Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 81 to 94 of 94

Thread: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

  1. #81
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    4,018
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw View Post
    To get some sanity back into the thread. . .
    Hi John

    Not sure if this was the intent, but you might consider that could appear (and does to me appear) as a very arrogant statement, considering many of the foregone contributions.

    WW

  2. #82
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,309
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Can't see that is much of an advantage as most operating systems will move files around which is how I usually work. 8gb+ of shots from a holiday in Turkey last year didn't take long to catalogue even though I use my CF cards as a last ditch back up and buy a new one when they are full. I'm sure I could arrange for files to go to a NAS or cloud storage without much trouble. I am NASless at the moment. I've the bits for a high storage capacity server with redundant drive technology but haven't done anything with it yet. An ex demo / HP at the time bargain. I've gone of home type NAS set ups.

    I sort files on the CF card via the date stamp.

    Due to the way I work I have mixed feelings about editors maintaining catalogues. I use several and all these days seem to want to do this aspect as well when really it would be best placed in a separate application. I also often use right click open with as my file browser is perfectly happy showing actual image icons in a sensible fashion. The size can be varied. If I just click on them an enlarged view pops up that can be taken to 100% or what ever if needed. It works so well in this respect that little work is done in this area these days on specific packages for cataloguing.

    If I did want something to catalogue images there are several options about. Here is one for windows, backs up and web uploads.

    http://www.myphotoindex.com/Home.aspx

    Here's one for Linux

    http://yorba.org/shotwell/help/

    There will be many others for all platforms. One whose name doesn't spring to mind is used by the scientific community. This one catalogues all sorts of things.

    http://www.datacrow.net/

    John
    -

  3. #83
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,397
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    So your argument against using one integrated software solution over several disconnected ones is to suggest three more -

  4. #84
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,309
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by William W View Post
    Hi John

    Not sure if this was the intent, but you might consider that could appear (and does to me appear) as a very arrogant statement, considering many of the foregone contributions.

    WW
    Perhaps but while I'm not of the mind to take them this way some people may well find some of these contributions insulting to both their lifestyle and their intelligence..

    John
    -

  5. #85
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,309
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Pearl View Post
    So your argument against using one integrated software solution over several disconnected ones is to suggest three more -
    Now many people could find that both irrelevant and insulting.

    John
    -

  6. #86

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    4,509
    Real Name
    wm c boyer

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    I might suggest that utilizing numerous PP software solutions is less efficient than is using one integrated software. To suggest that $10/month is an excessive price is ludicrous, taking into consideration what you already have invested in your total gear.

  7. #87
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    4,018
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by ajohnw View Post
    Perhaps but while I'm not of the mind to take them this way some people may well find some of these contributions insulting to both their lifestyle and their intelligence..

    John
    -
    Thanks for your response: I think that I now better understand your general perspective on people, contributions and things in general, here.

    WW

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,525
    Real Name
    Jack

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Ok cool. Now that it's all been sorted out, I have some stupid questions:
    1) is everything saved to comp. or cloud?
    2) can it be used off line?
    3) what happens to it all if one decides to cancel?
    4) is everthing saved in a proprietary format or a format any editor can open and work?


    And now back to your regularly scheduled *program*.

  9. #89
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,309
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by chauncey View Post
    I might suggest that utilizing numerous PP software solutions is less efficient than is using one integrated software. To suggest that $10/month is an excessive price is ludicrous, taking into consideration what you already have invested in your total gear.
    Just who said anything about $10 a month being excessive or too expensive? Why bother putting words in somebody or the others mouth when they didn't even utter them?

    This thread has strayed well away from what the OP asked. Not surprising they always do. People who use other products often stay out of them as well. I wonder why some chimed in on the Apple ceasing to maintain their PP package. Tongue in cheek - can't conceivably be a problem for them as they can simply switch to super cheap Adobe. in practice they might find the switch as difficult to make as Adobe to GIMP.

    I wont even mention people who use Nikon software. Well I have now.

    From another post it seems I have a disparaging view of "many" people on this forum. Do I really? I 'll leave that up to their own judgement.

    John
    -

  10. #90

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by flashback View Post
    Ok cool. Now that it's all been sorted out, I have some stupid questions:
    1) is everything saved to comp. or cloud?
    2) can it be used off line?
    3) what happens to it all if one decides to cancel?
    4) is everthing saved in a proprietary format or a format any editor can open and work?


    And now back to your regularly scheduled *program*.
    Assuming you're asking about Adobe and the CC subscription........ I don't have the subscription (I just use standalone LR), but I understand the following to be the case:
    1. I believe you can save to the cloud, but there is no need to do so.
    2. Yes - I believe for about a month, before it decides you're deliberately hiding.
    3. Until recently you just lost the use of the software. But see the separate thread started by David Edric suggesting that you will have limited use of LR at least, to help you manage and export your images.
    4. LR and PS both can export to TIFF, JPEG etc, which many applications read as I'm sure you know. LR's native format is DNG, a raw format, which a number of other packages can read. I believe it is an Adobe format, but they promote it as an open format for wide adoption. I don't know how well other applications read LR's edits which are stored in a XMP sidecar file, if at all. PS uses a proprietary PSD file and I don't know if any other applications can read it. I understand much of the info in a PSD file can be retained in an exported TIFF file for reading by other applications, but I am not sure what, if anything, is missing.

    (I hope these are useful facts in a thread awash with opinion).

  11. #91
    Administrator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    13,620
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Quote Originally Posted by flashback View Post
    Ok cool. Now that it's all been sorted out, I have some stupid questions:
    1) is everything saved to comp. or cloud?
    2) can it be used off line?
    3) what happens to it all if one decides to cancel?
    4) is everthing saved in a proprietary format or a format any editor can open and work?


    And now back to your regularly scheduled *program*.
    1. I save my files locally. I shoot RAW with a D800 and when I edit, I use a lot of layers, so my files can get into several hundred MB. It is just not practical to store on the cloud,

    2. Yes, CC phones home around once a month or so (often to download the latest updates). I'm not sure if there is a "drop dead" amount of time to be off-line before it becomes cranky, but I have definitely been on the road and not connected to the internet for periods of over 2-1/2 weeks without a complaint. I had my laptop in Guatemala and had no local internet access while I was shooting there.

    3. If I decide to cancel, I assume I cannot open my Photoshop (PSD) files. Everything else; the original images and anything I have saved as a TIFF or jpeg will still be available to work in whatever software I would want to use. The subscription costs is low enough (I subscribe to the whole suite, not just Photoshop / Lightroom), that I see a low liklihood of giving up on my subscription in the foreseeable future.

    4. PSD is proprietary, and so are TIFF (technically) as this format is also owned by Adobe, but they have allowed very liberal licencing contraints on TIFF. That being said, RAW data is proprietary (and variable) too and determined by the camera manufacturer, so I don't get too excited about proprietary formasts...

  12. #92

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,525
    Real Name
    Jack

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    Thank you Paul and Manfred. In the overarching conversation about GIMP (being viable) no one bothered to address the issues I posted above.
    So as I gather, one needs to 'check in' on line with the mother ship maybe once a month, to keep the subscription active and software functioning?
    I understand there are many formats, just trying to clarify if Adobe formatted it in a way that only Adobe could read (kind of like apple itunes, etc.) So the files can be saved in any way one chooses (t be worked on later in another program).
    Basically I use RawTherapy for initial editing and then move to GIMP to complete my PP. I don't find it troublesome, vexing or inconvenient (but then, one gets used to hanging if one hangs long enough.)
    I like that I'm not married to something that requires monthly adoration and penance and that, should I choose, not have to check in with Mom to keep my marriage alive. Based on a new thread by Davidedric, who clarified lightroom after subscription, it seems to be a rather dicey thing should one leave, then perhaps return, then maybe update, or not. To complicated.
    I am discovering that there are those to whom Adobe is sacred in the way that Apple is sacred to its congregants. I choose another denomination and, not unlike religious controversy, I find that it works for me and that no, I don't have to believe that your way is better, even if you insist on knocking on my door and trying to tell me otherwise. If there's a light to be seen, what light I presently see is good enough to me. If down the road I convert, so be it but for the time being, I'm a GIMP/RT acolyte. (This being so, I'm likewise a fan of the FSM, ramen.)

    P.s., It seems impractical that a simple question such as was posted by the OP should require 5 pages of rather lengthy dogma and treatises, hopefully the OP has been able to mine the necessary info with which to make his choice.
    P.p.s., but then, I'm a Nikon fan so take from that what you will.
    P.p.p.s, all the above should be understood as to be meant with a fair bit of tongue-in-cheek. Or at least some of it.
    Life's too short to be too serious.

  13. #93
    Peeshan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    55
    Real Name
    Pierre

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    To answer the original question (I don't know if it's of use to add this after 5 pages of argument), but from my personnal experience in the end there is little difference for photography, both do their job if you know what you're doing. Some things are incredibly illogical and complicated in PS compared to Gimp, sometimes it goes the other way. Maybe the best solution is to use both program, one compensating the weaknesses of the other.
    The adobe suite was originally designed for professionals in the media/graphic industry; it is more intuitive and powerful for painting and such, so it's logical fo professionals who do a lot of airbrushing and heavy manipulation, and it's user interface is chaotic and based a lot on hotkeys, wich is not a problem if you spend all your day using it. And it's an integrated suite.

    Gimp is simply way easier and quickier to use when doing "normal" photographic post-prosessing.

    Personnally I use the adobe suite at school, with a portabe version of Gimp in a usb stick, and use wether is the most efficient for what I need.
    As for the aforementionned RawTherapee, I would definitely recommend it as an alternative to lightroom - especially the new v.4

  14. #94
    ajohnw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S, B'ham UK
    Posts
    3,309
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Is GIMP a viable PP program for photography?

    I do think there is a need to question what raw converter to use with the GIMP. Ufraw is essentially integrated but my feeling is that it's really in need for some serious changes. On that basis Rawtherapee is a much more suitable candidate for raw conversion. The question when using it with the GIMP is just when a shot goes into it. Often there will be no need but on the other hand if some one wants to get familiar with GIMP type packages they might go into it as soon as possible.

    Ufraw has a typical OS problem that crops up now and again all over the place. It should really have manual chromatic aberration and distortion correction built in. Instead as it's easier it has a library that goes by the name of Lensfun built in. This auto corrects on the basis of the lens that was used to take the shot. Fine if the characteristics are available but they may not be. Another package called Hugin can be used to calculate them but sometimes people wont want to bother taking the shots needed to do that or can't just find the parameter file on the web. People who use open source software are likely to have Hugin available anyway as it is an excellent panorama package. It can also be used to correct distortion in single shots. Some of my shots have passed through it at times - when - it depends on the shot. It too has it's interface problems. One really, the default settings when it's started up.

    There are a variety of ways of finding out how to use the GIMP. A post on any forum might mention what I call manual layer work - basic brushes. No difference really other than some GIMP people might talk about stroking things rather than brushes. I periodically run plugins on shots just to see what they do. The ones that generate layers can be interesting. I tried one the other day. I didn't like the total effect but did when I removed one of the layers from the view. Now I know what a layer like the one removed does and why I might add others that were used. In my case I now have a wish to find out how the effect I like is achieved. Recently I used paths for a selection as it looked to be much more suitable than the other ways. Despite this having a certain for gurus only aspect in places it turns out to be easy to use - other than I have yet to find out how to link the 2 ends of a path with anything other than a straight line. Once I have fixed that my future task is to find out why some brushes have layer modes and to use them. Really picking up all of this is no different to picking up other packages - the more capable they are the harder it will be. Anything other than trivial use of layers always takes time. Rawtherapee is also a rather capable package. To much for some so has been described as a slow and ponderous work flow at time and in other similar way because it's different to what people have used or looked at. One click wonders on carefully selected shots in youtube videos etc can be very miss leading. Also similar sources where the phrase unlike PS GIMP doesn't have adjustment layers especially when they then proceed to show probably the worst possible technique for use with the GIMP - using the blue channel for facial retouching always makes me think of that aspect. True. In some ways GIMP doesn't have adjustment layers that work in the same way as the ones in PS but how relevant is that when they clearly have no idea how to use it.

    Now more off topic comments in relation to the title of the thread just like many of the other posts.

    Multiple package use has been used as an argument. Many capable peoples work flow runs adobe raw, lightroom and CS. Big deal at times I may have to save a file and open it in another package but in real terms what's different. Actually as I run Linux if I use one particular package I can export transparently to any of the others, do what ever and then back into the original package with what ever has been done to the shot. Currently Photivo can be used from the GIMP. Interesting as unlike G'MIC it's purely photographic but not well known for processing speed according to the people who maintain it. Not tried it via the GIMP yet but will be. It has rather a lot of filters. It's also an excellent source of camera profiles. There are other sources for Rawtherapee.

    One aspect of open source that will only be of interest to some is that compilers and development environments are also freely available. Actually world wide that probably interests a LOT more people than adobe plus all of the other photographic packages. GIMP plugins can be written in several languages. It's also possible to influence what open source packages do. I've asked for a few features to be added to several packages over the years and often they appear. I do have some idea of the work that will be needed though. Sometime people ask for pie in the sky and that will achieve nothing at all. I've also reported bugs that get fixed. Also had changes unchanged. When that happened in one case they wished I would just go away as satisfying me would upset some rather major users but eventually they did find a solution that suited both. This sort of thing mainly relates to running the whole hog - linux as well. It's one of the reasons I run it but I can well understand why others wouldn't.

    I will probably buy Corel After Shot Pro. Not because I think that I really need it but because I firmly believe in supporting commercial companies that bother to cater for Linux in their offerings. Oddly died in the wool open source people frown on that because the companies who do this wont tell the os people how their software works. This can be a bit extreme Linus himself dislikes Nvidia. I always buy Nvidia graphics cards.

    How often will I use ASP - pass. Probably in the same way as other packages. Use it if it looks like it's the quickest root to what I want to do. If anyone wants to try it there are a collection of video's on youtube all by the same person that should be worth watching. They will cause people to think about what might be put in adjustment layers. It too can export to another editor. Actually it looks like another candidate for raw conversion that will also do one of the things Rawtherapee can do with a little more ease. It can also do more than I am aware of at the moment so just like the GIMP from time to time I will see what it can do.

    John
    -

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •