Talk:GIMP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GIMP article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Free software Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Free Software, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve free software-related articles.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Comparison with other raster graphic programs

I'm working on the comparison between GIMP and Paint. Any help with that would be appreciated. Also, it would be nice if someone with knowlege of the diferences between GIMP and Corel PaintShop Pro would write something for that, I have hardly used it.

If you notice any bias/non-neutrality from me more than feel free to correct it; I want you to correct it. Dsavi.x4 (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plugin Interoperability

I found this interesting article about loading Photoshop plugins in the GIMP: http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/05/1828238

Does anyone know if the reverse is possible? Is there an adapter for loading GIMP plugins from Photoshop?

I think to list not being able to load your competitors plugins as a missing must need feature is a little unfair. Its not like they arn't implementing plugins what so ever, or thoose plugins follow some standardized plugin format (to my knowladge), so why would they implement them? Bawolff 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a program which compiles psp plugins for gimp but I have currentlly forgotten the name. Furthermore, i've never used it but try looking arround this site Gimptalk, Thats where I heard about it.--The Editor1111 11:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On Portal:Free software, GIMP is currently the selected article

(2007-01-29) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was RPM Package Manager. Gronky 14:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The selected article box has been updated again, the new selectee is X Window System. Gronky 20:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many lines deleted

I think that some of these lines are correct and useful: Benefits of the GIMP system include:

  • Zero licensing costs, even for installations on many computers
  • Available for many types of computing systems
  • Not dependent on any single company for updates or support
  • Freely redistributable, so it may be shared on a local network or given to friends and family
  • Plug-in development is not limited by developers (Access to Adobe Photoshop's SDK requires

authorization [1])

  • File format extension recognition when saving —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sentence

The article under brushes etc says this:
...plus tools to pick colours from the image with various averaging options. Support for hexadecimal colour codes (as used in HTML). While 'CMYK' is offered in the Palette...
So, is there support for Hex colors or not? The sentences looks like part of a deleted one; it doesn't say either way right now. 82.93.133.130 18:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .eps

I think this might be an helpful addition to clear some doubts about supported formats

Gimp does not have a built-in .eps support but it relies on ghostscript to interpret the format. If you open an .eps file with Gimp you will get a generic error window. That does not imply that the application can not handle this extension. You just have to install Ghostscript on your system. So go to Sourceforge.net and download the GPL version which does not present any limitation for commercial use. After installing Ghostscript you will have to associate Gimp with Ghostscript by creating a new environment variable. So click on the start button and go to control panel, system, advanced, environment variables. Click on the new button then type in the name GS_PROG followed by the complete location of the Ghostscript executable typically c:\programs\gs\gs.8.54\bin\gswin32c.exe now click ok and close window. If Gimp is already running close and reopen it. Now you will able to handle encapsulated postscript documents. The afore mentioned process works with Windows NT, 2000, XP and Vista. For windows 95, 98 and ME users you will have to edit the autoexec.bat file Just add the following code line SET GS_PROG "whole file location"\gswin32c.exe Lotusv82 20:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well known bugs

  • When creating a 100x100 pixel image at 10ppi the image appears correctly at 10 inches. However, if you resize the image to 50x50 at 5ppi the image appears at half the size, even though basic math says that the two images should have relatively the same size (as of version 2.2.13). Similar problems have been noticed in Photoshop. With all the hours of development time being placed into both products it's shocking that such a simple concept and feature as image resizing could be mangled so badly. Bad software design models, simple mistake, poor reasoning, lack of abstraction, encapsulation; what could result in such an oversight, and how? Could it be an intentional design decision? Sorry, but I just feel the need to fume after finding out that paid-for and open-source software both in a major release state could have the same major bug in such a core basic feature. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 05:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a bug at all, you're just confusing an image's print resolution setting with the editor's zoom level. The dpi value you set on an image is merely used to figure out its real-life dimensions (whether for printing out on paper, or for programs that work with real-life dimensions instead of pixels), your editor's zoom level is what controls how large the image actually appears on-screen. If you're viewing the image at a 100% zoom level, every pixel in the image corresponds to exactly one pixel on-screen, so the image appears at whatever dpi value your monitor is displaying (which is usually somewhere around 70-100dpi). If you create a 100x100 pixel image at 10dpi and it appears to display as 10"x10", then what really happened is that your image editor initialized its zoom level to match the dpi you specified -- depending on your desktop resolution, you're actually viewing the image at about 800% zoom. If you resize the image's dpi afterwards, you can't expect the editor's zoom level to automatically change to reflect the new value. (Though if you want to propose this as a feature, head on over to www.gimp.org and tell them, not us.)
Sorry for the long rant, Wiki talk pages should be used to discuss the article, not for whatever the article itself is talking about. --Stratadrake 00:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The original poster clearly had 'Dot per Dot' turned on (as is default). If you turn it off, things will behave as you expect. This sort of use/abuse of DPI is useful for doing things like easily creating images with double width or double height pixels, as some old computers provided (Amiga, CPC, C64). Also, GIMP does not attempt to adjust zoom relative to DPI when you change it -- it remains at exactly the same zoom level (tested with 2.5) -- 0ion9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.168.140 (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • ver-2.4.0 and ver-2.4.1 on MS-Windows XP don't support input from Wacom Tablets (like Intuos3 (model:PTZ430/G))

Suwatest 14:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lock Pictures

Just curious as to why they are in this article. I could see having them in the article for the Clone Tool, but as this ability is hardly unique to GIMP it seems odd to have the representation on the page.204.76.128.217 11:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Probably worth removing, yeah. Chris Cunningham 11:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree on this point. Why not show at least one before and after picture? No example of image manipulation will be entirely unique...nor does it need to be. But that example explains the GIMP in a concrete, immediately understandable way. Ram rottenly 22:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates for major releases

I just came to see how long it's been since the release of 2.2.0, but the article doesn't give the dates for any of the major releases. If someone knows where to find these dates, it would be great if they added them. Gronky 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP

Should the GIMP article link to Wikipedia:How to use the GIMP ? Or does that go against the "no self-reference" guideline? --75.37.227.177 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes links like that are ok. I think it's fine. Put it in and see if it sticks. — Omegatron 02:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The content on that has already been transwikied to Wikibooks, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook so that page has been speedy deleted under transwikied content. --wL<speak·check> 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name?

On the subject of GIMP vs. GNU Image Manipulation Program, why the sudden move? "GIMP" is the common (and not incorrect) name of the program. --Stratadrake 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That was done by a relatively new user; I've undone the change. Mindmatrix 23:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia but not new to GNU. I moved the page back and I really desire that this does not upset you nor change your plans. -- Carol 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, that you forgive me for the fact that the sockpuppet template on my user page broke my signature here. User:CarolSpears 04:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
This should not be done without a discussion on this page. GIMP seems to be more used then "GNU Image Manipulation Program" in the official documentation [2] and overall. At least GIMP should redirect here. Zarniwoot 02:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm undoing the move again; please get consensus to move it to "GNU Image Manipulation Program". Mindmatrix 02:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I would say that "GNU Image Manipulation Program" is more informative. CIA is a more commonly used term, but it is not the full name, "Central Intelligence Agency" is and that is what the article is called. The GIMP homepage refers to it as the "GNU Image Manipulation Program". People searching for GIMP will be redirected and immediately learn something, ie the full name of the program. What do others think? -- Sam Barsoom (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I am looking at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) and it says "Acronyms can be used in page naming if the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form."
So I guess the question is, is the GIMP almost exclusively known only by its acronym? I would say no, many first and third party documents I have read on the program start by giving the full name of the program. -- Sam Barsoom (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to move the page to "GNU Image Manipulation Program" per my above arguments. Does anyone still object? I will wait a day or so to see if anyone responds. Sam Barsoom (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with such a move; however, wait at least a week before making this change. Not all editors who are interested in this article will have a chance to respond over a two-day span, especially on a weekend. Mindmatrix 22:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
The whole discussion seems stupid and a waste of time to me. What is a better disambiguation page? GIMP where a list of things that the acronym or word could mean or GNU Image Manipulation Program a disambiguation page which would list the one software which will have this name.
Wikipedia is FunkyTown, isn't it? -- Carol 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither GIMP nor GNU Image Manipulation Program are disambiguation pages. I can't see any improvements by changing the article name. Zarniwoot (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It is fairly funky... but I am a stranger in a strange land so I take it all in stride. If a week is a good amount of time to wait then I will wait that long. I don't see the harm in the wait, and it may lead to further opinions that can lead to a more informed decision. Sam Barsoom (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a name change is a good idea. The official website[3] spelles GIMP in large letters on the front page with the acronym explained in a much smaller font. This is also the case with the Help->about window in the program itself. In the official splash screen "GNU Image Manipulation Program" is not shown at all. On my system (Ubuntu) GIMP is located in the graphics menu as "GIMP Image Editor". It seems to me that the full name is seldom used. Also note that acronyms are commonly used as titles for software related articles (eg. GNU, Perl, GRUB, JPEG, HTML).
As for "GNU Image Manipulation Program" being more informative: The full name is explained in the first line of the article. How much more informative can it get? Zarniwoot (talk) 00:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
A name change is a silly idea. "GNU Image Manipulation Program" is a backronym, and not one person on earth who isn't prudishly trying to avoid Pulp Fiction references uses it in general. Per WP:COMMON, it's fine where it is. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement for Photoshop

I like the new stuff that appeared today. I honestly think that if I owned Adobe, I would be trying to prevent advertisements for my software on the public pages (like this) where the small yet tenacious competitor gets to explain itself.

Does Macy's advertise at Goodwill?

I won't change it, but perhaps there is someone at Adobe who knows the difference between $0 and $600 who has a little pride and dignity who will change it. -- Carol 07:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Please use four tildes to create a signature. There's already a comparison article that this information should be used. I don't see why this comparison should be here. If we compare PS, why not compare PSP or any other graphics editor? I suggest a merge,and I will act on it if no one objects.--wL<speak·check> 07:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a template on my Talk User page that broke my signature. I used to have a bot follow me around and sign my four tildes signature for me, I miss that bot. The lesson is probably to never thank a bot if you want to keep it around.
Merge all of the graphics apps descriptions together or make a single new comparison page? -- carol 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Carol 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another interesting page here might be instructions for how to steal photoshop -- making the dollar value to GIMP equal that way. -- Carol 21:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

I like the new comparison section. The comparison article, on the other hand, is merely a checklist and woefully inadequate. I started learning photo editing last week, cropping, tilting and adjusting greyscales with someone else's computer with Photoshop, and found it a bear even for such simple operations. Yesterday I downloaded GIMP to my own computer, and found myself able to do the same things more easily.
PS is a proper basis of comparison, not for quality but for ubiquity. People who want to understand GIMP are far more likely to have some familiarity with PS than vice versa or with any other photo editor. It's like the folding bicycle article, which goes on and on about how it's different from a non folder. Not because one is better than another, but because one is more familiar. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
If I were shopping for software, I would look at the separate articles and a comparison page that features all of the available softwares. When I was shopping for this software, I honestly, after using them all, if I had stuck with Windows I would have purchased Paint Shop Pro. I even liked their little sales thingie then, where it made you wait while it counted the number of days that you had used their gratis version. It was fair as in balanced.
GIMP started life on an operating system that was being used to actually run things -- Unix. The real developers (not the wannabes and the publisher hired look alikes) would like it to run there and with some sense. I wrote somewhere else today about how mangling fonts so that flyers for yard sales can be pretty is not a goal and that being like photoshop was not the goal -- being tormented by all of the new Windows users of GIMP can make real human beings break down though, if you can imagine this. Abuse because of what was supposed to be a funny name. The person who first enabled GTK to build on Windows mentioned once that the Windows flight simulator saw the world as a cylinder. The people who author GIMP source (at least when I first started with them) were at least intelligent enough not to do things that way. I removed the text out of respect for Photoshop. They are two different applications, they appeal to two different markets and the comparison between the two of them should be conducted on an article which compares with the application I would have chosen had linux not been so ubercool to use as well. Thank you. -- carol 01:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I haven't tried things lately, but when I first started playing with this kind of software, you could download a fully functional version of PaintShopPro and keep it forever and trial versions that lasted for 30 days of their new ones (for me it was 5 and 6, I think). The photoshop trial version would not save images -- that was photoshop5. I don't know if and/or how things have changed. Between Photoshop5 and PaintShopPro 5 and 6, I really preferred the PSP. It did more (more than just saving images). -- carol 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC) -- Carol 03:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I just tried this on the Photoshop page. It was unacceptable there. I removed it from here. Consider writing the article about the comparison between applications -- it should be interesting for those who are 'shopping' for software. Heh. -- carol 00:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please get consensus on this talk page before nuking a section wholesale like that again. What happens on the Photoshop page isn't really relevant to what is on this page. From my perspective, GIMP v. Photoshop is a topic on which there is much spirited debate, and many high quality reliable sources. Nandesuka (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I got the consensus at the Photoshop article. The spirit of the debate should be on the GNU informative article about Photoshop where the Photoshop people can read the source. It is the GNU tradition! As I write this, it says directly below the authoring window You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. And here, the source should go where the competition can read it as well.
I feel sick for Photoshop when I see them stooping to sell their wares on this article. I also don't know which consensus you queried, but I would like the information that is presented on the articles to be similar -- not the applications. I really really disliked photoshop when I tried it. I really had no trouble using it and I was able to show the purchaser of the application somethings about how to manipulate pixels and she showed me some things. I am really so bored with hearing that GIMP is a wannabe when it is clear at least here on wikipedia that Photoshop wants to be mentioned at the article GIMP. Who is the wannabe? Also, any news about when Photoshop will work on *nix? It seems like all of that money spent for purchasing the application, that it should have been running on *nix long before GIMP was running on Windoze and Applez. Do not put it back here without also putting it on the Photoshop page.
Photoshop, GIMP's once strong competitor tries to harvest a purchasing population from the GNU Free Documentation Licensed Article for GNU Image Manipulation Program. It is sad. Please leave Photoshop restored to the economically enabled beast that it was! -- carol 10:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
First, there is no discussion whatsoever on the talk page for the Photoshop article, so I have no idea where your claim that "got consensus at the Photoshop article" came from. Secondly, please review WP:SOAPBOX. Lastly, your repeated implication that "photoshop wants" anything at all is really, really weird. Photoshop is a software product. It doesn't want anything at all. In any event, if you want your proposed changes to stick, I suggest you discuss them here. Thanks. Nandesuka (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? When I put that comparison on the Photoshop article it was removed. They said that the Photoshop page was no place for a comparison to GIMP. They want to be here? -- carol 14:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolSpears (talk • contribs)

If the editors of this page agree with you that the comparison is inappropriately, I'll happily support your push to remove it. So far, we've had "edit" and "revert", so now it's time for "discuss." Nandesuka (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am quite excited, actually. One of the constant nominees at FPC has (I think) agreed to get screenshots of Photoshop doing all of those things that GIMP can't for this section!! Hurrah! I suggested this because the user has only been using Photoshop to do things that GIMP and many other graphics apps can do. I should like to see examples of those things and also learn of their usefulness.
Hurrah!! -- carol 18:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Color management

I connection with the edits about color management in GIMP, I like to point out that CM has improved substantially with GIMP 2.4 (see www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.4-cm.html). GIMP now use color profiles for output correction. The images are still 8 bit/channels RGB, but that is a somewhat different issue. I suggest changing the line "Photoshop features several advantages in color management that GIMP lacks" to "Photoshop features color representations that GIMP lacks" or simply remove it as superfluous. Zarniwoot (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to eliminate this comparison -- 8 vs. 16 bits/channel is hugely important, especially to photographers -- but as written the sentence is a bit POV. How about we find a source for the sentiment, and use their phrasing, instead? Nandesuka (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about 8 bit/c vs 16/32 bit/c. Only the quoted sentence on color management. The rest of the section seems factually ok. Zarniwoot (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expert help

A number of templates for "expert help", "cleanup" and "additional citations " was added to the article, but there is no section on this talk page to explain what the problem is. Unless someone can give an explanation I will remove them . Zarniwoot (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Zarniwoot (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

How is GIMP pronounced? Σαι ( Talk) 12:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

  • If you are talking about the craft cord it is pronounced "boondoggle" -- carol (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Release history table

I made something out of the table. I thought it was nonsensical to have a row for each minor release but no info, so I contracted the table. Minor releases can be put in if wanted with dates taken from [4] and more info perhaps found at [5]. I changed the coloring: It doesn't make sense to say a minor version is supported; a release series (such as "2.4") is supported, and that is done by releasing another minor version. -- Sverdrup (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How to Draw a Straightline

This is a very famous tutorial in GIMP realm since it was originally written in 2002 (I got the date from the 'Page info' option available to most mature web browsers) -- inspired by Zach Beane's (the original writer of GIMP News) Quickmask tutorial and written by the maintainer of gimp-perl, Seth Burgess.[1] All of this is in the archives of gimp-user maillist. Seth can be seen in the Berlin developers splash[2] (he is hiding behind Daniel Egger in the back row). Mitch Natterer and Sven Neumann are there as well as Simon Budig[3] (author of the pathtool -- the authors of this credible article called it 'inktool' -- and other things). I am not in that splash, Jakub Steiner is as well as Tigert. Tor Lillqvist (developer who got gtk+ and GIMP to compile for Windows) tor is there, sorry -- carol (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) and Øyvind Kolås (GEGL lead developer)[4] also are not there. Both of those tutorials (straightline and quickmask) were written very sarcastically. Zach had a good article (yes, an article before the invention of wiki software) about the differences between gif and jpeg and when to use them; and there was a really funny news article that made fun of 'Clippy' by Anders Carlsson[5] and there is more -- these original GIMP people were very articulate and very knowledgeable about computers and pixel graphics.

GIMP is a very cool linux application -- GNOME people writing about how cool they are is not a cool linux thing to do and also magazine articles would probably not 'get it'.

The web site http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/ was designed by me and a small group of people. If you want to know about Photoshop or Paintshop pro, do you include Adobe and Corel (the producers of the software) as a credible source of this information? Is Microsoft a valid source of information about its software? What makes a credible source?

The web site http://classic.gimp.org was designed by Adrian Likins[6] and Jens T. I forget his name....

I worked very very hard for http://mmmaybe.gimp.org. You can quote me on this. -- carol (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Seth Burgess (2002-06-05). How to draw a straight line in GIMP (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-19. “This tutorial shows you how you can do straight lines with the gimp, using a feature called the Shift Key.”
  2. ^ gimp_splash.1.5. Development Version Splash History - GIMP 1.1 Development Series. tarball: 1.1.25 (2000-08-21). Retrieved on 2008-03-19.
  3. ^ Simon Budig. Some Things for GIMP. Retrieved on 2008-03-19. “GIMP is the best image manipulation program for Unix-Computers.”
  4. ^ Øyvind Kolås. pippin.gimp.org (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  5. ^ Carol Spears (2007-06-05). Mitch Natterer holding Anders Carlsson's hackergotchie 2C or not 2C (HTML). Manipulated images of GIMP/GTK+ developers. Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  6. ^ Adrian Likins (2001-05-17). adrian.gimp.org (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-19.


Also, can the consensus cite the source? -- carol (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hadjaha!

inktool doesn't live here any longer.... -- carol (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find an explanation for removing the section with the comparison to Photoshop. Why was the section removed? I think it should be put back. -- Sverdrup (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I undid your edit and the PS comparison section is now there again. Please explain why it should be removed. -- Sverdrup (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The authors of this article call the pathtool 'inktool' -- can you research where the name of this comes from? I have used GIMP exclusively for pixel manipulations since 1997 (save some comparison months before I determined a preference for it and some assistance to Windows users with their images before GIMP worked on Windows -- the word 'inktool' has in those years always meant a paint tool.
If GIMP is to be compared to Photoshop, then start first with the articles here at wikipedia[1]. A simple comparison of the articles here show that GIMP is not mentioned in the Photoshop article.
BTW, a new window has been added to GIMP lately so that when gimp first starts, there is an empty window image in which to drag an image to.
You should check around to find out what Hadjaha means and see if you can find a way to incorporate that into this article -- if it is GIMP you are interested in writing about. -- carol (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You don't make any sense. Probably PS is not compared to GIMP that much on the web and in publications, cine PS is the established editor and GIMP the contender. As someone stated above, you have to discuss before you remove sections. I'll undo the section removal again. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about incorporating the section into the article? -- carol (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Start with the Photoshop article then! Develop the articles the way that the applications were developed. If GIMP is a 'copy' of Photoshop, then the article GIMP should be a copy of the article Photoshop. -- carol (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I haven't claimed that GIMP is a copy of Photoshop. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is something that doesn't compare -- those bastards broke the save dialog! I was going to write about the empty image window complete with a screenshot on my web site; provide something for a real article to be written here. Photoshop developers do not do such terrible things to their users.... -- carol (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
They also removed 'GIMP' from the toolboxen. I am going to take that Photoshop stuff off from the article, you might consider researching the reason that the name was removed from the application.... -- carol (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ Seth Burgess (2002-06-05). How to draw a straight line in GIMP (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-19. “This tutorial shows you how you can do straight lines with the gimp, using a feature called the Shift Key.”
  2. ^ gimp_splash.1.5. Development Version Splash History - GIMP 1.1 Development Series. tarball: 1.1.25 (2000-08-21). Retrieved on 2008-03-19.
  3. ^ Simon Budig. Some Things for GIMP. Retrieved on 2008-03-19. “GIMP is the best image manipulation program for Unix-Computers.”
  4. ^ Øyvind Kolås. pippin.gimp.org (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  5. ^ Carol Spears (2007-06-05). Mitch Natterer holding Anders Carlsson's hackergotchie 2C or not 2C (HTML). Manipulated images of GIMP/GTK+ developers. Retrieved on 2008-03-04.
  6. ^ Adrian Likins (2001-05-17). adrian.gimp.org (HTML). Retrieved on 2008-03-19.

[edit] So far, there is no discussion of the inclusion of comparison to photoshop in the article

I am not going to search for a discussion of the inclusion of the section -- if that doesn't exist then I am not having an issue with more than one person here....

Your citations -- I met Dave Neary, nice guy -- he added some things to gimp-1.2.

I just found a seriously broken link to a newsgroup hosted by google -- it is a letter signed with a pgp key; they did not do this in 1996. It is such a broken internet. -- carol (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The section was included in the quite a few of the latest revisions of the article. Thus if you propose to delete it, you will have to argue for that point, not the other way around. I think it should stay since the comparison is often made and we have good sources for it. As I said, the comparison with PS is already made in the lead section.
It is often used as a free software replacement for Adobe Photoshop, the most widely used bitmap editor in the printing and graphics industries; however, it is not designed to be a Photoshop clone.
I also know that many GIMP users probably don't want that comparison, but that doesn't change the fact that it is all over the place, including things like GIMPshop which you probably have heard of. What I find hard to tolerate is that you carol mix unrelated GIMP issues with the discussion and even nonsense. -- Sverdrup (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilberdust

The poem was written by Sven Riedel[6]the cynic

[edit] Comparison with MS Paint

Is this really necessary? I can swallow the Photoshop/PSP comparisons but MS Paint! Even the Photoshop comparison should be cut or farmed out into an article comparing graphics editors. It is at the end of the day not all that relevant to the GIMP.

Also, noting that MS Paint and GIMP use the same file format is a bit misleading. Isn't it enough to note that GIMP supports BMP, PNG, Jpeg and other common formats? People actually interested in such information should be able to figure out things from there.--Anss123 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You speak as if you are a fan of Photoshop but not of MSPaint. It is about pixel manipulation and doesn't MSPaint come with the purchased installation of the operating system? Economically they are much more comparable if that is true. This is an informative article or is it a sales pitch? -- carol (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never used Photoshop, but I do use GIMP/MSPaint every now and then. GIMP is not an operation system, nor is it all that comparable with the feature light MS Paint. This is an article about GIMP and should concentrate on that. Comparisons with other editors is off topic, susceptible to WP:OR and high maintenance as it needs to be checked over every time a new feature is added to the GIMP and/or other editors.
Keep in mind that there is already an article for comparing graphic editors. That article is where this stuff should go. --Anss123 (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is that none of the comparison belongs here, but my attempts to remove it are always reverted. Adding the other software applications (and there are others still) was an attempt to make the inclusion of the photoshop comparison seem less bigoted and commercially inspired and to make the article more informative. Apparently, all you need is an op with blocking permission to impose the several rules about reverting things that seem to exist and those rules can be stretched to extremely fine degrees.... I would be highly in favor of the removal of all of the comparison section. Also, my attempt to put the comparison on the Photoshop article was reverted which only made me wonder what possible reason is it here to begin with? -- carol (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Versions beyond 2.0?

Why does the version info stop at 2.0? GIMP is up to 2.5 unstable and 2.4 stable. Irrevenant [ talk ] 11:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

It was easier to write about the versions that came before I became involved with the project and the version that was the subject of the web site that we made for it. I even attempted to write about my personal history with the project for my web site to help to extricate the information that is about the project, but that too was difficult and not pleasant to do. The people who get together and give lectures and are considered to be 'experts' about the GNU Image Manipulation Program and such for the project now rarely mention the application on their web sites -- how to write about this with that situation? Personally, I asked one of the developers whose life seems to have only improved from his involvement what the reason is that it has improved the lives of so many with only a few exceptions and the answer is not useful and can only be perceived as suspicious. I have to say that at the time that I was working on the web site, it was quite easy to be able to determine the difference between my volunteer work for a GPL project and my "day job" which actually was more often in the afternoon -- I was looking forward to continuing to understand the difference between these things with the "job well done" I should have gotten from the successful project. Be sure to ask the all of the new experts about this as well.... -- carol (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
You know, there are many more problems as well. When I made http://mmmaybe.gimp.org, I searched through so many things which were online about the application. Since then, a few things changed. The first two letters that are now published on http://www.gimp.org changed. When I was making the web site, they more clearly indicated that the app began to exist because the two students did not want to steal. My mistake was in not downloading the archives. The third letter that has been recently published on the web site is so bogus. I say this honestly as the person who found a bunch of stuff that the developers had no clue about from my digging back then. The letter is about the first two students getting Photoshop3 and copying the layers dialog from that. Here is the fact that easily demonstrates that the letter is bogus -- the PGP Key there. That technology might have existed then but was not used -- none of the emails or newsgroups I looked at back then used it. It is my humble opinion (and I have enough humble to share) that the people who are doing stuff like that now -- I cannot express my opinion. The world is not improved, the actual history that I saw might have been 'derived' as well, but it was beautiful and the one that is beginning to exist now is very very ugly. -- carol (talk) 00:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)