GIMP vs Photoshop...

[jfrancho]

Nope. 256x256x256, or 24 bit color, or 16,777,216 different gradations.

[DigitalDetailer]

Sweet....thanks for your answer

[Mechoption]

Soo...by the rationale of these discussions, when GIMP gets 16-bit support (currently an upgrade in process), it will become a major player in photo-manipulation?

In the meantime, I think the extra bit-depth in PS is probably worth it (especially when trying to make big prints), and again I change my mind

It's interesting to note from one of the links that cameras capture in only 10-14 bit's (Canon's 'flagship' 5D takes 12-bit pictures), and then PS must 'interpolate' the 12-bit image to generate a 16-bit one. Or usually the camera does that on-board to generate a 16-bit RAW file from a 10-12 bit image.

[jfrancho]

You are correct. The interpolation to 16bpc RGB format happens in the raw converter. And yes, 16bpc support for the GIMP would certainly make it a serious contender, considering its free.

[Zach]

This link keeps getting better thanks to everyone's input and discussion. Curious as to how you organize all of the raw files when once you have worked them with the other software.i.e.....Do you have two duplicate files/directories going, of which, one has all raw files and the others have manipulated files via GImp, PS, Elements, ..... Curious how you keep everything straight?

Also, what 3-4 things are a must with all of the files you work?...sharpening , layering....

Z

[jfrancho]

Also, what 3-4 things are a must with all of the files you work?...sharpening , layering....

Depends.

For file structure, I use this:

YYYY_MM_DD-Description
-->Raw
-->Dev
-->Master
-->Jpeg

[Zach]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Depends.

For file structure, I use this:

YYYY_MM_DD-Description
-->Raw
-->Dev
-->Master
-->Jpeg

Thanks JF
Same photo in different formats in different folders?

Z

[jfrancho]

Yep. I generally archive the raw and the master tiff, discarding all the others.

[Leeward Rail]

Hello all...

A New Camel says hello....

I'm currently reading up on underwater digital photography and was searching the web for info about lightroom and other image management tools, among other things I found this thread via google and though I'd add some info to the discussion.

RE: Gimp 16bit support

There IS, in fact, a version of GIMP that supports 16bit....

Once major motion picture production companies started using Linux, they started looking for additional tools on that platform.

Software developers for a major movie studio liked GIMP enough that they decided to improve upon it.
Film Gimp was a development fork of GIMP starting back in the late 90s. ("In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.")

FilmGimp evidently underwent a name change so you can find the most recent version under the name of "Cinepaint"
CinePaint

EDIT:
NOTE: CINEPAINT is currently available for OSX and Linux (i use the linux version) but a Windows port is evidently underway.

ANOTHER NOTE: according to the GIMP site... "Work on integrating GEGL into GIMP will begin after 2.4 is released. Once that work is completed, GIMP will support 16 bits per channel. If you need such support now and can't wait, cinepaint and krita support 16 bits per channel now." 2.4 has been released so i assume this mean 16 bit support is currently in the works for Gimp.





Here's some links about FILMGIMP's development and use in movies such as
"Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The 6th Day, Stuart Little and Planet of the Apes"

Film GIMP at Rhythm & Hues
Film Gimp - Lights, Camera, Linux!

Cheers,
Roy


P.S. Thank for the info about gimpshop... but for the life of me I don't understand why they wouldn't use the FilmGimp/Cinepaint version as the basis for their project.

[träskmannen]

Originally Posted by Leeward Rail

ANOTHER NOTE: according to the GIMP site... "Work on integrating GEGL into GIMP will begin after 2.4 is released. Once that work is completed, GIMP will support 16 bits per channel. If you need such support now and can't wait, cinepaint and krita support 16 bits per channel now." 2.4 has been released so i assume this mean 16 bit support is currently in the works for Gimp.

Unfortunately it looks like the 16 bit support still is far away in the future. Sigh. There are development releases of the upcoming GIMP 2.6 (the latest is 2.5.3) and GEGL is included but 16 bit support isn't. If I understand things right it won't be included in the 2.6 release either.

[hostchecker]

Even if Gimp is a free software it's a very good editing tool

[MrRed]

Originally Posted by carlalex

I found a nice book called Gimp 2 for Photographers, I understand that the gimp isn't far behind PS on features and there's even a version called gimpshop that makes the gimp very PS like in behavior.
Carl

I use mostly lightroom. My PS CS2 is used to house my plugins. What I see a lot of PS users do, I try to take out of the shot before the shutter closes. When my plug-ins finally go towards lightroom, PS will bit the dust.

I have used GIMP, and cannot do everything I need. My plug-ins are not available for it. It adds no missing features to lightroom that I need.

If I had to pick only one app to use, it would be lightroom. If GIMP were to include the ability to run PS plugins, we could talk....

[Songster]

GIMP as got the abilty to run 8bf filters but you will need to download a patch for it to do so.
Here is the link to download the patch.

Tor Lillqvist--PSPI: Running Photoshop plug-ins in GIMP

[träskmannen]

For what it's worth: Gimp 2.6.0 has been released.

Not many visible changes, most of them are under the hood. From the release notes:

Important progress towards high bit-depth and non-destructive editing in GIMP has been made. Most color operations in GIMP are now ported to the powerful graph based image processing framework GEGL, meaning that the interal processing is being done in 32bit floating point linear light RGBA. By default the legacy 8bit code paths are still used, but a curious user can turn on the use of GEGL for the color operations with Colors / Use GEGL.

[jya]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

I guess you don't shoot raw too much. If you're using a compact camera, the benefits may be minimal, but if you're using a DSLR, you pretty much need at least Lightroom or Elements.

I use the Gimp for raw and a lot more. Get UFRaw and you can too. I also use it to rectify distorted perspectives that arise from weird angles and from my pseudo-fisheye lens, I suppose that the UI would seem quirky to anyone used to PS, but then, PS would probably seem quirky to me.

I carry white-reference card in my camera bag that I can use to set the camera's white balance. Even easier id fetting it into a corner of a picture and telling UFRaw "This is white." Voila! Poof! balanced to perfection! Of course, my taste often deviates from perfection, but at least I have a good starting point.

[ohtoberich]

I tried Gimp a few years ago, and while it was nice, it did lack a few things, such as the liquify filter and colorspace management. Not sure how it handles Photoshop plugins either. It was a significantly slower too (on a Mac G4). Glad to hear it's moving towards non-destructive editing!

[jfrancho]

I said it before in this thread, I tried UFraw, and I felt that it SUCKED. YMMV.

[loraksus]

16 bit is great, but half the features of photoshop cs3 are disabled if you're in 16 bit mode. So really, aside from bragging rights, is it that much better because of that feature?

There is an app (skin?) called gimpshop. Skins gimp so it looks like photoshop. YMMV. Sometimes it would start and look like PS, sometimes it would start and look like gimp. No explanation, rhyme, reason.
And call me a geezer, but CS2 and especially CS3 are dreadfully slow. Ram / PF / scratch disk usage is crazy.
CS4 has the GPU acceleration for regular cards (frikking finally) - hopefully that will make things a bit better, but bloat is bloat.
BTW... The HDR feature in CS3 is...mediocre. I don't have a ton of good things to say about the other HDR apps out their either, but they don't sell for $800.

At the very least GIMP and the other competition provides adobe with some incentive improve photoshop instead of adding a few features and rechristening it as CS x+1

[jfrancho]

16 bit is great, but half the features of photoshop cs3 are disabled if you're in 16 bit mode. So really, aside from bragging rights, is it that much better because of that feature?

Quite plainly, for digital photography? Yes. That other list of features that isn't available has shrunk and most isn't really needed in a 16 bpc workflow.

There is an app (skin?) called gimpshop. Skins gimp so it looks like photoshop. YMMV. Sometimes it would start and look like PS, sometimes it would start and look like gimp. No explanation, rhyme, reason.

So is this a feature?

And call me a geezer, but CS2 and especially CS3 are dreadfully slow. Ram / PF / scratch disk usage is crazy.

Get a better 'puter. They've worked fine on various laptops and desktops. One laptop, new in 2000, didn't like CS2. No biggie, it only had 128MB RAM, LOL.

CS4 has the GPU acceleration for regular cards (frikking finally) - hopefully that will make things a bit better, but bloat is bloat.

Bloat is users demanding more and more from one program, and getting them. You can't have your cake and eat it too. But you can be a GIMP, LOL.

BTW... The HDR feature in CS3 is...mediocre. I don't have a ton of good things to say about the other HDR apps out their either, but they don't sell for $800.

I agree, and that Adobe has been in it since the onset of HDR processing rage, why haven't they gotten better? I prefer Photomatix for this anyway.

At the very least GIMP and the other competition provides adobe with some incentive improve photoshop instead of adding a few features and rechristening it as CS x+1

I'd say it is Adobe still leading the race, and all the others following them.

At any rate, I think GIMP sucks. I think the same of Irfanview. Free programs are great, but are no substitute for the real McCoy. Others may get by using them. I cannot.

[spector426]

Hello all. I would like to know how nikon's nx2 compares to the bunch already mentioned. Ihave elements 5 and just yesterday I downloaded the free trial verson fron nikon. I'm still trying to figure out how to use it so I can't compare it to elements 5 just yet. Anyone try nx2 yet?
Rich