Viable alternatives to Photoshop.

[jcuknz]

I am using Gimp 2.2 but it edits in JPEG is this sorted in later versions? As a hobyist it suits me coz its, like, free, like. and does as much as I've learned so far and more. I think some of these guys are pro photographers. I do like Gimp though and as its shareware theres always something going on.
Kenny

Are you sure of that? becuase while programmes may lable the file as a jpg file when they open it they are working on the full sized file, less of course the material the camera has thrown away ... not ever met GIMP but it is most unusual and I doubt if any serious photograhers would use it and there are quite a few at this site doing so. I hope they clear the matter up for you.

If you can set your computer to do it, jpg can be almost lossless ... it has gotten a bad name from people compressing their files when saving as a jpg without realising what they are doing.

[pnodrog]

Are you sure of that? becuase while programmes may lable the file as a jpg file when they open it they are working on the full sized file, less of course the material the camera has thrown away ... not ever met GIMP but it is most unusual and I doubt if any serious photograhers would use it and there are quite a few at this site doing so. I hope they clear the matter up for you.

If you can set your computer to do it, jpg can be almost lossless ... it has gotten a bad name from people compressing their files when saving as a jpg without realising what they are doing.

Yes jcuknz you are almost certain to be correct. It is just not feasible for the GIMP software to work directly within a JPEG file. The JPEG file will be read in and the image stored in the computer as a bit/pixel map array/structure/file and when the editing session is done saved again as a JPEG or whatever other file type is supported.

[Donald]

... not ever met GIMP but it is most unusual and I doubt if any serious photograhers would use it

I would just like to declare myself a reasonably serious (sometimes) photographer .... and GIMP user (though nowadays it is pretty minimal and just for final sharpening touches and sizing).

It is just not feasible for the GIMP software to work directly within a JPEG file.

Why? I do it a lot when working with images from other people and never knew I had a problem.

Of course, it's not working with a RAW file and any further editing on a JPEG is, generally, not satisfactory. But 'not feasible' I don't understand.

[pnodrog]

I would just like to declare myself a reasonably serious (sometimes) photographer .... and GIMP user (though nowadays it is pretty minimal and just for final sharpening touches and sizing).


Why? I do it a lot when working with images from other people and never knew I had a problem.

Of course, it's not working with a RAW file and any further editing on a JPEG is, generally, not satisfactory. But 'not feasible' I don't understand.

I think you misunderstood me. I said within not with. The editor happily reads from JPEG files but does not edit directly within the JPEG file structure. When the image is being worked on in your computers memory it is not in the form of a JPEG file.

Even when you view a jpeg image on your screen it has already been translated from its JPEG form to a form suitable for your graphics card.

[Donald]

I think you misunderstood me. The editor happily reads from JPEG files but does not edit directly within the JPEG file structure. When the image is being worked on in your computers memory it is not in the form of a JPEG file.

Aahh. Is it not? I never knew that. Y'see, those sort of things are beyond me technically, so I tend to switch off and not try to understand them.

[Abitconfused]

This from the BBC today: "Key features of Microsoft's Xbox One console, which is expected to go on sale in November, will only be available with an annual subscription."

Sooner than you may believe, it will be later than you think.

[Wayland]

As a bit of an update, I've got some spare time on my hands at the moment and am continuing to play around with PhotoLine.

People keep asking will it do this or that and so far I have yet to find a useful feature that isn't in some way also present on this very capable software.

The only problem I find is getting used to the "Germanic" way of doing things.

Fortunately their forum has been very useful for finding bits and pieces that are hidden in odd places and I have changes some of the keyboard shortcuts to more familiar settings.

Although I still have a lot invested in my licensed copy of CS6, I find myself increasingly switching over to PhotoLine for certain things that it just does better.

There is a very interesting summary of it's pro and cons here by the way.

[Adrian]

Wayland, as a matter of interest how are you factoring in the risk of your Adobe alternative not being around in the long term?

Over the years I have seen many software packages come and go. Reasons are manifold: better/cheaper/free competitor, business fails, operating system makes the software redundant, economic model changes (e.g. Apps).

Whilst I understand the economics of the Adobe subscription business model, I also respect your desire to seek alternatives and if you find a good answer I amy well try it myself. The concern is how do you get confidence that you are not jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

Adrian

[Wayland]

That is of course always going to be a risk, particularly in terms of file formats.

The problem that I have with CC is that if I stop subscribing, then the files that I have written with the CC software will not be back compatible with my last licensed copy of CS6. I might still be able to open a layered TIFF file for example but I would not be able to access any of the information held in the layers. The same would apply to PSD files or any other layered file format.

Because the licence for PhotoLine is permanent I would still retain the software for as long as my system was capable of running it, just like I do with my current PS CS6.

The difference occurs in the future when my new Hal 9000 System running Windows XXX no longer supports PhotoShop CS6, PhotoLine v.18 or anything else we can dream of today.

By then Starbucks PhotoShop will be on CC $$ and with luck PhotoLine will be on v.101, both hopefully supported by the artificial intelligence of my new machine and it's OS.

If of course PhotoLine don't last that long, then at least the final copy of my software will still open the last files I wrote with it, on the latest machine that ran it, long enough for me to find another alternative.

If I stop paying for PS CC or indeed if Adobe do get bought out by Starbucks, who decide to drop the whole idea, then the files written by CC will be nothing but unreadable data by the end of the month. Call me paranoid but I just don't find that acceptable.

With longevity in mind, I currently save my Master Files in five different formats across three separate hard drives stored in two locations.

Layered uncompressed TIFFs can be widely read, although programs do vary on their layer handling. PS written layered TIFFs for example can be opened by PhotoLine and read as a rendered file but the layered information is not readable because it is stored as an embedded PSD.

PhotoShop PSD files can be read by several programs including PhotoLine but only PS is capable of accessing all the information once again.

PhotoLine PLD files are only supported by PhoLine as far as I can tell and as such cannot be considered as an stable long term format.

JEPG have the widest support of any format but are not a lossless system so can only be considered as an emergency backup solution.

Flat uncompressed TIFF files are lossless and widely supported and currently represent the safest format for top quality work.

By keeping copies of my work in all these format at least I am keeping my options as wide as possible.

None of these formats are of any use without a long term strategy for preservation.

Storage Media formats change very quickly. In the few years I have been messing about with computers we have gone from Punchcards and paper tape, through magnetic tape, 5¼" floppy disks, 3½" floppy disks, Magnetic Hard Drives, R-CD, LS120, Zip Drive, RW-DVD, BluRay and Flash to mention just a few.

Of those, I only have systems capable of reading seven of them now, which is more than most of us, but by forward copying my data from format to format I have at least retained most of my photographic output from the last 30 years to this day.

Ultimately, the best current long term archival solution is Prints. Modern inks with lifespans projected in decades will probably out last all the current computer storage and will certainly out last me unless things change dramatically in the next 20 years.

Museums, galleries are currently staring into a black hole where million of photographs will just cease to exist as time goes by.

Despite the unprecedented presence of cameras in everyone's pockets, these could actually become the least well documented years in the future of photographic archives, simply because very few people are doing anything about preserving their pictures.

No system is perfect but in the end, all we can do is try.

[Manfred M]

Wayland - if it only was that easy.

I had a piece of software developed by a company that no longer supports it some years ago. I still have the installation disks around and thought I would install it on my computer (Windows 7). Oops - the software was written for Windows 2000 and is not supported on Windows 7 - 32. No problem; let load up Windows 2000 on an old machine; oops, the machine is too new and the drivers I need are not supported. We can't win....

Unfortunately "digital rot" is something that is with us and nothing is really safe.

[Adrian]

Wayland - I am not sure I get it. Your solution seems to approach the problem in quite a complicated way.

Surely, slightly simplistically, all that a digital camera sensor plus internal camera electronics does is capture radiometric data and express it in binary form. This is what raw data is: a bunch of binary numbers configured in a particular way, but still just a row of transistor switches.

There are scores of raw formats of which Adobe's (based on a TIFF format I believe) is just one.

It seems to me that the absolute key is to preserve the original raw data. Binary data is likely to be with us a long time: it has after all survived all the technology changes you listed above, which is logical as the code is simply an on/off trigger.

Surely, if we have the raw data preserved, what we need to guarantee is a means of accessing it. I am not sure that this has got much to do with Adobe or any other software house. Software tends to become more sophisticated over time, so I am not personally worried so much about preserving what edits I have done to an image (though that would be nice). What concerns me is utilising a storage method that will remain accessible. Many of the things you have listed are mechanical means of data delivery (cards, various disks). It seems to me our problem is with operating systems not people like Adobe.

Hence by moving away from Adobe, all that it achieves is exchanging one dependency for another (cheaper) one.

As photographers we all share a common problem: ultra long term accessible archiving. It would be interesting to discuss that perhaps.

Adrian

[Abitconfused]

Grumpy, I share your grump. And, being more paranoid than most, I see a conspiracy. Its called price fixing when companies such as Apple make agreements with other companies to set prices and rates. But when planned obsolesce forces you to upgrade or buy cloud based services as new operating systems become available its called progress. Newer operating systems could easily accommodate older programs but don't. "Its market driven" which means its a monopoly wishing to maintain market share (translation: no sharing of the market). Free enterprise does not love a free market.

But to the point. What do we do most with photo enhancing software. We adjust contrast, add saturation, use sharpening and wish to so so selectively so we need layers and masking. Altering perspective and performing lens distortion correction are also very useful. Color correction, fixing vignetting and chromatic aberration is a big plus. Adjusting size and color space is often needed as well as convenient compression to smaller JPEG files. Creating B&W files with great control may require Photoshop and a plug-in.

So there you have it. Advanced hobbyists and pros will migrate to the cloud. You can't stop the pull of "progress" because it is actually a push. Feel pushed yet? Don't worry, you will.

[Wayland]

Adrian: As a historian then I agree that the primary source is very important so I also archive my Raw files in the original format and DNG as well just as I have my original negatives and transparencies stored safely.

As a photographer I also feel that the original is just one step on the road toward the final image. I can't remember who off the top of my head but someone described the negative as the score and the print as the performance. I think it might have been Adams.

These threads might illustrate the point in my own work.

The Anatomy of an Image - Morte Hoe

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread28763.htm

For me it is also important to conserve the end result and preferably the method as well.

When I put a lot of hard work into an image, I want to be able to access that work at a later date if possible.

[Wayland]

Grumpy: That is why I have a collection of old, but working, PCs tucked away in my loft going right back to a 386 with a 5¼" floppy drive and all the DOS disks to run it.

I also have a Windows 3.11 system running on 3½" disks and the bones of every machine I have used since.

I recently wanted to run an image through an old "Buzz Simplifier" plug in and had to go back to an XP machine to do it.

[pnodrog]

I have been using computers since about 1965 (IBM360) and the long term ability to open and interpret files has been an issue but not the main issue. What has been the most troublesome in my experience has been the obsoleting of storage media. Unless your support time frame for your photographs is longer than about 30years you are probably reasonably safe with either Jpeg, Tiff or RAW format if it is a mainstream camera. The most likely problems will be the need to migrate to new media and the degradation and security of the storage media.

[Abitconfused]

pnodrog, you have hit the essence of the issue, change and obsolescence based on a marketing and economic model that demands constant growth and change if for no other reason than fashion. Recently a mobile hard disk that I paid dearly for became defective while stored in a file cabinet. I may still be able to retrieve data if I hook it up to my PC thru SATA but it is amazing that a portable hard disk (or perhaps its power supply) can fail while not actually being used!

Which brings me to the hypocrite I am. The cloud is the best way to store data other than, perhaps, gold DVDs. So NOW I am saying yes part of the cloud is good and part bad. The good part serves independence and creativity. The bad part corrals you into monopolistic corporate strategies to squeeze your dollars and cents (Pounds and Pence).

[Adrian]

Hmm. The "cloud" is really just a hard disk array or SSD unit owned by someone else with redundancy and back up under their control, but that we get to access for a fee. This is just centralised and professionally managed storage and back up. May include a range of software.

Still not sure that we have a guaranteed long term archive that will work.

[Colin Southern]

Hmm. The "cloud" is really just a hard disk array or SSD unit owned by someone else with redundancy and back up under their control, but that we get to access for a fee.

For those interested, Google will give you a combined total of 15GB of eMail storage and cloud storage for free.

[Manfred M]

For those interested, Google will give you a combined total of 15GB of eMail storage and cloud storage for free.

Let's see; I can get perhaps a couple of hundred shots on a 16GB card, and with an upload speed of around 600kb/sec and a fairly meager monthly data cap; I'm not sure if this is terribly useful right now; other than perhaps for a few very select images.

Then of course, there is always the risk of "corporate blackmail"; i.e. (something we saw when Netflix announced it was entering the Canadian market) and the ISPs dropped the bandwidth caps (and increased charges for exceeding the cap) because the newcomer was a competitor.

While I expect things will improve over time as technology gets deployed; image file storage in the cloud is not something that is viable today for users like me.

[Colin Southern]

Let's see; I can get perhaps a couple of hundred shots on a 16GB card, and with an upload speed of around 600kb/sec and a fairly meager monthly data cap; I'm not sure if this is terribly useful right now; other than perhaps for a few very select images.

Then of course, there is always the risk of "corporate blackmail"; i.e. (something we saw when Netflix announced it was entering the Canadian market) and the ISPs dropped the bandwidth caps (and increased charges for exceeding the cap) because the newcomer was a competitor.

While I expect things will improve over time as technology gets deployed; image file storage in the cloud is not something that is viable today for users like me.

Or perhaps use it for something else - or in fact ANYTHING else - or maybe even don't use it at all if it doesn't meet your needs.

Personally, I subscribed to their 100GB update for a couple of bucks a week (which gives me around 130GB total storage), and use it daily for a whole host of things, including photo backups (of selected images), PDF manuals & books, accounting backups, logs and records, and many other things. All accessible from my iPhone - iPad - either PC - or any other PC (after authentication), in addition to being able to share projects of practically unlimited size without needing to muck round with attachments.

Love it.