Photoshop on eBay

[rainer]

True and granted. Gimp does have lots of un restricted Tools to use. Many i am aware of and so does Photoshop. Just" Both could be made to be more user friendly.
Non destructive editing refers to the changes made to the image while editing
Correct" That is all i was refering to. I know of the other option using layers and it is not my work flow style that i would feel comfortable without going through extra steps just to get from A to B.
In the mean time am exporing other Software that betters both in more user friendliness and yet not restrictive in functions.
So far Gimp and Photoshop seem the only ones that provide this scope. Lightroom on the other hand is a good exapmple of better and user friendly lay out and it does not have to bother with Layers.
Ok' To be fair; It of course does not cover such a big scope such as Photoshop or Gimp does. But it would be good if it perhaps just a little more user friendly. I love to see a Program that would work similar like Lightroom without the use of layers to keep image quality and yet has the functions of Gimp or Photoshop and simpler to use.
Each to their own.

[rainer]

Re: Sample. No need since we both agree now that quality is detracted by working on one image layer.

[rainer]

Originally Posted by dryadsdad

He's right about GIMP but it applies to all programs. That's why most like to work on layers because the layer edits don't affect the underlying image on another layer.

In addition, recent CS's have smart objects which are really copies of the image. All editing of smart objects is utterly non destructive of quality. In fact, you can move from smart objects back into ACR and back again as often as you wish.

Thanks for explaining re smart object. I didn't know that. So" the CS4 must be the way to go

[SyCo]

Originally Posted by rainer

Re: Sample. No need since we both agree now that quality is detracted by working on one image layer.

lol, well I try to improve the quality of an image, when I work on it. Not degrade it. Layers or no layers.

[SyCo]

BTW I use LR 3 and CS2 and also have a copy of CS3 at my office. I find CS2 and LR 2 more than enough program to process photos. CS3 has some nice features but it literally takes years to delve into using them all. Unless you are seriously committed to spending hours learning how to use the program you might find it a bit too confusing.

I find it's good to run though tutorial on websites like good-tutorials.com even if the effect isn't something I immediately have a use for.

[rainer]

Originally Posted by SyCo

BTW I use LR 3 and CS2 and also have a copy of CS3 at my office. I find CS2 and LR 2 more than enough program to process photos. CS3 has some nice features but it literally takes years to delve into using them all. Unless you are seriously committed to spending hours learning how to use the program you might find it a bit too confusing.

I find it's good to run though tutorial on websites like good-tutorials.com even if the effect isn't something I immediately have a use for.

Thanks for your input" I'll check out the C2 and C3 versions. You got my point alright. The last thing i want is to take ages to learn the thing. Ok for People who spend a lot of time on them. It tends to grow on them.

[dryadsdad]

I would also like to hear why rainer thinks this occurs. What is the theory behind it?

[rainer]

Originally Posted by dryadsdad

I would also like to hear why rainer thinks this occurs. What is the theory behind it?

Hi Dryadsdad
Not sure i understand. Theory behind what?
In the mean time i did try the CS4. Boy oh Boy did it slow down my PC with one gig memory and not my sytem is not a slouch either. It took me a good 15 minutes to get the thing off my system, some 300+ Megs! Then i went to try and down load the CS2 version. I could not even install it.
I think i stay with Gimp for now. It is much easier on my PC resources.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by rainer

Hi Dryadsdad
Not sure i understand. Theory behind what?
In the mean time i did try the CS4. Boy oh Boy did it slow down my PC with one gig memory and not my sytem is not a slouch either. It took me a good 15 minutes to get the thing off my system, some 300+ Megs! Then i went to try and down load the CS2 version. I could not even install it.
I think i stay with Gimp for now. It is much easier on my PC resources.

As I read it, you said every edit in GIMP deteriorated the image. I want to know why you think this? Even if CS 4 worked well on your machine, heavy processing would have brought your system down (such as stacks). Since RAM is cheap, why not upgrade a bit?

I'm running 4 gig and CS 4 runs ok in my 64 bit system (Win 7). I just upgraded to a 1 TB drive (Western Caviar) for $79. While RAM and disk isn't free, they are getting so cheap that I think it foolish economy to remain with 'small' systems.

Anyway, why do you think that about GIMP? Also there is another alternative in the Corel product which I used years ago when it was from JASC. I think that's got a pretty good rep.

[SyCo]

CS2 runs on my 1gb 3 year old craptop just fine.

Edit:
Forgot to add look into using Layer masks for non destructive editing in Gimp.

I used the portable Gimp a lot when I traveled. It was only 8mb for the entire program so lived on my memory card. I could run it from the card which was great in internet cafes and the like, for editing photos on the road. Its a port from Linux so the interface is like nothing like Windows programs and takes some getting used to but there are times in Photoshop where I really miss some Gimp features. I think its the next best thing after CS and LR.

[rainer]

Originally Posted by SyCo

Could you post and example for us to see. I've never heard of this before.

The Raw image remains unaffected to the best of my knowledge and remains unless you end up editing it. The Raw is used sort of as a template if you like. A program simply uses the raw file to do what ever enhancements you end up doing. It is during that process where the ever so slightly and often not noticable to the naked Eye detracts in comparison in the back the original Raw File remains un touched to be used again when ever.
The more enhancement one does through the use of a program the more it may be noticed. I found that Gimp often would give me a bland finish. Perhaps i am not using it right. Quiet possible as i am still getting to know this Program.
In the mean time i want to be upsolutely sure in what i have learned is the correct information. I looked high and dry to find some data show this. I must admit that i am having difficulties finding it.
I have written to someone in authority on this subject and I am hoping for him clarify this question for me.
I'll pass what info i have back to you.

[korman]

Originally Posted by rainer

Oh yes it does! Not in any big sense that becomes very noticable to the Eye. But" Each alteration or enhancement you do on a Phot Image does course some destruction to your original.
How ever"
Lightroom claims that their program does enhancements in a NON destructive way to the original image. That is what i was refering to.

What an interesting combinations of half-truths and misunderstandings. To clear up a few things, here a few facts that put that statement more into context.

JPG: Whenever you save in JPG format an altered image, due to the lossy compression, some data is loss and might incur a slight degradation in image quality in the areas you've changed. This can become visible if you use low quality settings and do lots of open - edit - save cycles.

PSD, XCF: Those are the native formats of Photoshop and Gimp. As those formats don't use lossy compression, you don't have the problem you have with JPG. When working with layers you usually need to save in those format, thus you have no image degradation when saving.

Lightroom, Picasa and many RAW-converters don't modify your raw files, but they save the modifications you do to an image as tasks and apply those every time you open the file. You usually need to export a file to get a JPG you can post on the web or send to a lab. These programs usually don't let you modify the pixels directly, they're usually geared more towards global adjustments (eg Contrast, colour balance, crop etc). If those programs apply modifications directly to the JPG image, you will have exactly the same problems as with all other applications that need to recompress an image.

To sum it up, even while your statement that Gimp may degrade an image is true under certain circumstances, it's absolutely ridiculous and wrong to conclude that this behaviour makes Gimp worse than eg. Photoshop. All other programs doing certain things to JPG images will do the same.

Korman

[Carusoswi]

Originally Posted by korman

What an interesting combinations of half-truths and misunderstandings. To clear up a few things, here a few facts that put that statement more into context.

PSD, XCF: Those are the native formats of Photoshop and Gimp. As those formats don't use lossy compression, you don't have the problem you have with JPG. When working with layers you usually need to save in those format, thus you have no image degradation when saving.

Korman

. . . and, more to the point, PSD and XCF are really files that store edit decisions relative to the source material. I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that the image data is not stored in those files . . . instead, only references to the original image data are stored. If anyone knows for certain that I am right or wrong, please speak up. The assumption is easily confirmed or refuted. Simply save a file (as PSD in PS or XCF in Gimp), then, move the source file so that no copy remains at the original storage address, then, try to reopen the PSD/XCF file.

My guess is that you will receive error messages, as the PSD/XCF file will point to an address that is no longer valid.

In the video realm, we refer to these types of files ad edit-decision files. They don't change the original directely, but contain and save instructions to the underlying editing software as to what modifications are to be performed on the original file.

In either PS or Gimp, if you flatten an image, all layer instructions will be lost unless you have previously saved those instructions as a PSD or XCF file.

Oh, and I agree with all those taking exception to the OP's notion that edits in GIMP degrade the file or the image - well, they might degrade the image if the edit decisions are made unwisely - but that is user, not software dependent.

Caruso

[dryadsdad]

It's my understanding that edits tend to degrade images rather than saving in either GIMP or CS native formats. This is the reason that CS has developed 'smart' conversions where there is the image and then the edits but the edits aren't applied until it's 'exported' to a non smart image.

I have started editing in smart in CS 4. The size of the save file (psd) is scary huge. I'm supposing this is due to the file now containing not the edited image, but the image and the edits sort of like a mashup of a sidecar (xmp) file and the RAW image in ACR. In a smart save, the data is all in one file, however.

[TonyK]

There are lossless formats like uncompressed TIFF and PSD that do not lose information on repeated changes/saves. JPG and compressed TIFF though can, and do, lose information on saves.

Originally Posted by dryadsdad

It's my understanding that edits tend to degrade images rather than saving in either GIMP or CS native formats. This is the reason that CS has developed 'smart' conversions where there is the image and then the edits but the edits aren't applied until it's 'exported' to a non smart image.

I have started editing in smart in CS 4. The size of the save file (psd) is scary huge. I'm supposing this is due to the file now containing not the edited image, but the image and the edits sort of like a mashup of a sidecar (xmp) file and the RAW image in ACR. In a smart save, the data is all in one file, however.

[dryadsdad]

Originally Posted by TonyK

There are lossless formats like uncompressed TIFF and PSD that do not lose information on repeated changes/saves. JPG and compressed TIFF though can, and do, lose information on saves.

I never said there weren't. In fact I said that it's in the edits rather than the saves on a PSD file where the IQ loss occurs.

[vadim]

Originally Posted by Mithras

If you have kids or grandkids that are in school you can get an academic version of just about any software. Academic versions are cheaper and the same thing you would pull off the shelve at your favorite sofware store. I have used Academic Superstore in the past and have been quite satisfied.

Adobe at Academic Superstore

There is a requirement to prove the student aspect of the purchase but it is pretty painless.

Can you legally sell photos processed with academic software ?

[TonyK]

Now that you bring that up, technically no. Those versions are for academic use only.