how FreeCAD's spreadsheet works.
FreeCAD has a full-on spreadsheet built in, now it's feature poor compared to Excel or LOCalc but you can store and calculate dimensions there and then use them in the main drawing. Other software has features that accomplish this but it's not as flexible and familiar as a spreadsheet. FreeCAD has some usability issues but everything else out there is either drawbackware or subscription.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 14h
Something new to learn for me. Didn't know FreeCAD had that.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 14h
I started with FreeCAD. Never changed đ
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 16 pts · 1d
This is true of pretty much all software. So many people expect to be able to pick up LibreOffice office and use it like they use MS office and then get immediately irritated the button doesnât look exactly the same and give up.
AmyAye@nord.pub · 6 pts · 22h
Yeah butlike, I am using Calc, and I use the arrows, and it just, moves the view instead of which cell is selected, which feels really backwards.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 16 pts · 22h
I don't recall that to be normal.
I had to check because that sounded crazy. So maybe your scroll lock key is on? If so Excel does the same thing.
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 0 pts · 23h
I got irritated by the differences, but I was more irritated by Microslop, so it was the lesser of two irritants. I mostly figured it out eventually. Finding H2 is always at the bottom of the entire style list though for some fucking reason like there's no excuse for that kind of mild irritation
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 23h
You could always move it and submit a pull request. That is one of the beauties of open source!
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 22h
Y'know what maybe I will. Fuelled by the power of irritation I'll try and fix it. If anyone's reading this in a few months and the header tags are in a logical order; you're welcome
anewfox@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 22h
you're right, but i need people to understand that this is simply not a workable solution for most people. the simple fact is if we want the average person to adopt more open source alternatives, it needs to improve usability even without their help. it's not really enough to only cater to us power user nerds with "good enough," and it doesn't win hearts and minds to handwave complaints and tell people to come back with a patch.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 22h
We are talking about software built by, in many cases, volunteers. The only way it will get better, or good enough for the average person, is if those who can help do so. The only real alternative in practice is open source the way IBM, Google, and Oracle do it, and they wouldnât do that anyway if the volunteers didnât exist.
S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 15 pts · 1d
I remember a guy telling me back in 2015 or so that Gimp was designed for having 2 monitors. At first I tought it made no sense but some yers after I got the chance to try and it way more comfortable to put all toollboxes in a separate monitor.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 2 pts · 8h
That explains a lot of stuff actually
CybranM@feddit.nu · 15 pts · 22h
Expecting it to be the exact same and working in an expected way are different. Blender used to select with RMB instead of LMB like every other program in existence, is it really the users fault for finding that stupid?
Following expectations and having a "smooth" workflow is something to aim for unless the standard is really bad. No need to fix what ain't broken
digital_alchemist@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 13h
There's a name for this phenomenon: the Software Imprinting Dilemma.
AmyAye@nord.pub · 5 pts · 22h
I mean, sort of? I picked up Affinity Photo from Photoshop pretty quick because the UX isn't crap.
NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip · 7 pts · 22h
Again, no, because Affinity is more similar to photoshop.
What exactly, is the "crap" part of gimps UX? I never had an issue with it.
Then again I really liked it when all the elements are not in the same space, it is very similar to high production work using multi monitors and having the actual canvas the focus.
sibachian@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 20h
i disagree. i started out on paint shop pro. moved to adobe. and then to affinity.
i have given gimp several chances through the years and it just can't compete.
moopet@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 6h
As always, it depends what you're using it for and what your UI expectations are. But for me in particular, some people I've worked with, and presumably others, it can definitely "compete". It does everything I need it to, and my workflow is faster. And I can throw a copy onto any old machine without having to jump through licensing hoops or download a "download manager" or whatever bolt-on shit PS needs these days.
Early on, for me, the killer feature was that it started up about 10x as quickly as PS, so I could start it, work, close it, get on with other work, whereas PS was so drearily slow that I'd leave it running all day rather than wait for it to launch, which meant that I had about half my RAM available for other things. It's better now, and a lot of that has been obsoleted by faster CPUs and more resources in everyone's computer, but I still remember how much of a chore it was to use PS.
monovergent@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 22h
First thing I always do is set icon scheme to have colors. I don't know who thought monochrome for the tools was a good idea, but it takes me twice as long to find anything.
vas@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 7h
Personally, I struggled somewhat until I've found the
Search and Run a Commandaction. It's bound to/on the keyboard by default I think. Otherwise accessible viaMenu > Help > Search and Run a Command.So if I'm clueless where a certain action is in the menu, I just press
/, then type my action as I think it could be named, then try it out. This, together with simply my memory of how to do things, covers 97% of my needs. One time out of 20 or 50 I encounter something that I don't know, at which point I duckduckgo, and the experience can be much worse.Would you say this flow sucks? Or actually, it's fine? It's up to you to decide that.
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 5h
Using / is awesome. Even if you know where things are in the menu it's usually quicker to just type the first few letters and smash enter. I use it all the time.
hexagonwin@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 22h
which part do you dislike? maybe because it fits my mental model very well, but i find the ui to be very intuitive overall. keyboard shortcuts are also pretty simple..
and there's some user made config that makes its ui and keybinds work like adobe photoshop if thats what youre used to
AmyAye@nord.pub · 6 pts · 19h
Finding things just feels unintuitive. Like I can never find how to do a basic task like cropping. Or resizing a layer, it does shit like grabs the layer under sometimes, ir just resizes the selection box instead of the selection.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 5 pts · 5h
It's been perfectly fine for years, could certainly be made easier to visually parse but like.. it does the job, it works, it's fine.
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 5h
When did it suck?
I've been using it professionally for the last 3 years or so and it's no worse for UX than Photoshop, the 'industry standard'.
Both GIMP and photoshop are very sophisticated and technical software (although Photoshop is becoming less so I should add).
People who have want a leaner set of tools should have a look at something like Tux Paint.
AmyAye@nord.pub · 1 pts · 4h
Maybe its better. I have used it off and on for like, 20 years or more now. It was crap for a looong time.
Fmstrat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 14h
I stopped using GIMP for Krita, but it looks like GIMP's nondestructive has come a long way.
replicat@lemmy.world · 39 pts · 16h
I've been using GIMP for over a decade. It's slowly starting to become one of the leading sources of frustration in my computing life. The more I learn about it the less it makes any sense.
Not trying to be negative here. Just saying that a modernization is much needed and I'm really excited for this.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca · 12 pts · 14h
Try FreeCAD if you really want to suffer.
dev_null@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 7h
FreeCAD had improved massively since the recent 1.0 release, unlike GIMP...
melroy@kbin.melroy.org · 5 pts · 15h
Honestly I switched to Inkscape more and more. Especially for logos.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 6 pts · 5h
ironically i find inkscape vastly more intimidating than gimp, inkscape's interface is barely comprehensible at all whereas gimp is just slightly clunky.
melroy@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 1h
It took me only 20 years to convince myself to Inkscape more. But it's worth it. đ
rmuk@feddit.uk · 36 pts · 15h
I used to work in schools IT and I managed to get a lot of FOSS tools into regular use amongst both staff and students; Audacity, Libre Office, Firefox, even Debian in a few IT labs... but the one that never stuck was GIMP because no teacher is going to tell their class they'll be using GIMP today.
I know this is a tired point and will probably never be fixed, but that name causes more problems than anything else.
khaleer@sopuli.xyz · 15 pts · 7h
I only learned about this "negative connotation" from people yelling about how GIMP name is bad.
dev_null@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 7h
This is always interesting to hear because as someone who went school in a non English speaking country, GIMP was obviously never an issue. In most of the world the name isn't an issue.
I only learned about that alternative meaning years later.
IronBird@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 7h
monkey paw curls, we keep it gimp but pronounce it gimp
cabbagepatchcrabs@retrolemmy.com · 3 pts · 3h
How dare you make me sound that out in my head.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 2 pts · 2h
...
Zink@programming.dev · 5 pts · 3h
Well shit, I never cared about the name but this convinced me because adoption and teaching about FOSS matters more.
polotype@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 7h
Could you eli5 why gimp doesn't work as a name, i genuenly don't know...
renrenPDX@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 7h
Itâs a derogatory term as well as a BDSM term.
polotype@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 4h
Ahhh ok noted
Piatro@programming.dev · 1 pts · 13m
Genuine question, how did you know BDSM but not gimp?
Horsey@lemmy.world · 30 pts · 20h
Leaving this here for Photoshop converts
https://github.com/Diolinux/Photogimp
I use Affinity full time at the moment, but if they ever go paid, Iâm running straight to GIMP.
sibachian@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 20h
i completely switched to Affinity suit some 3 years ago at work. I was so excited when the affinity4linux install script dropped. but performance makes it near useless. slow and stuttering.
here is for hoping gimp and inkscape can one day match.
Horsey@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 20h
My thing is that I use the iPad app with the pencil. The last time I tried GIMP it was great.
CatLikeLemming@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 16h
It is shocking how well-designed the Affinity apps feel on the iPad. I'm not entirely fond of everything being stuffed away in menus, but I see why they did it, and overall I've rarely felt so positively surprised about pleasant UX.
Now if only they hadn't been bought by Canva⌠well, at least I still have my old Affinity 2 Suite.
umbrella@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 16h
shoutout to diolinux. he does youtube too and is a great advocate for linux and foss.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world · 26 pts · 7h
The UI needs a global overhaul since the day one and still nobody talks about it
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org · 9 pts · 2h
@BlackLaZoR @Vosh I think lots of people talk about it. :)
We have a dedicated UX site for people share to feedback on that very topic, which we try to implement as we can: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/GIMP/Design/gimp-ux/-/work/_items
The hope is that over time, designers will get more comfortable and work on larger design challenges (like how new code contributors start small and hopefully grow to develop more complex features)
GideonD@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 5h
I've been using Photo Gimp plugin with it for years. Otherwise the interface would be an absolute mess.
lemmur420@lemmy.ml · 25 pts · 1d
Very interesting, thanks for the update.
edit: I also love how the article credits every individual contributor for the new features they made, a very nice way to celebrate the group effort
Zephyr@sh.itjust.works · 15 pts · 16h
I've always wanted to see gimp on the same level of blender.
dellish@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 7h
Blender is astounding at how much it can do, but boy does it feel like a project that suffered major scope creep. There seems to be years worth of "but what if it could also do this?" attached to it. As a novice Blender user I still find the UI incredibly difficult to work with.
avocado@programming.dev · 15 pts · 14h
Krita for the win if you just need the drawing part. Left Gimp long time ago for Krita and never looked back.
janus2@lemmy.zip · 12 pts · 15h
they better add a fucking draw circle tool istg
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org · 4 pts · 14h
@janus2 @Vosh You'll be happy to know it's in the cards. Proof of Concept now that we have vector layers: https://fosstodon.org/@CmykStudent/116455148076446506
I haven't touched it lately since a new contributor was interested in implementing it, but one way or the other I hope to get it into 3.4.
Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 5h
it exists lol, just make a circle selection and then "stroke selection"
Inkstainthebat@pawb.social · 1 pts · 33m
Still bothered it doesn't have a preview tho
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 22h
The page 404s
What is the upgrade?
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 12 pts · 22h
I think that's the new page : https://testing.gimp.org/news/2026/08/16/dev-update-august-2026/
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org · 6 pts · 21h
@Hadriscus @phoenixz Just FYI, that's from our testing page (note the subdomain), so it'll give you a 404 again once we push it from drafts to the live site.
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 2 pts · 21h
ah, the whole thing's a draft. I understand now
leavemealone@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 21h
Logo change!
manuallybreathing@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 3h
I love GIMP and no amount of tedious naysaying will ever change my mind
pelya@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 6h
Use Krita instead. It has a big tiddy anime waifu right on the splash screen.
nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 3h
Different project scope tho.
Krita does not support random niche format like GIMP.
Rooster326@programming.dev · 3 pts · 2h
Yes but the UI is đŻ easier to use.
The number 1 problem with GIMP is poor UI in my experience.
Asfalttikyntaja@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 2h
Now you got me.
somegeek@programming.dev · 10 pts · 21h
We <3 GIMP
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 1d
For the file format, would have been JSON instead XML not the better format? Its lighter and easier to parse and write, meaning more performant than XML.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 27 pts · 1d
IMHO: XML is superior as a document storage format. JSON is superior as a data transfer format.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 1d
XML is not really superior to JSON as an image editing file format. EDIT: XML is better, if you want to keep a readable source format with markup. But that is not what a format for an image editing tool like GIMP should be needed for in my opinion.
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de · 15 pts · 1d
No, they are both not really suitable for that. But I don't see where the link in the OP implies they plan to store binary image data in XML, they're probably going to store that in a binary format and use XML to describe relationships and other metadata.
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org · 7 pts · 22h
@schnurrito @thingsiplay Yes, the XML is for file structure descriptions not binary data.
The GEGL buffers we use for image data in GIMP can be synced across files, so this new format will allow us to quickly auto-save the image/layer/etc to file as you make edits. Still in-progress work, but it's really cool.
mholiv@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 1d
Iâm gunna disagree with you XML comes with validators and versioning as part of the XML spec. You can validate XML files against XSD descriptors that can be published and even referenced by the XML file.
The only downside of XML over json is that XML is verbose AF.
Strict validators, versioning, checking, and definitions is EXACTLY what you want in a storage format.
ODF is also XML. It makes sense here.
More information for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Schema_(W3C)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 1d
JSON comes with builtin data formats that XML lacks, that's why you have such overhead with additional validation. Everything in XML is treated as strings, and there are lot of stuff like entities that is totally unneeded for a file format like in GIMP. XML Schema is needed because the format is extremely complicated unlike JSON, if you have no other validation. GIMP itself has validation builtin already.
mholiv@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1d
You have it mostly backwards. XML has like 40+ types that are all standardized. JSON only has the basic JS types. XML is a superset of JSON when it comes to types.
How would you represent a double float, or binary data, or a datatime in JSON. You would have to use strings in JSON. In XML you would use the xsd:double, xsd:binary, and xsd:dateTime.
JSON only works if you think in JavaScript. For languages with more complete / complex data systems it does not do unless you resort to the string thing.
For your information:
Easier to read: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/jfsm/1.1.2.1?topic=queries-xsd-data-types
The official spec: https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
As for validation I think âright tool for the right jobâ is the best approach here. How do you know your validator is validating correctly? Thatâs the beauty of XML. Validation is part of the spec. XML is more complicated, but only because itâs more capable than json. Just like protobuf is more complicated than JSON. Itâs also more complicated and not centered on JSON types.
4am@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 1d
JSON items donât have attributes, which sometimes makes queries outside of a specific path or across domains difficult or impossible.
âBut if you take the time to design your objects correctlyâŚâ
Or they could just choose the format that already does what is needed instead of worrying about building and maintaining serialization layers to shoehorn in a functionality that they could get for free by picking the correct format in the first place.
Also why are we having this argument? XML isnât going away, REST already beat SOAP, and JSON is harder to read. Compressed XML is only about 10% larger than compressed JSON, and weâre talking about the metadata of a layered image file so thatâs like 16kb vs 15kb.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 1d
As explained, its not about the compressed size only. I am talking about uncompressed data that is live patched.
Zarobi@aussie.zone · 9 pts · 22h
I found a Stack Overflow thread where people discuss this and actually test it. Further down the page is a 2026 test. The results are it's basically the same, very little practical difference in normal usage. If you're auto saving a file every 30 seconds you will not notice any difference between XML and JSON.
Personally, I like XML more for data files like this. I would not reach for JSON as my first thought for deserealizing a complex object hierarchy. Stuff like, a polygon can have a drawing of type vector which can have n paths which each have exactly 2 points⌠easy to store and validate in XML. Quite messy and complicated in JSON.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 6 pts · 1d
Performance doesn't matter unless you are dealing with gigabytes of xml. And ease of parsing/writing is irrelevant when it's done under the hood by the program.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 1d
Performance matters a lot, because program can autosave in quick sessions after simple steps. Even more important if multiple images are edited or loaded. While this is not the biggest improvement, it is still something to keep in mind. Performance should always be a priority. Programs will keep expanding and add bloat over time, so its good to have a format like that in mind.
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 1d
You should always measure first before blindly following dogmas. I doubt that the choice of serialization format is what dominates processor time in this case.
thingsiplay@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 1d
Then you follow it by doubting it without measuring:
Also note I was not just speaking of today, but with future additions and changes. You can't measure the future, but you can plan ahead and build upon a good foundation, that the small format can be used for extending it in future. That's the idea. Also to test what you suggest they have to build the entire system years and waste lot of time and effort.
l3mming@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 18h
Agreed. XML has been dead for at least 10 years. Still, at least it's not YAML.
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · -9 pts · 1d
Are they going to upgrade the name as well?
9point6@lemmy.world · 111 pts · 1d
Yeah I think they're going for something more straightforward that describes exactly what it's about
Brushes, Design, Shapes & Multimedia
schmorpel@slrpnk.net · 49 pts · 1d
To avoid confusion: BDSM, the FOSS formerly known as GIMP
dudesss@piefed.ca · 9 pts · 1d
I would not feel comfortable looking this up on a work computer.
Zarobi@aussie.zone · -1 pts · 22h
Did you feel comfortable searching to learn how to use GIMP?
l3mming@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 18h
Not at work. Certainly not.
HairyHarry@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1d
Or: Graphics, Images, Media & Print
BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 7 pts · 1d
Or else it will be a sub-module.
ByteMe@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
This would really mess up search results
BucketBong@p.hobo.social · 6 pts · 1d
Yeah, now I'm just gonna get screenshots of this app.
Eternal192@anarchist.nexus · 2 pts · 1d
That would produce so many priceless weirded out faces when you tell someone you love GIMP and use that acronym and they don't know what you are referring to.
Hadriscus@jlai.lu · 1 pts · 1d
nice one
Maroon@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 1d
Don't be silly. There's no better name than GIMP.
morto@piefed.social · 6 pts · 21h
Green Is My Pepper!
SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 1d
That's a US defaultism issue
Thunderbird4@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 5h
It was created in the US and named in specific reference to the offensive meaning of the word, so I would say that makes it pretty relevant.
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 12 pts · 1d
Why should they change the name just for the vanity of Americans who have a dual meaning for the word, and make it difficult for the whole rest of the world to find tutorials and documentation going back decades?
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 9h
have you not met many Americans ?
they're also big into CBT with their GIMP, or their therapist. i can never remember which one
l3mming@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 18h
It's not just awkward for Americans, but for the entire English speaking world - at least 470 million people. How can anyone seriously recommend a business use a program called GIMP? It is a massive hurdle to adoption in the corporate world. They should change the name, or at least create a business-oriented alias.
black0ut@pawb.social · 3 pts · 13h
So in order to make it less awkward for ~500M people, we should make it more awkward for the rest of the 7.8B people.
nasi_goreng@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 6h
English is diverse language and each regional English have their own offensive world that have different meaning in different English speaking area.
Maybe you should meet more Indian English speaker and Singaporean English speaker. Heck, Australian English invent various offensive word.
oeuf@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 5h
I mean my business has no problem using it here in the motherland of the English language...?
Any time we talk to a client about it they are just happy to hear that we're using software that doesn't ingest their work into AI, crash in the middle of consultations, and produces working files that will be usable forever.
anon_8675309@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 1d
Why? It describes succinctly what the app does.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 1d
I suppose the association with limping is a bit unfortunate. Although GIMP is an acronym.
The fact that a particular sub-culture has its own slang meaning for the word is irrelevant.
l3mming@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 18h
No it's not. It's very relevant - it's the reason I've never recommended the software to anyone outside of close friends.
Shimitar@downonthestreet.eu · 7 pts · 1d
This comes up every time GIMP is mentioned. To be honest, outside US and UK (and few others) for the rest of the world the word GIMP has no negative meaning (no meaning at all). So, yeah, maybe who cares about the name? Well, change it if it's really a problem. But, is it really a problem?
Fair point is GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) doesn't sound as a reasonable acronym. I would maybe find a better acronym, but changing the name itself feels like changing the name of the town of Bra in Italy or the town of Fuck in Austria, or why not, even the town of Love in Sweden... Good luck if we need to only find and use names that do not offend anybody in any language of the world.
Krita, the main FOSS competitor to GIMP, feels a much worse sounding name to me. By the way, i read GIMP with a soft G (like a j) not even as English speakers do pronounce it.
skisnow@lemmy.ca · 2 pts · 8h
Honestly I think some people just want to be offended. "Oh I can't use this in class because of the name" is complete nonsense. If the faculty are going to immediately assume you're doing weird sex things with the kids then you've got bigger communication problems.
l3mming@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 18h
If we're considering just the US, Canada, UK, NZ and Australia, that's at least 470 million people for whom the name is problematic. As an enthusiastic Australian user, there's no way I would recommend a program called GIMP to my higher-ups.
Unlike the towns of Bra or Fuck in Austria, the acronym GIMP was chosen specifically because of its edgy double meaning.
nbsp@programming.dev · 6 pts · 15h
in corporate environments i've worked in in aussie for decades, the worst you can expect is a chuckle at the name.
yes, i'm sure there are more prudish organisations.
but it's 100% wrong to equate all english speaking nations to the US dip shitery.
getting the average graphic designer to consider anything other then adobe is like getting IT to consider anything other then MS... that is holding adoption back far more then anything to do with the name.
black0ut@pawb.social · 3 pts · 13h
The acronym was chosen as a reference to a character in Pulp Fiction.
And just India has a population of 1.4 billion people, and it's a single country.
aim4harmony@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1d
GYMP? đŞâ¨đ¤
SkavarSharraddas@gehirneimer.de · 2 pts · 1d
Is anyone interested in having GIMP with another name doing the work to make that happen?
CmykStudent@fosstodon.org · 4 pts · 22h
@SkavarSharraddas @Vosh @AllNewTypeFace Actually, there's been "official" development on that front: https://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#i-dont-like-the-name-gimp-will-you-change-it
morto@piefed.social · 1 pts · 21h
There was a fork some time ago with that intention, but I think they ended up ceasing the project