GIMP - Where It Fails...

[Xfcn]

Okay, I've been browsing the forums for awhile, and I've noticed that a lot of people say that GIMP falls short of needed work for professional photographers and a few other mediums. I'd like to see some specifics, here, as I only tend to encounter vague generalities.

I in no way shape or form represent or have the attention of the GIMP development team, but I am always curious to see what can be improved.

So, let's get specific here: where does GIMP fail you, and (if applicable) why?

[days_of_ruin]

It doesn't fail me...except I like inkscapes user interface better.
If that was an option it would be sweet.

[ajgreeny]

I think for professional photographers who send items to commercial printing firms, GIMP does not output the appropriate colour profiling, or something of that kind. For most, if not all amateur and casual users, it is more than adequate, with most of us probably using only a small percentage of its capabilities. I think it is the best, though I did take a while to get used to the unusual multi-window interface and menu set up. Once you've done that it is soooo powerful!

[Merk42]

It doesn't fail me...except I like inkscapes user interface better.
If that was an option it would be sweet.

How would that work? Inkscape is a vector application and GIMP is a raster one.

I think for professional photographers who send items to commercial printing firms, GIMP does not output the appropriate colour profiling, or something of that kind

That would be CMYK, GIMP only does RGB. That has always been a major complaint. Some other things where alternatives are better such as non-destructive editing (which I believe it set to be in a future version of GIMP)

[Xfcn]

Interesting stuff so far.

@days_of_ruin
I'm curious to know how Inkscape could possibly influence the GIMP in interface, except maybe for an all-in-one resizable window like Inkscape has. Is that what you mean?

[peitschie]

For me GIMP has some major issues dealing with very large pictures. On my computer it appears to have a limit of 3Gb for memory for the Tile cache size. I have one or two art pieces that are ridiculous sizes & values (1200dpi and reasonably large) that in Photoshop takes up 10Gb of swap. This picture fails epically under GIMP. I can't open it.

Another one I have is a 400Mb tiff file (based of the 1200dpi image) which opens okay, except I can't actually do anything to the image. That is, if I change the colours and then try and save the changes, the tiff writer fails claiming its out of memory.

These are the primary issues I have with GIMP.

Having said that, for anything reasonably sized (e.g, less than 50-60mb for the picture file), I use GIMP without any hassles. Oh, I have 2Gb of ram and about 1Tb of free space just for reference sake.

[Xfcn]

For me GIMP has some major issues dealing with very large pictures. On my computer it appears to have a limit of 3Gb for memory for the Tile cache size. I have one or two art pieces that are ridiculous sizes & values (1200dpi and reasonably large) that in Photoshop takes up 10Gb of swap. This picture fails epically under GIMP. I can't open it.

Another one I have is a 400Mb tiff file (based of the 1200dpi image) which opens okay, except I can't actually do anything to the image. That is, if I change the colours and then try and save the changes, the tiff writer fails claiming its out of memory.

These are the primary issues I have with GIMP.

Having said that, for anything reasonably sized (e.g, less than 50-60mb for the picture file), I use GIMP without any hassles. Oh, I have 2Gb of ram and about 1Tb of free space just for reference sake.

I didn't know it maxed out at 3 GB... that would be a bit of a short-coming in pro design.

[peitschie]

I'm actually a little intruiged as to where that limit actually comes from. I couldn't find any documentation justifying the limit anywhere...

I found this link about the Tile Cache... but again. It makes no assertions or even hints that this 3Gb limit exists: http://www.gimp.org/unix/howtos/tile_cache.html

[Xfcn]

I'm curious as well, as I've only got 1GB of RAM, so I know it's not a function of the RAM available on the computer.

[jedimasterk]

Okay, I've been browsing the forums for awhile, and I've noticed that a lot of people say that GIMP falls short of needed work for professional photographers and a few other mediums. I'd like to see some specifics, here, as I only tend to encounter vague generalities.

I in no way shape or form represent or have the attention of the GIMP development team, but I am always curious to see what can be improved.

So, let's get specific here: where does GIMP fail you, and (if applicable) why?

Let me see
Full 16/32 bit support
User interface way below todays standards
Plugins/Actions
Printing
Addons
Better marketing (when was the last time you read about Gimp in any Professional Photography magazine like ProPhoto)
Has Gimp innovated on anything. Is their anything that Gimp does that Photoshop doesn't.

You also need to ask why the pros use Photoshop. What highend capabilities does it have that the competition doesn't. Check out Lightroom. The majority of professionals are beginning to use that more than Photoshop for organizing thousands of photos. And then Photoshop mainly for enhanced editing. Look at all the addons that can be purchased for Photoshop. Just read a good Photography magazine and you will see.