Jump to content
thesorehead

The GIMP

Recommended Posts

The Gimp being a raster editor, it's main target audience would not be web editing, but photographs or other, more complex images. While it is not a direct competition to photoshop, there is little excuse for not having CMYK support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being used for complex images doesn't necessarily mean that CMYK is required, just nice to have. And photographic editing is done a great deal on the web, and on a lot of websites.

 

I agree that not having CMYK is somewhat poor form, I don't agree that there is little excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh?

 

Complex images are generally for print, or at least more likely to be printed somewhere along the line. Web images can be complex, but are generally not. People put photos on the web, or discuss and show samples, they dont phot edit for the web so much. You could use photoshop to make a nice logo gif, but why would you when fireworks or elements are programs more suited to the job?

 

Since you are familiar with the Gimp, perhaps you could clarify why you feel there is not little excuse to implement CMYK colors, a simple, elementary feature of most raster editors, and a necessary one if the Gimp ever wants to be taken seriously by more than students and hobbyists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the first - fireworks and elements cost $$$ IIRC. So why wouldn't you when this is a free option?

 

For the second - you've answered the question yourself.

 

Students and Hobbyists.

 

It's never going to beat photoshop at the professional game. It doesn't have the name or the backing.

 

So if we are talking about what students and hobbyists use, then we are *almost* always talking about web work, or if there is printing involved, it's on a home-use color inkjet where CMYK isn't needed.

 

I'm not saying it's the greatest ever program, or even the greatest ever at what it does. I'm saying it IS perfect for students and hobbyists because the features are awesome for the price.

 

Even without CMYK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is students and hobbyists an answer to the question of why there is little excuse to implement CMYK?

 

GIMP is good for the price, and well written, stable software, but they could not care less about their user audience, just check the mailing lists. Students and hobbyists use it because it is free, not because it is ideal for web design. A lot of students and hobbyists would be in the same boat as professionals, wanting to edit complex photographs, perhaps for print media, which is a lot harder than it should be because of GIMPs inability to implement a simple feature. After 10 years of asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I edited my post to make it clearer. Perhaps you missed it.

 

I'm not defending the Gimp not implementing CMYK. As I said, it's a PITA.

 

BUT, I don't really think it has a great deal of bearing on the program. For all the reasons I've outlined above.

 

Students and Hobbyists don't generally need to do much with professional print media - which requires CMYK. They CAN edit complex photographs with the Gimp, and most probably would never even notice a difference. And yes, they use it for web work because it is free, not because it is ideal. I've never disputed this. However web work does not need CMYK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I did miss your edit.

 

I seem to have misinterpreted your posts, as I thought you were defending Gimp not implementing CMYK when you said you disagreed there was little excuse for doing so.

 

In place of Fireworks and Elements, Inkscape and Xara could be used, both better suited to the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GIMP rocks. I'm familiar with basic use of layers from waaay back, but the machine I have now is probably 5 times faster than the last one and reading those tutorials is pretty eye-opening in terms of the theory and thought-processes behind how the pixels are manipulated. Select by colour - yeah, been there done that. Colour-as-alpha? AWESOME.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries Secret. I was probably being a little overly argumentative anyway. :)

 

I've never used Xara, but I find inkscape to be a nice if not overly featured little program. I can't say I've played with it a great deal, I'll admit, but it never struck me as having anything like the features the gimp gives you - even if it's not quite suited to the purpose. :)

 

I was really disagreeing that it's the truly big deal many people seem to make of it (the CMYK implementation that is). I've seen the jumping up and down about it, and it's always struck me as such a minor thing within the scope of it all.

 

 

Edit: great work sorehead. Glad you are liking it.

*rubs hands together. Another gimp convert - mwahahahahaahahaha! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record.

 

I would never use CMYK for photographs, ever.

 

I think the GIMP is still pretty poo, they need a proper designer to make a real interface to the program.

 

Inkscape is awesome though Ive used that a few times, Illustrator shits me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record.

 

I would never use CMYK for photographs, ever.

What if you have to print them?

 

 

Why would I use an inferior format for photographs?

 

If I was home printing on an inkjet, I'd be calibrated and using sRGB, and wider gamuts like Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB have their merits for certain images with printers that have gamuts wider than sRGB.

 

 

If I were getting a photograph printed properly, there would be no ink involved, only RGB lasers, and real light sensitive photographic paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the GIMP is still pretty poo, they need a proper designer to make a real interface to the program.

If you prefer the one big window in the background then just maximise the picture as in the following. You can change around the menus and such quite extensivley too.

 

http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/2974/20...680x1050zt6.jpg

 

compared to photoshop in windows http://img23.yukle.tc/images/9990photoshop_CS3_EXTENDET.jpg

 

and if you use photoshop on a mac, the windows are broken up anyway, so it looks pretty similar still. You will notice in the screenshot that I only have one 'window', that is, the frames are still broken up, but you only see one application (which is Gimp) open. Which is different from before where a different window was brought up for each frame (it used to have three different windows open).

 

 

Personally I can't really see the difference between any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×