GIMP vs PP: As an avowed amateur, and having limited resources, I'd like to not fork out for LR or PP. Been playing around with the free alternative, GIMP. Seems to do most of what...

AndyBob Loc: St. Louis

As an avowed amateur, and having limited resources, I'd like to not fork out for LR or PP. Been playing around with the free alternative, GIMP. Seems to do most of what people are talking about when describing functionality of the benchmark paid offerings. Any users out there who would like to enlighten me on the significant advantages of spending cash?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

With documentation and demonstration usage / training videos freely available on the internet, you likely don't need to pay for software. But, if you shoot RAW, you have an extra step to convert the RAW to TIFF or JPEG prior to editing in GIMP. For the RAW shooter, this may be worth the money to work directly in the purchased software, particularly software that constantly updates for new camera / RAW releases.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

AndyBob wrote:

As an avowed amateur, and having limited resources, I'd like to not fork out for LR or PP. Been playing around with the free alternative, GIMP. Seems to do most of what people are talking about when describing functionality of the benchmark paid offerings. Any users out there who would like to enlighten me on the significant advantages of spending cash?

Whatever works for you, use it. I am not going to sell you on LR PS that I use.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

GIMP can do a lot of things that people use PS for. But not everything. It depends on how deep you want to get into PP.

I started with GIMP because it was free. Used it for several years. It does the basics of pixel editing including layers and masks. Could be considered a good way to learn how to use layers and masks.

I switched to PS after a few years because there were things that PS did that GIMP didn't. That was more than a decade ago so I can't say whether that is still the case.

As far as LR is concerned, there is one thing that GIMP will not do for you (PS doesn't do it either). That is the organizational aspect of LR. LR is a pretty good editor but there are other programs that can do those things. But I use LR in preference to other things because it helps me keep my images organized (and as I age my meat memory is dropping bits). LR also handshakes with PS. The combination for me is irreplaceable.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

GIMP is a very capable and powerful editing application. If you need RAW editing capability, the two top open source editors are Darktable and RawTherapee (darktable being my personal preference). These days the differences between open source (free) and paid software comes down to splitting hairs between wants and needs. Anyone who tells you differently is probably just justifying their own spending habits.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

AndyBob wrote:

As an avowed amateur, and having limited resources, I'd like to not fork out for LR or PP. Been playing around with the free alternative, GIMP. Seems to do most of what people are talking about when describing functionality of the benchmark paid offerings. Any users out there who would like to enlighten me on the significant advantages of spending cash?

Support. Both user community and company.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Gene51 wrote:

Support. Both user community and company.

For both, actually.
Buy Adobe, get Adobe. Looks like Adobe. Works like Adobe, Very good products.
Get Gimp. VERRY customizable, 3 popular PS kinda look/work- like skins, if you want.
Somwhere I have an skin that make Gimp look like Yosemite. Top, side and bottom PS bars.
Total price for all my Gimp doodads- screen time.
And I'll always have an answer and a fix around.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Gene51 wrote:

Support. Both user community and company.

I like the fact that GIMP and darktable development is open and the folks who develop the software are on the same forums as other users. They are very active and are very helpful with even some of the easier topics.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Yes, Open Source programs are great and will deal with most everything you will be doing. Your comment, "As an avowed amateur, and having limited resources" seals your fate as it does mine. While free is free there are other editing programs to consider, such as Affinity one low price normally $50 but often on sale and in combo with designer and their movie editor.

I have found that there are many special one-trick programs. Low cost such as JIXIPIX. Topaz Plugin are great addon that do work while you sip coffee rather than struggling with the "learning curve" which I call the "Frustration Curve" associated with PS and LR.

Giveawayoftheday is a source of free programs that usually cost money.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

CHG_CANON wrote:

With documentation and demonstration usage / training videos freely available on the internet, you likely don't need to pay for software. But, if you shoot RAW, you have an extra step to convert the RAW to TIFF or JPEG prior to editing in GIMP. For the RAW shooter, this may be worth the money to work directly in the purchased software, particularly software that constantly updates for new camera / RAW releases.

The "extra step to convert the RAW to TIFF or JPEG prior to editing in GIMP" can be the camera manufacturers' free software - DPP4 (Digital Photo Professional 4) in the case of Canon or ViewNX-i from Nikon.

And, there are no issues with new cameras and outdated raw converters.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

WJShaheen wrote:

The "extra step to convert the RAW to TIFF or JPEG prior to editing in GIMP" can be the camera manufacturers' free software - DPP4 (Digital Photo Professional 4) in the case of Canon or ViewNX-i from Nikon.

And, there are no issues with new cameras and outdated raw converters.

Yes - Panasonic provide(d) a SE version of SilkyPix - and I believe other manufacturers may provide SE versions of other top RAW developers dedicated to their cameras - but this can be inconvenient for the photographer using more than one make of camera.

LarryFitz Loc: Beacon NY

Both PP and GIMP require an investment in time to get the most out of either product. Time is a bigger investment than the money.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

Delderby wrote:

Yes - Panasonic provide(d) a SE version of SilkyPix - and I believe other manufacturers may provide SE versions of other top RAW developers dedicated to their cameras - but this can be inconvenient for the photographer using more than one make of camera.

I believe most photographers are wedded to one brand of camera or another. But, even so, since the raw file's extension (i.e., NEF or CR3) belies the brand, all one has to do is initially map the file to a program ("open with") and then it's a simple matter of opening the image file as usual, doubleclick or what have you.

So, I don't see where any inconvenience invalidates the idea to use the OEM's software. In fact, I feel that many photographers who ask, "What photo editing software should I use?" should start with the OEM's software to gain an initial understanding of the fundamentals.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

WJShaheen wrote:

I believe most photographers are wedded to one bra... (show quote)

Not quite.... A .NEF is a proprietary Nikon raw file, not picture, same for a .CR2 or .CR3 (except a Canon raw file) The must be read and converted into a picture by the raw conversion software, not just any software you have told the computer to “open with”

So, it does matter what camera you use and what software you use to open and edit raw files as the software must support the version of raw file, which is different based on make and model of camera.

If you shoot jpg, then your statement stands.

WJShaheen Loc: Gold Canyon, AZ

Dngallagher wrote:

Not quite.... A .NEF is a proprietary Nikon raw fi... (show quote)

I certainly understand the proprietary nature of a Nikon raw file. That's what I meant by, "the raw file's extension (i.e., NEF or CR3) belies the brand, all one has to do is initially map the file to a program ("open with") and then it's a simple matter of opening the image ". So, I didn't say it can be opened by just any software.

Obviously, one wouldn't map it to just any program and I was inferring the one would open with one of the programs I was discusing. In fact, I currently have my Open With for NEFs set to ViewNX-I. But that cold just as easily be mapped to ON1 or Luminar.