Drawing water drops with Inkscape

I am taking a graphic design course and one of the assignements received was to remake the logo of a well known soft drink (for the purpose of this tutorial I replaced that logo with something else, as this is not the place for unpaid advertising, especially for products I don't use nor endorse). Is a trivial task with Inkscape, so I decided to enrich it with some water drops, as at the final exam I can show my skills and get a higher grade. For the exam I can't provide a SVG, will have to import/convert it in a proprietary format (such is life...), but Inkscape is my tool of choice so I m sharing the process here.

Initially, the lazy me wanted the short way, learn how others are doing it and there is an Inkscape rain drops tutorial already made by heathenx (thanks buddy, you rock!) which I used to a pretty result. Still, I didn't love it, just liked it.

Then I played with more variations, trying to make it more realistic, but liked the result even less, probably due to the softer edges. I went back to the heathenx way, not perfect, but good enough for a mere exam (without false modesty, for which I am already overqualified).

It was all well until yesterday evening when waiting for the subway I looked at a soft drinks poster, it had a photo with water drops added on top. Looking close, I saw the drops are clearly vector drawings (put on a photo) so I understood what I have to do: simplify, simplify, simplify. Now my homework looks like this:

How To

The first step is to draw, using Beziers, a random rounded blob.

If yor hand is not trained enough for this, draw it with straight lines, we will round it later.

Select all nodes and make it smooth with the toolbar button, you have a rounded blob now.

Backtracks

Months ago when I heard rumors about Microsoft preparing Windows Blue based on the large public disappointment with Metro in Windows 8 I thought about writing some words on a perceived advantage of proprietary software over Free software: since users are customers, it is forced to listen to their feedback and if a development goes wrong, they will reverse it (Microsoft is no stranger to that, the most prominent example being Vista/W7), while traditionally Free software developers do it primarily for themselves ("scratch your itch") and won't care much if bleeding users, as one can see with the GNOME project.

In the meantime Windows Blue is nearing release, has changed name to Windows 8.1, will be free of charge (something unusual for Microsoft, revealing the concerns over user unhappiness) and also a half-hearted move, we learn from the preview, since Microsoft has an agenda (app store, user locking, mobiles) and still plenty of money in reserve. Also, GNOME 3.8 was released including an optional "classic" mode, ridiculed by GNOME developers as a "Flinstone" mode.

It was a good thing I didn't write anything at the time, since I was mistaken, the important attribute on Microsoft software wasn't being proprietary, but being commercial. You can see this when learning based on user/customer feedback RHEL 7 will switch the default desktop from GNOME Shell to GNOME Classic. While still kind of a "Windows Blue" move, with a lot of words intended to control the damage, it gives years-worth air bubble to RHEL and CentOS users. As for GNOME, there is an eternity until a RHEL 8 will put the question on the table again, a lot will happen until then.

Just for fun: Apple also just announced a big interface change with IOS 7, is going to be interesting to see the evolution, especially now when their reality distortion field is weaker than ever.

PS: the troll inside me can't skip this question - if there will be a Fedora spin with GNOME Classic mode as a default, will it be called Fedora Blue?

Photoshop versus GIMP: the Empire Strikes Back

My Photoshop course continues and in the classes where my homework was targeting the computer display my plan worked flawlessly: I used GIMP to do all the work and when done just saved as .PSD, I enjoyed the experience a lot. Now this strategy hit a roadblock: I have to create some stuff for print, as CMYK files in .PSD format. Total failure.

To be honest, I pretty much expected that, I know GIMP misses those features, I know they are listed in a dusted TO DO somewhere and I know at some point they may get implemented. To be totally honest, if I have to do such graphic things like book covers or posters, GIMP is not my first choice, I would prefer to use Inkscape, since I like better its workflow and thing vector graphics are better suited for the task, but it has the same CMYK problem, and I know the more appropriate job for the task is Scribus, it will create print-ready files.

But that is out of the scope, when I do my own stuff, I choose my own tools. For now I had a clearly defined homework: create a design as CMYK .PSD file. A good opportunity what work and what does not in GIMP.

Error! Error

While GIMP normally can open .PSD files (maybe losing an unsupported feature in the process and rendering it with some potential flaws), when it encounters a CMYK file will just throw out an error and won't load anything. So you can work only one way: .XCF -> .PSD.

Conversions

Of course, Photoshop can convert a file from RGB to CMYK, so you can still do you work with GIMP, save the final version as a .PSD file and then import it to Photoshop and convert to CMYK, the problem is not all the colors in RGB are printable, some are out of gamut, so a RGB to CMYK will change the colors in your image, you may find yourself forced to redo a good part of the work.
And if you insist in editing a CMYK .PSD with GIMP, of course you can use Photoshop to convert CMYK to RGB, open with GIMP, edit, save as RGB .PSD, open in Photoshop and convert again in CMYK. Again, some color loss is possible.

Color pickers

Since GIMP can't work with CMYK colors, probably nobody thought about this feature, which would be useful for conversion and losing colors: in the Photoshop when a picked color is out of gamut and won't print accurately, the dialog will warn you and offer to replace it with the closest printable color. That would be nice to have in GIMP, you would still have to convert color spaces, but at least without losing colors.

On the bright side, the GIMP color picker has some usability features: a list with the recent used colors, the ability to sample a color from anywhere on the screen and multiple modes (I prefer the color circle).

Measurements

Besides CMYK, there is another important part when working for print: instead of pixels, all your measurements will be in millimeters (or inches, if you are from USA).

Except the CMYK mode and color profiles, the New File dialog has everything you need, including measurement units (which later will reflect in the rulers) and high PPI. GIMP makes it easier to access standard image sizes like A4, while in Photoshop you have to go in submenus. Looks like a good start. I almost couldn't believe when I discovered I can't set guides in millimeters for a printable, 300 PPI, image, only pixels and percents are possible. Of course, I can do the math and discover a 5 mm bleed is to be positioned at 59 pixels for a 300 PPI image, but I shouldn't.

Still, no way to produce print-ready files with GIMP?

Let me clarify: if you want to print a color image to your home or office printer and you can create only RGB files, there is no problem, it will be just fine, maybe no 100% accurate in colors, but close enough. You need CMYK only for professional, industrial printing (and maybe not even then, I sent photos in RGB JPEGs and they came out really well for some photo exhibitions). But if you need CMYK, there is a way.

Separate+ is a plug-in for GIMP (if you are a Fedora user like me, you'll have to compile it yourself, is not available in the repos) which will allow for CMYK color separation. It won't work as seamless as Photoshop and may unpredictably change the colors in your document, but at least is something. The workflow is like this: do you work normall and when done save the file (keep a copy, the next step is destructive), then flatten all layers and separate, it will result in 4 layers, for Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. Then you can export as a print-ready .PSD of TIFF. IF you know what you do, is possible to edit the color separated image. Unfortunately, that's no help for my homework, I had to sell a bit from my soul to get it done :).

Sky wallpapers

For the last week the sky here was dramatic, with spectacular light and clouds, so I took a lot of photos and then made few of them in desktop wallpapers to be used freely. Enjoy!

The last image is kind of a bonus, a bit different from the others, but still on the "sky" theme:

Photoshop versus GIMP

The title may make you think so, but this is not one of those ridiculous articles where the author claims GIMP is better than Photoshop even on technical grounds. No, let me make it straight from the intro: from a technical point of view there are areas where Photoshop is much better than GIMP (speed, color depth, CMYK, etc.), there are areas where the two are comparable, as there are areas where they are on par and areas where GIMP does better. And of course from a licensing point of view, GIMP being Free software, released under GPL is vastly superior (and thus my only recommendation) and also from the two it is the only running on my Linux machine.

There is also the urban myth of GIMP being an usability nightmare: it is provable false and originating from the "is not a 1:1 copy of Photoshop, so it sucks" (along with memories of pre-2.x versions, which had an ugly interface). I will try to bust this myth.

Time for a disclaimer of my bias: for over 10 years I used exclusively GIMP, I wrote about it and held workshops and presentation, while my Photoshop experience was limited, having played with it long ago, before even the "CS" line was introduced. Still, for various reasons (I may write about this at a later time) I am taking a Photoshop course and find the experience painful: even if I can find my way there, some operations are more cumbersome and less intuitive.

Below I will look at few basic tools in both apps, the tools which one expect to be taught in the very first classes when learning one of those apps. I will highlight the areas where GIMP does better. For the comparison, I ran Photoshop CS5.1 and GIMP 2.8.4 on a Windows 7 machine (my platform of choice is Linux with a classic MATE desktop, but running a recent Photoshop under Wine is neither trivial, nor trouble free).

Overview

It may be trivial, but for me having the image size in the GIMP window title is useful, while the zoom level for Photoshop is not (as while editing you change that a lot) and redundant (is present in the status bar too). You have to go deep in the menus and dialogs to learn the image size in Photoshop. Image size is important info, is a parameter you optimize for.

Cursors

Bad usability is when the user have to look at a widget and think about how to use it, instead of just using it intuitively. This is the case with mouse cursors in Photoshop. Case in point: this polygonal lasso, where I always have troubles finding the active spot (no, is not top-left, as it is usually for mouse cursors).

Rectangular selections

Near the top of the tools panel, there is the rectangular selection tool, which for Photoshop is very simple, with only two options: feather edges and style, which allows to specify a size or aspect ratio. GIMP provides a lot of additional useful features: compositional guides, area highlighting, precise positioning and size and even rounding corners. You can round the corners too with Photoshop, but only after the selection in a completely unintuitive menu option called "Smooth" (that's one of the functions I had to use Google instead of the UI to discover). Everything, except the rounded corners, will apply to the elliptical selections.

Lasso tool

Next is the lasso tool, here the GIMP tool replaces both lasso and polygonal lasso from Photoshop. Lasso is simple, polygonal is more complex, more useful and often used. In Photoshop the tools is also simple: you click to define selection segments, if one segment was misplaced, you press Backspace and erase all segments until you get past it and then click new segments again. In GIMP is more useful: while you can Backspace and delete segments, you can also adjust previously put nodes, so deletion is not needed. Similarly, in GIMP's scissors selection tool, you can adjust previously added nodes, unlike Photoshp's magnetic lasso.

Crop tool

As a photographer, cropping images is my bread and butter and honestly, Photoshop's crop is subpar, the tool can't make a crop preserving the image aspect-ratio, you have to use a cumbersome way (select the entire image, resize the selection while preserving the aspect ratio and then cut to selection), while in GIMP you just check a box. At least Photoshop here can have guides here (not illustrated, since the Photoshop toolbar changes its layout while using the tool), like rule of thirds, very useful when re-framing a photo (GIMP has it, along with other features, like precise size and positioning), but don't get me started with cropping by size in Photoshop, it can destroy your picture by resizing it.

Resize canvas

If so far I talked about tools in the Photoshop panel in their appearance order, the last item is apparently random, but it was the latest that annoyed me (the latest I encountered): resizing the canvas. A thumb up to Photoshop for having input boxes for relative size increase (you can use math operations in GIMP's size spin boxes, that's amazing for a power user, but less intuitive for a first use), but it's alignment tool is limiting, for some operations (when you want to add space to more than two sides) isn't possible to get the job done in a single step. Instead GIMP is WYSIWYG and also allows for precise positioning.

I can go on and on with things like the color curves/levels dialogs (in GIMP they will save and remember past used values, so you can apply the same settings to more than one image) or recently used filters (Photoshop can repeat the last applied filter, in addition to that GIMP will re-show the last used bunch of filters) - the more I use Photoshop, the more I find annoyances, but I hope I made my point: different isn't necessarily worse and more popular isn't necessarily better in every aspect.