Talk:GIMP

m m

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)

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)

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).

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)

.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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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. --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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.--w^{L<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)

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)