glyphtrix

Gimp is a remarkable program that can essentially do anything.
Sometimes it seems slow or cumbersome but given enough time (and "how to" research) it can do anything.
The BEST part is that there ARE NO extortion payments;
Heck you don't even have to pay anything at all to even OWN a LEGAL copy OR EVER AGAIN!!
AND it can be made to work with a variety of other different programs as well as some LR, PS plugins AND OTHERS!!.
I'm still running 2.8
But I'm inspired by your post to get the FREE update!
Did I mention that the upgrade is ALSO completely free??!!
Way to go! More power to you!!

Thanks for the heads up on the available update!!

j45 Loc: North Central CT

Do you, or anyone have recommendations on Gimp tutorials?

I understand from past years interest that Gimp has a rather steep learning curve.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You have to put this bias against "free" behind you. gimp, like all members of the gnu family, is developed/maintained by 'geeks'/'nerds' who would rather write software than do almost anything else - and most of them are at a high level of our profession {I'm a retired software developer}

Carusoswi

Try this forum: gimpusers.com

There is a section of the forum for tutorials.

There is one called Basics. I have not viewed it, but would imagine that it would give you the basics so that you can become productive in short order. Gimp, in my view, is no more or less difficult to learn than any full-featured photo editor. Like PS, it is much more than a photo editor, but I really only use it (and PS) as such. The current 2.9 versions (experimental developmental versions) include Darktable as a plugin to open RAW files (much like LR or Bridge with Adobe). I could not get to first base with Darktable without first viewing some tutorials of which there are many. After working through a few tutorials on Darktable, navigation through and use of its many modules is consistent with the ones I learned during those first introductory tutorials.

I find now that, because my work mainly involves minor adjustments with digital photos (I'm no graphic artist, etc), the major lifting for me now occurs via Darktable with final touch-up in Gimp. It sort of pains me to say that, because I love the Gimp and the idea of something so powerful being totally free. Darktable (unlike LR) allows for localized adjustments of every sort available while working non-destructively on the RAW file. Conversion to TIFF or JPG is the last step in the editing process.

When I shoot digital photos, I am careful expose to the right (photos as bright as possible without overexposing), and rely upon the histogram preview available on my DSLR to make certain the brightest areas in my photo (within reason) are not overexposed. I used to then use some RAW converter (Ufraw, Lightzone (another now open source application that is very capable), or RawTherapee to convert RAW to TIFF, then open with Gimp as an 8-bit TIFF. I would then mask various areas (too light or too dark) and adjust them individually to taste, then export to an 8-bit JPG.

With Darktable and now Gimp 2.9x, I can work in 16-bit (or above if I choose) to accomplish the same effects.

Gimp 2.10 is not far from being released (I think. I'm not a near dust dinosaur yet, but still hope that 2.10 will be released in my lifetime, LOL). Because Gimp is open source and its development is achieved through the efforts of developers who donate their time, progress from one release to the other takes time. But with release of the development 2.9x versions, Gimp has moved beyond the old complaints that it cannot open RAW files (neither could/does PS - their "plugin" has a branded, proprietary name (Bridge, ACR, LR). The workflow is not appreciably different than what we have had available in Gimp for a long time. With 2.9x, we are no longer limited to 8-bit files.

The other common complaint regarding Gimp has been that it does not support CMYK. CMYK is a subtractive color model used in commercial printing. My printing adventures, while very personally satisfying, never went beyond high quality ink jet output. Unless you are sending your output to print houses that use this color module, you will likely never have occasion to use it. I would guess that most advanced amateurs and even pros rarely have a need for this color module. That said, I read that CMYK is on the developer radar (though not a high priority at this point specifically because the percentage of the user base that depends upon CMYK support is not that high).

I probably come off as some sort of fan boy for GIMP. IMHO, I am not. I do subscribe to PS CC (it has the most handy uses in the office on chores that have little to do with photography - probably akin to using a canon to slay a deer, but useful to me, nonetheless), and I still will occasionally use it to process a batch of photos. But my heart is really with open source, Gimp in lieu of PS, Ubuntu in lieu of Windows, etc.

I feel you should use those applications with which you feel most comfortable, but it bothers me to see the beating that Gimp takes from posters who likely have not bothered to take the time necessary to familiarize themselves with the application. It's no Photoshop, but Photoshop is no Gimp, either. They both perform similar tasks, but the user interfaces vary in what I consider minor ways. I learned Photoshop first, but, personally, prefer Gimp's user interface. These old eyes to not have to do so much squinting to find and click on things nearly as much as they do in PS. This, of course, is just my opinion. Yours user preferences may vary, and that, of course, is valid. Unfair to me is the constant song about Gimp's steep learning curve. It is not one bit steeper than that of PS, unless, of course, your computer experience includes substantial experience with PS or PS-like editors (I purchased an Epson ES-300C scanner back in the day when they were $2,500 at "CompUSA". Included with the purchase was an application called "Picture Publisher." I used it, upgraded to what I believe was its final upgrade, then moved on to PS. The interface of PB was very similar to PS (who copied whom?).

I look back on that scanner purchase with amazement. That was one expensive scanner! Required a special parallel interface card (not all that special in its day). It's still functional, but no way (or logical reason) to connect it with my current laptop. I could likely have blown that same money on a "better" computer, a fancier camera (no digital SLRS at that point in time). I'll chalk it all up to an expensive introductory course in digital imaging. Of course, my children and I derived much pleasure from its use in the day ( we were on the "cutting edge", LOL, my "color" printer used a four-color ribbon, one color, one line at a time - start your print job and come back in a day or two, LOL).

The best computers of the day would be equally obsolete now. The best film cameras of the day would still be relevant, but I bought several copies of those "untouchables" used at prices mere mortals (like me) could afford.

I am sorry to digress, but I have had a long love affair with all things photographic. My admiration for all things digital is equally strong.

If you have taken the time to read through all of this, I hope you find something here that is useful.

As always, happy shooting/editing.

Caruso

j45 Loc: North Central CT

thanks, caruso.