IMHO, and to cut the long story short: - use the GIMP
- learn how to use it by means of the help included, the many excellent tutorials existing, Akkana Peck's book and MeetTheGimp.org video-shows. There are still other resources available. - CMYK: you won't be needing that any time soon, and some day it will be better managed with the GIMP (as of now, there are some plugins as of separate+). CMYK is mostly important for printing, but many printers can do well using RGB color space.
- 8 bits depth: you can live with that, and 'soon' the GIMP will allow you to use higher values. Maybe towards version 3.0 (?).

I can be wrong, of course, but it does work for me. I'm not a photographer pro, though; so take my opinion FWIW. No need of Photoshop, or even LightRoom in my book.

Best of lucks

Jaime

Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote:

Hello!

I don't understand anything about digital image manipulation but I've got to learn as, last year, I finally bought a digital camera, after making photos with film for many years, mainly B&W which I developed and printed myself. To learn digital image manipulation I need a program such as GIMP and Photoshop.

Another important piece of information about me: I've been using Un*x since 1986. These days I use OpenBSD (server) and Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense (desktop/laptop) and I don't want to change OS - if I have to, I'll be changing to Mac OS X, no Microsoft Windows.

According to my 'research', Photoshop is the 'de facto' standard for image manipulation, quite expensive and exists for Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows. GIMP is free, its license is GPL, and exists for GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows.

My 'research' included asking on a mailing list about photography (photos made with a specific brand of cameras) about technical differences between these two programs. The answers I got can be summarized to:

* Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work.

* GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo on a web page. Otherwise forget it because:

** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); ** Just 8 bit/channel;
** No CMYK.

Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. So, are this statements true?

TIA!

PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is what a photographer really needs. Because of this advise, I guess I'll be asking some questions on the digiKam and F-Spot mailing lists, as presume these make the same job as Aperture or Lightroom.

On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 16:51 +0000, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote:

* Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work.

Depends on who's being serious. Truth is, it depends on the type of work and one man's "serious" is another man's "who cares".

Note that I've done covers for magazines with GIMP and that was loooooong before the current version provided many of the advanced features it has today. But also note that I'm not a photographer. My SLR died a few years ago and I've yet to replace it.

* GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo on a web page. Otherwise forget it because:

Baloney. See previous comment re: magazine covers. I've also designed images printed on clothing and other products. So you'd have to define "serious" to validate that assertion. However, "serious" photography may have different needs than other "serious" graphic design work. Since I'm not a photographer I can't say if that's the case.

** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is);

The current version has color management tools. Color management is the ability to map the colors from one device to another. So mapping the colors you got from your digital camera to what you see on your display requires software to make sure they visually match due to the way hardware (cameras and monitors) behave with respect to color.

** Just 8 bit/channel;

Still true. They're working toward 16 bits per channel. Lack of 16 bits per channel can be a problem for some users such as the visual effects industry.

** No CMYK.

GIMP works in sRGB mode but can convert from other modes to sRGB (via color management). It does not convert to CMYK mode though it can color separate sRGB into CMYK with plugins. To my knowledge (which is limited on the subject) Photoshop does not work in CMYK mode either - it just maps (on the fly) CMYK to sRGB (or similar color model) so it appears to be working in CMYK. GIMP doesn't do that (at least not yet).

PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is what a photographer really needs.

I'm sure many professional photographers swear by these. Its up to you to decide if the quality of the results warrant the price. The only way to know - for you - is to compare both the commercial apps and the open source alternatives for what you're trying to accomplish.

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do. Never mind what others will tell you about whether it should be 16 bit or 8 bit and is colour management essential or not. I suggest the thing to do is that you decide what you want to achieve and then see how this may be done.

Norman

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Alexandre

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

The difficulty is that whilst GIMP will run on virtually any operating system Photoshop will not.

Norman

On 1/12/2010 2:38 PM, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Alexandre

Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life.

On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote:

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life.

Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read? :)

Alexandre

Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta a écrit :

Hello!

I don't understand anything about digital image manipulation but I've got to learn as, last year, I finally bought a digital camera, after making photos with film for many years, mainly B&W which I developed and printed myself. To learn digital image manipulation I need a program such as GIMP and Photoshop.

Another important piece of information about me: I've been using Un*x since 1986. These days I use OpenBSD (server) and Debian/Ubuntu/gNewSense (desktop/laptop) and I don't want to change OS - if I have to, I'll be changing to Mac OS X, no Microsoft Windows.

According to my 'research', Photoshop is the 'de facto' standard for image manipulation, quite expensive and exists for Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows. GIMP is free, its license is GPL, and exists for GNU/Linux, Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows.

My 'research' included asking on a mailing list about photography (photos made with a specific brand of cameras) about technical differences between these two programs. The answers I got can be summarized to:

* Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work.

* GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo on a web page. Otherwise forget it because:

** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is); ** Just 8 bit/channel;
** No CMYK.

Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. So, are this statements true?

TIA!

PS - I have also been advised to use a program such as Aperture (Mac OS X only) or Lightroom (Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows), as that is what a photographer really needs. Because of this advise, I guess I'll be asking some questions on the digiKam and F-Spot mailing lists, as presume these make the same job as Aperture or Lightroom.

First : do you have a reflex and do you use the raw format for your photos ? If no you are not concerned by the "limitations" of Gimp. If you have a reflex and use the raw format to record photos Gimp covers 95% of the needs of a very good and professional photographer.

On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote:

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life.

Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read?

:)

Alexandre

I think they didn't read the second "it". But that's just a guess. ;-)

The point in this case is that the person asking the question is using Linux.

I'm with Norman, try GIMP, it doesn't hurt, and see if it does what you want it to do. Once you feel comfortable with image manipulation software you can always go for that trial and see if Photoshop works better.

Torsten says:

Also, no serious photographer will just abandon analog photography and go totally digital. Any fine grained film will yield much better resolutions than
what the most expensive digital cameras are capable of.

This is simply not true. I am a serious non-professional photographer who carefully tracks pro equipment and technology. Film was approximately the same resolution and quality when the Canon D60 came out. The largest book in the world has 6ft by 4ft prints made both from Fuji Velvia and also the Canon D60. They are on par. Since then resolution for digital has far surpassed film. There are plenty of photographers that stilll use film, but they are a shrinking minority.

Michael

About the 8 , 16 bit issue maybe all what you need may be just first correct your image with RawTherapee (now Gpl ),and in case of need of further editing , send the result to gimp (You may set in rawtherapee Gimp as "associate image editor)

Let say that if you need to works with layers, layermask, selections, brush tools,etc gimp (or photoshop) are the tools for the trade

If you have to do adjust exposures, color temperature, gamma, contrast, and even denoise or demosaizice high res RAW images from your digital camera then RawTherapee not only suffice, it is even more adapt

About the 8 , 16 bit issue maybe all what you need may be just first correct your image with something as RawTherapee (now Gpl ),and in case of need of further editing , send the result to gimp (You may set in Rawtherapee Gimp as "associate image editor)

Let say that if you need to works with layers, layermask, selections, brush tools,etc gimp (or photoshop) are the tools for the trade

BUT If you have to do adjust exposures, color temperature, gamma, contrast, and even denoise or demosaizice high res RAW images from your digital camera then RawTherapee not only suffice, it is even more adapt

If you use film i believe 16 or 8 bit will not make any visible difference

On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 04:51:02PM +0000, Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta wrote:

Hello!

[...]

* Photoshop: Must be used for 'serious' work.

Yeah...it's just like to say that you have to use Windows for serious work... ;-)

* GIMP: May be used for 'serious' work if that means showing a photo on a web page. Otherwise forget it because:

** Is has no color management (I don't know what this is);

totally wrong

** Just 8 bit/channel;

yes, just like photoshop some years ago...wait a moment...this means that serious photo work started just some 5-10 years ago????

PS: jpeg photos are 8 bit only so...if you do "serious" work with jpeg photos GIMP is just good enough. If you use an (not so) expensive digital camera with "raw" format you still can use it full capability using some 16 bit converters tools like ufraw, rawstudio, rawtherapee and you can even do some hdr photo with tools like qtpfsgui...

** No CMYK.

not completly true, see separate+ plug-in and read this:

http://www.mmiworks.net/eng/publications/2009/06/gimp-squaring-cmyk-circle.html

Even though answers on this list may be biased, I have to ear them. So, are this statements true?

Now you may judge by yourself...

On 1/14/10, Marco Ciampa wrote:

** Just 8 bit/channel;

yes, just like photoshop some years ago...wait a moment...this means that serious photo work started just some 5-10 years ago????

PS: jpeg photos are 8 bit only

This is totally unrelated. Open (almost) any photo in GIMP, edit it with levels or curves and look at the resulted hair comb in histogram.

Alexandre

Norman Silverstone píše v Út 12. 01. 2010 v 20:50 +0000:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

The difficulty is that whilst GIMP will run on virtually any operating system Photoshop will not.

Well, before buying a Mac and trying out, one could give a chance to WINE + Photoshop:
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=17

However, the newest versions do not seem to work.

Milan Knizek knizek (dot) confy (at) volny (dot) cz http://www.milan-knizek.net - About linux and photography (Czech language only)

On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote:

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life.

Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read?

:)

Alexandre

I think the point being made is to see if Gimp (free, always and forever) will do what you want it to do before spending time evaluating a trial of PS which cost plenty to start with and more and more as upgrades and new versions are introduced. What sense does it make to start down the proprietary path before determining whether or not one would be satisfied with the free application . . . same goes for the other proprietary aps mentioned.

Caruso

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

1) A decent batch processor and I'm not talking about learning a whole programming language to do so.
2) 16 bit color.
3) Better zonal control so one can adjust light and dark areas of a digital photo more easily so as to enhance shadow detail and reduce highlight blowout.
4) A better raw converter. UFRaw is good but could be improved a lot.

Carusoswi wrote:

On 1/13/10, Programmer In Training wrote:

On 1/12/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

The great thing about GIMP is that it is free so you can try it, at no cost to yourself, and see if it will do what you want it to do.

But so is Photoshop. 30 days trial :)

Photoshop is free to try, for 30 days. GIMP is free to try for the rest of your life.

Which part of "see if it will do what you want it to do" did you not read?

:)

Alexandre

I think the point being made is to see if Gimp (free, always and forever) will do what you want it to do before spending time evaluating a trial of PS which cost plenty to start with and more and more as upgrades and new versions are introduced. What sense does it make to start down the proprietary path before determining whether or not one would be satisfied with the free application . . . same goes for the other proprietary aps mentioned.

Caruso

On 1/17/10, Ken Warner wrote:

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Alexandre

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? GIMP is an alternative to PS developed for free use by anyone who wishes to use it. As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't then, as it is said, put up or shut up.

Norman

On 1/17/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS?

You probably meant to say "competitive against PS", didn't you? :) There is no reason why developers of free software should think in terms of competition unless they work on a project full-time which changes quite a lot. And yet there are many reasons why they at least sometimes *could* think about it.

Many interesting free applications have grown from an interest in something and further work is often largely based on motivation that comes from user base, one way or another. A lot of projects died simply because developers didn't receive feedback and decided the project was useless. If you read Enselic's blog, you probably remember that a positive review of 2.6 on Ars Technica quite motivated him to work on 2.7 and beyond.

So a free software project is a two-way street. Hold on to that thought.

In terms of functionality GIMP has a unique position, shared *probably* only with Artweaver. It isn't a simple editor like Paint.net or Photofiltre, and yet it doesn't have many hi-end features of Ps or PSP. This is actually the reason why so many users have problems with GIMP: they expect that everything beyond Paint.Net and the like is supposed to be on par with Ps. You don't have to like it, btw :) It just exists.

So when it comes to GIMP users, what you are dealing with is in fact a lot of people who see and acknowledge GIMP's potential to become a kick-ass hi-end application, but they cannot use it for work right now, because some important features are lacking or because the work can be done, but in a much longer time. In some cases, like since recently in my country, people are forced to use GIMP, because management tells them so, because companies cannot afford Ps licenses.

Being able to do work that's in front of you, the time it takes you to accomplish it -- these are the things people are usually quite emotional about. And this is where demand for competition comes from, whether you like it or not.

As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't then, as it is said, put up or shut up.

Awwww, nice! :) I've been participating in free software projects all these years only to have someone ordering me around to shut up and use proprietary software :) Isn't that lovely? :)

Alexandre

* Alexandre Prokoudine [01-17-10 11:20]:

On 1/17/10, Norman Silverstone wrote:

As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers prepared to give freely of their time and expertise. If you need the advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't then, as it is said, put up or shut up.

Awwww, nice! :) I've been participating in free software projects all these years only to have someone ordering me around to shut up and use proprietary software :) Isn't that lovely? :)

I don't believe that you have properly conveyed and/or understood the substance of the statement, taken somewhat out of context, you debate. I believe that it was intended to convey that you do not complain about a *gift* but offer positive suggestions about directions you believe would benefit the intended audience which is *not* ps users and gimp is not being developed to replace ps or take it's users, but an excellent and capable graphics editing program to use, if you wish.

And this *aim*, iiuc, has been spoken here on this list many times.

On Sunday 17 January 2010 09:03:32 Norman Silverstone wrote:

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS?

I agree with the above 100%. Why? I like GIMP, for me is useful and I support open source.
Who doesn't like it or it is not enough for her/his work there are many other choices.

Mitja
--------
http://starikarp.redbubble.com

Hey people, I didn't start this thread. Don't grind my ass...

All I did was mention the obvious features that GIMP doesn't have compared to PS. And I meant competitive *WITH* not *AGAINST* PS. It doesn't have to replace PS -- if GIMP is to eventually have the same utility of PS then it needs the features (and more) that I mentioned.

Why would anyone get their knickers in a bunch about that and start shouting "...put up or shut up..."

To be clear, I will *NEVER* work on the innards of GIMP. But I will use it for so long as it is available and meets my current needs.

And if you or anybody else doesn't like that idea -- stop making it available. Keep it to yourself. Let only developers use it.

Like I give a shit....

ajtiM wrote:

On Sunday 17 January 2010 09:03:32 Norman Silverstone wrote:

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS?

I agree with the above 100%. Why? I like GIMP, for me is useful and I support open source.
Who doesn't like it or it is not enough for her/his work there are many other choices.

Mitja
--------
http://starikarp.redbubble.com

I'm sure many professional photographers swear by these.  Its up to you to decide if the quality of the results warrant the price.  The only way to know - for you - is to compare both the commercial apps and the open source alternatives for what you're trying to accomplish.

I would like to add one thing here: you _will_ find that the commercial apps are better, almost without a doubt. Therefore, please file bugs and feature requests at Digikam and F-spot to request the features missing from those apps. I was a heavy F-spot user some years ago, but I switched to Digikam for some feature that F-spot has since acquired. Both apps have serious development teams and they love bug reports and feature requests.

So please, make sure that you request the features missing that only the commercial apps currently have, so that they can be ported to Digikam and F-spot. Just be sure to describe the feature in a way that assumes the dev reading the feature request is _not_ familiar with the commercial app, and has no access to it. That way the feature that gets added to the open source app is not a rip-off of the commercial counterpart, rather an independently-developed feature.

For Digikam bugs and feature requests: http://bugs.kde.org

For F-spot bugs and feature requests: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi

There are a few things that GIMP needs to be competitive with PS.

Just a few? :)

Why is it necessary for GIMP to be competitive with PS? GIMP is an alternative to PS developed for free use by anyone who wishes to use it. As I understand it, it isn't users that GIMP wants, it is developers prepared to give freely of their time and expertise.

If you need the

advantages that PS has over GIMP then, by all means, buy and use PS but, if you want something that does what you want and is free, then use GIMP. If you can help to improve GIMP then good for you, if you can't then, as it is said, put up or shut up.

Norman

Are you serious? I help out other GIMP users with their problems on GIMP forums or this mailing list. I make tutorials for GIMP on youtube and answer question there too. Made over 50 videos so far and do my best to make them as clear and helpful as possible. I get many comments from people saying thank you for helping out. Or comments from people looking to "photoshop" something and discovering GIMP.
I'm also very thankful to all other people who have helped me learn GIMP, either by answering my questions or making tutorials for me to follow. What would GIMP be if there wasn't a community to make tutorials and help eachother and newbies to GIMP.

If the GIMP user base grows there is more chance that new people will help with development. The bigger the user base the better, and people who contribute in the way they can help, be it, answering questions, making tutorials, translating GIMP or the help documentation etc etc all help GIMP if you ask me.

I usually leave the developers alone. But if I feel strongly about something I think I should have a right to say something and not be told to shut up just because I'm not a GIMP developer.

Just for the record, on the few occasion I did say something, the developers always listened to what I had to say. :)

I don't remember how this discussion has turned to a GUI discussion just as if the hugest difference wetween the two was this point. Anyway, Gimp is great, and photoshop has many default too. It also tries to implement new GUI possibilities, but they sometimes shouldn't, i guess :)

"Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry."

One thing that might be interesting is having contextual menu which is really contextual to image areas we're on, instead of a simple duplicate of main menu. WOuldn't be a second menu, but just an extract of immediate main applicable functionnalities.

pygmee

On 20/01/10 23:39, Cédric Gémy wrote:

I don't remember how this discussion has turned to a GUI discussion just as if the hugest difference wetween the two was this point. Anyway, Gimp is great, and photoshop has many default too. It also tries to implement new GUI possibilities, but they sometimes shouldn't, i guess :)

"Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry."

One thing that might be interesting is having contextual menu which is really contextual to image areas we're on, instead of a simple duplicate of main menu. WOuldn't be a second menu, but just an extract of immediate main applicable functionnalities.

pygmee

Folks, can you branch the discussion into separate threads, i.e. subject: XXX; WAS: GIMP vs Photoshop subject: YYY; WAS: GIMP vs Photoshop, etc. ? It's going all over the shop.

In a few months' time anybody wanting to look up XXX or YYY in the archives is going to miss them if they're all mixed up under this one thread "GIMP vs Photoshop".

Doug

doug wrote:

"Most people thinks having two different menubars in one application is insane. The small amount of people that thinks it is a good idea will have to maintain code for that themselves, sorry."

In a few months' time anybody wanting to look up XXX or YYY in the archives is going to miss them if they're all mixed up under this one thread "GIMP vs Photoshop".

And they will probably also look in the gimp-developer archives rather than the gimp-user archives, so we should move any further discussion there.

/ Martin

Nuno Miguel dos Santos Baeta writes:

[...]
As for my choice, I am using GIMP!
[...]

Wow, that's really best Portugal!!!

Sincerely,