Viable alternatives to Photoshop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lundberg

I'd appreciate a reference on the "family of angles" I've never heard that term before.

---

If you haven't already, pop along to amazon.com and grab a copy of Light, Science & Magic - 4th edition (Kindle is fine). I personally guarantee that it will do more to improve the quality and understanding of your photography lighting than ANY other book on the planet.

If I had to suggest just ONE book to a new photographer, that would be the one.

Don't think about it - just do it :) (just trust me on that!).

When you get it, work through it methodically and a big grey mist of this thing called lighting will be lifted forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I hadn't heard it either, So I googled "The Family of Angles" and got a hit or two:

Inside:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_EYfoKxO-Az...+of+angles.jpg

Outside:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EYfoKxO-Az...+of+angles.jpg

Reference:

http://studiography.blogspot.com/201...of-angles.html
.

---

The above diagram is based on the assumption that the surface being photographed is flat and at right angles with the axis of the camera lens. The surface of an oil painting will have reflective (gloss) brush or palette knife strokes/marks that may still reflect back to the camera even with the lighting indicated in the diagram. The more obtuse the angle of lighting the lower the chance of reflections to the camera and the softer the lighting the lower the intensity of any reflections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

The above diagram is based on the assumption that the surface being photographed is flat and at right angles with the axis of the camera lens. The surface of an oil painting will have reflective (gloss) brush or palette knife stokes/marks that may still reflect back to the camera even with the lighting indicated in the diagram. The more obtuse the angle of lighting the lower the chance of reflections to the camera and the softer the lighting the lower the intensity of any reflections.

---

For sure. Ultimately it's a no-win situation, but soft & polarised light is a lot better than hard & non-polarised light.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

For sure. Ultimately it's a no-win situation, but soft & polarised light is a lot better than hard & non-polarised light.

---

Previously I have noticed that we sometimes agree but I have just never admitted it before...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

Previously I have noticed that we sometimes agree but I have just never admitted it before...:)

---

So long as we don't make a habit of it, I think our reputation will be safe :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pnodrog

The above diagram is based on the assumption that the surface being photographed is flat and at right angles with the axis of the camera lens

---

Quite so. Perhaps I should have emphasized that the illustrations were in the introduction part of the reference, which does go on to address other surfaces and shapes in quite some detail.

TTFN,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Quite so. Perhaps I should have emphasized that the illustrations were in the introduction part of the reference, which does go on to address other surfaces and shapes in quite some detail.

TTFN,

---

If it's a convex surface like a car, you'll going to get glare from the lights. Trick with that is to duplicate the layer - remove the reflection/glare from the top layer - then vary the layer opacity to give a "controlled" look.

Trick for family of angles is to use a mirror on the same plane as the art, as close as possible to it; if you can see the lights through the viewfinder in the mirror's reflection then they need to be moved further off-axis.

I already have the link that xpat found and I bought the Kindle of Light Science and Magic, so thanks. It's too damn snowy to go the Candy Cottage for my monthly dosage so I used that money for the book. I researched some lighting kits that I may think about. The inexpensive ones would cause mucho reflection. I found a 5 in one reflector thing that might help, I think it was five, let's see, white, diffuse, gold, black, translucent, that's probably right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lundberg

I already have the link that xpat found and I bought the Kindle of Light Science and Magic, so thanks. It's too damn snowy to go the Candy Cottage for my monthly dosage so I used that money for the book. I researched some lighting kits that I may think about. The inexpensive ones would cause mucho reflection. I found a 5 in one reflector thing that might help, I think it was five, let's see, white, diffuse, gold, black, translucent, that's probably right.

---

Well done!

Hope you'll give us some feedback on how you're finding it as you work through it.

Feel free to start a thread on lighting if you'd like some help -- there's quite a bit of experience here with all kinds of rigs.

The 5-in-1 you mention are a useful tool of the trade for sure; probably more for portraiture than anything else though (usually). I commented on them a bit on a school of portraiture series that I did a while back, if it's of any interest to you.

You have great psychic powers, sensei. I was going to ask what you thought of the 5 in 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lundberg

You have great psychic powers, sensei. I was going to ask what you thought of the 5 in 1.

---

For subtracting light, the black part is great.

For adding light, the biggest issue is that for the poor model, it's like someone reflecting the sun into their eyes (silver surface -- white isn't so bad).

The diffuser is a god-send if your in dappled light (eg under a tree).

I don't use the gold surface much -- it over-cooks skin tones IMO.

In the studio they're useful for bouncing light up under chins etc.

:)

How do you use the translucent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lundberg

How do you use the translucent?

---

Like this:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2/original.jpg

to get (after an attitude adjustment), this ...

http://www.pbase.com/cjsouthern/imag...7/original.jpg

There could be a lot viable alternatives to photoshop like gimp, pixlr (which is browser based editor), irfanview, picmonkey and the list is endless, hope this help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jinkazma

There could be a lot viable alternatives to photoshop like gimp, pixlr (which is browser based editor), irfanview, picmonkey and the list is endless, hope this help.

---

Sorry to disagree with you, but while there are quite a few editors, both ones one has to buy and freeware, they simply do not have the depth or vast amount of support Photoshop does. Browser based editors are fairly simple beasts out of necessity, due to the the data transfer restrictions even over a fast internet connection. Many of my Photoshop files end up being several hundred MB in size and passing that amount of data back and forth is extremely inefficient.

I've played around with GIMP from time to time and find that the learning curve is about the same as Photoshop, for a lower level of functionality. I've also used some of the Corel software and have never really found that it had any real advantages over Photoshop, for me.

Most pros (and serious amateurs) use Photoshop because of its funtionality. Its downsides are the long learning curve and for some the cost (although at $10 US a month, I personally think it is a bargain).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

Sorry to disagree with you, but while there are quite a few editors, both ones one has to buy and freeware, they simply do not have the depth or vast amount of support Photoshop does. Browser based editors are fairly simple beasts out of necessity, due to the the data transfer restrictions even over a fast internet connection. Many of my Photoshop files end up being several hundred MB in size and passing that amount of data back and forth is extremely inefficient.

I've played around with GIMP from time to time and find that the learning curve is about the same as Photoshop, for a lower level of functionality. I've also used some of the Corel software and have never really found that it had any real advantages over Photoshop, for me.

Most pros (and serious amateurs) use Photoshop because of its funtionality. Its downsides are the long learning curve and for some the cost (although at $10 US a month, I personally think it is a bargain).

---

Good grief. I can't believe this one is up again.

A fair comment on the subject is that a viable alternative to Photoshop / CC is probably several packages used according to need. For instance I use Fotoxx, Rawtherapee, GIMP, Hugin, Macrofusion, QtPfsGui and intend to sort out another alternative to the last one as it works in a different way that looks to have some advantages ( HDR). Fotoxx will do HDR, Focus stacking and panoramas so having others may sound odd but it depends on the complexity of the problems. I just go for the quickest and could in the extreme do the same thing manually with the GIMP.

I was rather surprised what can be done with Corel After Shot Pro once I got to grips with it. Information on using that package is scant. Some users don't even notice that it will work in layers. There are a few videos on YouTube. One curious lack on info is altering the fade out of brushes - it is in the web manual if people read it as are a number of other things.

Support is an interesting area. I would actually say that all of the packages I have mentioned have a much less steeper learning curve than CC etc as in some ways they do less or are aimed at specific tasks BUT there is no way round learning which basic adjustments to make initially on any shot. The GIMP does have a rather steep learning curve in some ways but for layer and mask work, healing, cloning and some other things it's no more complicated than any other layer based package - ;) just different.

Truth is once some one has become proficient with what ever they use other than better "versions" they are unlikely to change. From what I read on here at times I suspect people starting out tend to get more advanced packages far too soon. Have to laugh - maybe the super low CC price will put people of photography for ever as it's way to complicated to use effectively in anything like a short time scale.

John
-

It isn't really. A new member just reactivated a year old thread and also posted something similar in General Photography. Only two posts so far - I don't think we should get carried away with responding.

Hello...

There are several and even uncountable alternatives to the adobe photoshop. these are of both types that are online and for offline use. I personally use photoshop online to edit my photos and hence you can use it as a logo maker online as it is too good for designing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnkingsb1

Hello...

There are several and even uncountable alternatives to the adobe photoshop. these are of both types that are online and for offline use. I personally use photoshop online to edit my photos and hence you can use it as a logo maker online as it is too good for designing.

---

Welcome to CiC. Could I ask you to click the "My Profile" button on the top of this page. This will take the Profile page. If you click the "About Me" tab, could you complete at least your name and where you are from, by clicking the pencil icon beside these fields. We tend to go about on a first name basis here at CiC.

The commentary is all about the word viable.

Yes, there are many photo editing tools out there, but very few (I'm thinking of Gimp and Corel Painter; both of which support layers; but then so does Photoshop Elements) that come close to the functionality of Photoshop. No online tool is likely to ever cut it because of the the massive amounts of data that have to be transfered, as your files become more complex.

When I do edits, it is not at all unusual for me to have files that are several hundred MB. Doing that with an online tool, well, perhaps not the best solution... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GrumpyDiver

The commentary is all about the word viable.

Yes, there are many photo editing tools out there, but very few (I'm thinking of Gimp and Corel Painter; both of which support layers; but then so does Photoshop Elements) that come close to the functionality of Photoshop.

---

Certainly, layers is one of the big aspects, but there are a few others that are worth considering. First, support for plug-ins is a big deal. And this is fraught with peril on other applications. I use and like PaintShopPro. It will run some PhotoShop plug-ins, including the ones I care about: All Topaz plug-ins and FocusMagic. But there are other plug-ins that PhotoShop supports and PaintShopPro won't work with. So there's always a FUD factor with third party utilities.
Second, working with 16 bits per channel is a big deal when cameras support 14 bits of real data acquisition. Many third party apps (and PhotoShop Elements the last I knew) do not support more than 8 bits per channel. This is a real deal-breaker with many applications to my mind.
Third, the raw converters (assuming the program even has one) vary tremendously between products. The PaintShopPro raw converter is not awful, but it isn't as good as Adobe's. I always use the Nikon program for raw conversion because it is better than any third party converter, with full support for Nikon cameras and no reverse engineering. They add new cameras more quickly than any other program, too. But, if you want to use the built-in raw support of your image processig application, this is a big variable between applications.
Finally, if you are a software engineer and like to develop your own image processing applications, GIMP is the clear winner over any of the applications, with a fully-documented interface and a large developer community willing to help you.
FWIW

ETA: 64-bit applications are important any more, too. Many of the third-party apps are still 32-bit. Given that each image may run 100 MB or more now, you need a lot of address space for working with some operations (panoramas come to mind.)