Any alternatives to photoshop?

[huoshui]

I can't afford photoshop at the moment, are there any alternatives to it?
I have no idea where to start despite reading overwhelming articles on the topic like this: https://pctechtest.com/22-best-photo-editing-software
I wanna buy to own, Needs to be Mac compatible. Thanks in advance.

[LenR]

How about Photoshop Elements - no subscription fees......

https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements.html

[royent]

Gimp

[Manfred M]

The answer depends on your skills and needs.

If you are a high-end retoucher and moving in the direction of graphic artist, that is where Photoshop and related software need to be considered. Affinity Photo and Corel Paintshop Pro are probably the best in that field. GIMP is a similar tool but most (certainly not all) find it frustrating and move on to some other product (which is what happened to me). While Photoshop Elements is a stripped down Photoshop as well, I find it too "crippled" for the type of work that I do.

Pure parametric editors are more than enough to get started; Adobe Lightroom (which is packaged into the same monthly payment package as Photoshop) is fine for many. Phase One's Capture One has a lot of fans, but it is also very expensive and moving to a subscription model. On1 Photo Raw, DxO PhotoLab and Skylum Neo also have a loyal fan base.

[Geoff F]

Have a look at Serif Affinity. A review is here

https://uk.pcmag.com/photo-editing/1...affinity-photo

But be careful which version you purchase because I think the professional option is somewhere around £150.

I have used previous Serif software under the Photo Plus titles and they were perfectly adequate although the Raw conversion was basic. But I can't comment on Affinity because I haven't tried it; although it seems to be sufficient for many users.

What you need will depend on exactly what you want to do in the way of photo editing. There are many alternatives for basic editing but be careful if you want software for working with layers and masks, etc.

I once had a go at Gimp but found it very strange to use. However, I am coming from the Photoshop direction, with many preconceptions about how to edit images. It would be easier if you are starting from another direction and were prepared to learn the Gimp methods.

[revi]

There are also a few other open source programs (besides the GIMP), but Apple's policies make it difficult to provide versions for MacOS.
You could have a look at darktable, Rawtherapee or ARTS, Krita (more oriented towards digital artists, though).

[huoshui]

Thanks for the answer, I think i will go with photoshop Elements, Gimp's interface is a bit diffult to use.

[billtils]

It depends on what you want to do. Some camera manufacturers provide free editing software. As an example, if you have a Nikon their NX Studio is well worth a look and I'm sure other manufacturers will offer something similar. If you want to get into more advanced editing then Affinity Photo has excellent capabilities and a value for money purchase program. It's currently on version 2.x and all the updates are free until they make the jump to the next version. I was an early user with V1 and the updates went for several years before they moved to V2. It's really good value, and comes out in most reviews as the best Photoshop alternative. There are now enough serious users who post to Youtube to provide extensive "How to" support (the Affinity support is also much improved but still a tad "geeky").

If you want a library function and a better than the manufacturers but not quite photoshop program Capture One is worth a look but it's a bit on the expensive side - you have to go to their subscription model you want updates.

All (or certainly most) of the programs are available on free trial.

[DanK]

I think it's very hard to give you a good answer without knowing more about what you will do with it. For some people, a relatively basic pixel-editing package like Photoshop Elements is a good solution, even though it lacks many of the editing functions that lots of us here use routinely.

If you are looking at software in that price range, it would be worth comparing the features of Elements with those of Corel Paint Shop Pro, which is similar in price. I used PSP many years ago before it was even Corel, but that was so long ago that I don't know what it includes now.

for even more basic editing, the freebies that Bill mentioned may be adequate.

[Chataignier]

Another vote for Affinity photo. I dont use it regularly, but several members of our club swear by it and I find that it works well once you get used to it. The learning curve for all of the packages mentioned is quite long. Make a choice and stick to it, they all work well, only really limited by the user's competence.

[JDW in Oz]

As a confirmed, card-carrying cheapskate (also an age pensioner on an adequate but still limited budget), I've used Faststone Image Viewer since 2012, and for the most part I've been entirely satisfied with it, altho' at times I think I may be missing out on something or other by not investigating other programs.

Before a friend led me to Faststone I did try Photoshop and Elements, but found them too complex an, well, overloaded with features I would usually never use, for my liking. Simple is best with me. The KISS principle is one I've long tried to live my live by, with so far (touch wood), pretty good results overall.

Faststone is very much an 'amateur' program with quite basic functions, but as I'm not a pro and my needs rarely if ever go beyond the usual crop, adjust colors a little, sharpen one or two points and now and then play with changing one of my color images to B&W (which Faststone does with surprising ease and amazingly good results), it's adequate for me.

It is also free, which to me is a major plus-point. As I've already admitted, I'm a cheapie.

However, of late I am feeling the urge to explore and maybe even change to another (as yet undetermined)program, for the main reason that post-Covid Faststone no longer produces upgrades as it did pre-2020, and I'm getting the feeling that I may be missing out on enhanced/improved basics that a other programs provide

If anyone has any advice about all this for me, I will happily consider it, and look into what is suggested.

Many thanks!

[Manfred M]

Dann - This is always a question that you have to be able to answer yourself. Editing needs are very personal. I know a (very) few photographers who shoot JPEG and spend at most 20 or 30 seconds on an image. They are wedding and event photographers who work under very tight timelines and cannot afford to spend more time at it. Frankly, their work is good, but certainly not outstanding and there are a number of members of this site whose work is much stronger than theirs

On the other side of the coin are the advertising photographers. A significant part of their budget goes to high-end retouchers who will spend many, many hours on a single, well shot image to make it perfect.

If all you want to do is straighten, adjust exposure and make some other minor tweaks that take at most a couple of minutes, your retouching path (and tools) are all you need.


On the other hand, if you have a capture that looks like this:






And you want to end up with a result that looks like this:





You had better be prepared to invest a lot of time and effort and use Photoshop. I'm not convinced that I could do this with Affinity as some of the tools are not as strong as Photoshops (nor am I as familiar with it).


P.S. I had the result shown here in mind when I took the shot, so I got the result I was after. It took over a day's worth of shooting to get the shot and then another 3 or 4 days of retouching and making the final print.

[DanK]

Manfred beat me to it. I completely agree. Here's another pair:

Original:




Final:



BTW, these were taken with an old 12-MPX Lumix LX-100.

I recently restored a dozen very old, very badly handled, photos for a friend. When I showed a few to a cousin of mine who teaches photography at the university level, she was surprised because she didn't realize that the recipient is a close friend of mine and said, "You did that for FREE?" What she was responding to was the extent and complexity of the editing needed for this. Most people, however, don't do that kind of work.

[Chataignier]

@dann : As Manfred has said, it depends on what you want to do. The key difference between very simple tools such as Faststone and the high end tools such as LR and PS etc, is selective retouching. The ability to isolate one aspect of the image by area, by luminosity, by colour etc etc and make changes to that part only. If you want to perfect images to a high standard then you will need tools to do this. If you are happy with global basic corrections of exposure etc, then stick with simple !

If you decide to go for an advanced package, beware the learning curve, it takes months of regular use to become even partially competent with PS and its competitors. The cost of buying or renting the package is as nothing compared to the time spent learning it. Make a choice then stick to it. Trying several packages condemns you to spending huge amounts of time stumbling around with unfamiliar tools.

[visualsparrow]

I think it's very hard to give you a good answer without knowing more about what you will do with it. For some people, a relatively basic pixel-editing package like Photoshop Elements is a good solution, even though it lacks many of the editing functions that lots of us here use routinely.

If you are looking at software in that price range, it would be worth comparing the features of Elements with those of Corel Paint Shop Pro, which is similar in price. I used PSP many years ago before it was even Corel, but that was so long ago that I don't know what it includes now.

for even more basic editing, the freebies that Bill mentioned may be adequate.

Thank you for your insights! Your advice on software options is greatly appreciated.

[Manfred M]

This announcement came out yesterday.

The Australian company Canva has bought Affinity, which includes Affinity Photo.


https://www.canva.com/newsroom/news/affinity/


It will be interesting to see what they do with these three products; Photo, Designer and Publisher. Any pressure on Adobe will be welcome from a competition standpoint.

[DanK]

This announcement came out yesterday.

The Australian company Canva has bought Affinity, which includes Affinity Photo.


https://www.canva.com/newsroom/news/affinity/


It will be interesting to see what they do with these three products; Photo, Designer and Publisher. Any pressure on Adobe will be welcome from a competition standpoint.

I agree. As David pointed out, the time cost of switching software is huge, and I don't intend to drop Adobe unless a VERY good reason appears in the market, but the more competition, the better the products will become.

[Qurmudgeon]

Hello. When it comes to photography, I’m a bit of a luddite. Almost stupidly resistant to change from film to digital. But the cost of development versus instant image was too much and it finally won me over after 10 years or so. One thing I couldn’t do though was get on board using photoshop. I don’t have any issues with what others use whatsoever. It’s all me. So I just use standard stuff, contrast, lighten or darken. Lift shadows and or crank up saturation. The common adjustments you find on a computer. So what
I shoot is pretty much what I end up with. And I like it that way. For me, it creates a challenge to get photos as good as possible. Kind of like hunting. I wait and watch for perfect natural conditions to come along for me to capture. And like I say, this is me. I do not think anything negative for those who use what they want. But I do have the tendency to think, somehow true artistry is being lost to AI when an image is manipulated to the point where it is a compilation of several photos. Focus stacking, bracketing, blotting out or putting in things in that were never there. Not even getting into changing out whole chunks of photos to make the perfect end product. Life and this world is not perfect, in fact it is its imperfectness I find attractive.
Sorry if my little mini rant offended anyone, it is not my intention. This is a statement about me.

[DanK]

Everyone should do whatever pleases them. This is a hobby, after all.

However, I just want to add two thoughts.

First, while digital has vastly increased processing possibilities and made processing far, far easier, it's not the case that masters of film all avoided extensive processing and stuck with straight out of camera. Perhaps the best known example is this one about Ansel Adams: https://www.shutterbug.com/content/w...us-photo-video.

Second, extensive editing doesn't necessarily mean departing from reality. In fact, in some cases, it can be making reality clearer. There are at least two examples in the work I do. One is focus stacking in macro work, which I use to compensate for the extremely shallow DOF at macro distances. It's a way of making the images extremely detailed and realistic. Here's one example:



Another example is photo restoration, which I do from time to time. It often takes complex editing in Photoshop, for example, selective use of the multiply blend mode, to restore detail that has been lost.

None of which is to say that I think you or anyone else should do what I do. I'm just pointing out a few additional wrinkles in the discussion of what editing can do.

[Manfred M]

I agree with Dan; everyone has their own unique needs and that drives how much, if any, retouching they do.

I know quite a few photographers that shoot JPEG and let their cameras make all the post-processing decisions for them. They might, on occasion, have to "save" a poor image by using some fairly rudimentary software. I refer to these folks as "shooters" as they seem enjoy taking pictures, but have little to no interest in post-processing.

The second group I look at as photographers. They tend to do a level of post-processing that involves some global and some area adjustments. They likely spend some time cleaning up sensor dust and correcting images, usually not spending more than a few minutes on a shot. They often shoot in raw. Adobe built Lightroom for this audience, which professionally will include wedding, portrait photographers, sport and event photographers. They may spend a bit of time using Photoshop, for corrections that Lightroom does not do particularly well.

The third group are the photographer / retouchers in the school of Ansel Adams, Yousuf Karsh and Henri Cartier-Bresson where their work has a lot of local exposure adjustment made to the final image. Adams did his own work, Karsh supervised his staff to do this and Cartier-Bresson let his print maker make all those decisions for him. Regardless of their approach, their photographs had hours of post-processing work done to them. This same school of though continues today in the commercial photography field, as well as with advanced amateurs. There are a number of members here at CiC that fall into this category.


Examples: Here is the straight-out-of-camera image, after minimal adjustments using the Adobe Camera Raw.





Here is what comes out after several hours of dodging, burning. local contrast work and some retouching. This shot represents what I had visualized when I took the original image.





This is definitely in the school of Ansel Adam's work. His iconic Moonrise, Hernadez New Mexico was taken in 1941. He made well over 1300 different prints of the image and he was not happy with his results until the early 1970s.


This is a contact print of Adam's negative:






And this is a fully retouched print from the same negative.