On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern, identifiable, and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.

You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' letter to make it more identifiable?

3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive for a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep away Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.

You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.

4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.

Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and minimal icons are used instead.

What do you think about this dress change?

Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)

Alex

Hello!

There's a couple of things at work here, I think.

Wilber has served double duty as both a mascot _and_ a logo for a very, very long time. There's a long history of association of the image of Wilber with the project. It provides the benefit of being both unique, and instantly recognizable to anyone that's used GIMP before.

I understand the desire for something "modern" ("minimal" or not, though I understand that it's the flavor du jour at the moment), but I'm not sure if the path to a single letter or something similar is in the best interests of the project.

For one, if I'm looking at a launcher of icons and I see a single "G" there, my brain currently would associate it with Google first, not GIMP. The branding for that letter has previously been well established by a large player in the computer industry. Changing the GIMP icon to something similar would only serve to water down it's meaning and possibly confuse users more, imo. This is partially what Alex is referring to with his "identity loss, followed by existential crisis" I think.

The branding is strong with Wilber at the moment, and I can not find a good reason to reconsider it, personally. I'm happy to entertain reasons otherwise, though.

We are actually discussing splash screen stuff right now in the IRC room.

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 10:08 AM Maurizio Paglia wrote:

Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!

2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,

identifiable,

and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.

You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' letter to make it more identifiable?

Wilber is not a logo.
A logo is unique and do not change.
Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat, etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the launcher).

3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive

for

a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think

GIMP

needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep

away

Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.

You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.

Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-( But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon

4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.

Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear

and

minimal icons are used instead.

What do you think about this dress change?

Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)

Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment. Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss? I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people. Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software. In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'. Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but GIMP needs a new logo.

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

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

https://patdavid.net
GPG: 66D1 7CA6 8088 4874 946D  18BD 67C7 6219 89E9 57AC

Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.

Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”

So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter waste of their time.

Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.

GIMP is a tool that can be used to create artistic beauty, which is the only place appearance is important.

Put simply, I don’t care if the tool is uglier than mortal sin if it does the job well. Form follows function—about a light year behind.

As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on the iconic “starving artist.")

Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create something beautiful.

Ross

On Oct 20, 2017, at 10:07 AM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

Ciao Alex and thank you for your prompt reply!

2017-10-20 15:38 GMT+02:00 Alexandre Prokoudine < alexandre.prokoudine@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 4:18 PM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

2. ICON - I do not like GIMP icon. I think GIMP should have a new icon containing the letter 'G'. The 'G' icon will be more modern,

identifiable,

and will integrate better in modern flat/minimal desktop environment.

You mean we should replace the unique Wilber logo with general 'G' letter to make it more identifiable?

Wilber is not a logo.
A logo is unique and do not change.
Wilber appears in several flavours (thinking, joking, with a helmet/hat, etc.). Wilber acts like a mascot.
I think GIMP needs a more modern logo that could be the word GIMP written in a particular way, and the 'G' can be used as GIMP icon (for the launcher).

3. SPLASH - It could sound strange but splash is incredibly attractive

for

a lot of users and - in any case - it is the software intro. I think GIMP needs a more professional/modern/abstract splash. Moreover please keep

away

Wilber and put the 'G' icon instead.

You are judging splash screens by the ones we have for development versions. But we don't use those for stable versions at all. Splash screens for stable versions are exactly that: abstract. See for yourself: https://www.gimp.org/about/splash/stable.html.

Oh... yes, you are right. Sorry :-( But I confirm the need to always put in the splash the GIMP logo/icon

4. UI - I think Wilber should disappear from GIMP GUI (error/messages windows, etc.) and new modern icons to be used.

Wilber, in particular, should remain as the GIMP mascot, nothing else. Like KDE Konqi, the mascot appears on the website, etc. but its role is always clear: it is a mascot and is never used in the UI where clear and minimal icons are used instead.

What do you think about this dress change?

Identity loss, followed by the existential crisis? :)

Please apologize but I cannot understand this comment. Do you think change logo/icon will be an identity loss? I think a well done logo will have a big impact on people. Moreover I think a modern/minimal logo is more suitable for a software. In my opinion Wilber is too much 'vintage' and a little 'childlike'. Let's keep Wilber as a mascot (also to remember GIMP roots, why not) but GIMP needs a new logo.

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

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

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:

Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.

Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”

So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter waste of their time.

Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.

First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with few exceptions).

Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough place to discuss this to _me_.

Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.

uncapable software + bad visuals = no go

uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long

capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users

capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned

What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag about, no?

The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.

Alex

Alex,

I did apologize in advance for acerbidity (not a word ;^} ) And it’s just my strongly stated opinion. To me, anything that performs its function as well as the operator’s ability allows is a thing of beauty, regardless of what it looks like. (No, I’m not an engineer. =^D )

I like your attitude. As long as this is the way the developers see things, I see no problem.

It’s just that I have too much experience re-engineering (or back-engineering) things that were well designed, then ruined by the accountants and ad departments. I can’t do this with electronics or software—hence my apprehension. I’ve seen too many good things ruined by making them look “sexy,” or whatever, or by making them less functional for profit’s sake. At least the latter is not likely to be a problem here.

But I don’t think you can argue that our society pays far too much attention to appearance at the cost of substance. So being an old curmudgeon, when I see someone advocating improved appearance, it’s going to get a reaction—strongly stated, but civil, I hope. (I try not to make global warming any worse, but there are occasional episodes of localized, total atmospheric ionization …)

So a suggestion: Why not ask the users, or at least members of this list, rather than the developers, to produce the cosmetic enhancements. The users are artists of one sort or another. Here’s an opportunity to use their skills and talents to give back for some great, free software.

Ross

On Oct 20, 2017, at 12:28 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:

Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.

Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”

So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter waste of their time.

Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.

First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with few exceptions).

Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough place to discuss this to _me_.

Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.

uncapable software + bad visuals = no go

uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long

capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users

capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned

What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag about, no?

The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.

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

On 10/20/2017 11:41 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:

As for Wilbur, I, too, thought he looked a bit silly at first. Now I love the sight of him. He isn’t merely a mascot, or a logo. He’s an Icon, as in “Cultural Icon.” Put another way: “If you don’t use GIMP, you’re too wealthy to call yourself an artist!” (You’re supposed to laugh, here. It’s a play on the iconic “starving artist.")

Stop fussing about what the paint brush looks like. Go thou and create something beautiful.

Right on. I'm glad to see that proposals for fidget changes, for the sake of change itself, don't seem to get much traction here. As a long time student of propaganda and marketing (same thing) I would consider dumping Wilbur and anonymizing the GIMP logo as brand suicide moves.

Off topic for the thread: The GIMP splash screen includes a progress indicator showing the GIMP scanning all its optional/variable parts to build its menus and stuff every time it is started. On older, slower hardware that takes a loooong time.

I would like to see an option to toggle that process off and on, by saving the configuration data on exit, and reloading it when/as a "fast start" mode was enabled by the user.

As a possible default solution, a faster scanning process that only looks for changes in relevant directories could trigger a "real scan and reload" of all the variable parts, only where and as a change (new, missing or different sized files in any relevant directory) is detected by comparison of file names and sizes.

In the event of abnormal termination a flag indicating failure to shut down in an orderly manner - some dinky file that gets written at the end of successful program start, and deleted after writing out the configuration files during shutdown - could trigger a full rescan if present on start. This same process could be invoked by the user though a "reload all plugins and resources" command, which would restart the GIMP without setting the flag indicating a successful last shutdown.

Has this been discussed before (I bet it has) and if so where should I look?

Over the years I have spent a lot of time looking at GIMP splash screens when I could have been loading up image files and tweaking on them. The process that causes that does make perfect sense, but IMO so would some attention to shortening it when and as practicable.

:o)

"I am asking instead to the many enthusiast of GIMP that (I suppose) have more
graphic capabilities than developers."

I am a graphic designer and I disagree with your premise that GIMP needs a revamp to its "look". The world is full of products that have a great "look"or are even "sexy" but don't deliver. GIMP delivers. I want software that works and is stable.

• What is of far greater importance, IMHO, is functionality. Does it work as advertised? Yes.
• Does it install easily? Is it stable? Critical to being accepted. • Is the interface well-designed (absolutely critical for usability)? Mostly (v 2.8).
• Does it have a good manual/help system? Yes, once you get used to it. • Can the manual be better? Yes.
• Can the appearance of the GUI be changed to suit the user? In other words does it have an option to get rid of that gawd-awful flat black livery. Hopefully.

Cosmetic changes are a waste of time. Focus on functionality and the GUI.

Rick S.

-----Original Message----- From: Maurizio Paglia
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 6:51 AM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

... I am not asking the developers to carry on this task, they have to invest their time in coding and make GIMP more and more valid. I am asking instead to the many enthusiast of GIMP that (I suppose) have more
graphic capabilities than developers.

... Thank you,
Maurizio

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Rick Strong wrote:

• What is of far greater importance, IMHO, is functionality. Does it work as advertised? Yes.
• Does it install easily? Is it stable? Critical to being accepted. • Is the interface well-designed (absolutely critical for usability)? Mostly (v 2.8).
• Does it have a good manual/help system? Yes, once you get used to it. • Can the manual be better? Yes.
• Can the appearance of the GUI be changed to suit the user? In other words does it have an option to get rid of that gawd-awful flat black livery. Hopefully.

Cosmetic changes are a waste of time.

I think, by now we have established that developers don't do visuals. So waste of whose time, Rick?

Alex

Whoever does them.

Rick S.

-----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Prokoudine
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 7:38 PM To: gimp-user-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] GIMP name, icon and general graphic look

On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Rick Strong wrote:

• What is of far greater importance, IMHO, is functionality. Does it work as
advertised? Yes.
• Does it install easily? Is it stable? Critical to being accepted. • Is the interface well-designed (absolutely critical for usability)? Mostly
(v 2.8).
• Does it have a good manual/help system? Yes, once you get used to it. • Can the manual be better? Yes.
• Can the appearance of the GUI be changed to suit the user? In other words
does it have an option to get rid of that gawd-awful flat black livery. Hopefully.

Cosmetic changes are a waste of time.

I think, by now we have established that developers don't do visuals. So waste of whose time, Rick?

Alex

Comments in-line.

Ross

On Oct 21, 2017, at 5:51 AM, Maurizio Paglia wrote:

In data venerdì 20 ottobre 2017 19:28:03 CEST, Alexandre Prokoudine ha scritto:

On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:

Okay, please forgive me if I get a little acerbic, but I’ve spent most of my life fighting those who think appearance is more important than it is. Appearance is, at best, completely, utterly, secondary to everything.

Function, on the other hand, is absolutely vital—to everything. When I meet
someone who says they aren’t good looking, I tell them “Real beauty is on the inside, it comes from within. The outside is mere window dressing.”

So asking developers of some of the best graphics software to spend time thinking about appearance, other than the user interface, is a complete, utter waste of their time.

Wow, hold on :) I respectfully disagree.

First of all, we do care about the appearance of GIMP. In fact, we can be extremely opinionated about its appearance. Not that it was entirely in our power to make great illustrations and suchlike (with few exceptions).

Secondly, this is a users mailing list. The idea is that people who lurk here are of artistic persuasion :) That makes it a good enough place to discuss this to _me_.

Worried about “branding”? GIMP is free. It is “sold” because it works, and works very well. Its beauty comes from within. It doesn’t need a flashy ad campaign. It doesn’t need to look professional—it is professional and anyone who looks past the exterior knows it.

uncapable software + bad visuals = no go

uncapable software + good visuals = might work, but not for long

capable software + bad visuals = underestimated by potential users

capable software + good visuals = world domination proceeds as planned

What's so bad about good visuals then? Yeah, in-house VFX apps can be ugly as sin while doing the job, but that's hardly something to brag about, no?

The project could do with some visual refreshing (somewhat covered in upcoming 2.10). The nature and the scope of the refresh is a perfectly sensible topic to discuss, in my opinion.

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

Thank you all guys, now the discussion starts to be very interesting.

My first idea (but it is better to call it 'proposal') was absolutely not intended to kill GIMP in any way!
I simply think GIMP has something we could change in order to make it more appealing.

(@ Ross - I agree with you about beauty but - here - I am speaking about to be more appealing, more sexy, not more beautiful. A beauty software is not useful, a 'nice to see' software will attract more users).

I means if we carry on some good maquillage we can help GIMP to reach new users, more users means (hopefully) more brainstorming and partecipation and, why not, more developer.
GIMP 2.8 was released in 2012: now we are at the end of 2017 and we still do not know when GIMP 2.10 will be released. In software play 5 years are not a long time: this is an era! If you are a GIMP enthusiast you think 'developer are doing a very hard work in order to introduce GEGL, port software to a newer Gtk version, etc. etc.' If you are a normal user you think 'GIMP is dead’.

I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe Photoshop is dead to the normal, or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately supported or students—no one else can afford it. (Hence my earlier remark about “real” artists.) Where are the “have nots” going? To GIMP. I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP, and I’m aware of many more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS because their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone else wanted to know where to get it, and one PS user said he was going to recommend it to his employer.

To have more users you need more releases, to have more releases you [also] need more developers, more ideas, more brainstorming users. The easiest way to have more users is an attractive look, a little more marketing (marketing or propaganda are not evil!)

Propaganda is definitely evil: “Propaganda: chiefly derogatory, information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause, or point of view.” By your associating marketing with propaganda, marketing is therefore evil. Personally, I tend to agree, at least about the current fashion in marketing. >}:-{D>

and I think GIMP can [have
to] improve also on the look side.

You must work for Apple. Simply not true unless you are marketing to iDiots who know nothing except iWant the latest. Software development isn’t about fashion, or the latest “look” —especially if the software is free. Because GIMP is free, its merits are its only other “selling” points.

You all love Wilber? OK, keep it but think to a more modern/stylized Wilber to be used as icon.
Google for 'Wilbur' and you see dozens of different images (for this reason I think Wilbur is a mascot and not a logo), now Google for 'NIKE'. This is a logo: easy to remember, drawable in any size/colour.

I am not asking the developers to carry on this task, they have to invest their time in coding and make GIMP more and more valid.

GIMP is already valid. Either something is valid or it isn’t, there is no such thing as “half valid."

I am asking instead to the many enthusiast of GIMP that (I suppose) have more graphic capabilities than developers.

Will GIMP 2.10 be a great step ahead? Tell it to the whole world!

I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that you work in marketing. I don’t think marketing is needed here, at least not the kind you propose. No one is selling GIMP, at least not legally. Making it look “sexy” will not garner more users. Making and keeping it functional, by itself, will do so. If there is anything GIMP needs, it’s more word-of-mouth (or electronic media) “advertising.”

You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even if they don’t use such software. Someone they know might lament the state (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic acquaintance says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and loves it!” Been there, done that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with Photoshop.” I have had near strangers thank me a year later for the recommendation.

Thank you,
Maurizio
_______________________________________________ gimp-user-list mailing list
List address: gimp-user-list@gnome.org List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-user-list

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:

I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe Photoshop is dead to the normal, or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately supported or students—no one else can afford it.

"No one else" as in "lots and lots of freelancers who make their living from illustration, design, digital photography etc."?

> Where are the “have nots” going? To GIMP.

There are multiple options. GIMP is just one of them.

Affinity Photo is quickly gaining a dedicated user base for photo manipulation. Black Ink, Krita and others are becoming popular options for digital painting. And the list goes on.

I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP, and I’m aware of many more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS because their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone else wanted to know where to get it, and one PS user said he was going to recommend it to his employer.

Glad to hear that. Still a very small sampling.

I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that you work in marketing.

Well, I'm not Maurizio, but I do work in marketing, and my role with GIMP could be qualified as PR. So I'm guessing that's double-propaganda in your book.

You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even if they don’t use such software. Someone they know might lament the state (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic acquaintance says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and loves it!” Been there, done that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with Photoshop.”

Your experience, if it's true, is different from lots and lots (and lots) of cases I personally witnessed.

Alex

Frankly, what GIMP needs to make it more “marketable” is better documentation. IF I were going to ask the developers to spend more time on anything, that would be it. When I first encountered GIMP, I thought it was just like PS … Umm, nope. I think that needs to be addressed in some way. (No, I’m not volunteering. I don’t know GIMP well enough, yet.

I realize those who write code hate writing documentation, and I identify and sympathize with that. Further, other concerns may take priority. Still, I think GIMP is mature enough that it needs more complete, readily available documentation. I certainly think it is more important that a flashy appearance.

Other comments in-line.

Ross

On Oct 22, 2017, at 7:26 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Ross Martinek wrote:

I disagree completely. I am a “normal” user, and I do not think GIMP is dead. Quite the contrary. Adobe Photoshop is dead to the normal, or average, user. The only people using PS are either corporately supported or students—no one else can afford it.

"No one else" as in "lots and lots of freelancers who make their living from illustration, design, digital photography etc.”?

I pulled a marketing ploy—I overstated. ;o) If you can justify the cost as a business expense, and it pays for itself. PS is a great program, and as long as I used it, I considered the documentation the best of any software, not just graphics.

I think what I should have said is that Adobe is marketing solely to those who use the program daily, or at least frequently and profitably enough to justify a faintly outrageous subscription cost. If you are not established, the cost can be a burden.

For example, my use of graphics software is not daily any more, though it used to be. I switched to GIMP when that was still the case. Now I may use a program intensively for two months, then hardly at all for several months. It is a vital accessory to what I am doing, but it is not the primary tool. Admittedly a small sampling, but I know several successful creative artists with similar use patterns.

Where are the “have nots” going? To GIMP.

There are multiple options. GIMP is just one of them.

Affinity Photo is quickly gaining a dedicated user base for photo manipulation. Black Ink, Krita and others are becoming popular options for digital painting. And the list goes on.

Perhaps I should investigate these … Nah, I’ll stick with GIMP. =^D

I know several successful artists who have abandoned PS for GIMP, and I’m aware of many more. I did two lectures on a particular aspect of fantasy art last March. Of those attending, two used PS because their employers paid for it. Of the rest, about five used GIMP. Everyone else wanted to know where to get it, and one PS user said he was going to recommend it to his employer.

Glad to hear that. Still a very small sampling.

Unfortunately true, but I can only speak of my own experience, likely less than yours.

I get the distinct impression from what you say and how you say it that you work in marketing.

Well, I'm not Maurizio, but I do work in marketing, and my role with GIMP could be qualified as PR. So I'm guessing that's double-propaganda in your book.

Actually, no. I merely point out that associating marketing with propaganda is NOT a good thing. Propaganda, by definition, is untrue. Marketing does not have to be. I wish more people in marketing would realize that.

And PR is not necessarily propaganda, especially since “public relations” strongly implies two-way communication. Communication is always a good thing.

You can’t “tell the whole world,” but you can tell everyone you know, even if they don’t use such software. Someone they know might lament the state (EXPENSE) of Adobe and PS, at which point your non-artistic acquaintance says “Have you tried GIMP? Its free and loves it!” Been there, done that. Have yet to hear anyone say, “Nah, I’ll stick with Photoshop.”

Your experience, if it's true, is different from lots and lots (and lots) of cases I personally witnessed.

Yes, it’s true. And really? I do not understand people who prefer to spend money when they can get a near equivalent for free (not equating GIMP and PS). GIMP is neither buggy nor unstable. While there may be some PS features not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its documentation.

Ross

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

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:

While there may be some PS features not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its documentation.

Ross, I appreciate your loyalty to the project, but you aren't making any friends right now :)))

Alex

Alex,

I said I was an old curmudgeon. ;^] It’s only my opinion, based on my experience, not wisdom from on high, and while strongly held, I’ve no objection to being shown I’m in error, or that my conclusions aren’t supported by your or others’ data (as you did.)

If you are talking about my comments on documentation, I really do identify and sympathize with those creating this delightful tool: writing documentation of something one understands thoroughly is very difficult, in part because of the very expertise needed to do so. It often feels as if one is stating the blatantly obvious, over and over again. I have all too much experience with that, and the other frustrations inherent in the process.

I did not intend to denigrate the free, online documentation that exists, only to say that it could be better. If developers are going to work on something besides development, I think that is a better use of time. By comparison with other, similar, open source programs, GIMP’s is better than many, if not most. It gets one off to a good start.

I hesitated to mention a commercial product which actually does a good job of documentation. I have found The Book of GIMP, by LeCarme and Delvare to be an invaluable resource in learning GIMP. It’s expensive, but the software is free, and the book costs far less than most graphics programs (or at least it did when I bought it.) (Shameless plug, and no, I don’t get anything for it.)

As for marketing, if that is a concern, the way Literature and Latte markets their products might be worth a look. Scrivener, their writing app, is phenomenal. It isn’t free, like GIMP, but it is very affordable. Would I pay the price of Scrivener for GIMP? As my physics prof was fond of saying, “That’s not only obvious, it’s an obvious, obvious.”

And Maurizio, I also appreciate your enthusiasm. I just think it’s slightly misplaced. Don’t let my stentorian objections discourage you.

Ross

On Oct 22, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Ross Martinek wrote:

While there may be some PS features not available (yet?) in GIMP, the only advantage of PS I see is its documentation.

Ross, I appreciate your loyalty to the project, but you aren't making any friends right now :)))

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

Maurizio, I have no hair left, my beard is white