> On Thursday 20 December 2007 11:17:17 am JC Dill wrote:
>>> Is there any way to restore the Alt key to its old usage in
>>> 2.4? I can't drag selections anymore because it requires Alt
>>> and mouse at the same time, which is a problem on Linux. How
>>> do I tell Gimp to use another shift-type key for that
>> The behavior and use of the Alt key changed between 2.2 and
>> 2.4, without providing any way for users to select or
>> configure the older behavior in Gimp. That is showing
>> disregard for your established user base.
> You already said you are not among that user base, "I'm a
> typical 'potential Gimp user'". Why are you acting all hurt over
> this change; it doesn't affect you?
Oh, but it does. If you do this type of thing now (and don't see
anything wrong with it), you can be expected to do it again. If I start
with Gimp now, at some point I'll be urged to upgrade to take advantage
of new features, but then discover that you changed how the program
works - that old workflows no longer work in the same way.
>> you should provide a way (within the software itself) for the
>> user to configure the older behavior... This is basic backwards
> Backward compatibility is not the holy grail of interface design.
Are you an interface designer, or a programmer?
> If it were, we would all still be using the command-line...
The command line still works - and breaking command line programs when
an OS is upgraded is one of the biggest problems with OS upgrades. You
can put new features over the old (e.g. add a GUI over a command line
interface), but you shouldn't break old features or old commands when
you do that.
>> The fact that few outside the programmer community
>> use Gimp
> I don't think this is a given.
I assert that it's is quite obviously a given - based on the lack of
widespread adoption of this program and continued strong sales for a
similar program that costs hundreds of dollars. Why would people be
buying Photoshop if Gimp were "just as good" and "just as easy to use"?
Look at the adoption of Firefox when IE is free - if IE costs hundreds
per computer Firefox would have totally taken over the market by now.
The only reason IE has the user base it has is because MS gives it away
for free and embeds it in the OS. But Photoshop is not given away for
free, and is not embedded in the OS. Instead, people pay hundreds of
dollars - usually every few years for the next version, to buy PS
instead of using free Gimp. Clearly there are huge benefits for the
average (non-programmer) user to stick with PS.
> I, for one, am not a programmer.
> There is a thriving non-programmer GIMP user community forum at
> http://gimptalk.com/. GIMP's user base may not be as large as
> Photoshop's, but it is not a given that it is largely
> programmers using it. I also personally know at least two
> professional photographers (they make their living doing
> photography) who use GIMP for all their digital image processing
> who are not programmers, either. I had a conversation with one
> of them less than a month ago. He said that GIMP provides all
> the necessary tools a professional photographer needs.
I don't know of any professional photographer who doesn't use Actions.
You can't "record an action" in Gimp - you have to program it. This
makes it much harder to use for non-programmers, and makes it impossible
to use Photoshop Actions recorded by others.
I do know some photographers who use Gimp - they are all programmers,
all happy to spend their time fiddling with the programming aspects
rather than having the tool do the hard work (actions) while they do the
creative work (creative edits).
> You say:
>> it's not suitable for a non-programmer...
> And then:
>> Try taking any
>> PS tutorial (especially one about programming an action) and
>> applying to to Gimp. This is impossible for most users! So
>> those resources aren't available to Gimp users.
> Without dwelling on the obvious contradiction in your remarks,
There is no contradiction.
> GIMP does not attempt to clone Photoshop. I would not expect
> macros written for any program to work in any other that was not
> intended to clone that product.
I'm talking about following the concept of creating an action, following
the ideas in the tutorial. The concept of "here is a way to do a thing"
and "here is a way to program your software to do this thing over and
over automagically" is not new in image editing software. Many methods
of how to "do a thing" in PS and Gimp are similar (e.g. how to use a
given editing tool such as a paintbrush or eraser), but the method for
doing something over and over is fast and easy in PS (record an action)
and laborious and complicated in Gimp (script-fu).
> But if you insist, your argument
> could as easily be turned around and applied to making PS do
> what a tutorial or macro does in GIMP. Would it be easy to
> achieve the same results in PS without significantly reworking
> the examples? Probably not. Should we heap shame on PS for its
> poor compatibility with GIMP solutions? I don't think so.
I was speaking about the volume of support - there are many tutorials
for PS users - there are few equivalent tutorials for Gimp users.
>> You can learn from my feedback, or you can attack the
>> messenger again, as you wish.
> Or, we can also point out the flaws in your argument.
Which you failed to do. So are you going to learn from my feedback, or
continue to attack the messenger?
> What tools
> does Photoshop provide to professional photographers that is not
> only lacking in GIMP, but that have escaped the notice of my
> professional photographer acquaintances?
Perhaps you haven't been reading very carefully as I've already told you
the #1 stopper - Gimp has no way to "record" a series of edits and then
apply that same series of edits to other images. In Photoshop, this is
an Action. In Gimp you can't "record" while doing the edits, you have
to program what you want in script-fu and the methods for doing this are
not nearly as simple, obvious, intuitive as recording an action. This
is a UI design flaw.
Gimp-user mailing list