Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

The Book of GIMP 197

Posted by samzenpus
from the read-all-about-it dept.
Michael Ross writes "Web designers, graphics artists, and others who create and edit digital images, have a number of commercial image-manipulation packages from which they can choose — such as Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Fireworks (originally developed by Macromedia). Yet there are also many alternatives in the open-source world, the most well-known being GNU Image Manipulation Program. GIMP is available for all major operating systems, and supports all commonly-used image formats. This powerful application is loaded with features, including plug-ins and scripting. Yet detractors criticize it as being complicated (as if Photoshop is intuitively obvious). Admittedly, anyone hoping to learn it could benefit from a comprehensive guide, such as The Book of GIMP." Keep reading for the rest of Michael's review.
The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything
author Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare
pages 676 pages
publisher No Starch Press
rating 9/10
reviewer Michael J. Ross
ISBN 978-1593273835
summary A comprehensive tutorial and reference to GIMP 2.8.
Authored by Olivier Lecarme and Karine Delvare, The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything was published by No Starch Press on 22 January 2013, with the ISBN 978-1593273835. The publisher's page offers minimal information on the book and its authors, as well as a skimpy table of contents, and a free sample chapter (the fifth one, on composite photography). Lecarme has a companion website where visitors will find additional resources, including bonus filters, a forum (albeit almost empty), and a selection of the example images used in the book.

This title's 676 pages are organized into 22 chapters and six appendices. The first eight chapters compose "Part I — Learning GIMP"; the remaining chapters compose "Part II — Reference"; and the appendices compose the third part. In a brief but pleasant introduction, the authors encourage readers to follow along by installing GIMP on a local machine. Installation instructions can be found in Appendix E (which arguably should be the first appendix, to get readers started with a local installation). The book is based upon the most recent stable version of GIMP, namely 2.8, which reportedly introduced significant improvements over earlier versions.

As one might expect, the first chapter introduces the basics of the GIMP user interface, explaining how to find and open images, use the menu system in the main image dock, and perform basic editing operations, such as resizing and cropping. It also presents some essential concepts in GIMP — filters, layers, and drawing tools — and then discusses the use of a tablet in conjunction with GIMP. The next six chapters each focus on a major category of image work: photo retouching, drawing and illustration, logos and textures, composite photography, animation, and image preprocessing. The last chapter in the group covers utilizing GIMP for crafting the visual design of a website. The only problem I found in the narrative is the inconsistency in terminology, primarily the references to something as a "dock" on some occasions, and other times as a "window"; also, the "multi-dialog window" (page 4) is later called the "multi-docks window" (page 18). Nonetheless, the prose is straightforward and concise; there is a lot of information contained in each section. Consequently, anyone reading these tutorial chapters should take them at a modest pace, and frequently compare the authors' narrative and one's understanding of it with the screenshots and/or one's own results if following along (a practice I strongly recommend for this particular book, so one will better internalize the broad ideas as well as the details).

Each chapter concludes with a set of exercises, whose questions tend to be much more open-ended and difficult than those normally found in technical books. In fact, readers may be frustrated how some of the exercises challenge one to perform task completely unmentioned in the corresponding chapter. For instance, the very first one in the book, Exercise 1.1 (page 24), asks the reader to build a new dock with dialogs, even though at no point in the chapter was the reader told how to do anything remotely like this. Appendix B contains tips for a minority of the exercises.

The bulk of the book, "Part II — Reference," offers almost 400 pages of details on every aspect of GIMP: the user interface, its displays, layers, colors, selections, masks, drawing tools, transformation tools, filters, animation tools, scanning and printing images, image formats, scripts and plug-ins, and other methods of customizing the application — with each chapter starting with the basics. All of the information is terrific, but the thoughtful reader may wonder why the book begins with advanced topics — such as photo retouching, composite photography, animation, and website design — and later presents the detailed explanations of all the aforementioned aspects of using GIMP. It seems to me that it would have been better to present the Part II chapters first, and then present the advanced topics currently in Part I, except for what is now Chapter 1 ("Getting Started"), which would still be a fine way to begin the explication.

The third and final part contains half a dozen appendices, the first of which is a fascinating exploration of the science of human vision and the three main models of digital color representation. As noted earlier, the second appendix contains tips and hints for some of the chapter exercises. The third appendix is brief, but contains a wealth of online resources for anyone who would like to learn more about GIMP and its community. The next appendix contains a list of frequently asked questions and their answers, and is well worth reading. The fifth chapter explains how to install GIMP on computers running GNU/Linux, Unix, various Linux distros, Windows, and Mac OS X. The final appendix addresses batch processing of images, including the use of ImageMagick.

The production quality of this book is excellent (judging by the print copy kindly provided to me by No Starch Press for review). It was a smart choice on the part of the authors to request full-color images on every page, and the publisher's decision to do so, given the book's visual subject — even though it resulted in a heavier product (3.4 pounds).

Naturally, as a book discussing an image editor, this one makes extensive use of example photos and other images, which are extremely helpful to the reader. Only a few problems were evident; for instance, Figures 1.24 and 1.25 are so small that the cropping pointers are almost invisible. In some cases the descriptions or screenshots do not match what I saw when following along; for instance, on page 3, the author states that the three startup windows (Toolbox, Image, and multi-dialog) by default occupy the full width of the screen, which contradicts the screenshot in Figure 1.1, which shows the Image window at partial width.

The writing is generally clear and easy to follow, even though some of the phrasing is odd (e.g., "source text" to mean "source code"), perhaps because both authors are French. That could also account for the errata — for instance, "on [the] left" (page 15) and "its there" (page 22) — of which there were remarkably few for a book of this length.

If any reader is looking for a free and full-featured image-editing program, then by all means consider GIMP, as well as this outstanding tutorial and reference book.

Michael J. Ross is a freelance web developer and writer.

You can purchase The Book of GIMP: A Complete Guide to Nearly Everything from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Book of GIMP

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07, 2013 @03:53PM (#42823505)

    I don't really have much to say about this review or the article, but I'd like to say, as someone who has been using GIMP extensively for the past six months, it's a really fantastic program and probably one of the best, most reliable, and most useful free/open source software packages I've used. I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.

    • by loufoque (1400831) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @04:05PM (#42823669)

      Yes, it's almost as good as Photoshop 5.0!

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by cristiroma (606375)
        Amen! I would be happy to see more people being honest about it.

        I've been used Photoshop about 15 years and I would say Photoshop should be the first example to teach on the UIX classes. It's so great that even a 5 years old could get around in couple of hours.

        I don't want to troll about it, I'm a developer and I can appreciate the hard work of people behind GIMP. And their influence over Linux world with GTK. Still I hate to see people comparing saying "GIMP is waaaay better than PS".

        Guess what! I
        • by loufoque (1400831)

          That was sarcasm.
          Photoshop 5.0 is from 1998.

        • by Anonymous Coward
          Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars. Ipso facto gimp = winner. You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07, 2013 @06:15PM (#42825627)

            Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars.

            Ipso facto gimp = winner.

            You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.

            Is your time worthless? Are you one of the few who is not routinely infuriated by a program which has long been the poster child for user-hostile open source software? Is your budget too thin to pay $600 for a good tool, even if you need it? Or perhaps you don't use software of this type more than once in a blue moon and therefore can't justify $600? (or even $70 as Desler points out?)

            If any of these things apply to you, Gimp might be better. Otherwise... not so much. Price is not the sole determinant of whether one thing is better than another. Arguing otherwise marks you as a fool.

            • by dbIII (701233)
              Both consume fairly equal amounts of time.
            • by SpzToid (869795)

              Actually my time, as charged to clients, is relatively expensive. Therefore I have trained myself (as a web developer) to use GIMP for nearly every occasion, so when needed at the client site I can just download it and get to work without the time or hassle req'd to complete a purchase order and get it approved.

              Same is true with Inkscape btw.

              In case you are wondering, my clients are mainly enterprises that will balk at a new purchase request of several hundred, or even thousands of dollars worth of software

          • by tehcyder (746570)

            Photosho = $600 dollars. Gimp = $0 dollars. Ipso facto gimp = winner. You can make arguments about ease of use and such, but unless your job requires something not available in GImp, then Photoshop isn't better.

            That's a stupid argument. Is a Nissan Micra better than a Lamborghini just because it's hundreds of thousands cheaper?

        • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @06:20PM (#42825717)

          Don't you think you might be tainted by your 15 years of use with Photoshop?

          Don't get me wrong - I'm certainly not saying that GIMP is 'waaaay' better than Photoshop. Far from it. But a 5-year old (really? let's try 8, at least.) can probably find their way around either of them in the same amount of time.

          Just to counter your example, I've mostly been used to another graphics editor and GIMP, and only occasionally use Photoshop. Here's some of the things I encountered in the past that I thought "oh sweet jesus, wtf?"

          Panning around an image. Practically any application middle mouse 'button' and drag away. Photoshop? Hold the space bar, and drag with left mouse button. Huh?

          Adding a layer mask. Right-click layer, choose 'add layer mask'. Photoshop? I had to actually google this.. it's a funny looking icon of a rectangle with a circle in it at the bottom of the layers dialog. What?

          Zooming. Ctrl+scrollwheel - again, almost any application. Photoshop? Alt+scrollwheel. Eh?

          Pasting bitmap data on the clipboard as a new image. Edit, Paste as, New image. Photoshop? File, New, OK, Paste. Change to single layer or Photoshop will complain when you try to save the thing. Really?

          Yeah, when you get used to it and learn the keyboard shortcuts these really aren't big issues - I don't really think about them anymore. But I wouldn't exactly hold all of Photoshop up as an example in UIX classes.
          ( Fly-out tools don't help either. Long-press a tool to find other tools that may only be vaguely related to the tool you first saw? )

          Counter-counter example - GIMP's transform tools. Who do I bribe to bump those up to the top of the "let's fix this" list?

          • I could probably be biased being used to PS. But indeed I use the keyboard a lot. Alt and Ctrl seem to be so natural.
            Though, latest versions are stuffed with features I would rather pass.
            Tried GIMP few times for quick image fixes (using brush, text and layers) but no more than that. Maybe I should read this book.
            Btw, the story with 5 years old is truth, too. Although must admit the kid had talent.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jones_supa (887896)
      This. I like to rant about OSS brokenness, but GIMP is one of the programs I really do not have much to complain about.
    • > I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.

      Could your describe your work-flow including type of assets you need to manipulate along with the operations needed so we could better understand the problem please?

      Also, could list what open source audio programs have you tried? What functionality did they fail to provide? What UI problems did you run into?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      ... I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.

      Actually there is. It's called Linux MultiMedia Studio (LMMS). I really like it. it's fast, has a nice UI, and reminds me of Fruity Loops Studio.

    • by walshy007 (906710)

      I wish there were something like the GIMP, but for music production.

      The way I go about this personally, have jack as the audio/midi backend, rosegarden as sequencer, hooked up to several synths, bristol for analog, linuxsampler for sampled things like piano, yoshimi for other synth things, all hooking up to ardour to record.

      It's a little messy using multiple programs chained together, but you get used to it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 07, 2013 @03:56PM (#42823551)

    I picked up Photoshop ver. 4 when I was 15 or so. It was very intuitive. I learned it in a few hours.
    However, PS is so bloated with features that I have a hard time learning what the new things are....or how they even "help" me. So no, it's not easy to learn PS these days. Too many icons and menus that's intimidating, imo. But because I've known PS, I can use it and know what tools are fundamental for my workflow.

    The problem (or benefit) of PS is that it's used across many industries and it's not limited to photographers. 3D artists use it. Medical imaging professionals use it. And everything in between. I think that's why PS is bloated to help those outsiders "in". I mean, you can configure it to have different workspaces depending on your work field.

    Anyways, it's no excuse to GIMP's lack of intuitiveness. Or rather, lack of focus. I see GIMP users as coders who want to do some web design on the side or fix something really quick to fit the website layout. Basically, web-related stuff. I wish GIMP would design the UI to cater to that demographic/ needs. Or maybe it already does, I'm just not the audience.

    -an actual professional photographer who actually makes a living taking photos & maintains a studio.

    • by icebike (68054) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @04:06PM (#42823671)

      Pretty much spot on.

      The Book of Gimp should probably have been released as 4 or 5 books, which you have to open all at once,
      with all the page numbers in one book, the example images in another and the text, in no particular order, heaped in yet another book.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by StrayEddy (2650271)
        Check the single-window-mode please: http://www.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.8.html [gimp.org]
      • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @05:04PM (#42824381)

        "The Book of Gimp should probably have been released as 4 or 5 books, which you have to open all at once, with all the page numbers in one book, the example images in another and the text, in no particular order, heaped in yet another book."

        The new version of Gimp has a more-standard single-window mode. That was the single biggest complaint before. So now the other large objections are coming to the fore.

        For example: among the multiple "select" tools, why is there not a simple "point and click" select tool for drawing objects? Every other major image manipulation program of which I am aware has one.

        • by radtea (464814) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @05:47PM (#42825113)

          The new version of Gimp has a more-standard single-window mode. That was the single biggest complaint before. So now the other large user annoyances have been added

          ... ...would be a better way to put it.

          The biggest one is the ridiculous and recently added "export" functionality for everything but the native file format. This is completely unlike every other editing application of any kind for anything anywhere. If I open a Word or RTF or plain text file in LibreOffice, for example, I can save it to that format with a keystroke.

          GIMP is a great program--I even got used to the floating windows after a few years--but its developers consistently treat their users with complete contempt, and in the case of the new export functionality they are actually doing more work to make the program harder to use.

          • by drinkypoo (153816)

            GIMP is a great program--I even got used to the floating windows after a few years--but its developers consistently treat their users with complete contempt, and in the case of the new export functionality they are actually doing more work to make the program harder to use.

            it seems awfully like an attempt to force me to use their file format, which I almost never want to do. I'm not going to save every source file to everything I ever edited and keep track of it all.

    • I see GIMP users as coders who want to do some web design on the side or fix something really quick to fit the website layout. Basically, web-related stuff. I wish GIMP would design the UI to cater to that demographic/ needs. Or maybe it already does, I'm just not the audience.

      I've been using GIMP for a long time and I've always found it very intuitive and it does everything I need from an image manipulator. And I'm a coder who usually just needs to quickly fix something to fit into a layout (not a website layout, but close enough). So you may be on to something there.

  • GIMP 2.8 SUCKS (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    GIMP 2.6 was very good, even on Windows. Then they decided to force GEGL through in preparation for adjustment layers and other functionality to mimick Photoshop features that had been missing for a long time. The trouble is the reimplementation of these features has made them MUCH slower and buggier. For instance where arbitrary rotation was no problem in 2.6 all of a sudden only discrete steps are allowed in 2.8 - if you pick something inbetween on rotation dialog it rounds it to the nearest discreet step

    • by Hatta (162192)

      For instance where arbitrary rotation was no problem in 2.6 all of a sudden only discrete steps are allowed in 2.8

      Use Layer->Transform not Image->Transform. I was able to rotate an image by 0.01 degree. I had to create a 5000x5000 image to be able to see such a slight rotation, but it still rotated almost immediately on my old 2.6ghz C2D.

  • GIMP vs. Ps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TemperedAlchemist (2045966) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @04:00PM (#42823605)

    I see this battle a lot, but it's inherently flawed. GIMP was never created to compete with photoshop, and photoshop used by industry professionals don't only use Ps. It's usually used in tandem with illustrator, lightroom, etc. Whatever tool is best needed for the job.

    • by Billly Gates (198444) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @04:22PM (#42823847) Journal

      I used to be a Gimp basher on here when I had PS and Dreamweaver installed via a pirated copy. I used to be agaisn't piracy but after not working for awhile I used it to justify it. I decided to kick the habbit after going through contstant hacks and other potentially trojaned KMS servers.

      Yeah PS is better, but those who say so pirate it 80% of the time! That is not really fair. If you had to actually pay $700 for it would it be worth your value then for its features?

      Now since my computer is pirated free and I have my integrity back I have to say no.

      In that economical sense NO, for 90% of users. Unless you are a professional marketer or photographer who makes thousands of dollars from it I have to say the GIMP is better. I do like the UI for paint.net better.

      It is a shame PaintShop Pro is gone or rather gimped (no pun intended) after Corel bought it. That $79 program could do much photo editing plus create cool textures for websites. Corel got rid of the secondary feature so I can spend more money buying other crappy products they make to duplicate its lost functionality.

      Value for dollar you can't beat the Gimp. The only difference is if you work for an advertising agency and get paid serious bucks for production material does PS provide better value.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Desler (1608317)

        If you had to actually pay $700 for it would it be worth your value then for its features?

        No, that's why they made Photoshop Elements that you can get for around $70 on Amazon for version 11.

      • by JDG1980 (2438906)

        Yeah PS is better, but those who say so pirate it 80% of the time! That is not really fair. If you had to actually pay $700 for it would it be worth your value then for its features?

        Probably not, but when you can get Photoshop Elements for $99 (sometimes lower on sale) or Photoshop CS2 for free from Adobe's website, GIMP looks a lot less attractive.

      • by jnork (1307843)

        Or you can get CS2 for free. http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html [adobe.com]

        • Not quite free: The serial numbers below should only be used by customers who legitimately purchased CS2 or Acrobat 7 and need to maintain their current use of these products
    • Agreed. Even the summary seems to be suggesting by this sentence:

      Yet detractors criticize it as being complicated (as if Photoshop is intuitively obvious).

      that Photoshop users can't use GIMP because it's too hard. That's not at all what's wrong with GIMP. If you're a Photoshop user it's the fact that GIMP is incapable of doing many of even the basic things Photoshop does that its detractors criticize it for.

      People are not at all sold on Photoshop being the be-all-end-all and high end graphic designers and visual effects artists are far from loyal to Adobe. The problem with Gimp is Gimp.

      • Also, Photoshop was, and still is, ridiculously intuitive and obvious how to use. Put an inexperienced person in front of Photoshop and then Eclipse (or NetBeans, or insert your favorite IDE here) and see what the person learns to use first. Hell, put them in front of Photoshop and then Flash. Photoshop is easy. Comedy is hard. Programming is impossible (but we still try).
    • A while ago the Gimp team decided to work on a product vision that will define what Gimp is supposed to be and what its target audience was. They decided that Gimp was meant to be a high end tool used by pros. I believe it was the wrong decision - but this was their decision to make, and having made it, they put Gimp in direct comparison with the only other high end Graphics manipulation tool out there, namely Photoshop.
  • by Ichijo (607641) on Thursday February 07, 2013 @04:11PM (#42823721) Homepage Journal

    I used to use the Gimp, because it was free. I mainly used it for restoring old photos and for some postprocessing on my own digital photos. But then I discovered Lightroom. In the Gimp, fixing the white balance is a manual process using curves, but in Lightroom, you just point at a neutral color in the photo and it's all done for you.

    In the Gimp, applying a graduated neutral density filter involves working with layers, but in Lightroom, you just click and drag to create two regions, then set the exposure individually for each.

    Lightroom's cataloging and batch features make it easy to work with large numbers of images.

    I still occasionally use the Gimp for things I can't do in Lightroom (most recently, to blur out a license plate using a mosaic effect), but for most of what I do, Lightroom is much easier and faster.

    • And how much did Lightroom cost? Most Adobe products are outrageously expensive

      • by Anonymous Coward

        And how much did Lightroom cost? Most Adobe products are outrageously expensive

        About $150 if you don't get any discounts.

        The only reason why I don't buy it for that price is that I already bought a full Photoshop CS5. (Not seen any reason to upgrade to CS6)

    • In the Gimp, fixing the white balance is a manual process using curves, but in Lightroom, you just point at a neutral color in the photo and it's all done for you.

      Colors, Levels..., Pick gray point. Same sort of thing. The only problem is that it expects this to be the 50% grey point, so you may still have to shift things around a little afterward. I agree that this is something The GIMP could do better (there's scripts that may be of interest there.
      Another problem is that most people don't look beyond t

      • by mug funky (910186)

        +1 darktable.

        very active development, very sophisticated tools, a UI that is familiar to lightroom users, and new builds have lightroom import (tags, some filters, crop/rotate, exposure. not perfect but good enough to aid migration). it's database driven so you can search by tag or rating or colour, or even image similarity.

        my only gripe is that it relies too heavily on luma-only processing and so a lot of contrast adjustments can look bleached in the highlights and shadows. i really wish for an RGB/Lab

      • by zakkie (170306)

        You then go on to talk about the cataloging and batch features (GIMP can do batch, but let's not get into that), which similarly are not generally features of a photo editing tool but rather something like, say, Picasa (I'm sure there's a FLOSS 'equivalent').

        Geeqie is quite a fabulous image manager, for want of a better word. More brilliant than you could imagine, IMHO.

    • You shouldn't be adjusting white balance in Gimp or lightroom anyway (nor photoshop for that matter). White balance is a job for your RAW editor.
      And if you aren't starting photo-edits in RAW mode, then you're doing yourself such a massive disservice that no program on the market will be able to replace what you lost before you even started.

      • While I agree with your comment's latter part, I wonder if you caught what you wrote in the first part after posting - considering that Lightroom is a RAW processing app (among other).

    • In the Gimp, applying a graduated neutral density filter involves working with layers, but in Lightroom, you just click and drag to create two regions, then set the exposure individually for each.

      The blend tool has 23 modes including dodge and burn, 11 shapes (linear, radial, etc), continuously variable opacity and offset. I've found that most of what I need to do can be accomplished without layers.

  • This Book: GIMP 2.6 Cookbook. More to the point, it has interesting and useful artistic advice http://www.amazon.com/GIMP-cookbook-Juan-Manuel-Ferreyra/dp/1849512027 [amazon.com] of course the gimp part is great. it shouldve been color printed though
  • Don't know about you guys but Photoshop CS2 is free from Adobe.
  • "criticize it as having an idiotic interface" would be a more realistic comment.

    That and it's branding sucks, which is unfortunate. The person that chose the name "GIMP" should be hung drawn and quartered.

    Yes we know what it stands for, but 99% of the new user base that could have used it doesn't. Why? Because he/she read the name first and passed on it, and is now using another image app. If the app can't take itself seriously, why would the user?

  • I use GIMP 2.8 , single-window. I've used Photoshop before also, and GIMP can most definitely be compared to Photoshop. There is one thing I dislike about GIMP, 'Save As'. Save As in GIMP saves the file in some strange format and doesn't allow me to actually 'Save As'. If I want to Save a Photo as a .jpeg, then I need to click 'Export'; I hate that.

    The most important thing is what I use it for, Photo editing/Creation etc, and it suits my needs well. I don't care if Adobe has a version of Photoshop for $70,

    • When people say that Gimp can be compared to Photoshop, it's like saying your Toyota Yaris compares with a Bugatti Veyron - when all you do is drive to the store around the corner. Photoshop is an amazing tools with multiple pro-level features that Gimp can only dream about having at some far point in the future. Heck, Gimp doesn't even have some rather important features that Photoshop had 12 years ago. By the way, to a Photoshop user, the interface is intuitive and simple and similar enough to Photoshop t
  • As a "serious" amateur photographer I check out GIMP every year or so for three things:
    - 16-bit image processing (yes, I know 8-bit is good enough for 99.9% of cases, but that's not good enough for me)
    - proper and intuitive color management
    - color-managed printing

    Until all three are implemented properly, I can't and won't move from PS.16-bit has been promised for literally years, but last time I checked all three above were missing. Is it still the case?

This place just isn't big enough for all of us. We've got to find a way off this planet.

Working...