Photoshop, or the GIMP?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

No offense Neutral, but not all of us have the dough to drop on a $500 dollar camera. Im not saying I *dont* want one right now, but Im saving my money so I can get me a good DSLR. For the meantime i'm having to shoot with my little kodak zd710. I know its no DSLR but its descent enough and its all I have at the moment.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

There are a couple of good RAW plugins for Gimp. dcraw is one and ufraw is the other. Both come with most Linux distributions and can be installed as standalone products or as Gimp plugins.

 

Which is all perfectly okay.

Talking about tools, as a former chef, the only knife I'll consider using in the kitchen is a Henkel. They're pricey, but they're damn near indestructible and they hold an edge forever. Conumsers look at them and wonder how someone can justify $300 for a knife. Well, if you spend a good part of your day using a knife, you'll understand that only $300 for a knife like a Henkel is a helluva deal. The Henkel is a professional tool marketed to professionals, thus the cost. The non-professionals who wind up carping over the cost -- and aren't the intended audience in the first place -- wind up looking a bit, well, silly.

Not trying to slag you personally, this is just one of my pet peeves.

My 2 cents as someone who pretty much lives in Photoshop whenever he can.

Er, ufraw is basically a GUI for dcraw with a few extras tossed in. That being said, it's taking shape rather nicely. I can't wait until they get the sharpening working and some good noise reduction. I've already been recommending ufraw to people using programs like PaintShopPro who need RAW conversion abilities but can't afford a big cash outlay.

 

Well I consider myself an Amateaur photographer. Im no professional, but ive been into it since middle school, I have three film SLR's, and I really do want a DSLR but just dont have the money right now. But I dont think im a chump just because my current digital camera wont take pictures in RAW.

 

OP your not. Just sometimes Q forgets that NOT everyone can AFFORD the toys he likes to play with. And that the rest of us do the best we can with what we have.

 

Have you looked at Photoshop elements?
It hasn't got everything thats in the full package but according to reviews I've seen it has everything an amatuer would need for photo editing.

 

I guess we all just need to bow and scrape before the all mighty neutralhills, the professional photographer. The photographer who knows it all, even though other professional photographers make a very fine living with tools he says won't work, and disagree with his assessments of some things.

I have to say, anyone who spends hundreds of dollars on a knife they use on less than a regular basis comes out looking, well, just silly. The same with the amateur who thinks he has to spend the money to buy a 5D or other top-of-the-line dslr when a much cheaper solution will fill all his needs, and in the right hands and right types of photography can very much equal the image quality of those cameras costing $1,000's of dollars more.

The "pro" who looks down on the amateur who can't justify or afford to spend the money on something he doesn't really need is just nothing but a jerk.

 

I've heard many good things about 'PhotoFiltre' (Correct spelling). It's a free piece of software, written by some guy in France. There's obviously an English language version. I'm not really in that trade though, so this is just hear say.

 

I think it's fair to say that Photoshop is used by far more amatuers around the globe than professionals. Just about every kid over 15 uses it, some with a fair amount of expertise.

Your ellitist attitude is showing Q

For printwork, when the need for high rez CMYK output is needed i agree Photoshop is the tool to use. For web work however, where RGB is fine and small file sizes are a must, i find Fireworks far more intuitative and useful.

Horses for courses.

 

Hmmm. "Difference-of-opinion" time. Everybody has a right to their preferences, so if one photographer does things one way and another disagrees, so be it. Please, don't personalize conflict.

Now, back to topic.

 

Yes that's a nice little free app there thanks!

 

That's the point I was making. neutralhills is the one talking about how people need to buy "real" digital cameras that shoot RAW because jpg is only for idiots. He then goes on to say how he "owns" this subject and isn't about to give an inch when he knows he's right. The fact of the matter is there are professional photographers who sell their prints at anywhere from $1000 to $2500 each in sizes up to 40"x60" and shoot with Sigma cameras. He doesn't know what he's talking about nearly as much as he thinks he does, and he's talking down to anyone who disagrees with him or can't afford to spend the same kind of money on equipment.

He's the one personalizing all this, not me, and he's making the same kind of comments about Photoshop too when it's another tool far beyond the price range of many people. I'm just answering him tit for tat because he's insulting other people, not me. I can't stand a bully and I'm not about to back down to one.

 

The truth is that good photographs are created by good photographers, whether they need an expensive camera or photoshop to re-touch them is debatable.

If a person hasn't got the *talent* to see and take a good photograph, then no amount of money spent on camera hardware or software is going to help.

.

 

I'm not picking on you, Freddy. I want *everyone* to "cool their jets". If you or anyone needs to respond to what I just said, please take it backchannel and PM me. Thanks.

 

OP have you seen Adobe TV yet? I think it is neat. I just got done watching this one. Now granted it is for adobe software, but I don't see why you can't apply the photoshop ones to gimp as long as it supports it.

http://tv.adobe.com/#

 

Bluerinse:

Want to make any bets on how many of them actually paid for the software?

All that matters is the photograph itself. Does it work? Does it tell a story? Do you connect with it? No amount of darkroom or Photoshop magic will make a bad image into a good one. The story has to be there first.

There are photographers who don't retouch, and that's okay. There are photographers who do, and that's okay, too. It's all about pursuing your own artistic vision. That's important.

Now, there are people for whom productivity is important. Productivity saves you time and money that can be used to create more or better art. People who need faster, more reliable, and more efficient tend to gravitate towards certain tools/products within any industry. Within the professional photography industry the gold standard is Adobe Photoshop on the image manipulation end of things. It combines power, flexibility, and ease of use (for the expert). Canon and Nikon bodies are the standard bearers in the dSLR market and I would give the edge to Nikon right now. These are the products professionals gravitate towards and willingly pay for. Not GIMP and definitely NOT Sigma.*

*I can guarantee you that the number of photographers alone who have suffered through owning a semi-reliable Sigma lens** is enough to guarantee that a large segment of the professional market is scared stiff of purchasing a Sigma body just in case it's manufactured to the same unexacting standards as Sigma's lenses.*** I'm afraid this would remain the case even if the over-marketed Bloveon sensor worked as advertised, which it most certainly doesn't.

**I've owned two Sigma lenses. I won't be purchasing a third.

***Even if the Foveon sensor was all that, who in hell would want to own a camera that only takes Sigma lenses? That's like buying a computer that will run Windows ME and nothing else.

More of my thoughts about equipment purchases can be found here:

http://www.neutralhillsstills.ca/words/?p=8

Damn straight. I've got the portfolio to back it up, too.

And it's not "Q", it's NH, please. I buried Q when I left Cramsession.

---

Fredmeister:

I haven't claimed to know it all. I'm only claiming that I know more than you on this topic. And I do.

I personally know hundreds of professional photographers in North America alone through memberships in various organizations. Not one of them owns a Sigma body. Not one. The Sigma dSLR bodies simply don't show up on the professional radar. They are mainly the province of amateurs with too much money who are impressed by slick ad copy. All of the professionals are using Canon, Nikon, a smattering of Olympus, or MFDB.

Sure there's the odd photographer using one and making large amounts of dosh from print sales, but they're more of a statistical anomaly than anything else. There are probably more photographers out there selling high-priced fine-art prints made from Holgas.

I can slice and dice 40lbs of vegetables faster by hand than you can with a food processor. And I can do this without cuts or blisters. But I couldn't do it if you swapped my razor sharp, perfectly balanced Henkel for a Ginsu. There's a difference between tools you can use and tools you have to fight with to use. I was a chef before I broke my back so I can appreciate and use good knives. Prep the veg for 20 gallons of creole sauce with a cheap knife and you'll be a hurtin' unit.

What I'm trying to point out is that it's not beyond the price range of its intended audience. For the intended audience, the program is a steal of a deal. For the others, who will never play around with complicated layer masks, there's Photoshop Elements, which is an outstanding tool for beginners and amateurs.

A Maserati is priced just right for millionaire playboys. The general public, most of whom would also like to drive a Maserati, cannot afford one. Maserati doesn't really give a toss about that. Photoshop is a Maserati. It's for people who need and can afford performance.

GIMP is an excellent tool in its own right, and it has evolved into some fascinating projects (FilmGIMP in particular), but it's not Photoshop. To compare the two is disingenuous to say the least.

Shooting in JPEG is like recording music on an old 8-track cassette when you could be laying down 16-bit digital tracks instead. JPEG has 256 levels of discrete tonality. Most cameras that shoot in RAW record in 12-bits, which gives you 4096 gradations. If you own one of the newer Canons or Nikons you'll have a 14-bit system which records 16384 discrete levels of tonality.

When you make exposure adjustments -- and you ALWAYS have to make exposure adjustments no matter how good you are -- those extra levels of tonality come in handy. They prevent you from winding up with a comb-toothed histogram where, as you move from the mid-tones to the shadows, ugly ugly UGLY banding appears.

So, yes, I'm questioning the competence of the general public here. They've kept the market for 8-tracks alive when there is superior technology available for only a dollar or two more per camera in terms of manufacturing cost. If the general public was to become educated about the virtues of RAW, everyone would be much farther ahead.

RAW is the only way to go. It lets you pull details out of shadows and even recover badly blown highlights:

http://www.urbanrefugee.ca/example08.php

I screwed up my camera settings and blew out the sky in the original. Thankfully I shoot in RAW which contains complete exposure information rather than the limited information of a JPEG. This allowed me to repair the sky. This wouldn't have been possible with a JPEG. THIS is why I hate people shooting in JPEG. They're short-changing themselves and letting camera manufacturers get away with garbage.

Your opinions on this topic are uninformed and contrary to what is generally accepted by professionals within this industry, which I'm part of and you're not. My apologies if my pointing this out causes you discomfort.

I would not pick a fight with you about Debian Linux. From perusing your postings it's obvious that you run circles around me there and my opinion would not be backed by the experience that yours is. This makes me wonder why you want to challenge my extreme familiarity with Sigma products (bodies, lenses, and real world print quality on competition grade papers) in the professional arena when you're clearly outclassed here. You're not still mad about the vCards, are you?

---

Mitzs:

I'm not sure if *I* can afford the tools I use. I've got a year and a half left on the lease for the 5D and the 24-70. But for the type of work I do, and the efficiency that I desire for my type of photography, these are pretty much the minimum I can work with. GIMP doesn't meet my quality or productivity standards. Neither do any Sigma products on the market.

I have to limp along with my Sigma 12-24 lens for now because I can't afford a decent replacement. I'll tell you flat out that I'm really starting to hate it, but it's what's in the bag now and I live with it.

The best camera is the one that inspires you to go out and make great pictures. If you own a Sigma and you're happy with it, good on you. Just don't come along and tell me that your camera effectively has two more megapixels than my 5D or you'll get ye olde tech smackdown as that claim is demonstrably false.

---

Surfer Dude:

You say that now. Spend half an hour next to me watching me work my magic in a RAW converter and I promise you that you'll be shopping for a replacement the very next morning. The difference really is THAT drastic.

I was a faithful member of the temple of "we-don't-need-no-steeenkin'-raw-crap" until I attended a workshop by Master Photographer John Beesly. It was practically a religious experience. I've not shot a single frame of JPEG for myself since that workshop back in 2004.

 

I'm surprised that noone has mentioned Paint.net.

I was using it for the first time yesterday and I was very surprised at how easy it was to use and learn. I don't know how it is for digital photos (much like any other format I suspect) but it may be a viable alternative to the GIMP.

Currently I have the GIMP installed on many pcs that need image editing capabilities but now I'm thinking of putting Paint.net on all the work PC's that need and getting rid of the GIMP.

 

I should of clarified my point a little better that Adobe and other companies seems to charge us in the UK a vast premium on their software which is basically a joke. Photoshop is way too expensive IMHO (I know there is elements) for non professionals who want to use the software.

 

Q, this means you, too. No more shots at one another, guys.

 

I haven't seen the UK price, but I wouldn't be surprised. Everything seems more expensive in the UK. I haven't been there since '89 and the prices 19 years ago were outrageous. I don't know how you folks manage over there.

The Photoshop pricing is where I'm really counting on GIMP. If GIMP can provide enough competition it will force the price of PS downwards. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to pay $100 for PS and drop the other $700 into some goodies from reallyrightstuff.com

My personal opinion is that Adobe should drop the price to the $75-100 price point. Yes, they'd lose the extra $700 per unit, but one would think that selling 40 - 50x more units would make up for that. Photoshop is easily one of the most pirated applications on the planet. I've yet to have a single student attending one of my photography classes who uses it that has actually purchased it.

Paint.NET has come a long way in a short time and I love the familiarity of the interface. Problem is, there's no support for layer masks right now and this is where products like PS and GIMP shine. You can sort of (badly) fudge PN using the Alpha Mask plugin, but it requires saving multiple copies of the image all over the place as the layer effects API in PN can't handle layer information at present.

I would recommend holding off on PN, at least until they get the masks issue sorted.. If the traditional GIMP interface is giving you the hives definitely consider PhotoGIMP instead.