GIMP and PS

MrBook2 · January 6, 2006

[Moderator note: This thread was split from another, so if it seems like you're coming in midstream, you kind of are...but it's still entertaining reading!]

rutt wrote:

You don't need to spend $600 for a version of PS that supports 90% of what Dan teaches in the LAB book. I learned to do it in a class of his three years ago using PS/6 and froogle shows that you can still buy that retail for just over $200. Probably you can get it much cheaper if you shop a bit. (ebay?) If you or anyone in your house is a student, you can buy an educational copy, which is also much cheaper.

I know I will be accused of comparing apples and pears, but you could also use the GIMP. http://www.gimp.org/ It is free and although its treatment of LAB color space isn't the most convient, it does work.

You can decompose your RGB image into greyscale LAB layers, make your adjustments, and then recompose it back into a color image. Sure it introduces an extra step, and you can't preview the results in real-time, but again, it is free. And if you are a linux guy like myself, PhotoShop isn't really an option. The GIMP lacks only two major things that I know of. One is "adjustment layers" and the other is true LAB space. I am a big fan of the GIMP. It does have a bit of a learning curve and the controls are not layed out like the same as PS, but since I don't use PS, it isn't really a problem!

--Aaron

MrBook2 · January 6, 2006

My 2 cents. (ok, more like a dollar)

rutt wrote:

I don't want to thrash this out again.

That is fair.

It's just too sad.

I don't think that is fair.

I think that far too many dismiss the GIMP outright simply because it isn't "up to par" with software that costs multi-hundreds of dollars. Is the GIMP better that PS? Absolutely not. Anyone who would claim that must be on something other than clean air. Can the GIMP do just about anything the average user needs it to? Yes. They just have to take the time to learn how to use it. Therein lies the main problem with the GIMP. For some reason people aren't willing to learn how to use something that they got for free. Yet they are willing to pay more money for large books that explain how to use the software that they paid for. Much of this, I will admit, is due to the fact that PS is extremely powerful mojo. That is great, and if you need that kind of power, go for it.

But, if you are low on cash or, God forbid, using software other than Windows or Mac OS, the GIMP is a fine program that is capable of a lot. All of the postprocessing I have done to my pictures was done with the GIMP. However, I rarely do much more than crop, rotate, and do some basic color correction. This isn't because I can't do fancier things with it, I just don't usually. On a choice few I do more extensive work, but a good fraction of my pictures are just snapshots; taken to show my family and friends where I have been. I suspect that there are a lot of other folks out there just like me in that respect.

Ok, I guess I will get off of my soapbox now. But I believe in open-source software and I think that the nice folks who made the GIMP have done a fine job.

--Aaron

(Disclaimer: I am *not* trying to start a flamewar on PS vs. GIMP. I have never, and will never, claim that the GIMP is superior in any way except feature to price ratio, since n/0 = infinity.)

DavidTO · January 6, 2006

MrBook2 wrote:

Ok, I guess I will get off of my soapbox now. But I believe in open-source software and I think that the nice folks who made the GIMP have done a fine job.

--Aaron

Have you seen this?

rutt · January 6, 2006

MrBook2 wrote:

I don't think that is fair.

I don't think you understand. It makes me personally sad that I need to use photoshop to do the stuff I do. Philosophically, I'd much prefer the GIMP. I'd much rather use a program that can run well on linux. I have lots of reasons, some quite personal, for disliking Adobe. So it makes me sad that I'm hooked on PS features that aren't in the GIMP. But there it is. Sad, eh?

But, please, can we take this part of the conversation, about the GIMP and PS to a different thread? Please, pretty please? Just like David didn't want me hijacking his POP thread with the LAB techniques, I don't want this thread to devolve into a comparison of the GIMP and PS. In fact, David, pretty please, will you just yank this part of the discussion and put in in a separate thread? Thank you.

SCS_Photo · January 6, 2006

I use GIMP for nearly 100% of my workflow. I've gotten as much use out of the stock build that I can - at least for photography editing purposes. And I have done LAB work with it: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15173919

I've worked with CS as well as PSP. I own PSP. I use Gimp. I prefer Gimp. And you know what, I'm a better in post because of it. The basics aren't so basic. I've never had the temptation to use the "One Step Photo Fix" in Gimp, because there isn't one. I use curves for color correction, for exposure correction. I use the channel mixer in GIMP to do B&W. I've learned the layer blending modes like the back of my hand. I've learned masking there aren't training wheels. Once I start shooting raw, I'll use the DCRaw plugin. In Gimp. All in Gimp. Once I get the hardware to calibrate my monitor, I'll load the requisite ICC profiles. And finally, if I find the need to get greater color accuracy from prints, I may look into proprietary software. But not before.

That is all.

MrBook2 · January 7, 2006

rutt wrote:

I don't think you understand. It makes me personally sad that I need to use photoshop to do the stuff I do. Philosophically, I'd much prefer the GIMP. I'd much rather use a program that can run well on linux. I have lots of reasons, some quite personal, for disliking Adobe. So it makes me sad that I'm hooked on PS features that aren't in the GIMP. But there it is. Sad, eh?

But, please, can we take this part of the conversation, about the GIMP and PS to a different thread? Please, pretty please? Just like David didn't want me hijacking his POP thread with the LAB techniques, I don't want this thread to devolve into a comparison of the GIMP and PS. In fact, David, pretty please, will you just yank this part of the discussion and put in in a separate thread? Thank you.

Sorry Rutt, you are right. I didn't really see what you were trying to say.

Oh, and sorry, I didn't mean to wander so far off topic. I have learned quite a bit from the "pop" and "LAB" threads. Sadly this means I have to go back and post-post-process some shots. I suppose I could have much worse problems...

--Aaron

mwgrice · January 7, 2006

Personally, Photoshop and the occasional game are the only reasons I use Windows. I bought Photoshop because I could get it at a reasonable price. The gimp is a good tool, but not quite as polished as Photoshop.

The way it handles LAB is a nuisance, though--the lack of preview is a real hassle for me.

GIMP and PS

Comments