Talk:Comparison of raster graphics editors

GIMP

Why the heck isn't the gimp included in the list?

Well spotted. It looks like someone has removed all the closing comment tags within the table, so large sections of the table were being blanked out by invalid comments. Ojw 12:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

is ArtRage really opensource/free software? I do not see any indication of that on the ArtRage website. Alikins 20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, the URL column is overflowing on some rows. I'm not an expert in WikiML; could somebody fix this? 86.131.11.123 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Features of GIMP

This is a list with the features of GIMP and GIMPShop.

• Retouching: yes
• Resizing: yes. resize and scale
• Noise removal: There is some plugins and filters. [1]
• Lens correction: Not, but there is a external plugin.
• Printing: Yes
• Sharpening: yes [2] and [3].
• Image Library: not

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.172.13.154 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Okay. Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

GIMP and GIMPShop?

I propose merging all the GIPM and GIMPShop rows. Support or reason not to? Althepal 02:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I oppose. GIMPshop is essentially a fork of GIMP and there is a version lag, --Karnesky 07:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. That's a good point, but I just thought that since all the rows were the same, why not merge. On a side note, how come Photoshop CS2 is on the list, but Elements, Album Starter 3.0, etc. are not on the list? Althepal 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge List of bitmap graphics editors

The comparison is much more comprehensive than the list (it also seems to be less of a lightning rod for link spam). See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_image_viewers for precedence. --Karnesky 19:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've merged all but the historical programs. Propose that we trim down to these & move to List of historical bitmap graphics editors and put a redirect to the comparison from the original list. --Karnesky 02:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's no reason, why historical editors should not be listed. Which editors are historical and which are not is really more of a matter of personal opinion - you never know who may still be using this old software. And including the historical programs would provide us the valuable historical information of how the software has developed over time. Anyway, other Comparison-of-articles provide the historical programs too (e.g. Comparison of web browsers). Renka 12:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I, as a reader who wants to find more info about OLD computer games and programs used to make them, would vote for a merging of the topic about rasterized

programs. The page might be longer, but I can search through it quickly if something interesting is there :-)

So let's merge them! It makes sense. Except, in the comparison, all the editors are listed in the first box anyway. -Althepal 00:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What does it take to merge the articles? -Althepal 06:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Converting to higher standards

I think, this comparison-page should be converted to look like most of the other "Comparison of ..."-type pages. For example the Icon-column has almost nothing to do with comparing the editors. At the same time, the use of icons to describe licenses is fuzzy - using abbreviations like GPL would be more precise. And of course the features should be listed in a separate table, so that a comparison of those could be possible.

I have started this conversion with adding a "Operating system support" table. 212.27.234.164 09:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Improvement

Good start, in major need of development. I think I'll nominate it at Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive.--Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on removal of footnote about scripting support in Adobe Photoshop

I removed the footnote suggesting that Photoshop 'scripting' support wsa more like macros than scripts. I believe this note to be looking at the Photoshop "Actions" support, which is very much a form of macro, but missing the support in Photoshop for scripting via Javascript. Google "Photoshop Javascript" for several references or see the PDF reference guide here: Photoshop Javascript Scripting Reference

iPhoto

Eh, shouldn't iPhoto be on this list? It's rather more current than its equivalent Microsoft Photo Editor seems to be. ...dave souza, talk 23:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.--Karnesky 01:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

<Sigh> Diverts self from fixing Falkland Islands edit war. Me no like editing tables. ..dave souza, talk 10:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

remove mng format?

I propose that we remove the MNG format. 1st, because the format appears to only be supported by one of the graphics programs listed, 2nd, because it is an animation format and the listed programs are bitmap editors and not (necessarily) animation programs, and 3rd, because it seems to be an obsolete format.

- dialectric - 16 May 2006

The only good reason on your list is the 2nd. The 1st is not good because it is still a point of comparison & other programs may start to support it or new programs which support it might be added to the list. The 3rd point simply isn't true. It is only five years old & nothing has definitively replace it. It might be a bit more accurate to say it "hasn't yet been widely accepted by the market." Right now, I see no problems keeping it in the comparison list & removing it would decrease the information content of the article. If space starts to get cramped, I agree that this would be one of the first pieces of information which could go. We could potentially have a column of "Other formats supported" & list it there. This would take up less space for this and other rarely-used formats. --Karnesky 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Come to that, I'm not entirely sure what the XCF and PSP formats are doing in there. I've never seen either in the wild, largely because they're non-standard formats; as such they're pretty much insignificant in the bigger picture, being used only privately and converted into a standard format when artwork is shared. I would have thought that such formats should be included only where they're actually often shared, as PSD is; rare formats like XCF and PSP should be removed, and other proprietary formats like Corel's CPT should not be added. (I would suggest replacing them with formats that are actually common, like PCD, XPM, and possibly PCT.) — Haeleth Talk 22:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, as it's not relevant to raster graphics editing, I'll delete MNG. -Althepal 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

MNGs are raster-based (just as pngs are). I really don't see what the point of removing it is--it is a narrow column and is verifiable and informative. --Karnesky 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it isn't useful in the comparison if hardly anything supports it and almost no editors use them. (I mean, would you want me to make a column for every feature supported by a single editor?) It can be mentioned in Kirta's article that this program supports MNG, but in the comparison of graphics editors, it is essentially taking up space and making the chart a little less readable.

Merge notice

In other articles topics they have separate list and comparison articles. Since no one has been talking about the merge issue - with the list of bitmap graphics being up since February i suggest it be removed. --ShaunMacPherson 02:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And other software lists have also been merged into their comparison articles. At one time, I merged all but the historical section of the list to the comparison page. Instead of just removing the tags, we should decide whether or not the historical programs belong in the comparison or not. I don' think they do. Renka does. Either finish the merge or move the list, but don't just ignore the tags.--Karnesky 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Digital Image and Quantel Paintbox should be merged either way. --Karnesky 05:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

suggestions

I think the import/export format tables should be merged; in most cases programs will do both for a given format, the cell contents could be I/E/B.

Not all the time. Many programs can open certain files, but can only save in restricted formats. RAW format is one obvious example.Althepal 06:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm thinking you're right. I might just merge them, and if there is a difference, I can just say (import) or something.Althepal 00:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Done!Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "selection editing" table header seems to be a little vague, as evidenced by the ? present in some of the cells. A more useful heading would be "non-rectangular transparent selection" or some such.

How about 2 different sections (or maybe pages) - one for palette based programs, and the other for 24bit ones? Some of us still have to deal with palettes and there are huge differences between the first camp (Deluxe Paint, Pro Motion etc) and the second (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro etc).

Aperture

Does Apple's Aperture program belong here, or is it in a different category? 64.90.198.6 18:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would expect that Aperture would fit in. Althepal 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows bias

Why is the column for Windows in platform support larger than any of the other columns? Theshibboleth 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Simply because of the longer entries. "Yes (for PocketPC also)" for Photogenics is quite long. --Karnesky 15:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Painter / CMYK and indexed

The table says that Painter supports CMYK. It does support loading and saving CMYK TIFFs, but only by converting to and from RGB. I certainly would not call this "supporting CMYK". The same state of affairs applies to indexed color: Painter can import and export indexed color, but you can only edit in RGB. Yet, the table says "no"! So here we have two color spaces, indexed and CMYK, with the same behavior, but one is marked "yes" and the other "no". I think perhaps they should both say "partial". What do you guys think? - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for move/rename

Raster was the term used 10 years before bitmap came into use. Bitmap redirects to Raster graphics. Raster is used more often than bitmap on Wikipedia. Bitmap could be confused with the Windows bitmap file format. [Raster and vector] go together better than [Bitmap and vector] and the two prior Google searches support that statement. If my reasoning for moving this page is incorrect I'm sorry to cause you so much trouble and please leave me a message on my talk page telling me why I was wrong so that I won't mess up again in the future. Jecowa 07:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

simonthebold 08:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

IrfanView is a highly-rated, popular, freeware image editor

--Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC). I was wondering why IrfanView was not in the article anywhere. Is there a reason? I have used it for years. So I went ahead and added it to the article. Here is more info on it:

• http://www.irfanview.com
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrfanView

Its features:

• http://www.irfanview.com/main_what_is_engl.htm

Winner of 2006 Shareware Industry Award for "Best Graphics Program or Utility":

• http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002464.html --Timeshifter 13:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Paint.NET?

I don't think that Paint.NET has PSD support. That extension does not appear in the drop-down list in the program.--69.221.247.78 01:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

JPEG 2000 & GIMP (and CMYK saving)

There is a plugin that will allow to handle JPEG2000 format in GIMP. Now, it is a external filter that can be compiled and used under GPL license. Maybe, in the future, it will can be a part of official GIMP.

• JPEG 2000 plugin for GIMP
• Divyanshu Vats's blog

Also, there is a external plug-in that allows to save files in TIFF with CMYK format.

I have found the plugin compiled in www.gimp.org.es, the link to download it is this: JPEG 2000 on GIMP.

Needs improvements

This article is very incomplete and doesn't include many common features for these editors. It has information on a few basic abilities (confined edits, HDR, histogram, color support, file support), but not many others. For example, it lacks information on: red eye, sharpening, color edits, color swap, noise reduction, straightening, distortions, interpolating, panorama, multi-exposure, brushes, edit maps, image library, etc. Without this information, two totally different programs could appear very similar! I suggest that we decide which of these functions should be added. Then we can add a few extra important columns. -Althepal 06:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If I personally had to choose five new features to include in the comparison, they would be: image library, retouching brushes, resizing, perspective/lens correction, and then maybe color edits, sharpening/softening, or noise reduction. -Althepal 19:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And HDR should be switched from Color Spaces to Features. -Althepal 02:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I added RAW support to the file import section, but if you feel it would be better placed in the features list, please move it. I also nominated this article for the improvement drive, but it needs votes.

I suggest that the "First public release date" column becomes "First public version" and contain the first version number. I also suggest that the "Latest stable version" column contains information about the release date for that version. Who's with me? Althepal 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Description column

I am adding a short description column to the comparison so people can get a basic idea of the programs at a glance (instead of having to check out each article for the program's basic uses). Althepal 19:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Obsolete or obsolescent entries note?

Instead of the notice at the beginning of the article informing about obsolete graphics editors, since that doesn't really say which ones are obsolete, why not just say "Obsolete" next to the version number (or price?) of those editors and remove the note? (Otherwise, I would suggest splitting the comparison into groups: Proprietary editors, free editors, and obsolete editors. And if we merge the list of editors with this article, I might actually suggest removing those obsolete editors from the comaprison.) Althepal 00:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

File type Import and Export?

The two sections for file type import and export seems quiet redundant and makes the article longer. It also makes it more difficult to compare the imports and exports for a single editor. I suggest merging the two sections. So the section would read "File types" any rare time there is a difference between if a program can open but not save a file, it can be mentioned right there in the box. Althepal 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) I took care of it. Althepal 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I intend to merge the pages (this with List of raster graphics editors. But first, I would like your opinions. Should this page to be the main page? Should the list to come first or should the article be separated between free and commercial editors with appropriate list coming before each comparison group? --Althepal 04:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The comparison should be the main article & the list should just redirect here. There is no need to sort it by license--that information is reflected in the tables. --Karnesky 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Layers

There seems to be no real information anywhere in WP about combining two images overlaid into one. The somewhat pitiful Layers article is about it. The Alpha compositing article focuses on video. And this comparison article just uses the word "layer" with no explanation. If one wants to combine two images, add them, subtract them, multiply them, logical AND OR XOR etc, do any of these tools do that? What are the proper names for such operations, and what programs are best? What programs let the user easily create new pixel transformation filters/effects?--69.87.200.66 22:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote most of the Layer article, and I have a draft of an article about overlaying/blending layers as well on my harddisk. However, I was not too happy myself with the Layers article and there has so far been very little feedback on it. Reluctant to make the same mistakes once more, I have still not created any Blending article. If you come with hints what could be improved with Layers, I have quite a lot of text and examples for blends as well. Mlewan 05:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: I will now unwatch this page. If anyone has comments, please, put them on my talk page or the discussion page for Layers (digital image editing). Mlewan 23:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Web-based?

Aren't there any web-based services to at least convert file formats we could mention?--69.87.204.97 02:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Image Analyzer

"Image Analyzer is really a minor program" ???
Far from being minor, IA seems to be the only small free tool available offering user-defined effects filters and the ability to combine (composite) mutiple images, overlaid as logical AND OR, multiplied, add/subtract, etc. (And the article says so little about layers that we have no idea which if any of the other programs can do these things.) If there are any other sleek little efficient free tools with these features, please tell us all about them! The article tables should add a column for download size, so we can get an idea of the footprint. Many of the programs listed are rather bloated, 10-20MB; IA is only 1MB. Irfanview is also only about 1MB, but the plugins add another 5MB.--69.87.199.81 15:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen. I'm on your side, and I tried to improve its information in this article and its own, but it is not really an "advanced" program capable of running all common image types and performing all advanced edits on them. Sure, it has a few very nice features, but so does Picasa. This is also very good, but advanced doesn't really fit into its description. Advanced edits are complex and require larger programs, and a program full of advanced edits will be at least 20MB; while a 1MB program may be very good in one or two areas while having a small footprint, it will not be a thoroughly advanced program. Althepal 17:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Paint Shop Pro

Is there any reason why Paint Shop Pro is only called advanced while Photoshop is called professional other than how many people are using it? After all, the entry for Corel Paint Shop Pro says the only difference is that Photoshop is also available for Mac, while PSP costs $99 AND gives you both raster and vector graphics which is not available in Photoshop. Furthermore, PSP can both read and write the photoshop file format, while Photoshop can't even read PSP's own format. --Tlatosmd 20:48, 29 March 2007 (CEST)

CS3 has a couple professional tools not found in PSP. Also note how it is the photoshop article which says it is the industry standard. Althepal 01:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Programs Without Supported Operating Systems

I noticed while looking through the comparison list of supported operating systems that more than one of the programs (including one named "MacPaint", which I would assume could run on Mac) had no "Yes" entries. Are these simply outdated, or has something else taken place? Zorgon X 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)