There is an attempt to re-write cinepaint using FLTK to once again provide a windows client, but cinepaint itself has not been re-written from those patches beyond code clean up, bug fixes, and gtk2 support.
In fact, cinepaint is still similar enough to gimp 1.2 that you can use plugins from that era of gimp in cinepaint (if you can find their source-code).
blender’s build in compositing tools are very limited and gimp’s plugin repository is huge. i think its a very good idea to use them with blender’s compositor and the possibilities will be limitless.
but even this will be very limited, in the sense ite gimp’s prowess of image editing and texture generation will be untouched. this is as big as using gimp’s plugin for compositing. with the new APIs blender support, maybe a seamless integration will be cool (and will save time and hassel)
It’s not just to copy and paste some code to get gimp features in blender or vice-versa. It would require a huge effort, I most cases probably a lot harder than rewriting the feature from scratch. So even if the BF would want to, it’s not that easy to "push the development of gimp via some features ".
The difference between Blender and Gimp development that you describing is spelled Ton Roosendaal. Without him blender wouldn’t exist. Gimp has no equivalent, and that’s why there is no Gimp institute or Gimp open projects.
Agreed… and Ton has not lower his pace a bit. that’s why blender is what its now
when are they going to gimp 2.8 it’s been along time of devlopment and the 2.7 svn is bad full of bugs i can’t even use the text tool.
by the merging gimp with blender is a very bad idea, it is nice but it’s bad, i mean one of blenders best features that it so small and light, i imagine if we kept imagining merging software with it we’ll wake up one day and we have a 3ds max, and nobody want that, i mean blender is 100 MB with addons max is zillion GB without addons.
come on, leave blender as is, and BTW blender has a big line of improvements a head not implemented yet, they got there own headache.
when are they going to gimp 2.8 it’s been along time of devlopment and the 2.7 svn is bad full of bugs i can’t even use the text tool.
http://www.gimpusers.com/forums/gimp-developer/12254-GIMP-2-8-schedule.html#msg56296
Perhaps it would be useful, when having Blender and Gimp open simultaneously, to be able to take an image window from GIMP and directly transfer that image from gimp directly into blender without having to go through the steps of saving the file. Conversely, it would be helpful to take images from the image editor and transfer them directly into a new (or active) gimp window. This would make updating and tweakin things a snap, well snappier anyway.
Can you run batch processing over an image sequence in Gimp? May be a cool round trip feature for sequencer e.g. send 2 layers or more to get layer or effect comps done. Where the script setup would be embeded in the .blend file. It could be a proxy color grading tool for sequencer?
Let’s debunk a terrible GIMP Myth first:
This isn’t true. Professional means - used by a professional to create professional results. I’ve been using the Gimp to produce 8000x10000 pixel wide posters, working with several layers. The finished result went directly to the print. I’ve also produced a 42 page user manual (hardback!) fully illustrated (with Blender images) that has been mass produced with great results. A lot of my friends in the graphics industry, use the Gimp to solve issues that Photoshop can’t and vice versa, the Gimp is more widely used than you may be aware of, the reason for this is simple…it’s not commercial - so you don’t really hear adverts for it or people “touting” it. When people mention what they do - they mention Photoshop - because everyone knows that name, very simple - really!
What the Gimp DOES need:
Every photo editing software out there, or any graphics editing suite (at least commercial) have this. With the Gimp…it’s just a “shadow script”, meaning…you set your variables, and it calculates the shadow effect, and after a while you have an extra layer with the shadows.
Why is that bad? If you work professionally, it IS bad. You need to real-time adjust shadow effects on the fly, not:
etc…
That’s tedious and simply stupid. Away with it - let’s create a shadow feature that works with everything, text (without converting it to bitmap etc.)
You can’t even rotate the text with shadows in Gimp as it is now (it converts it to bitmap, and then you have to re-place the text position, text size and whatnot…it’s …yes…I said it before…stupid!)
Such as it is now, is rather hilarious…selecting a bunch of “bitmap” brushes. Take the brushes from eg. MyPaint (which ROCKS!) and implement in The Gimp, and the world’s your oyster.
Yes, please! I know you guys are promising that it’s coming, and we’re all looking forward to not having to play hide-and-seek with “where did that window go?” game… anymore, I admit…it’s fun, it’s that thing a day that wastes time to get a breather in…but 
(Aka - Hulk want to SMASH monitor…fun)
This is a LIFESAVER at work with Photoshop, this is what we live for, customers and their logos. Mess with their logo colours and you’re ASKING for trouble.
Unfortunately Pantone™ is a trademark and copyrighted, I’m guessing Adobe has LICENSED their system as you don’t get this with the Photoshop LE or other light versions. You pay a hefty price for the Pantone™ Paper-Fan too (if you’re in advertising, you have a bunch of those in your drawers)
The “Fisher-Price” icons The Gimp have I can live with, though It’d be nice to throw some quality artwork in there
Other than that - The Gimp is a GIFT to everyone, take it or leave it.
nicholasbishop,
I don’t think that I said that Gimp is bad at all.
And I am pretty sure that the developers for it are much aware of what is the difference to Photoshop.
JoOngle,
what might have worked for you, I am pretty sure does not apply for everybody else.
There are reasons why Photoshop is the leader.
It is out of question that Gimp has it’s strength and can serve well in a particular scenario.
But from all the designers I know, I do not know any who uses it as a substitute for Photoshop.
This is like Blender vs Maya. Blender can do parts Maya can do. But Blender cannot do everything
Maya can do.
simple and true
The gegl framework (babl for colour space conversions) is starting to mature and I am sure would be of great utility to blender programmers, as it is (slowly, incredibly slowly) proving for Gimp. It is prooving to be really fast and is currently used to speed up on-screen drawing/refresh as Gimp moves all the internal drawing routines to GEGL and will be used for non-destructive realtime preview of how colours look when calibrated, profiled or converted to CMYK (touch wood).
Doesn’t Maya get much of its funtionality using heavy in-house customisation, 3rd party scripts and plug-ins? I am sure there at least a couple of things that Blender does that the standard Maya out-of-the-box install can’t!
its like a wish list every gimp user want 
shadows and brush editor is a kind of MUST requirement for me. apart from that i wish 32 bit support would be great. then gimp can be a real complimentary for blender
Guys don’t get me wrong, I wish Open Source apps were capable to provide serious
competition to commercial apps.
In the past years the selection of programs just marginalized more and more.
We had so many photo editing tools from XRes to Photoshop, and others.
Freehand is dead one of the best illustration and layout tools ever.
Adobe just trashed it and put some features into Illustrator.
However for serious work you still need both Illustrator and InDesign.
Guys don’t get me wrong, I wish Open Source apps were capable to provide serious
competition to commercial apps.
In the past years the selection of programs just marginalized more and more.
We had so many photo editing tools from XRes to Photoshop, and others.
Freehand is dead one of the best illustration and layout tools ever.
Adobe just trashed it and put some features into Illustrator.
However for serious work you still need both Illustrator and InDesign.
why i need photoshop:
adjustment layers
HDR support
(cmyk support and color profiles)<- not so important to me, but very much so for others
Actually, I use blender’s nodes a fair bit for my HDR needs (color correction, lens correction, etc), so gimp-blender are already linked in my book.
Oh and LAB color mode !
(again, blender to the rescue)
gimp again… sigh…
Well a tool without a professional hardly will produce professional results… This is true for photoshop, gimp, paint shop pro, xara, and a long etc. As warning, i use gimp in work when gimp is good enough for a determined task.
Gimp will offer most of the stuff needed if you know the actual limitations of the software (as with any other tool, a professional should know the tool is using)… Particularly GIMP:
Is not for windows: Windows is not an intended platform for it, that’s why is dog slow and prone to crashes on windows systems. Also the interface is ugly and alien by the standards defined on windows systems. Probably on other OS will work better (Linux, since GIMP was originally designed for Linux). Blender historically had a uglier interface, but has something that gimp doesn’t: Logical placement. Once you get the rationale behind the old Blender interface, work is FAST. Gimp doesn’t have any rationale, just put the icons and options where screen allows them (or that’s what i see on windows…)
Is not for producing press ready content. period. (was not designed with this use in mind, so the lack of options, settings and tools required to do so. This would require the use of propietary and patented solutions that can expose any US based dev in legal trouble in the US, and any country that allows the use of software patents)
Is not for painting. You can use anyways, but will be a frustrating experience… There’s always gimp paint studio, but still not enough. Mypaint excels in this area.
Limited to 8-bit RGB space. For an image manipulator tool, this is a critical factor in the 21 century. Of course if you don’t need 16 or 32 bits per color channel this is not a limitation.
GIMP as his name states, is an Image Manipulator… this is, you take an image and do post processing on it. Was designed for this kind of work.
Of course, all the above issues are being adressed in a way or another. Is just a matter of time that these and other problems will be solved. For what i know, the problem is always develpoers, and not funding in the case of GIMP as they themselves declared, so i don’t think Blender Foundation should/has something to do in order to accelerate GIMP development. Blender has a lack of development power nowadays, but that’s also could change.
My 2 cents,
ok, how about creating the mega-ultra-floss-ultimate-studio solution?! Combining Blender+Gimp+Inkscape+Yafaray+Luxrender+Mypaint+etc?! who’s with me in this quest for glory, huh?
or how about just let each open-source project do what they do best and attract their respective fields enthusiasts and developers?
Apple are happy to let each app have its own dev stream and improve their communication. So you round trip (fairly) seamlessly between multiple apps. I can send a small portion of a clip from Final Cut Pro to Color or Motion and get back a metadata-packed proxy full of changes from the other program.
At the very least a GIMP layer aware Blender would be cool.