Is there only Photoshop?

[nterry]

Is photoshop the only software to use? Online and in magazines it's the only one I see mentioned.

[Vortex]

Far from it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...aphics_editors

'A' is better than 'B' etc etc...

Use whatever suits your needs and you are happy using. Personally I'm in the FOSS camp, but it's a *very* personal choice.

[DanK]

Hardly. For pixel editors (which actually change the pixels in the image), people who post here use Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, the Gimp, and Paint Shop Pro, among others. In addition, many people use Lightroom, which is a parametric editor, as well as other raw converters, such as Canon's free DPP. And then there is a wide array of specialized software, such as Zerene and Helicon for stacking and Photomatix (and others) for HDR, as well as a large number of add-ins, usually called plug-ins, to extend the functioning of the main programs, such as the Nik plug-ins for Lightroom and Photoshop. The list goes on and on.

Photoshop is very widely used, which is why you see so many references to it.

[nterry]

Thanks, don't fel so guilty about using paint shop pro now!

[Colin Southern]

Thanks, don't fel so guilty about using paint shop pro now!

Photoshop has the inertia; best range of tools - most training resources - widest support - and now with their new subscription model, folks can have the best in the business for about what they'd pay for a coffee and a sticky bun once a month.

Over the years it's just built up this critical mass to the point where I personally believe - when the value of people's time is taken into account - it costs more NOT to use it.

[Manfred M]

Far from it...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...aphics_editors

'A' is better than 'B' etc etc...

Use whatever suits your needs and you are happy using. Personally I'm in the FOSS camp, but it's a *very* personal choice.

My only comment is that they miss some of the most important features in their very oversimplifed product analysis.

I'm not sure how I would ever survive without adjustment layers, blending modes, smart objects, clipping masks in my edits, yet these are never mentioned. The content aware tools are massive time savers, yet no mention. Likewise, no comment on every Photoshoppers favourity tools, like the clone tool, healing brush, etc.

If one wants to get technical; ACR and some of the tools that I mentioned enable non-destructive editing in Photoshop.

I wouldn't get too excited about the Wikipedia analysis when comparing editors. My guess is it borders on the misleading...

[Kodiak]

Is photoshop the only software to use? Online and in magazines it's the only one I see mentioned.

No it isn't… and yes it is used by pros because it is a powerful tool.

I agree with Colin (#5) for most of what he says, his last statement is where
I distance myself: "…it costs more NOT to use it."

[loosecanon]

As well as Adobe I also use Corel Photo Paint which comes as part of the Corel Draw suite. Corel Draw is a very good vector programme, much quicker to use than Adobe's Illustrator and comes with an excellent range of fonts. However Photo Paint is quite powerful, has some interesting features missing from photoshop, and is also very good for colour retention when doing intensity shifts and some operations, for example it will keep a grey image grey whilst applying some processes (such as extreme white point adjustment) using RGB colour space, whilst photoshop I have found introduces a blue shift. Some of its filters give much more realistic results than similar ones in photoshop, especially its watercolour filter.

[Shadowman]

Photoshop is also marketed under an umbrella of Adobe which includes (LR, Elements), the name Photoshop appears on both programs, but when someone states edited in Photoshop they usually mean CS. However, when you do a search for Photoshop help, any of the three programs will be included in the listing.

[Colin Southern]

I agree with Colin (#5) for most of what he says, his last statement is where
I distance myself: "…it costs more NOT to use it."

I'm meaning from a perspective where someone posts a photo here with obvious issues - I give it a cleanup - original poster comes back with "wow - that's incredible - how did you do that?"

I can tell them how I did it in Photoshop (all aspects of it, including numbers if need be) - and from that point he can easily replicate what I've done, and thus learn quickly - and then start applying those things to their own images.

If they're not using Photoshop then they're either going to have to find someone else who can do the edit who uses the same package (and will the edit be as good?), and then go through the steps for that package for them - or - scour the net for hours trying to translate a Photoshop content aware fill or perspective adjustment or a layer mask or any one of a dozen tools into GIMP or whatever package they're using.

That may not. (or may) have a physical cost (as in "time is money"), but it sure as heck will have a "convenience cost" which is what I was referring to.

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.

Many don't agree on principle, but in my honest opinion, many of them cut off their noses to spite their faces (not meaning you of course).

[Kodiak]

•

I, very personally, consider PS at the same level than the stitching kit I
have in our first aid pharmacy at home.

If one could live without it, so much the better. …but If one must…

[Peeshan]

I'm meaning from a perspective where someone posts a photo here with obvious issues - I give it a cleanup - original poster comes back with "wow - that's incredible - how did you do that?"

I can tell them how I did it in Photoshop (all aspects of it, including numbers if need be) - and from that point he can easily replicate what I've done, and thus learn quickly - and then start applying those things to their own images.

If they're not using Photoshop then they're either going to have to find someone else who can do the edit who uses the same package (and will the edit be as good?), and then go through the steps for that package for them - or - scour the net for hours trying to translate a Photoshop content aware fill or perspective adjustment or a layer mask or any one of a dozen tools into GIMP or whatever package they're using.

That may not. (or may) have a physical cost (as in "time is money"), but it sure as heck will have a "convenience cost" which is what I was referring to.

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.

Many don't agree on principle, but in my honest opinion, many of them cut off their noses to spite their faces (not meaning you of course).

Actually it's not that hard to "translate" from Photoshop to Gimp or the other way around, as long as you know what you are doing instead of blindly repeating what the tutorial said.
In the end it's more of a moral and personnal choice, like choosing between Linux, Windows and Mac, but there is not "one only truth". The good thing with free software is that it doesn't cost you anything to try them out...

[Colin Southern]

Actually it's not that hard to "translate" from Photoshop to Gimp or the other way around

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't - the point is that if someone wants to run with software that doesn't have the inertia behind it then they're "on their own" in that respect. Some people choose to do it that way for a number of reasons (financial, "evil Adobe" etc) - and that's fine - but I still maintain that they're doing it the hard way. In my mind it's a lot like walking 10km into town because they don't want to spend $3 on a bus ticket. Me, I'd rather just spend $3 on a bus ticket.

In the end it's more of a moral and personnal choice, like choosing between Linux, Windows and Mac, but there is not "one only truth".

For sure it's a personal choice -- but consequences come with that choice.

The good thing with free software is that it doesn't cost you anything to try them out...

I disagree - it costs time to go down a no-exit road trying to take a shortcut. And time is something none of us have unlimited amounts of.

[Wayland]

I would also mention Photoline.

Very powerful software, cheaper than PS with a permanent licence.

Has many features PS lacks but quite different to use.

If I was starting from scratch I would probably go with that.

[lukaswerth]

For me, what makes me uneasy when using Photoshop is that I feel I am picking up someone else's namely the commercial advertising industry's crumbs, and I wonder how much I am led around in my editing possibilities by the leash of the industry.

Having said this, however, I am also aware of the many creative possibilities of photoshop, and the many general avenues of image developing/editing it provides which really have not shown me yet practical limits which were those of Photoshop, not my own. So I think that a software is within everyone's reach which really is the industrial standard, which by and large gives every Tom, Dick, and Harry the same possibilities as professional designers and famous artists - the democracy, so to speak, provided by the digital equivalent of everybody being able to buy a canvass and a few colors, and starting to paint.

Lukas

[lukaswerth]

I would also mention Photoline.

Very powerful software, cheaper than PS with a permanent licence.

Has many features PS lacks but quite different to use.

If I was starting from scratch I would probably go with that.

Wayland (if I may),

this sounds interesting, thanks for pointing to this editor. Can you tell some features Photoline has but Photoshop hasn't? Or, when would one have an advantage over Photoshop?

Lukas

[Colin Southern]

For me, what makes me uneasy when using Photoshop is that I feel I am picking up someone else's namely the commercial advertising industry's crumbs, and I wonder how much I am led around in my editing possibilities by the leash of the industry.

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

[Donald]

Very simply, Photoshop sets the bar. It is the most complete, comprehensive and advanced thing that's available. That, I suggest, is indisputable.

What is also indisputable is; a) I don't use it and, b) there are other packages out there for people who don't need or want to use Photoshop.

I get to where I want to go in a way that I've learned to by using other packages ... and I'm content. I don't use it so much nowadays as I use other things for much of my work, but I remain a passionate supporter and champion of the GIMP and will continue to be so. However, it does not have the R & D investment and support network of Photoshop.

You pays your money (or not in the case of the GIMP unless you make a donation - which you should) and you makes your choice!

[swanseadave]

Another that costs nothing and doesn`t even have to be downloaded is the online editor,Pixlr

Though I use CS4 I sometimes use Pixlr for basic edits,but it also is a powerful program that works very well .

[ajohnw]

The only problem with using the GIMP really is raw development. It uses an add on called Ufraw which doesn't have the easy aspects that some raw development software has which may make it more difficult for some people to use effectively. There are several alternatives that are worth looking at. Rawtherapee, Darktable, Lightzone, Photivo. I think Darktable isn't available for Windows. There is also another raw developer called Rawstudio that can interface with the GIMP. The others allows all sorts of adjustments to images. I would say Photivo will be too much for some one who is starting out. Rawtherapee and Darktable are relatively easy to use. They are also fairly conventional but lack the instant bells and whistles that Adobe products have. Much the same is true of the GIMP

I would say an ideal free pair is the GIMP plus Rawtherapee. Generally this will be RT first and GIMP for any layer work that needs to be used. However there may be occasions when things best go RT - GIMP - RT or what ever. This isn't a problem in practice. Using Ufraw along with the GIMP which is the normal way the GIMP would open a raw file needs some one who is conversant with using curves. Some find this difficult. There is no highlight or shadow recovery etc it's all done with 2 curves.

One pay for option that I wouldn't dismiss is Corel After Shot Pro. Capable, cheap and easy to use. It has just enough rather than way too much. The important aspect with this package is to realise that it supports layers which isn't immediately obvious.

The only problem with packages like the GIMP is that it can take a while to even scratch the surface of what it can do. It also contains a lot of graphic artist type facilities that are of little use for photography.

I will add one thing about the full blown Adobe photography package. Some people have it and never seem to make full use of the facilities it has. The instant fixes, simple adjustments and plugins rule. Fine by me but it isn't an approach I would be happy with.

If some one runs Linux I would encourage them to look at Fotoxx but would still have something like Rawtherapee about for initial raw development. Or After Shot Pro. It's very quick and easy to do all sorts of things with Fotoxx. At times I am not happy with the way it initially presents raw files. It can leave more work to do than it should. Much can be true of casual use of Ufraw as well.

Posts on this general subject generally degenerate into all sorts of silly directions. Perhaps it wont this time.

John
-