dsnoke Loc: North Georgia, USA

[quote=Bipod]GIMP is short for "GNU Image Manipulation Program."
It's free and open source, and runs on GNU/Linux, OS/X and Windows.
Version 1.0 came out in 1998. The current stable version is 2.10.6.
https://www.gimp.org/

How does it compare with PhotoShop? Is it easy to install and use?

I've used GIMP from time to time. The most recent release, 2.10, is far, far better than earlier releases. It is easy to download and install, but I've had difficulties getting any of the plugins for raw processing to work properly. I use it almost exclusively for compositing images, but I have experimented with using it for all my processing.

GIMP was invented for the Linux operating system (a wonderful alternative to either Apple or Microsoft if you care), but has been adapted to Windows. Because it is a freeware project, if nobody contributes, it will stop being developed. So I recommend a contribution, whatever you can afford.

Cheers,
Dick

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

There is a newer Gimpphoto programme which is restyled to mimic PSE in layout. Do not know if it is windows or mac.
The key to any programme is to figure out 'how to do' as you need to, rather than trying to learn all its functions at once. PS and PSE have the most tutorials and these can be adapted to Gimp by substituting tool names.
As said Darktable plays well with Gimp. it is a decent LR alternative as a data catalogue and has a lot of manipulation tools too.
If your camera Raw file is not supported try UFRaw which works with Gimp as a plug-in.

There are a lot of non-adobe products out now. Try all of the free ones (your images can be processed in several different programmes, and different programmes come with different tools.)

have fun

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Keep in mind that you never actually own commercial software, you just purchase a limited license to use it. Generally you can only use it on one or two machines and you really can't give it to someone else to use legally, and you absolutely can't resell it. Those limitations are certainly a strong indicator that you do not actually own the software. And if you want to get upgrades to the current version you have to purchase another license to do so.

For those who always want to use the latest versions of Lightroom and Photoshop the subscription plan is significantly cheaper than paying for the initial licenses and then paying for upgrade lincenses every couple of years. For those people who prefer to purchase licenses and who are not interested in always having the latest features or raw support for latest cameras, then an Adobe subscription may not be the most cost-effective approach for them. It really comes down to the individual and their needs.

I don't know why people are so dead set against the Adobe subscription plan. We pay our phone bill, or gas bill, our electric bills that way on a monthly basis. We purchase our television access, internet access, newspapers and magazines that way. I am no longer an Adobe user, but for those who regularly use both Lightroom and Photoshop, the Adobe subscription plan of $9.99 a month is an absolute bargain.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

They have always owned it, people never owned it, but had permission to use it!

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

To me, photoshop was a lot easier. Gimp will do most of what ps will do but not all, and it's hard to learn, and find things.... but I'm talking 20 years ago..... haven't had a desire to try again.... give me photoshop, as long as the monthly payment is paid, I OWN IT.

Bipod

That's true of most of what is discussed in this forum.
But sometimes, one likes to know where an answer came from, and to be able to ask questions.

Bipod

Actually, that's not correct. Software is like a book: they own the copyright, but you own the copy.
But now they are renting/leasing you the copy. See the difference?

In the old model, software could (and often was) gifted or resold -- just as a copy of a book might be.
(Naturally, sometimes warranties and support did not apply to the new owner.)

I don't want to lease a bucket-of-bolts, but I really don't want to lease a bucket-of-bits.

Bill_de Loc: US

And how many answers to this {How does it compare with PhotoShop?} did you get here compared to what was available at the link I provided?

Asking a question like that here is nice for the social interaction. But in order to get answers to this, people need to have a working knowledge of both programs.

--

Bipod

Exactly who I would like to hear from.
Published reviews have their place, but often they are the result of a short
experience (or assignment) and they reflect the funding source for the
publication (e.g., advertising). GIMP's add budget is $0.

Finally, I'm more interested in hearing from the photographers on this forum
than from the technology press.

Bipod

I'd looking for an image processsing package that reflects
what I value in photographs: "straight photography"
(as Alfred Stieglitz called it back arund 1904).
I haven't found one. So I'm thinking maybe I could
modify GIMP.

Consider film photography for a moment:
I don't draw on negatives--not even to make them sharper. :-)
I don't use an airbrush on prints (but I do spot prints).
And I'm careful not to do anything to a negative or a print
that will reduce it's resolution or cause information to be lost--
because I want you to see what the lens saw, with corrections
to color, contrast, local contrast, etc.

The goal is for the result to looks like a photograph, not like
a painting or an "artist's conception". Nothing against painting,
you understand, but it's a different medium. So is "visual effects".

This approach is similar to how a database program (or an
RDBMS such as Oracle) treats your data. Such programs go
to great lengths to prevent your data from being corrupted
or erased. They treat it as valuable. The warn you before
they do anything irreversible to it. But image processing
programs tend to treat your data as "grist for the mill."

There are two kinds of digital image filters: reversible and
irreversible. Color-correction is a good exmple of the first kind.
You can make the whole photo pinker, but that's reversible,
which proves that no information has been lost. It's a transformation
(and a linear one, as a matter of fact).

But there there are filters like "sharpen" that replace detail
with a "halo" along lines and edges. No reversing that:
the detail and gradiation is gone from those areas. This
indicates that information has been lost.

(Needless to say, if you "sharpen" an image and then "blur" it,
you don't get the original image back.)

We now have a mathematical measure of information --
the bit -- which didn't exist in Stieglitz's day. So if you
know the probabilities of a 0 or 1, you can actually measure
the amount of information in an image. (If you don't know
the probilities, you can still get an estimate by assuming
that 0 and 1 are equally likely).

So image processing software should be able to keep track of
how much information has been lost, or at least to warn the
user before performing an information-lossy operation.

People who wouldn't dream of touching up a negative with
a sharp pencil will thoughtlessly click on "sharpen" without
even thinking of what it actually does. (And the actual
algorithm -- what it really does to you image -- is proprietary.)

There's a joke in the film industry: "We'll fix i t in post-production."
Unfortuantely, it's no joke in photography: people really think
they can completely screw up a shot -- exposure, focus, you name it--
and fix it later: a "fix it in PhotoSlop" mentality.

And the PhotoShop user interface and documentation does little to
discourage the misuse of the (otherwise excellent) product. Maybe
it needs a warning label: THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED
THAT OVERUSE OF THIS PRODUCT CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR
PHOTOGRAPHY.

It would be nice if there were a (aesthetically) safer and less addictive
product. It's great to offer a lot of tools, but some tools -- meat hooks,
pitchforks, chain saws -- or their image proceesing equivalents---
probably do not belong in the photographer's studio.

For me, one requirement for a digital filter to be usable is that nobody can
point at the photo and say "You 'Shopped it right there!". That's OK for
effects, but effects, as such, are not part of straight photography.

After all, isn't the job of an image processing package to make photographs
better not worse? A little under-exposure or some honest grain is a lot better
than a Frankenphoto that looks like it was cut and pasted together.

WestTnGuy

Just installed it today on Windows. No problem! Installation went extremely smooth. Have not used it yet so no comment there. I have a presubscription version of Photoshop that I thought needed replacing. I too do not like the subscription model.

User ID

`


What is all this fuss ... not a rhetorical nor a grumpy
trolling question ... about reversible non destructive
processing, as compared to simply ignoring the issue
by always making a copy to work on ... as to always
have an original to retreat to, or to re-interpret ?

IOW, AFAIK all the fuss is about failing to take on the
personal responsibility of making an "insurance" copy.
Thaz only AFAIK, so what is it that I'm NOT knowing ?


`

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Clearly you don't understand all the advantages of non destructive editing, most of which have little to do with taking personal responsibility.

Bill_de Loc: US

Obviously the original post didn't mention what the OP is really looking for.

After reading his latest follow up, I'm a bit confused. Whether using the latest PS update or Gimp, can't the photographer use as little or as much post processing tools as they desire? I recall that in older versions of PS you could even create macros to record your steps.

---

Bipod

I guess I wasn't clear: it's not about losing a file,
it's about proudly exhibiting an image that has been degraded
by losing information from it during processing. Clear?

Why spend a bunch of money on a sharp lens and "full frame"
sensor if you routinely throw away resolution, gradiation,
contrast, etc. -- without realizing it?

It's also about proudly exhitibiting an image that looks doctored.

Why worry about distortation in a lens if your going to
do things to the image in PhotoSlop that leave obvious traces,
that scream, "Dorked with!"

When you click on sharpen, nothing warns you "You
about to lose information from your image" or "If you
apply this filter, everyone will be able to tell."

Here's how photography used to look, back in the days of
"pictorialism". Looks a lot like it was done in PhotoShop,
doesn't it? Take a good, long look:
Oscar Gustave Rejlander, "Two Ways of Life"
https://notquiteinfocus.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/oscar-gustave-rejlander_two_ways_of_life.jpg

That's where we're headed--unless people rediscover the
importance of the straight, unmanipulated image.
90% of the photos posted to this forum look dorked with:
super-saturated colors, sharpening, etc.

Think of it like the AutoTune module in ProTools music
editing software. They didn't know they were creating a monster.
Cher turned it way up on "Believe" and that was OK: it was
a novelty. But now that's done on over half of pop vocals.
Doncha wish that AutoTune would go away? That's exactly
how I feel about "sharpen".