Is there only Photoshop?

[Vortex]

As an advocate of Open Source Software, and in relation to the GIMP.

If any potential users wish to evaluate GIMP for their own needs, do ensure you're using the latest stable release ( 2.8.10 - http://www.gimp.org/ ).

Do remember though, GIMP != Photoshop. I would strongly discourage the use of two of the 'forks' of GIMP, 'GimPhoto' and 'GIMPshop'. These are based on older versions of the GIMP and don't have the same level of support.

Each to their own of course.

[Manfred M]

One thing that has been missed is the amount of editing power that someone is looking for.

In my mind, if you want the Ferrari, as Colin puts it, then my view is the same as his, why use anything else. The Adobe CC suite can be considered the Microsoft Office equivilent for creatives; yes; there are other packages out there and some may (or may not) have individual functionality that "is better"; but when everything comes together, I can't think of a more comprehensive package out there; I use Illustrator, InDesign. Audition, Premiere Pro, etc, as well.

That being said; there are a few caveats; for many people Photoshop will be overkill. If all you are doing is to resize the image, adjust exposure and colour balance; the Ferrari comparison is apt; I wouldn't want a Ferrari just to head to the corner store. If you are into serious editing and compositing, then you likely want to use it (and I have worked with the Corel and other software as well).

The other aspect of Photoshop; again going back to the Ferrari example, is not something you want as your first driving experience when you are just starting to learn how to drive. It's just "too much car". The same can be said for Photoshop; it is such a comprehensive graphics arts tool that it will take many years to master it; and working your way up is not a bad thing. Personally, Adobe has been brilliant as they offer both Elements and Lightroom as more basic tools. Both offer a somewhat gentler transition to the full-blown tool that starting out with something from another supplier.

[ajohnw]

It's fairly common for Ferraris to catch on ramps as they come out of car parks etc Manfred. They generally have only 2 seats and are at their best on track days in the hands of some one like the Stig or a Formulae One driver.. Some time ago only Formulae one drivers would fit in cars of this sort of ilk. At 6ft 3 I was sorely disappointed that I couldn't fit in one in a fashion that would allow me to drive one well or even comfortably.

Ferrari is a bad analogy other than maybe if some average person bought one and tried to fully utilise it's capabilities with out a considerable degree of learning first they would probably be dead in a few days. This is probably why a lot stick with lightroom and can't get on with elements or ACR for that matter.

You might view the above as a slightly different perspective. Car's - well I've seen the guys that turn up in helicopters and test them. I've also driven some of them.

I don't care what people do or buy and feel that people in this area should stick to what the OP asked for rather than a continually add Adobe drivel. One poster said it all really the GIMP is not PS etc. The OP already knows that PS is available, probably at $10 or what ever a month as well.

John
-

[lukaswerth]

Lukas,

It's a photo editing package - not a philosophical / religious experience. It's a Ferrari for $10 a month - just jump in and enjoy the drive

Colin,

while I think that such issues are not socially neutral, your analogy is quite apt, and I do enjoy the ride.

To the Gimp users: actually I admire you for working yourselves into this; I confess that, having once tried out the Gimp, I am going here the easier route, making use of all the tutorials and support material for Photoshop.

Lukas

[Manfred M]

It's fairly common for Ferraris to catch on ramps as they come out of car parks etc Manfred. They generally have only 2 seats and are at their best on track days in the hands of some one like the Stig or a Formulae One driver.. Some time ago only Formulae one drivers would fit in cars of this sort of ilk. At 6ft 3 I was sorely disappointed that I couldn't fit in one in a fashion that would allow me to drive one well or even comfortably.

Ferrari is a bad analogy other than maybe if some average person bought one and tried to fully utilise it's capabilities with out a considerable degree of learning first they would probably be dead in a few days. This is probably why a lot stick with lightroom and can't get on with elements or ACR for that matter.

You might view the above as a slightly different perspective. Car's - well I've seen the guys that turn up in helicopters and test them. I've also driven some of them.

I don't care what people do or buy and feel that people in this area should stick to what the OP asked for rather than a continually add Adobe drivel. One poster said it all really the GIMP is not PS etc. The OP already knows that PS is available, probably at $10 or what ever a month as well.

John
-

John - my personal opinion on Photoshop aligns fairly nicely with Colin's and that is if you can afford the $10US a month, you might as well head over to Photoshop. It is the same as the Open Office / Libre Office versus MS Office comparison of the Linux versus Windows / MacOS arguments. There are alternatives, even "free" alternatives; and it is up to the potential end user to decide which way to go.

There are people that have a philosophical dislike for paid for software; okay, there are alternatives like GIMP / RawTherapee. There are people that dislike "monopolistic" software suppliers (Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, etc.) and will not buy from these suppliers out of principle; and I'm okay with that too.

The same issue goes for the current Adobe software leasing model (which is nothing new; we had that wtih IBM and their mainframes, and this approach goes back decades); and defacto, this is the way Tax Preparatiion and Anti-Virus software has worked as well (annual renewals). Again, that too is a philosophical argument and people can make up their own mind and there are the other alternatives as well (hand preparing my tax returns and using an unpopular OS.

What most people are discounting are the sunk costs of learning a software package; and while there is some truth with the argument that moving from one editing package to another does not take all that long; I've found that not to be the case. I've tried GIMP and Corel Paint Shop Pro; both are okay, but just never found a compelling reason to switch to them. In my case, as I use many other pieces of Adobe's CC Suite (and I pay $50US a month for that privilege) ,sticking with this integrated approach is even more compelling for me.

I don't like monopolistic suppliers, I don't like paying for software either and I certainly don't like the long learning curve for Photoshop. But in the scheme of things, there are more far advantages going the Photoshop route than there are downsides and I strongly suspect this applies to most people; and not just me.

[ajohnw]

Colin,

while I think that such issues are not socially neutral, your analogy is quite apt, and I do enjoy the ride.

To the Gimp users: actually I admire you for working yourselves into this; I confess that, having once tried out the Gimp, I am going here the easier route, making use of all the tutorials and support material for Photoshop.

Lukas

There are mounds about on the GIMP as well Lukas. There are even lots on Youtube and many more on the web. Unfortunately some are not the optimum way of doing things. Part of that is down to things changing.

Really there is one huge difference between the GIMP and PS. PS has adjustment layers and as I understand it people can continually go back and mess around with what these are doing. I'd hope so or I can't really see any point in making such a big fuss about them. Not so with the GIMP. It has a history chain and it can be back stepped but the settings that might have been used in say curves or levels are not retained so if these need using again they are reset. As far as I know any following steps are then lost. This sort of encourages getting it right but there are alternatives. One is to do all adjustments via layers. Take something like simple sharpening, a plug in will add a layer to do that - need more duplicate the layer. Not happy - find out how to generate a layer like this - or use something else. It does of course have a number of conventional sharpening filters that apart from doing it again are destructive. Duplicating layers is trivial though as is generating an image from a stack of layers.

The previews are small and can only cover part of the image in full res. They don't use the main view for this. I don't find that much of a problem in practice.

The other aspect is that still in many ways it's a 3x8 bit colour channel package. Currently it will convert many higher bit count spaces to this when they are loaded and info may be lost. They are now kept in a very high resolution space which basically means any changes can always be undone. The knock on effect of the reduction from say 16 bit tiff is that raw adjustments need more care. Load a png though and nothing is lost but it's still converted to 3x8. It used to say hey I am going convert this so info may be lost. Currently I feel this is fair enough really. There may be a 3x10 bit option too for all I know but I doubt it. It converts to the system or user colour space. At least people generally know what that is.

Other layer work - masks, selection, and brush work, channels etc in this area is as far as I can see identical to PS.

Things in the GIMP change periodically. Version 3 when it arrives is likely to be very different. It's a long time coming. Things get added though anyway on all new releases. I noticed one recently - MM Filters. I haven't used it yet but what it seems to do is export a visible image or layer to Photivo, do what ever there and then maybe return to the GIMP. This is a good example of how things change. For one it seems to export a 16bit TIFF. Part of the fun will be finding out exactly what this can do but Photivo can do all sort of things. First thing will be to load the latest versions. A search for mm-filters also bought up another package dlRaw. This will be more like a conventional raw converter unlike ufraw - pass as to what state it's in as it's currently available as a preview release. I do know that the author is capable and also a capable photographer.

John
-

[Vortex]

Things in the GIMP change periodically. Version 3 when it arrives is likely to be very different.

Don't get too excited John. Take a look at the roadmap on the developer wiki. http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap

[Mike Buckley]

while there is some truth with the argument that moving from one editing package to another does not take all that long; I've found that not to be the case.

Some people learn how to master software relatively quickly and some people do so relatively slowly. Some people enjoy learning how to master software so much so that for many photo hobbyists that's an important part of the hobby. Some people dislike the learning process. I generally learn how to master software relatively slowly and dislike the process. Knowing that is a really good reason not to switch software unless there is a really compelling reason for me to make the switch.

[ajohnw]

Don't get too excited John. Take a look at the roadmap on the developer wiki. http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap

The G'MIC nuts have other things in the pipe line Paul including a piped processing line as per Photivo and Ratherapee. I saw a shot of one set up where all steps had ticks by them so they could be enabled or disabled at any time. It's very difficult to guess what will come out of the mire when open source is involved. That's a big problem with it. Much work is done because some one wants it and the so called core development team can vary dramatically over time because of this The GIMP like Linux itself does seem to retain some sort of mafia though as good things do crop up in ports at times and disappear with them as well. KDE is a good example of what can happen. Some wrong routes that will never be corrected so start again. I used to be very active on the KDE mailing list a while ago. Things can be changed that way but now it's a waste of time trying. I may have prevented the desktop indexing being linked in with the clock. So if you wanted a clock then the indexing came along with it. Many many negative aspects crop up now all over the place. On the other hand it is better than it was. The problem really is high level application programmers getting involved in low level stuff and also poor use of the current holy grail - object orientated designs. Many wouldn't know what an object was if it dropped on their heads. It's a difficult concept to grasp so it's just used to make authoring easier.

Don't know if you have ever watched it but there is a brilliant video on youtube called if I remember correctly why linux stinks. I've probably mentioned on here that if all the various photo processing people got down and planned a package together and went down a sensible route Adobe wouldn't stand an earthly at some point in time. Trouble is that this needs the same sort of dedication that the Linux kernel people have.

John
-

[Vortex]

Some people learn how to master software ... unless there is a really compelling reason for me to make the switch.

Very succinctly put Mike.

Another thing I find rather puzzling is why the Photoshop v other software (particularly GIMP) debate rolls on as it does.

I choose to use GIMP, so the following may seem rather strange... As I said in an earlier post, GIMP != Photoshop, and to try to make direct comparisons between them is, I feel, rather meaningless.

One should consider the history of both, GIMP originated as a raster graphics editor written by a couple of students at Berkeley. It had, and indeed still does not have, aspirations to become a Photoshop competitor/clone/alternative.

Photoshop, on the other hand, with Adobe behind it, is a purely commercial product aimed at photo-manipulation.

The bottom line is simple, does a particular piece of software do what is required? If the answer to that is yes, then the *actual* software in question is rather irrelevant. However, as we all know, there is no 'one size fits all'. Go with what works for you - for whatever reason.

As Photoshop is proprietary software and only available to run under Windows or Mac OS, that in itself is a compelling reason (for me) to not use it... As a very long time linux user, I've no objection to purchasing Photoshop, but I'm sure not going to purchase a copy of Windows just to be able to use it. (Please, don't mention 'wine')...

[Vortex]

The G'MIC nuts have other things in the pipe line ... this needs the same sort of dedication that the Linux kernel people have.

Open source will forever be very, how shall I say, fluid... Yes, I will agree most wholeheartedly that bad decisions have been made in numerous projects along the way. Kernel development does indeed seem to be the most co-ordinated, but even that's had it's fair share of spats.

When business gets involved with open source it's not necessarily any more organised. We've had, but to name two, IBM and Sun Microsystems involved; also of course is Novell's purchase of SUSE and their sponsorship of openSUSE.

Unfortunately, by it's very nature, open source software is accountable to no one. Despite all of this, I've used linux for a long time and would still advocate it's use. That's just my nature though.

[ajohnw]

John - my personal opinion on Photoshop aligns fairly nicely with Colin's and that is if you can afford the $10US a month, you might as well head over to Photoshop. It is the same as the Open Office / Libre Office versus MS Office comparison of the Linux versus Windows / MacOS arguments. There are alternatives, even "free" alternatives; and it is up to the potential end user to decide which way to go.

There are people that have a philosophical dislike for paid for software; okay, there are alternatives like GIMP / RawTherapee. There are people that dislike "monopolistic" software suppliers (Microsoft, Adobe, Apple, etc.) and will not buy from these suppliers out of principle; and I'm okay with that too.

The same issue goes for the current Adobe software leasing model (which is nothing new; we had that wtih IBM and their mainframes, and this approach goes back decades); and defacto, this is the way Tax Preparatiion and Anti-Virus software has worked as well (annual renewals). Again, that too is a philosophical argument and people can make up their own mind and there are the other alternatives as well (hand preparing my tax returns and using an unpopular OS.

What most people are discounting are the sunk costs of learning a software package; and while there is some truth with the argument that moving from one editing package to another does not take all that long; I've found that not to be the case. I've tried GIMP and Corel Paint Shop Pro; both are okay, but just never found a compelling reason to switch to them. In my case, as I use many other pieces of Adobe's CC Suite (and I pay $50US a month for that privilege) ,sticking with this integrated approach is even more compelling for me.

I don't like monopolistic suppliers, I don't like paying for software either and I certainly don't like the long learning curve for Photoshop. But in the scheme of things, there are more far advantages going the Photoshop route than there are downsides and I strongly suspect this applies to most people; and not just me.

Why do people continue to assume that there are strange underlying reasons for why some people don't run certain types/makes of software? No point even commenting again as I have done it before. This area touches on why some don't even get involved with conversations about the subject. The inferences are basically insulting. It does touch on one aspect of why I switched from windows but a very very tiny one - while I admire the Gate's business model I don't like to be on the receiving end of it. I also feel that some aspects of windows underneath are junk. He probably does too.

I've said it before - many many windows users run ports of the Open Office suite. Mac too probably and most certainly the miserable few million people that run Linux desktops..

Tax returns - I'd guess google would sort that out. I wonder if Adobe run Linux servers for their cloud? It really wouldn't surprise me if they did some will anyway.

Fact - Linux will not suite everybody and that's it really. I firmly believe in purely driving it from the desktop which actually is much easier these days but the other thing that can drive the kernal, usually bash. It's one hell of a thing to get to grips with. I do find I need to use it at times. I feel this suites the companies that apparently more or less give it away - support which is never free. There are plenty of useful forums though with plenty of people on them who are prepared to help. People like me are actually bug fixers for the desktop set ups that they sell for a pittance. I choose to be some way down that chain. Some like being on the very early releases. At least I often do get bugs fixed.

Linux does have it's problems down to the big problem with most open source - lots of people pulling in different directions.. In some minor ways this shouldn't matter but alas it's resulting in some loss of the flexibility the system has that Microsoft so admire. Fortunately the kernel is fairly safe from this as is server use as that generally uses bash - things have to pass through a committee to get in there. Not so the desktops. Having said that though it hasn't really caused me any problems I just wish that some functionality was done at a different level. It would be rock solid and unobtrusive. I'm being a bit extreme really here. Personal irritations as I knew what they were going to do before they did it. It went exactly as I expected it to.

John
-

[ajohnw]

(Please, don't mention 'wine')...

When I looked at the wine pages recently I recollect a port that will run it ! Cost a few dollars. Pass - I'm not to sure if I would fancy obtaining the Adobe part to find out.

The problem with wine really is finding a sound sensible way of finding out which windoze dll's to use and or which of the myriads of entry point the #########!!!!!!!!! things have that are actually used - and also work as they should as it turns out.

John
-

[Vortex]

@John

Did I say don't mention wine?

Prefer wine of the liquid, preferably red, variety... although I prefer a nice real ale, or two, or three, or ....

[Jeff S]

Not sure about others, but given the opportunity to spend $9.99 a month to save me hours of frustration and ( paid or unpaid) loss of productivity then personally, I wouldn't be able to pay the money fast enough.

A bargain as far as I am concerned...especially considering that cup of coffee and sticky bun I so cavalierly buy on a regular basis and think nothing of it. ...and let's not get into comparisons with the amount of money i spend on wine each month.

[The Blue Boy]

Hi Nicola,

Welcome to the forum,

You mentioned you're using Paintshop Pro. Are you looking for information and/or tutorials?

I've never used this program so had a quick look on Youtube, found these;

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...imate+tutorial

It certainly looks to be a very capable program. I'm still in the Photoshop camp however,

[Colin Southern]

Hi Nicola,

Welcome to the forum,

You mentioned you're using Paintshop Pro. Are you looking for information and/or tutorials?

I've never used this program so had a quick look on Youtube, found these;

https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...imate+tutorial

It certainly looks to be a very capable program. I'm still in the Photoshop camp however,

Mark,

HOW DARE YOU deviate from the topic at hand - post-processing product flame wars!!!

[Mark von Kanel]

Ive started to learn Photoshop and i will never move... i dont want to go through all the pain again....

I use windows (as all working people do ) proudly running on my mac book pro

Apple ios is for fan boys only

Linux is for egg heads only

There we go Colin flame wars resumed........

And yes everybody i am joking....

[ajohnw]

Ive started to learn Photoshop and i will never move... i dont want to go through all the pain again....

I use windows (as all working people do ) proudly running on my mac book pro

Apple ios is for fan boys only

Linux is for egg heads only

There we go Colin flame wars resumed........

And yes everybody i am joking....

Actually certain anti American organisations around world and others only run Linux and a Desktop. Unix also still figures too.

Work wise I had no other choice other than to use it.

John
-

[Manfred M]

With a 1.68% market (Jun 2014 data) share of the desktop and laptop market; I think we can ignore Linux, for the most mainstream uses (other than Apache web servers). Is really is a niche OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

I have played around with a couple of distros in the past, but frankly, never really liked what I saw.