The option to modify GIMP to your needs is what made GIMPshop possible, so there is nothing blocking you (or a team of developers) from doing that. There are things that work differently than Photoshop, and some of those things are actually a very good thing, and some work much better than Photoshop (I say that as a 13 year user of Photoshop, and 6 year user of GIMP). The things that haven't proven to be good are being fixed, and cleaned up, and refined, and some are already available to test in the development branch (note for example the unified transform tool). The best thing to do is file bug reports and feature change requests. It is not as useful to just copy Photoshop's interface, because, even if it were easy to do that, or useful in the way you might suppose, it's not the purpose of GIMP to copy Photoshop.

It's probably better to see it as an alternative image manipulation program, rather than a replacement for Photoshop. GIMP will probably never support the latest PSD formats for example, so if you require 100% compatibility, you will still have to use Photoshop. The interface has gotten a ton better over the years, and will continue to do so. This may or may not be in-line with what Adobe does with Photoshop. You are also free to fork GIMP if you really really need a Photoshop UI rip-off. It can be done, and may get a lot of support. I personally think the time would be better spent helping development of the core GIMP project, and refining the tool UIs to be better than Photoshop, not merely the same. There are also a lot of videos, books, etc. about how to make the switch from Photoshop to GIMP for long-time Photoshop users.

That's my 2p.

-C

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Webdrifter wrote:

Dear developers,

Photoshop has been the number One in photo editing for decades. Gimp has always been the alternative that could never push Photoshop from it's throne, despite being free of charge. However, potentially Gimp should be able to knock Photoshop of it's throne. But there are three reason is never has. Those reasons are: "interface", "interface" and "interface". Most people in the industry are used to the Photoshop interface and those who want to get into the industry need to learn the Photoshop interface (By this power alone Adobe has always been able to refuse porting Photoshop to the Linux environment and maintain it's steep pricing).

Than one day in 2006 Gimpshop emerged. Scott Moschella created a Gimp version with Photoshop look and feel. It blew us all right out off the water. Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability and deer need for a product like this. A product that not only can knock Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop's dominance and arrogance alltogether.

(In the end it would have made Gimp the leading software and thus the leading interface builder for photo-editing software, making it possible to gradually lead people towards a real Gimp-interface that would suite us all, and forcing Photoshop to follow the Gimp-interface instead of the other way arround).

It was the turning point of a possible total triumph for the free software movement. Using the interface of leading propriatory software opened up new horizons for other free software. However, than some greedy bastard nicked the gimpshop.com url, and used it to make money on Scott's achievement. This frustrated Scott so much that he stopped updating Gimpshop for later Gimp releases. A beautiful flower was broken. You would think the Gimp society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again. Will it....

PS: Before we get into a useless discussion on which interface is better (Gimp or Photoshop), I would like to state that I have no problem whith the Gimp interface what so ever. And I do recognize the ongoing effort to make it better and better. But there is also is immense need for the OPTION to change te interface to a Photoshop look and feel. We should recognize this need and use it to our advantage, instead of ignoring it. If for some (juridicial?) reason it is not possible to integrate this feature in the official Gimp-version, at least a tool to make it possible should be made available through the Torrent-network. _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Webdrifter wrote:

First of all, I realize you are passionate GIMPshop/GIMP user and I do appreciate that. But you seem to be making a horrible lot of debatable assumptions.

Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability and deer need for a product like this.

With free software that has no "phone back" feature you have no way to estimate if downloaded software is used at all or if there's a hype going on. Hence viability of GIMPshop is merely a speculation. The same applies to GIMP as well.

A product that not only can knock Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop's dominance and arrogance alltogether.

I think I can freely speak for the majority of the team here: we do not define GIMP as a project that aims to dethrone Photoshop. You are of course at liberty to disagree with our project vision.

You would think the Gimp society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again.

The reason it never happened is because noone cares enough to go ahead and do that. So much for "millions" of people waiting for a miracle.

We should recognize this need and use it to our advantage, instead of ignoring it.

By all means, please go ahead and fork GIMP :)

Alex

On a positive note, I was able to answer some GIMP questions last night at the London Linux meetup.
These questions came from a long time Photoshop and Corel Draw user, who has tried GIMP and was stumbling as many do when coming from Photoshop as a primary photo-editor. However within minutes, he had completely changed his mind about GIMP. This is not the first time I've seen this happen. In fact, it seems to be the default reaction when I show them this GIF I made of the process of photoediting a paintbrush and wall for a charity website:

http://www.opendesignstudio.org/gimp/quickref/fresh_paint_new_orleans_500px2.gif

It seems to me, the real problem is not that it doesn't have the same UI as Photoshop, but rather that people forget how long it took them to learn Photoshop in the first place.
I've found that showing people the power of the software, more often than not, rekindles that essential flame of curiosity, which is essential to learning anything new. The rest is patience, and realising that the time investment pays off tremendously in the end. Even if you can not replace Photoshop entirely in your working environment, you have one more standards-compliant tool to produce graphics, and this tool is usable by everyone in the world at no charge. That's an enormous advantage over Photoshop, and well worth the time it takes to learn the software.

-C

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Webdrifter wrote:

First of all, I realize you are passionate GIMPshop/GIMP user and I do appreciate that. But you seem to be making a horrible lot of debatable assumptions.

Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability and deer need for a product like this.

With free software that has no "phone back" feature you have no way to estimate if downloaded software is used at all or if there's a hype going on. Hence viability of GIMPshop is merely a speculation. The same applies to GIMP as well.

A product that not only can knock Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop's dominance and arrogance alltogether.

I think I can freely speak for the majority of the team here: we do not define GIMP as a project that aims to dethrone Photoshop. You are of course at liberty to disagree with our project vision.

You would think the Gimp society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's of people are still waiting for the miracle to happen again.

The reason it never happened is because noone cares enough to go ahead and do that. So much for "millions" of people waiting for a miracle.

We should recognize this need and use it to our advantage, instead of ignoring it.

By all means, please go ahead and fork GIMP :)

Alex _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

I truly have never understood the argument that Photoshop has a better UI then GIMP and that GIMPs UI is ugly or sucks. I never understood GIMPshop, all it does is rearranged the dialogs to be in the same default configuration as Photoshop and changes the hot key settings to be more like Photoshop... That's it.. Does not do anything the user could not do them selves. In my opinion Photoshop and GIMP pretty much have the same UI. Don't think so? Let me break it down.

Both Photoshop and GIMP have the ability to be multiple window mode or single window mode.

Photoshop by default has a toolbar to the very left, GIMP has by default a toolbar to the very left. The user has the ability to move the toolbar where ever they want in both programs. In both programs the toolbar can be floating or apart of the window. Both Photoshop and GIMPs toolbar generally contain the same tools.

In the middle of the UI both Photoshop and GIMP have a canvas. Not too exiting here, its where all your work is done. You have rollers, scroll bars, and a status bar to give you information about what you are currently doing.

Photoshop does have what GIMP calls the tool option dialog as a toolbar at the top of the canvas(which I believe GIMP should have the option to do as well). This is the only noticeable difference when you first load up GIMP. After that people will find other differences.

To the right of the UI both Photoshop and GIMP have dialogs. They both act very much the same, except Photoshop has the ability to collapse there's. GIMP does not have all the dialogs that Photoshop does but it has the most essential ones. Each dialog has a menu to give you options that only apply to that dialog in both Photoshop and GIMP.

There is a menu above the invite window that for the most part is the same in both Photoshop and GIMP. You can modify the image, layer, and filters here. That's pretty much all people use the menu for.

Everything that Photoshop has that GIMP does not is mostly just fluff and not really needed. Most everything you can do in Photoshop can be achieved in GIMP. You just might need to work harder to do so.

The only thing I see as a true problem for people is GIMPs theme. The theme gets in the way and distracts people from creating art. At least this is what I have heard from many people and is my own experience. I think I have spent more time thinking about how the UI could be better, and wishing for a flat theme then I have creating art in gimp. And I know of many others who say the same. That is why i created The Flat GIMP Icon Theme [1], to let GIMP get out of your way and let you create art.

[1] http://android272.deviantart.com/art/Flat-GIMP-icon-Theme-V-2-1-375010811 On Jul 30, 2015 6:52 AM, "C R" wrote:

On a positive note, I was able to answer some GIMP questions last night at the London Linux meetup.
These questions came from a long time Photoshop and Corel Draw user, who has tried GIMP and was stumbling as many do when coming from Photoshop as a primary photo-editor. However within minutes, he had completely changed his mind about GIMP. This is not the first time I've seen this happen. In fact, it seems to be the default reaction when I show them this GIF I made of the process of photoediting a paintbrush and wall for a charity website:

http://www.opendesignstudio.org/gimp/quickref/fresh_paint_new_orleans_500px2.gif

It seems to me, the real problem is not that it doesn't have the same UI as Photoshop, but rather that people forget how long it took them to learn Photoshop in the first place.
I've found that showing people the power of the software, more often than not, rekindles that essential flame of curiosity, which is essential to learning anything new. The rest is patience, and realising that the time investment pays off tremendously in the end. Even if you can not replace Photoshop entirely in your working environment, you have one more standards-compliant tool to produce graphics, and this tool is usable by everyone in the world at no charge. That's an enormous advantage over Photoshop, and well worth the time it takes to learn the software.

-C

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:28 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Webdrifter wrote:

First of all, I realize you are passionate GIMPshop/GIMP user and I do appreciate that. But you seem to be making a horrible lot of debatable assumptions.

Downloads of Gimpshop really skyrocketed, thus proving the viability and deer need for a product like this.

With free software that has no "phone back" feature you have no way to estimate if downloaded software is used at all or if there's a hype going on. Hence viability of GIMPshop is merely a speculation. The same applies to GIMP as well.

A product that not only can knock Photoshop off it's throne, but that could get rid off Photoshop's dominance and arrogance alltogether.

I think I can freely speak for the majority of the team here: we do not define GIMP as a project that aims to dethrone Photoshop. You are of course at liberty to disagree with our project vision.

You would think the Gimp society would have picked up on this, however it never happened. Million's of people are still waiting for

the

miracle to happen again.

The reason it never happened is because noone cares enough to go ahead and do that. So much for "millions" of people waiting for a miracle.

We should recognize this need and use it to our advantage, instead of ignoring it.

By all means, please go ahead and fork GIMP :)

Alex _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

El jue, 30-07-2015 a las 11:52 +0100, C R escribió:

It seems to me, the real problem is not that it doesn't have the same UI as
Photoshop, but rather that people forget how long it took them to learn
Photoshop in the first place.
I've found that showing people the power of the software, more often than
not, rekindles that essential flame of curiosity, which is essential to
learning anything new. The rest is patience, and realising that the time
investment pays off tremendously in the end. Even if you can not replace
Photoshop entirely in your working environment, you have one more standards-compliant tool to produce graphics, and this tool is usable by
everyone in the world at no charge. That's an enormous advantage over Photoshop, and well worth the time it takes to learn the software.

I concur.
I have similar stories about people complaining about how bad, incomplete, uncapable and clunky GIMP is, until they actually see it working for real.
Most of the complaints come from a brief look at the UI and trying to do something the same way they'd do with the other application. When they fail then the tool sucks.
When you switch to a new tool you have to spend some time with it learning how to use it. It's curious that so many people who moved from Corel Draw to Illustrator forced themselves to learn the new tool despite its differences with the latter, but they tear their clothes when somebody suggests that they have to learn something when they move from PS to GIMP.
I think it's a "status" thing. Moving from one software to another which is some sort of industry de-facto standard, costs money, regarded as better, etc. that's perceived as an improvement, so the effort needed to learn the new thing seems justified. However, moving from THE de-facto industry standad to a free application made by a group of volunteers is perceived as a downgrade, so people puts the burden on the application.

It's not fair at all, but it is what it is. The only way to fight that is with education, showing people what can be done with the tool. Results matter and the process matters too. Your gif is a nice example because it show that complex things can be done.

Maybe it would be a good idea to post some breakdowns and timelapses of complex work done in GIMP as an example of what can be done with the tool. Not tutorials, real world examples of good work made with GIMP, so new users get to know what results to expect once they master the tool.

Gez.

I find one effective way to combat "missing feature" aggravation is to ask the person (or one's self) to put a price tag on that feature. The answer is generally far far less than the retail price of Photoshop, even when you add then all up. That reality check is a good way for people to start thinking about software as an investment. With Photoshop is an investment in time and money. Time to learn, and the retail price. With GIMP, you are just investing time. There are people with good justification for using Photoshop, but the vast majority of people, including professionals, will do just fine with GIMP. Another question is how much do you value the freedom that comes also at no cost with GIMP. Such things have no dollar value, but are a source of great excitement for me personally. When I teach people graphic design, I don't have to require them to buy expensive commercial packages, or encourage grand-theft software, as a required first step. When I contribute graphics or web code to Open Source projects, I feel a connection to something greater than myself, and a kinship with all those who helped me to learn and develop as an artist, a programmer, etc. GIMP thus provides an additional important thing: the ability to give back. This is also priceless, imho.
On 31 Jul 2015 5:34 am, "Gez" wrote:

El jue, 30-07-2015 a las 11:52 +0100, C R escribió:

It seems to me, the real problem is not that it doesn't have the same UI as
Photoshop, but rather that people forget how long it took them to learn
Photoshop in the first place.
I've found that showing people the power of the software, more often than
not, rekindles that essential flame of curiosity, which is essential to
learning anything new. The rest is patience, and realising that the time
investment pays off tremendously in the end. Even if you can not replace
Photoshop entirely in your working environment, you have one more standards-compliant tool to produce graphics, and this tool is usable by
everyone in the world at no charge. That's an enormous advantage over Photoshop, and well worth the time it takes to learn the software.

I concur.
I have similar stories about people complaining about how bad, incomplete, uncapable and clunky GIMP is, until they actually see it working for real.
Most of the complaints come from a brief look at the UI and trying to do something the same way they'd do with the other application. When they fail then the tool sucks.
When you switch to a new tool you have to spend some time with it learning how to use it. It's curious that so many people who moved from Corel Draw to Illustrator forced themselves to learn the new tool despite its differences with the latter, but they tear their clothes when somebody suggests that they have to learn something when they move from PS to GIMP.
I think it's a "status" thing. Moving from one software to another which is some sort of industry de-facto standard, costs money, regarded as better, etc. that's perceived as an improvement, so the effort needed to learn the new thing seems justified. However, moving from THE de-facto industry standad to a free application made by a group of volunteers is perceived as a downgrade, so people puts the burden on the application.

It's not fair at all, but it is what it is. The only way to fight that is with education, showing people what can be done with the tool. Results matter and the process matters too. Your gif is a nice example because it show that complex things can be done.

Maybe it would be a good idea to post some breakdowns and timelapses of complex work done in GIMP as an example of what can be done with the tool. Not tutorials, real world examples of good work made with GIMP, so new users get to know what results to expect once they master the tool.

Gez.
_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Webdrifter gmail.com> writes:

Dear developers,

Photoshop has been the number One in photo editing for decades. Gimp has

always been the alternative

that could never push Photoshop from it's throne, despite being free of

charge. However, potentially

Gimp should be able to knock Photoshop of it's throne. But there are three

reason is never has.

Those reasons are: "interface", "interface" and "interface".

I would like to politely disagree. The surface reason Gimp has so far failed to dethrone Photoshop is that it is light-years away from feature parity. GEGL, the back-end that's supposed to allow Gimp to even have those features at some point in the future, is still being worked on. the features themselves are years down the road.

But that's just the surface reason. The real reason is lack of developers. Gimp has been unable to attract developers in the numbers necessary to create a Photoshop-killer. The reason, as I see it, is a lack of strong leadership and vision. Blender, for example, has Ton Roosendaal, whose vision and enthusiasm swept people and made Blender into the amazing piece of software it is today. You need someone like Ton to attract people and find backers and allies in the business world who can contribute man-hours, expertise or money. As it is, though, the Gimp project is almost comatose.

If we are assuming "de-throne" means "to replace as what people think of as a photo editor", then it's more a matter of marketing than anything related to feature parity. Most people wouldn't know what features were "missing" in GIMP to compare in the first place. Most of the companies I work with are still rocking Adobe CS3, and clearly care nothing at all about new features, for example.
On 4 Aug 2015 12:45 pm, "MichaelGrosberg" wrote:

Webdrifter gmail.com> writes:

Dear developers,

Photoshop has been the number One in photo editing for decades. Gimp has

always been the alternative

that could never push Photoshop from it's throne, despite being free of

charge. However, potentially

Gimp should be able to knock Photoshop of it's throne. But there are

three
reason is never has.

Those reasons are: "interface", "interface" and "interface".

I would like to politely disagree. The surface reason Gimp has so far failed to dethrone Photoshop is that it is light-years away from feature parity. GEGL, the back-end that's supposed to allow Gimp to even have those features at some point in the future, is still being worked on. the features themselves are years down the road.

But that's just the surface reason. The real reason is lack of developers. Gimp has been unable to attract developers in the numbers necessary to create a Photoshop-killer. The reason, as I see it, is a lack of strong leadership and vision. Blender, for example, has Ton Roosendaal, whose vision and enthusiasm swept people and made Blender into the amazing piece of software it is today. You need someone like Ton to attract people and find backers and allies in the business world who can contribute man-hours, expertise or money. As it is, though, the Gimp project is almost comatose.

_______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@gnome.org List membership:
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

5 авг. 2015 г. 9:25 пользователь "C R" написал:

If we are assuming "de-throne" means "to replace as what people think of

as

a photo editor", then it's more a matter of marketing than anything

related

to feature parity. Most people wouldn't know what features were "missing" in GIMP to compare in the first place. Most of the companies I work with are still rocking Adobe CS3, and clearly care nothing at all about new features, for example.

You don't seriously believe that, do you? CS3 has adjustment layers, layer effects, and 32bit per channel precision - all the things that professionals have been asking us for, for years. Take these things away from professionals in Photoshop, and you'll never hear the end of it. In fact, you will be yelled at even by amateurs with just as much passion.

Alex

C R gmail.com> writes:

If we are assuming "de-throne" means "to replace as what people think of as a photo editor", then it's more a matter of marketing than anything related to feature parity. Most people wouldn't know what features were "missing" in GIMP to compare in the first place. Most of the companies I work with are still rocking Adobe CS3, and clearly care nothing at all about new features, for example.

Gimp is yet to achieve feature parity with Photoshop 5. not CS5 - just 5. from 1999. And most pro users will not use anything missing features from around CS2.

Krita has most or all of them, by the way, and possibly some featues photoshop doesn't even have, I'm not sure. If it's not a photoshop-killer already it's certainly on its way.

Gimp *could* re-brand itself as a simpler solution for amateurs, but for that it would have to work on simplicity and even lose some features.