GIMP 2.8 Was it worth the wait?

GIMP 2.8 Was it worth the wait?

 GIMP is, without a doubt, one of the flagship programs of the world GNU / Linux and conforms together with Inkscape y Scribus the triad that is a solution for those of us who are professionally dedicated to graphic design. Basically to the branch of graphic arts. Particularly GIMP has been used to argue that the only thing preventing graphic design professionals from migrating to GNU / Linux it is ignorance, comfort and even laziness for not wanting to learn something new. Some of the many real reasons for such an impediment, I explained as best I could on the subject GIMP ... where yes and where sometimes.

GIMP 2.8 generated a huge expectation, not so much because of the background changes but, rather, because of what was supposed to be a re-engineering in terms of managing the work areas, pallets and tools ... and frankly they did. very bad.

One of the great mistakes of the team GIMP was trying to emulate the way Photoshop handles their toolboxes, but while the product of Adobe has behind its functional design a team that knows a lot about building and implementing productive interfaces, those of GIMP They have ignored once, and again, and again what we really need as design and graphic arts professionals to turn it into a reliable, easy-to-use tool that you don't have to wait for, well, it is available in the repositories of the distro you use to install it without any problem.

In advance I apologize for the images that I will use to illustrate my examples, but it has been easier for me to install GIMP en Windows 7 that Linux Mint Maya.

 Photoshop's mono-window

The single window mode problem in GIMP 2.8 is that it forces the tool box to the left and the pallets to the right.
The concept of presenting collapsed and recessed toolboxes and pallets is not a bad idea, in fact to Adobe it has worked perfectly well for him. It's even basically the same concept that operating systems have been taking as the desktop paradigm -Unity y Windows 8, e.g.- and part of the intelligence that through one or more Docks We can have files and / or functionalities in an easy, intuitive way and represents a space saving.

If that was the idea of ​​the people who develop GIMP Where then is the problem?

Let's first see how those Docks en Adobe Photoshop to understand the principles of its functionality:

1.-On the left we see the toolbox and on the right a series of twelve docked palettes, in both cases they are integrated into a single window. At the top, below the menus, we have a bar that displays the properties and functionalities of the work tools.

2.-These properties and functionalities are changing, in the upper bar, according to the tool chosen.

3.-The bar on the left compacts, vertically, the pallets that we are using, a «Click» On the icon that represents each palette, it displays it to be able to use it. In unfolded mode, each pallet can be scaled to the size that suits us without affecting the dimensions of the "Dock" nor to the other pallets.

The GIMP 2.8 mono-window

Now why, from my point of view, the mono-window of GIMP has serious deficiencies? I will try to explain myself as best I can.

The point was not to make a workspace in a single window, but to make a single window that offers advantages in terms of optimization of the workspace and that when working in that mode -mono-window- the availability of tools and work pallets was fast and intuitive.

Let's see and analyze how the workspace looks like in single window mode in GIMP 2.8

The first design problem is that the bar containing the work tools -on the right- It is complicated to use if we have one column per tool. A part of the tools is hidden without the possibility of accessing them, unless it is arranged in two columns:

Despite GIMP 2.8 has fewer tools than Photoshop It is not possible to use them properly in mono-window mode if we have the toolbar one line. And the problem is not the size of the icons but of optimization in the distribution.

Let's compare again:

While Photoshop group your tools by categories, GIMP 2.8 no. This means that in GIMP 2.8 each tool icon occupies a space and, even if they are less, they seem to be more. The illustration exemplifies as in Photoshop with a «Click» We can display the option to have up to four different modes of the same tool in a single icon or button, while in GIMP it takes up twice the space to show only two modes of the same tool.

Something similar happens with the palettes in the mono-window mode with GIMPWhile Photoshop create a vertical bar GIMP stacks, does not collapse, the pallets and arranges them in a series of horizontal tabs to allow the availability of each pallet. This horizontal arrangement of the pallets does not represent any benefit of space, since in addition to occupying that horizontal space it also occupies the entire vertical. While it is true that the stack of pallets can be hidden manually this is not practical, because then we have to be moving the size of the stacked pallets to see the tabs and have them available.

But also in GIMP 2.8 either the single-window mode or the floating panels are used ... there is no way to choose between embedding a panel to the stack anchored to the right and leaving others floating at the same time.

My conclusion

While it is true that the single window mode in GIMP 2.8 represents a certain advantage when working with several images at the same time, that same advantage is lost by the very unproductive way of stacking the pallets and work tools. From my point of view they should be two different functionalities; one that groups all the different work areas into tabs and another that allows you to choose between using floating panels for tools and pallets or mounting them in a single window, as you do. Photoshop.

I also believe that the development team of GIMP missed a great opportunity to work on other pain points that would be much more useful than single window mode, such as a more efficient way to handle layer masks for color adjustments or a visualization CMYK native. Instead, they opened up another front of deficiencies for improvement which means that the effort of the small team of developers will be dispersed as they have more problems to solve.

One of two readers will surely exclaim »Free criticism of the work of a very small group of devs is totally pointless.". And you are right… if my criticism were baseless. But also, don't we who dedicate ourselves to design and graphic arts have the right, and the knowledge that experience gives, to express our opinion with the aim of improving a product that, it is supposed, aspires to be a useful tool for us?

Hopefully sometime ... just for one damn time, the development team at GIMP ask us what we really need instead of assuming. Or at least read our suggestions which, believe it, have been many.