[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Six Good Reasons to Try GIMP 2.8 here

[Fatesrider]

It would be nice if, before this is announced to the world, someone would actually create a build for Windows. It's not out for that yet.

[JohnHr6kz]

Fatesrider, on 04 May 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

It would be nice if, before this is announced to the world, someone would actually create a build for Windows. It's not out for that yet.

All I see is the 2.8 rc-1, which means its a "release candidate", not a final version. Good catch.

[stevenshearinglqkz]

Its not got a windows version yet or even a mac, which really windows should be the first release being that windows is the mostly used OS followed by Mac.

[Mattvm8v]

I've tried giving Gimp a shot many times and each time it disappoints. Paint.NET and Photoscape are 100x better in my opinion.

And I'm not against open source. I still think Firefox is the best browser. But Gimp is ugly and more complex than it needs to be. Paint.NET is more powerful and Photoscape is easier to use.

[Lsatenstein]

Only six reasons. I can think of several $100 reasons. And its fast, reliable and very functional.

[garyoa1]

It really can't hold a candle to photoshop but you can't beat the price.

[ImproperUsername]

One of the cool things about GIMP is that it properly preserves multiple layer transparencies for PNG images. I normally use Corel Photopaint (half the price of Adobe Photoshop and just as professional), but for transparent PNG files, GIMP works better.

[Lookharder]

Fatesrider, on 04 May 2012 - 11:49 PM, said:

It would be nice if, before this is announced to the world, someone would actually create a build for Windows. It's not out for that yet.

Look no further ;o) - "http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20GTK%2B%20(stable%20release)/GIMP%202.8.0/gimp-2.8.0-setup.exe/download"

Or http://bit.ly/IBw5bc

Credit to link - http://www.gimpusers...ld-of-2-8-ready
Thanks to Alexandre Prokoudine

I have just Virus checked the file with avast AV - Up to date (free). Nothing found
Running fine on a Windows 7 64bit.
Note: Load times for The Gimp are about the same - if not longer, but that is part of the charm ;o)

Good work The Gimp Team

This post has been edited by Lookharder: 05 May 2012 - 12:53 PM

[PASystems]

Very nice additional features but the one feature I don't see listed here is something akin to Adjustment Layers in Photoshop or the Lens feature in Corel PhotoPaint. That features allows changeable editing of photo adjustments such as levels, contrasts and Hue/Saturation. Gimp only up to this point will allow you to make a duplicate layer of a photo and apply one time adjustments to that layer. Until I see the adjustment layer equivalent in GIMP, that program, no matter how free it is, will also come 3rd Place as a digital image editor.

[SrikanthRao]

I love GIMP.Its the best one..

[Evildave]

Another reason: It's FREE. Free forever. No strings attached.

There's absolutely no reason at all not to download it and keep it handy.

Unless you have some sort of weird cultish religion that says YOU MUST PAY to use software.

[artzy65]

Evildave, on 05 May 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

Another reason: It's FREE. Free forever. No strings attached.

There's absolutely no reason at all not to download it and keep it handy.

Unless you have some sort of weird cultish religion that says YOU MUST PAY to use software.

Are you a professional artist?

[artzy65]

Mattvm8v, on 05 May 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

I've tried giving Gimp a shot many times and each time it disappoints. Paint.NET and Photoscape are 100x better in my opinion.

And I'm not against open source. I still think Firefox is the best browser. But Gimp is ugly and more complex than it needs to be. Paint.NET is more powerful and Photoscape is easier to use.

Gimp is aptly named.

[Evildave]

artzy65, on 06 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Are you a professional artist?

No, I'm a professional game programmer who 'fixes' art all the time. What I find is Photshop + Gimp are the 'same'. If I'm about to sit down and do some task, like cleaning up a bitmap, or tweaking pixels, or adding transparency, they both do that task, and they both are well supported by google searches for 'how to'. Certain tasks are easier on one or the other.

When I do draw something (and I do draw), I do it on paper and scan it in and vectorize it, usually.

In general, Adobe Photoshop has been guilty most frequently of changing the UI and turning tasks into an easter egg hunt with new versions. They're excessively proud of their new features, so they like to bring them to the top and bury the tools you got accustomed to using for YEARS.

ImageMagick is also an excellent tool, but I doubt 99% of artists would be able to make heads or tails of it.

My assertion firmly stands: NO REASON WHATSOEVER not to have it. It's free, like free beer. It doesn't need multiple gigabytes to install.

As a bare minimum, familiarity with it means that when some useless poser (like a PC World Open Source Software hater) asks to be GIVEN 'Photoshop', you have a free, open license tool to give them immediately and show them how to use it, and tell them to get a #^&* bank account if they want to have Adobe Photoshop, because it's NOT free. Which is another big point for The GNU Image Manipulation Program.

But I know where this is going: "Duhhh, shun the FREE SOFTWARE 'cuz 'professionalz liek mee' shood PAY MONEY 4 deir toolz!!1!! Reel prufeshunulz PAY money$$$! DERP!"

[Hemo2]

I like free and open source products, but when I've looked at Gimp in the past, I'm afraid all I've ever found it acceptable for is a headache. My cheap copy of Photoshop Elements is easier to use and more functional for me and I don't have to wait 3 years for a final version to get released. In this case, I'll exhibit weird cultish behavior and spend the $70 and bypass free and be productive for it.

[LiveBrianD]

The thing is, I've found that Paint.NET works better and has a much simpler interface, yet is still free. I'm not switching to GIMP from that.

[artzy65]

Evildave, on 06 May 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

artzy65, on 06 May 2012 - 07:23 AM, said:

Are you a professional artist?

No, I'm a professional game programmer who 'fixes' art all the time. What I find is Photshop + Gimp are the 'same'. If I'm about to sit down and do some task, like cleaning up a bitmap, or tweaking pixels, or adding transparency, they both do that task, and they both are well supported by google searches for 'how to'. Certain tasks are easier on one or the other.

When I do draw something (and I do draw), I do it on paper and scan it in and vectorize it, usually.

In general, Adobe Photoshop has been guilty most frequently of changing the UI and turning tasks into an easter egg hunt with new versions. They're excessively proud of their new features, so they like to bring them to the top and bury the tools you got accustomed to using for YEARS.

ImageMagick is also an excellent tool, but I doubt 99% of artists would be able to make heads or tails of it.

My assertion firmly stands: NO REASON WHATSOEVER not to have it. It's free, like free beer. It doesn't need multiple gigabytes to install.

As a bare minimum, familiarity with it means that when some useless poser (like a PC World Open Source Software hater) asks to be GIVEN 'Photoshop', you have a free, open license tool to give them immediately and show them how to use it, and tell them to get a #^&* bank account if they want to have Adobe Photoshop, because it's NOT free. Which is another big point for The GNU Image Manipulation Program.

But I know where this is going: "Duhhh, shun the FREE SOFTWARE 'cuz 'professionalz liek mee' shood PAY MONEY 4 deir toolz!!1!! Reel prufeshunulz PAY money$$$! DERP!"

With that last line, you are surely describing 14-year-old youtube smart-as*es.

Hopefully, re Gimp, you mean no reason for you not to have it. How can you possibly know my needs? The reason for me not to have Gimp is that it isn't Photoshop. I've been using Photoshop since 1995. Even at $700.00, any given assignment pays for that right away, plus all this expensive software is a write-off anyway.

Reviews claiming Gimp has 'many' of Photoshop's features just doesn't cut it for me. I have deadlines to meet.

Btw, the upcoming Photoshop CS6 has a Content-Aware Move Tool (you can demo PS6 for 2 months free). To me, that tool alone makes PS6 priceless.

This post has been edited by artzy65: 06 May 2012 - 12:31 PM

[xyberviri]

Every single time i use gimp i pull my hair out because i know there is a function some where that I need and can't find it.

also the default functionality seems flipped, I wish there was some check box that says "make the mouse work like photoshop".

I did finally buckle down and buy photoshop essentials but low and behold it missing some of those key tools that make it very easy to use.

[nonseq]

the GIMP 2.8? Move along folks nothing to see here.

Yeah I know that there are many here who love GIMP and it really meets their needs. I'm glad for them. I've been using Photoshop since a prerelease of version 1.0. Unlike Artsy, I am not a high end artist, I probably have skills akin to EvilDave and having used both PS and GIMP I can say that GIMP is no Photoshop. The majority of my PS work has been done on the old Mac OS and OSX with some done in windows. On the Windows side I have learned to make Paintshop Pro work very well for me while GIMP just took too long to do anything remotely complex or demanding.

For some FREE is the beat all end all. For me, tools that pay for themselves out of the box and generate repeat business are of much greater value. For me, GIMP has never been one of those tools.