[Alt-photo] gimp and Photoshop Cc

Ryuji Suzuki rs at silvergrain.org
Wed May 28 05:13:17 UTC 2014


A bit off topic but somewhat related.

I scan negatives using Vuescan and save it in DNG raw files. That means I don't 
need to tweak exposure, curve, etc. at the time of scanning. I just get the dust 
off, set the crop marquees, resolution and other usual stuff and nothing 
image-specific, and keep scanning. Then I reverse the curve within Lightroom. 
It's a bit tricky but you can set the curve to reverse the negative to make a 
positive image and make your own preset (you can edit a text file containing Lua 
code snippet and save, if that's your style).

So, if you capture digitally, you can use Lightroom to reverse the image to make 
a negative. If you'd rather specify the curve shape numerically, you could edit 
the Lua code snippet in the preset file and save.

Regarding Photoshop v Gimp, I depend heavily on Photoshop and can't do my work 
with Gimp, purely based on the feature set, just like Loris said. But I would 
guess that majority of this community would be totally ok with gimp. It does 
more than what could be done with the darkroom process.

I'm generally not very enthusiastic about Adobe whatever elements. I don't do 
any serious video work but very occasionally edit short video, so I bought 
Premiere Elements. It was totally a mistake. I knew nothing about video editing 
but I grew out of that software in first few hours. Plus, that software is 
somewhat buggy but gets almost no updates. Then I saw screen shots of Photoshop 
Elements (never bothered to install a copy in my computers) and I got similar 
feel from it. The way things are arranged and work are different and awkward. 
It's not like some "premium features" of regular Photoshop removed from the 
menu. Considering the cost of re-learning a piece of software, I would not 
recommend Adobe anything Elements.

(Then I got a copy of Photoshop Touch for my iPad... that was more like 
Elements... not only very limited features but the layers work very 
differently... I'm so used to use non-destructive approach using adjustment 
layers, layer masks, etc. whenever possible but very little of that can be done 
in Touch version. It's a bit better than tasteless Instagram filters but not 
much more. I guess no one is trying to make digital negative on iPad.)

-- 
Ryuji Suzuki
"I'll play it first and tell you what it is later." (Miles Davis)


Loris Medici wrote:
> Since we're discussing alternatives; I would recommend Corel AfterShot Pro
> (old name: Bibble) for RAW processing and image cataloguing. It works on
> Linux/OS X and Windows - with the same licence. Since I don't use LightRoom
> for tasks other than RAW processing and cataloguing, AfterShot Pro makes a
> pretty viable alternative to LightRoom.
>
> OTOH, when it comes to GIMP, I'm still waiting for 16 bit layers (a pretty
> long wait that is)... Will try it again in the next major release. Clearly,
> to me GIMP isn't anything near to Photoshop; I personally find it clumsy
> (generally) and inadequate (in some areas) for my needs. Maybe it's because
> I'm not familiar enough with it but I personally find PS more intuitive and
> practical; I've learned PS by myself, I played a lot with GIMP but still
> don't know / understand many things - things that I discovered / did / do
> easily in PS... And I must say that when processing images digitally, I
> don't do a few simple and image-wide adjustments; majority of my images are
> heavily manipulated globally and locally - like, say, average 10-12 (often
> more!) layers per image.
>
> I'm very fond of (the idea behind) open source, and still waiting the GIMP
> release that will finally make me feel at home. Unfortunately, GIMP, right
> now, isn't quite my cup of tea.
>
> Regards,
> Loris.
>
>
>
> 2014-05-27 19:07 GMT+03:00 Diana Bloomfield<dlhbloomfield at gmail.com>:
>
>> First, thanks Chris and Gordon, for actually acknowledging my comment
>> about GIMP. :)  I'm consistently amazed that people often refuse to even
>> consider using GIMP or acknowledge that there is such software out there..
>>   I've used GIMP for digital negatives since it first began-- which has to
>> be over a dozen years ago now.  Back then, it was created solely for Linux,
>> but that's not the case anymore-- very MAC-oriented now.
>>
>> I have always been a visual hands-on learner--
>> (never-ever-read-the-manual).  And I find GIMP just incredibly intuitive--
>> so so easy to use.  And I've been very very pleased with the digital
>> negatives it produces for me, including separation negatives for gum.  I'm
>> so thankful for those (all volunteers, I assume?) who keep GIMP going and
>> are smart enough to create it, keep it updated,  AND figure out and totally
>> understand how people like me think and how we use a program.  And all that
>> for free.
>>
>> I sometimes wonder that if GIMP did some heavy-duty marketing and put a
>> big old hefty price tag on their software, made it proprietary, and kept
>> making changes that cost money--  that people would suddenly want it.  The
>> fact that it's free/open-source seems to make people totally suspicious.
>>   But I love it and would never use anything else.  And I think my prints
>> look great. :)  When I teach it, I teach people to use it, too-- which
>> takes about 20 minutes to download and less time to learn.
>>
>> Diana
>>
>>
>> On May 27, 2014, at 11:50 AM, Gordon Holtslander wrote:
>>
>>> I don't do enough digital work to judge GIMP's effectiveness or its
>> comparison to Photoshop CC or CS6, but I am aware that many photographers
>> do use gimp "curve" their digital images.
>>> http://www.gimp.org/ . I've used GIMP for a long time as a general
>> image editor. Can't beat the price.
>>>
>>> Gimp is not as sophisticated as PhotoShop, but it appears do what's
>> necessary to create digital negatives.
>>>
>>> The next version of GIMP (2.10) is supposed to support high bit depth
>> images 8 bit, 16bit integer and 32bit floating , using the GEGL library
>> http://gegl.org/. What bit depths do the current Photoshops offer?
>>>
>>>
>>> These is alslo an open source RAW tool, Darktable
>> http://www.darktable.org/, its availabe for Mac and Linux, no Windows
>> version yet.
>>>
>>> When I worked at our University we had to start using open-source tools
>> due to the increasing licensing costs and commercial software entities not
>> offering reasonable education licenses. Statistics is taught with R
>> http://www.r-project.org/
>>>
>>> Gordon J. Holtslander
>>> gjh at shaw.ca
>>> Learn about HSP http://sp-foundation.org
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Christina Z. Anderson"<christinazanderson at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Alt List"<alt-photo-process-list at lists.altphotolist.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 9:16:58 AM
>>> Subject: [Alt-photo] gimp and Photoshop Cc
>>>
>>> There was a post, maybe by Paul, a bit ago about Photoshop CC is it
>> worth it. Let me tell you my saga.
>>> I went and bought the last permanent license CS6 thinking I was so
>> smart. However, found out immediately to my chagrin that the CS6 Creative
>> Suite will not read CC InDesign documents. Since I happen to teach a
>> semester on InDesign and my students were now a mixture of CS6 and CC I had
>> to turn around and buy a year license for TWO computers, home and work to
>> edit/grade/work with their documents. It is possible in CC to save as an
>> earlier version of InDesign doc but a PITA I won’t require of them.
>>> So I was set back $400 PER YEAR for that and whatever the educator rate
>> for Photoshop CS6 was, I think $499.
>>> I was REALLY upset.
>>>
>>> In talking with a bunch of educators, this new licensing thing has
>> really created issues for schools. One school estimated it’d cost another
>> $30,000 per year. Adobe made a big booboo when they went to this licensing
>> thing. Unbelievable cluster f—. I know people are upset all over because at
>> the Adobe panels at SPE this year Julianne Kost was telling us not to shoot
>> the messenger, e.g. her, about this licensing fiasco.
>>> It’s good for those who don’t need to outlay the big bucks for a
>> standalone program. But it makes our university now consider one computer
>> lab for all classes. Can you imagine that??? With 100 photo majors and 400
>> art majors and 150 film majors all needing computers?? Minimum.
>>> We have discussed maybe going to Lightroom and Photoshop Elements at
>> school…don’t know if Elements is superfluous because I haven’t tested it.I
>> don’t teach beginning digital classes and thus when students get to me they
>> are expected to know it all, actions, layers, image editing, sharpening,
>> etc. etc. so I await what those teaching freshman and sophomore classes
>> decide.
>>> I noticed this book on Amazon about GIMP. I never heard of GIMP til
>> Diana mentioned it.
>>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1937538265/ref=pe_777750_118902580_pe_epc__1p_2_ti
>>> For what we do with diginegs CS6 has everything I use and then some. I
>> do a lot of image editing. I have used nothing in CC that wasn’t available
>> in CS6.
>>> Chris
>> _______________________________________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | altphotolist.org


More information about the Alt-photo-process-list mailing list