Replacing GIMP

[James Freer]

-----Original Message-----
From: Pasi Lallinaho <pasi at shimmerproject.org>
To: Xubuntu Development Discussion <xubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>
Sent: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 20:18
Subject: Re: Replacing GIMP


                On 07/25/2011 08:23 PM, Bruno Benitez wrote:
I do          know that there is no such "standard image editor" but if 
we          never start finding one, or adding one to our apps then we  
         will never have one, I think there should be a "standard image  
         editor" (pinta/gpaint/nathive/other) a          "professional 
image editor" (GIMP/others) and then we could          have "Image 
viewers" whit some "editing capabilities"          (gpicview/gthumb).  
I do not propose Pinta directly, It looks          awesome in my 
opinion, but it does depend a lot on Mono, so if          its choosen 
it wont ment a huge space saver either...

      --
      Bruno.-



    Jarno and Bruno,

     please focus your energy in creating the application comparison. A  
  few good points to include would be:

    1. What features do we expect an image editor to have, at least?
     2. What do you think is the learning curve for the different    
editors?
    3. How light are the applications?
    4. How mature are they in development?

     Looking at the history of application comparisons and proposals in  
   Xubuntu, it seems that there is a high possibility to get change in   
  the defaults, as long as you are willing to work for it, and the    
rationalizing is sufficient.

    Cheers,
    Pasi

In response to the above request here's my views. I like the graphics 
for photo processing... i'd consider myself an average user 
'processing' to reduce size, watermark and occasionally add special 
effects. I use Bulk Rename to rename in my own system - date with 
number so the camera numbering like DCFN05674 doesn't end up 
overwriting. I use eog to view [better than gpicview and other 
lightweights], and then ImageMagick to reduce size and watermark all a 
convenient one liner [used to use picasa but that didn't seem to like 
xubuntu and i didn't discover why]. Imagemagick appears to have 
sophistication that Gimp doesn't have and yet is also great for the 
intermediate level user who doesn't want the 'bells and whistles' - 
thus clearly fitting with the xubuntu user's ethos 'MINIMAL, FAST, 
FIT-FOR -PURPOSE'. Gimp for processing i found quite hard work to learn 
and read into. Imagemagick also goes nicely with llgal for one's 
albums. Both commandline apps which for processing a directory of 
hundreds of pics is the way to go. perhaps shortly i should write a 
wiki for xubuntu on Imagemagick and llgal to shorten the learning curve.

 1. What features do we expect an image editor to have, at least?
I think we need to define it clearly - Viewer and editor [i don't feel 
the two are the same]. The viewer should be simple like eog capable of 
screenshow, rotating images, saving to desktop (we all like our 
favourite pics in front of us). Separate app for 'processing' 
Imagemagick and llgal.

2. What do you think is the learning curve for the different editors?
For most users it should be  a day or two (couple of evenings) - with a 
nice straight forward wiki even less.

3. How light are the applications?
On the minimal side quite light and yet Imagemagick on the 
sophisticated side light as it's commandline.

4. How mature are they in development?
eog, Imagemagick, llgal - all well established and polished apps. When 
considering the 'minimal' approach i think it is important to have 
sound well tested apps. One thing which puts me off an app even if it's 
good is how polished it is. I use Mousepad as an editor, it does just 
what i want [i can always use gedit if i need to]. Similarly with Bulk 
Rename - it does all i need is nice an simple whereas Krename has more 
'eye candy' but i don't think does the job better.

--james