post-processing + printing

[JOEY2EYES]

I have recently come across this GIMP editing program and have been reading the tutorials. They say it is very close to photoshop. Is this true? Has anyone used it? Is it worth my time to learn, it seems to be pretty complicated at first look, but it does quite a few things beyond my comprehension. It is free, but on first download it blasted me w/all kind of extra stuff, so I uninstalled all that and all is working properly now. Any advice?? Joey2eyes

[Manfred M]

There are a few users here at CiC that do use it and I started using it (10 years ago) when I first got into serious image editing, but opted for Photoshop instead. I still have the most recent version of Gimp installed on my computer.

Upside is that it is free and is more powerful than many of the other editors out there. Personally, I never got really comfortable with the user interface and the inconsistencies in the plug in modules. The other downside is that the "gold standard" for image editing is Photoshop, so there are many more learning and support tools out there for it than there are for GIMP.

Photoshop, by the way is every bit as hard to learn as Gimp, but if you use any of the other Creative Suite (now known as Creative Cloud) tools, like Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, Lightroom, etc, these share a common "look & feel", then using Photoshop gives you a leg up when using these other pieces of software.

The other downside of Photoshop is that it is only available as a subscription service, so you rent it, rather than buy it. The Lightroom / Photoshop package runs at $10US a month.

In my view, both Photoshop and Gimp are way more than most photographers will ever need. If you are planning to do serious editing work, over and above basic adjustments and cropping and are looking at "major surgery" like creating photocomposites, etc. you might want to look at more basic tools before diving into these really complex tools.

[Polar01]

Gimp is a good program however I understand that it has a steep learning curve, so does Photoshop if you want to try to learn everything. Many here use Gimp along with a number of other free programs to finish out their images however I feel myself that those members have a better background and understanding of computers. I like it simple, I started with Adobe Elements, then Photoshop CS5 which I got a the students price as I took a Photoshop course at a local community college, I now use Adobe Photoshop CC. You can get Photoshop CC which includes Light Room for $9.99 US a month I myself do not like Light Room so I do use that part of the program. Now LR is a great an powerful program and can do a lot, however it does not do layers with masks which it what I need to really polish my final outputted images. LR and ACR (Adobe Camera Raw)which you use with Photoshop CC are the same they just have different interfaces.
Remember that you get what you pay for, Free is Free for a reason so my suggestion would be to stay out of Starbuck a couple of times, thus you have enough funds to pay the monthly fee of $9.99 a month.
My suggestion would be Adobe Photoshop CC, Adobe Elements, LR, and then ?, Gimp is a fine program with many using it, they also use a number of other programs along with Gimp to get what you can get from the Adobe programs. There is one member here who uses Gimp, and I have lost count of all the other programs he uses with it, now with is background and knowledge he is happy to do that, I am not.

Cheers: Allan

[Downrigger]

In my view, both Photoshop and Gimp are way more than most photographers will ever need. If you are planning to do serious editing work, over and above basic adjustments and cropping and are looking at "major surgery" like creating photocomposites, etc. you might want to look at more basic tools before diving into these really complex tools.

Reassuring to me Manfred.

My first real experience with post-processing has been with Lightroom and I have stuck with it, except for adding the Nik plug-ins, so cannot validly compare it to anything else. I think it is excellent, though. It is very unusual for me to come up against a desired PP result that it cannot help me do as well as I like. Someday i suppose I'll move up to photoshop, but maybe someone here who has used both can tell me what it will add for amateur nature/wildlife/landscape photography.

[DanK]

Someday i suppose I'll move up to photoshop, but maybe someone here who has used both can tell me what it will add for amateur nature/wildlife/landscape photography.

Mark, I do the vast bulk of my PP in LR, other than image stacking, which takes me out of but then back into LR. I do find that Photoshop or something like it is occasionally very helpful, which I find unfortunate, because I use it little enough that I am constantly forgetting things. Mostly, I use it when I need selections and masks, so that I can apply edits locally. LR lets you do that too, but not as well. I also use it for specialized purposes. E.g., if you increase contrast, you change saturation, and that can be a problem for some images. I use Photoshop with some intensely red flowers so that I can do a luminance-only curves adjustment.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Reassuring to me Manfred.

My first real experience with post-processing has been with Lightroom and I have stuck with it, except for adding the Nik plug-ins, so cannot validly compare it to anything else. I think it is excellent, though. It is very unusual for me to come up against a desired PP result that it cannot help me do as well as I like. Someday i suppose I'll move up to photoshop, but maybe someone here who has used both can tell me what it will add for amateur nature/wildlife/landscape photography.

Mark - it really depends on what how much you want to get out of your image. I could live with Lightroom for about 90% of my "snapshots", but the moment I get into any serious work 100% Photoshop. Carefully said, I virtually never use Lightroom, but it has the same basic functionality as Adobe Camera Raw, which I prefer. Lightroom's "fatal flaw" to me is the lack of layers (and of course the limitations of a parametric editor).

My wife does 100% of her work in Lightroom, even though she has some basic Photoshop skills. The moment she want's a more sophisticated edit, she has me do it in Photoshop.

[Brownbear]

Hi Mark,

This comes from someone who is still learning to post process. I adore Lightroom and have yet to learn everything about it and it does most everything I need.

I recently purchased the Adobe Cloud program which comes with Photoshop CC. The ACR part seems to work the same as LR so easy enough to learn. The reasons that I like Photoshop CC (very basic beginner stuff)

1. I prefer the healing tool for zapping dust spots and little distracting bits... It just seems easier and works better for me in Photoshop CC.

2. I have a Bamboo pen which I can only use in Photoshop. I like using this pen to select around birds (with more precision and ease than I can manage in Lightroom) which allows me to selectively apply sharpening to just the subject. And most recently I'm learning to use the curves tool and it is nice to be able to use the curves tool on select things (clouds and mist in landscapes come to mind.) I can do this in Lightroom but I do a far better job of it in Photoshop.

3. Layers.... I like that the PSD file in Photoshop saves all the select adjustments so I can go back to the file and see my edits with ease, and adjust specific changes anytime. I also that I can increase or decrease the opacity of the layer to increase or decrease the effect, or just delete the layer and still have all of my other edits easily scene. And that one can burn or dodge (mountain peak) on a layer without hurting a jpeg file.

4. Layers... Most recently I've been learning to combine two exposures (landscapes) and I like the ability to control the amount of change in the combined edits. I also hope one day to be able to combine bird photos to create more artistic images.

5. Available plug ins for selective noise reduction (Neat Image a program that works well for me)... For photos of birds in flight shot at high ISOs at full size if I see noise in the background, typically a blue sky I can select around the bird and reduce the noise in the sky leaving the bird (and the detail) untouched, or if the bird also has noise in it I can make select adjustments to portions of the bird and decrease the opacity to control the amount of noise reduction applied.

I'm still learning but these are the reasons I like Photoshop.

Reassuring to me Manfred.

My first real experience with post-processing has been with Lightroom and I have stuck with it, except for adding the Nik plug-ins, so cannot validly compare it to anything else. I think it is excellent, though. It is very unusual for me to come up against a desired PP result that it cannot help me do as well as I like. Someday i suppose I'll move up to photoshop, but maybe someone here who has used both can tell me what it will add for amateur nature/wildlife/landscape photography.

[Downrigger]

Those are all helpful responses to the question of what PS adds beyond what LR can do. Selective application of curves and isolating fields for noise reduction are appealing. Not having used layers, it's hard to appreciate what I'm missing.

[Manfred M]

Those are all helpful responses to the question of what PS adds beyond what LR can do. Selective application of curves and isolating fields for noise reduction are appealing. Not having used layers, it's hard to appreciate what I'm missing.

Hard to do something like this without using layers, layer masks, etc.


Demo by The Grumpy Diver, on Flickr

[bnnrcn]

Hi Joe, I'm new into PP and I have a subscription for Photoshop CC. I agree with all above comments about PS CC and I can tell you that if you are familiar with computers and if you have an analising mind, it is not difficult to learn it at all. You can learn the basics in a very short time with the help of a book (Adobe Photoshop CC Classroom in a Book) and you can improve yourself in time. I actually enjoy learning it and I'm glad that I have chosen such a capable product