A New Way to Find GIMP Plugins – Finally, a Master Catalog! ?

[Ofnuts]

(10-06-2025, 03:18 PM)atenu Wrote: If you’ve ever struggled to find reliable GIMP plugins, or even if they exist? well you’re not alone. Just got back to using gimp cuz of 3.0 and again am frustrated about the finding stuff situation soo as any sane person would do I spent the last 6 hours hunting through scattered links, outdated lists, and broken downloads.

I created a comprehensive, organized, and up-to-date GIMP Plugins Catalog. Everything is neatly categorized (AI/ML, RAW tools, Filters, Automation, Scripts, Panorama, Export, and more) with essential info like supported GIMP versions, install notes, and sub-direct links (on purpose).

Check it out:
? https://github.com/XDesigns-gfx/Gimp-Plu.../README.md

? Why this matters:

• No more hunting through broken forum posts.
  
• Clear visibility of what works on GIMP 2.x vs 3.x.
  
• Quick access to documentation and “use at your own risk” warnings.
  
• Community-friendly: contributions are welcome! If you know a plugin that’s missing, you can add it via GitHub.
  

I also took care to make it readable and visually appealing, so finding the right plugin is quick and painless.

This is for anyone from hobbyists to professionals — if you’ve ever wanted an easy way to explore GIMP’s ecosystem, this is it.

About my own:

• I don't write script-fu scripts (out of self-respect ) 
  
• You are missing my collection of path-related scripts.
  
• I have started a separate collection of Gimp3 conversions of my 2.10 scripts.
  

About everyone else's:

• You really need an indication of binary/script-fu/python. And, for the binary, if there are Linux, Windows and OSX versions.
  
• Indicating "collections" isn't that helpful. People are looking for function. There are several script to export stuff in my collection.
  
• You classification doesn't make sense. What aren't liquid rescale and resynthesizer in the same category? Why are GEGL effects in Batch? and Batcher not in Batch?
  
• Why are some singled out as "independent"/not officially verified (akkana et al.)? Especially when some of their stuff is in other categories, without the flag. And why am I not in that category? In practice, everything you list, being add-ons are from "independent" people. AFAIK only GMIC has some modicum of "official" status, coming from an public organization.
  
• The 2.99 column is useless. You could start a column 3.1/3.2 instead.
  
• Python has an official logo, much more recognizable than you squiggly snake:
  

There are so many errors that I don't how this currently helps. And the danger of such lists is that to be useful they have to be comprehensive and up-to-date... Otherwise they do more harm than good by making people thing that the solution doesn't exist, just because it's not on the list.