GIMP 2 for Photographers 471
Jon Allen writes "A glance through any photography magazine will confirm that Adobe Photoshop is the accepted standard image editing software, offering almost unparalleled power and control over your images. However, costing more than many DSLR cameras, for non-professionals it can be a very hard purchase to justify (and of course for Linux users this is a moot point, as Photoshop is not available for their platform). Luckily, the free software community has provided us with an alternative. The GIMP, or Gnu Image Manipulation Program, offers a huge amount of the power of Photoshop but is available at no cost. Additionally GIMP is cross-platform, available for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Unix." Read below for the rest of Jon's review.
The one downside to using GIMP is that most magazines and photography books use Photoshop in their articles and tutorials, so if you do choose GIMP there's a bit more of a learning curve. Now once you're used to GIMP you'll find that many of Photoshop's features have equivalents, albeit with a different user interface, but getting that initial level of experience and familiarity with the software can be rather difficult. The GIMP does come with a manual, but it is really more of a reference guide and while very comprehensive it is not particularly friendly for new users. GIMP 2 for Photographers aims to rectify this.| GIMP 2 for Photographers | |
| author | Klaus Goelker |
| pages | 185 |
| publisher | Rocky Nook / O'Reilly |
| rating | 9/10 |
| reviewer | Jon Allen |
| ISBN | 978-1-933952-03-1 |
| summary | A great book for anyone with more than a passing interest in improving their photos |
Written clearly from a photographer's point of view (the author is a photographer who also teaches image editing), this book takes a task-oriented approach, looking at the types of editing operations that a photographer would require and then showing how to perform each task in the GIMP.
Rather helpfully, the GIMP software (for Windows, Mac, and Linux) is included on the book's accompanying CD. This means that you can follow each tutorial using the exact same version of software as the author, which really helps to build confidence that you're doing everything right.
I already have GIMP installed on OS X, so to test out the instructions in the book I performed an installation from the CD on a clean Microsoft Windows XP machine.
The exact filenames of the installation packages on the CD differ slightly from those in the accompanying README file, but the instructions in the book do list the correct files and after following this procedure the installation went without a hitch. The setup files do not ask any overly 'techie' questions, so it literally took less than 5 minutes to set up a fully working system.
As well as the GIMP application, the CD also includes all of the sample images used in the book, and for each editing tutorial the "final" image is provided so you can check your own work against the expected result.
Even more usefully, the CD contains an electronic copy of the complete book as a PDF file, so you can keep it on your laptop as a reference guide, invaluable when editing images on location (or on holiday).
I'd have to say that this is without a doubt the most useful CD I've ever received with a book. Providing the applications and example files is good, giving readers instant gratification without needing to deal with downloads and websites (which may well have changed after the book went to press). But including the complete book on the CD as well is nothing short of a masterstroke, and something I'd love to see other publishers adopt.
As for the book itself, the author takes us through basic GIMP operations — opening and saving files, cropping, resizing images, and printing. Once these basics are out of the way, the book moves on to a series of examples based on "real-life" image editing scenarios.
These examples are very well chosen, both in the fact that the vast majority of the techniques shown are genuinely useful, but also in the way that they are ordered. Each example introduces a new feature of the software, building up your knowledge as you work through the book. By the end you can expect to be skilled not only in "standard" editing — adjusting color balance, fixing red-eye, removing dust spots, and so on — but also in compositing, perspective correction, lighting and shadow effects, and building panoramic images.
Between the examples there is a good amount of more "reference" type material, with detailed descriptions of the various menus, tool bars, and dialogs you will encounter while using the software. Combined with lots of well-labelled screenshots this strikes a very good balance, ensuring that even after going through all the tutorials you'll still get value from the book as something to refer back to.
Overall the quality of the writing and general production standard is very high indeed. There are some points where it is noticeable that the book was originally published in German, but this never becomes a stumbling block to the reader's understanding. Most importantly though, the author employs the "show, don't tell" philosophy throughout which is key to successful teaching.
In conclusion, I would have no hesitation in recommending GIMP 2 for Photographers to anyone with more than a passing interest in improving their photos. And even if you already use image editing software, the book is well worth a read — I have been using GIMP for several years and still learned a great deal. The accompanying CD is the icing on the cake, making GIMP 2 for Photographers a simply essential purchase.
You can purchase GIMP 2 for Photographers from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
New version of GIMP? (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading and rereading the article, I think I have come to the conclusion that this is a review of a book, and the review was aimed at the non-slashdot community.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, it isn't, and never has been as good as photoshop, so the professional world aren't going to accept it while photoshop is better.
And its not just because photoshop is proprietary, its just better suited to what the professional photographer and artist need to make a living. Gimp needs several more years with a much *much* larger workforce and some serious intent to make it so good that people won't even think of using anything else, and I
Re:New version of GIMP? (Score:5, Interesting)
CMYK is a deal breaker. (Score:3, Informative)
CMYK is irrelevant (Score:5, Interesting)
Only if you're working in pre-press. Photographers, even professionals, don't deal with CMYK. Cameras and film scanners are RGB, all retouching is done in RGB, and final images are delivered to magazines/newspapers/whatever in RGB (usually TIFF, sometimes 16 bits per channel, usually 8). Then the pre-press production work begins by moving the images to CMYK and adjusting the colors so they look good in that colorspace and in the print system's color profile.
This book is for photographers, not pre-press production. For photographers, the real issues that make Photoshop better than the GIMP are:
Only item 2 above is a real showstopper, and that's only for images that benefit from greater dynamic range. Item 3 is huge convenience, but can be worked around. Item 4 is also just a convenience factor, but there are some plugins that do stuff that would take hours to do manually. If you need one of those regularly, you're best off getting Photoshop and the plugin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your issue #3 is the one that always jumps out and bites me whenever I'm using GIMP. You don't have to have adjustment layers, but once you're used to them, it's hard as hell to go back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New version of GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that is my opinion. Your own may differ...
Try the 2.4 RCs [Re:New version of GIMP?] (Score:4, Interesting)
You should try the release candidates for version 2.4 - the UI has been significantly improved. It's still not "OMG SEXY" or anything, but it's *far* better than the 2.2 series' was.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that sums up my experience with Photoshop quite well....
I rather liked Paint Shop Pro, and bought upgrades faithfully from version 1 right up through 7 or so. It was bliss. Left mouse button, right mouse button. Foreground, background. Simple, obvious, ergonomically so
Re:New version of GIMP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I have trouble even pinning down one specific aspect of it that is the problem, because so much is wrong with it.
The one that always sticks in my mind is how when I create text, rather than simply creating a new layer with the text in it, the GIMP also sets that new layer to be only just big enough to hold the text, so if I've made text in the center of a larger image, the text layer has a border of null space around it. So if I try to do something like manually create a drop shadow effect, most of it will be clipped at the edges.
Now that I know that this is the case, I can resize the layer to be big enough (although I wish I could just enable a checkbox where this would be the default behavior, because I would have to do it *all* of the time assuming the GIMP were my main image editor). But before then? It took me hours to figure out that that's what was happening, because I had no idea someone would ever design an image editing app that way.
Also, the file dialogues are horrendous (other than being able to pick the file type to save as by typing the appropriate extension, which is clever). Maybe they work better on Linux, but on Windows they are the clunkiest things ever. Would it really be that hard to at least allow the use of the OS's own file dialogues, if not make it the default behavior?
Adobe has gotten a bit sloppy about the quality of the last few revisions of Photoshop (having to delete my preferences file to make Merge To HDR work? Am I suddenly on a Macintosh running OS 8.5 in 1999 again?), so an alternative that worked solidly would be awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://gimpshopdotnet.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
It's the Gimp with the menu layout of Photoshop. It also has the user interface in one window. That's the unique but strange way that standard Gimp works, floating toolbars as separate programs. Give Gimpshop a try.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:New version of GIMP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To use Gimp for something like this seems to me to be the ultimate in masochism.
Even using Photoshop for most of the pictures seems to be way
Re:New version of GIMP? (Score:5, Informative)
"...and doesn't run on anything but the crappiest of platforms."
Right, because ameteur photographers are all running Linux. Photoshop runs on Windows and Mac, plus it's possible to get it running in WINE. This is such a non-point it's not even funny.
The GIMP is fine for amateurs. Fine, we get that. It's still not Photoshop. If those amateurs want to one day be professionals, that's going to become an important point.
Re:What makes Photoshop "better" ? (Score:5, Informative)
If you edit that document and save it, you'll see those changes propogated through every instance you used it in your main file. This means you can clone that image around as many times as you like, then change it later. I don't know if I'm explaining this very clearly or not. The simple version is that it's another non-destructive mode Photoshop has. It's relatively new to PS, but man, I cannot live without it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wacom support, I don't know but as far as photography is concerned I don't think there is much use for one of those.
For many photographers using a tablet is much easier and natural than using a mouse. And like a trackball, which also have the above advantages, it offers more precise control.
Some pictures from me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gomox/ [flickr.com] (all processed in Gimp)
Some nice shots.
Falcon
If it's on the books.slashdot.org subdomain (Score:4, Informative)
In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than PS (Score:3, Informative)
I am sure PS is a great tool for professional artists, but it's horrible for programmers who want to do a little icon drawing. On the other hand, price of Photoshop and lack of Pen tool in Photoshop Elements make it unsuitable for most hobbyists and shareware authors.
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P (Score:4, Informative)
2. Photoshop has the history palette (and even history branching, if I'm not mistaking, in the later versions)
Re: (Score:3)
2. Nice to know, but when you just install the thing, Apple-Z stops working after just several undo steps. They could have easily used an adoptive algorithm that discards old undos when running low on memory or resorts to slower strategy of storing images every N steps and redoing operations in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For example, in your system a user might usually edit 128x128 px images and have 150 undo steps available. They'd get used to being able to undo 100 brush actions in a row if they needed to revert. But when
Re: (Score:2)
If you are dealing with such small files (unusual for a PS user) then like I said you can go ahead and set the number of steps it saves in its history to much higher than default. Automatic adjustment like that is not really a feature that PS users have asked for, though, and that's why you don't see it. I'm not really sure I'd want it, either.
History brush (Score:2)
For example, there is no separate commands to draw geometric shapes. Instead you define a selection and then stroke or fill it.
Likewise, there are no separate commands to cut or copy geometric shapes. Instead you define a selection and then cut or copy it. The object-then-verb paradigm goes back to Mac OS 1, and the Japanese language before that; GIMP just takes it further.
For example, [in Photoshop products,] only several undo levels are enabled by default. In Gimp you can review a long undo history and snap your project back to any point.
But in Photoshop products, you can use the "history brush", a clone tool that uses an undo history state as the source image.
but [Photoshop products are] horrible for programmers who want to do a little icon drawing
Some people claim that GIMP has the same problem, preferring something like Usenti [chem.tue.nl] for editing small indexed-color images because of th
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's just what every photographer wants.
You did notice this is a review of "Gimp 2 for Photographers," right?
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why most linux applications are nowhere near ready for the desktop.
not flaming.
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P (Score:4, Informative)
- Unified move/scale/rotate/perspective/etc tool with transparency. Want to paste a person on top of a building? A flower on a hat? Paste your logo on a billboard on a photograph? You move, scale, rotate and do everything else in one shot until it looks right. Scale a bit, move, scale, move, rotate, rescale, change transparency, doesn't match quite right, rescale again... ok. On the Gimp, you have to do scaling and rotation separately, which is harder to get right and you lose quality, especially if you do it repeatedly. The best I found was to use the measuring tool on an axis on both source and destination, and then calculate scale and rotation and enter it on the two dialogs, then move. Even the transparent move wasn't implemented until recently, and you have to make sure to disable visibility of the layer before you move. (Or at least you did a month ago)
- Adjustment layers: Nondestructive editing is good. Adjust the colors. Adjust the colors of another layer. Doesn't look quite right? Readjust the colors of the first one. In the gimp I end up making copies before a color adjustment so that I can redo it if I need to.
Notice I'm not talking about high powered features, or 256 bit color in YMCA palette or whatever. I'm talking about every day things. Even the layer grouping in Photoshop is very useful even if you don't put in the layer blending effects, making it easy to implement.
There are a couple features from the Gimp I miss when I'm using Photoshop, but the end balance is in photoshop's favor.
For simple editing the Gimp is good. If you don't have Photoshop, the Gimp is good. One-on-one comparison
Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P (Score:5, Insightful)
That might be the best UI insult I have every seen
Pulp Fiction (Score:5, Funny)
Peter: The GIMP's not installed.
Spencer: Well, I guess you'll have to compile it now, won't you?
Re:Pulp Fiction-or TUS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1Cn7n17wxE [youtube.com]
01:48
Picasa (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Picasa (Score:5, Informative)
1) It only has one "sharpen" button with no parameters. For an operation that's as touchy as sharpening, you need more control.
2) The highlights/shadows/fill light sliders aren't as flexible or as easy to use as the Gimp's curves tool for adjusting contrast.
Add a proper unsharp mask tool and a tone curve, and Picasa would be able to do 90% of post-process jobs. Now it can only do 10%, simply because curves is so useful.
Re: (Score:3)
The GIMP gives you a ton of control, perhaps too much in some areas, and not enough in others. For example, I couldn't figure out how to turn an image to black and white in the GIMP, but I could separate the color chanels w/o trouble. This just seems wrong. For Photoshop, you can convert to b&w with an option that's on the menu, while in the GIMP, I had to really hunt for it.
In
[Ff]ree vs Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:[Ff]ree vs Piracy (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why Photoshop has such good market penetration. The perceived need for it drives BOTH purchase and piracy, which reinforce it as a standard. This model works very well and there is no reason to change it.
Want to reinforce OSS alternatives to commercial soft? Join the fight against warez to keep the competition from getting the benefits of "pirates" chumming the market with their stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you do pay for it, Photoshop doesn't cost more than a whole lot of DSLR cameras, it's actually priced about the same as a base model from many brands, list price to list price.
Really, Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture are more suitable for photo work, and those programs are cheaper.
Also flat out wrong.... (Score:2)
Hmm..
I see TWO DSLR cameras for less than the price of photoshop, one of them (the one that is 5$ less) comes with a lens.
Re:[Ff]ree vs Piracy (Score:4, Interesting)
The interesting part is that once she showed her friends her edited pictures and animations they also started using it. Many tried pirating PS, but
Now all her friends and half her high-school is using the Gimp simply because the translation makes it easier to use, even if windows and office and everything else on their computers is pirated. My sister jokes she should get a prize from the Gimp team, since she spread it around.
(Note that I do know from experience that PS has a lot of nice features, both at the low and high end, but the translation is worth the difference for a lot of people)
No 16bit support (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll get your 16-bit support when we've all moved up to 16-bit processors.
Oh, 32 now? Even 64?
Nevermind!
Re: (Score:3)
And in addition to that, anyone (professional or consumer) trying to print will find that color management in the Gimp blows nine kinds of donkey ass.
Adobe Lightroom (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Adobe Lightroom (Score:5, Informative)
IAAPP (I am a professional photographer)
Lightroom and Aperture are both eye candy and nothing more. They do not replace the functionality of Pshop (including clone-stamping out dust and making color-channel level edits). Additionally, their support for IPTC/EXIF metadata is shaky at best. If you use a server or network storage device to store your image archive, it's kind of fun to watch Lightroom and Aperture shit the bed trying to figure out how to deal with it.
It's almost like a lot of the developers have realized that everyone and his brother have bought digital cameras, and that they can probably sell yet another expensive 'make my photos stop sucking' software to people who already can't use what they have.
I've used the Gimp on Windoze and Linux, and it's about where Pshop was at version 4 or 5. All software can be improved upon, and Pshop is no exception. But there is a reason that they have driven everyone else under (or nearly under). It's a damn fine couple of million lines of code.
In my expert opinion, the best combination for browser/meta editor and editing app has to be Photo Mechanic and Photoshop.
Strawman (Score:5, Informative)
I have used both Elements and GIMP and find Elements much more intuitive. This is even though
I used GIMP first. Elements also supports the RAW mode for my Nikon D70.
I now only use GIMP when I don't have access to my home machine, where the one licensed copy I have is installed.
Elements also allows you to organize your photos into categories without having to create a directory structure. It has built in partial and full backup functions.
Of course, YMMV.
Re: (Score:2)
Check the license. Adobe generally allows you to install their apps on a second machine (ie, work/home machines, main workstation/laptop) so long as you don't run them both at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Raw mode (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Gimp 2 for Photographers book MSRP $29.95
Photoshop Elements 6 (includes instruction book) MSRP $99.95
For a mere $60 more (or less depending on discounts) you can buy a real piece of professional software rather than just a book.
16 bit or more please... (Score:2)
What about GIMP for cartoonists? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you draw your images on paper, then scan them into your computer, you get a lot of versatility using Photoshop or the GIMP. For instance, you can erase pencil smudges, inking mistakes, or just change your mind and flip an image. Then you can scan your lettering into your computer and add then in the appropriate places using layers. Once that is done you can then color the image.
Now all you have to do is resize the image to fit comfortably in a browser and s
GIMP has some issues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has suffered from too many years following the vision of Mattis and Kimball. It was good when Linux looked like the gimp, but we've left that era long behind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you didn't. It's more like this:
The rest of that fluff you added to the translation might actually hold water if there wasn't already enough demand to cause GIMPShop to
I wish Gimp were a photoshop clone (Score:2, Insightful)
Try GIMPShop (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They haven't updated it in long while.
The REAL solution is to offer 2 layouts in GIMP: Native and Photoshop.
Tangentially, I seem to recall... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I Want to do with GIMP (Score:2)
Re:What I Want to do with GIMP (Score:4, Informative)
http://next.gimp.org/release-notes/gimp-2.4.html [gimp.org]
OS X GUI for Gimp? (Score:2)
Deep Color (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not about the oft-slagged interface, it's about actual capability falling behind the curve.
It's going to be a common rant in this thread, I am sure, but the fact is, GIMP is falling behind because it has not yet mainstreamed any support for "deep color." It is stuck in an 8-bits-per-channel world, which is fine for many forms of web graphics and proofing, but has some serious limitations in advanced photography. Many photographers are getting quite interested in HDR, RAW, and ICC. What few plugins exist for these in the GIMP world are incomplete and only allow you to import their results back into the limits of an 8-bits-per-channel world.
Re:Deep Color (Score:5, Informative)
GIMP is getting support for deep colors and multiple color spaces as part of the new graphics engine, GEGL. GEGL was supposed to be part of GIMP 2.4, but it wasn't quite ready so it's been pushed back to 2.6. I don't imagine we'll see GIMP with GEGL before 2009, but it is coming. The new engine will also make lots of things much easier to implement, and much faster and more RAM-efficient, in spite of the hugely-expanded dynamic range.
Of course, you can't edit your photos with GIMP 2.6 right now, so if you need deep colors, at present you're pretty much stuck with Photoshop. You could also try Krita, but it tends to crash a lot.
Paint.net beats GIMP with a stick (Score:5, Informative)
Paint.net, on the other hand, is easy to use, works in basically the same way as Photoshop (many of the shortcut commands are even the same), and is free. I now use it almost every day at work for basic web stuff - resizing, erasing undesirable elements with the clone brush, converting formats, etc.
Maybe I misunderstand GIMP (maybe because I'm running XP), but you know Photoshop and you're looking for a free version, Paint.net will be a much easier transition.
Re:Paint.net beats GIMP with a stick (Score:4, Interesting)
A few years ago I was forced to switch to Windows because I was looking for work and at the time the office tools just weren't up to par. I needed a job and I needed to be 100% sure that companies could read my resume with no compatibility issues and Word was, unfortunately, the standard.
To make a long story short I eventually started my own business running commercial web sites. I stuck with Windows mostly because of Internet Explorer but for reasons I can't quite remember I got a copy of Photoshop and became very proficient with it and started to like it. I don't remember why I never used The Gimp on Windows but I remember there being some reason.
In April I finally migrated back to Linux. I wanted to try Ubuntu and I was VERY impressed. However...
I just can not use The Gimp.
And this is coming from someone who used to use it all the time with no problems. I missed Photoshop after moving to Ubuntu sooooooo much that I actually set up a dual boot just for Photoshop.
Here's why... (and maybe The Gimp can do some of these and I just haven't looked hard enough, I'll admit I haven't spend a TON of time trying).
o Slices + Save for web + generate HTML. Fuck, slices PERIOD would be nice. And yes Photoshop can make messy HTML and I always clean it up by hand afterwards but as a web developer this is one of my most used Photoshop features.
o "Save for web" in general. Sure I don't *need* it. But especially when I'm trying to create very small GIF images it's nice to be able to play with the settings and see the palette so I can get the smallest file size possible at the largest possible quality. I pay for bandwidth. This is important.
o Being able to crop to specific width and height without having to break it into 2 steps (crop + resize)
o All of the layer effects in Photoshop that I use all the time that don't seem to exist in The Gimp (drop shadows, outer/inner blur, stroke etc.). The only thing I can seem to do in The Gimp is adjust the opacity and set the blend mode. So it seems with Gimp you're forced to use script-fu and filters and they create extra layers etc. It's less convenient, takes more time, is not as extensible / adjustable. Gotta guess what your settings will result with and then it's done. If you don't like it you gotta undo and do it all over again. With layer effects in Photoshop you can make a quick adjustment and instantly see the result without applying or committing anything. You can also disable layer effects in Photoshop individually without completely doing away with them.
o Preview JPEG quality when adjusting the quality before a save ("save for web" does this too).
o Ability to save and load selections.
o Actions / history (I actually had to open The Gimp and look because I wasn't 100% sure about this one
o Channels don't work the same. If I duplicate a channel and view only that duplicated channel it's all black in The Gimp. In Photoshop I get a greyscale image that I can work with. Perhaps I'm just not doing something right in The Gimp.
o This is a common complaint and many people would say "it just takes getting used to, The Gimp shouldn't try and be Photoshop etc." but I can not stand The Gimp's multiple windows. This has nothing to do with being used to Photoshop and not being used to The Gimp etc. It's simply a major pain in
JPEG preview, saving selections, and undo history (Score:3, Informative)
Preview JPEG quality when adjusting the quality before a save ("save for web" does this too).
GIMP 2.2.17 has a JPEG preview checkbox.
Ability to save and load selections.
To save a selection in GIMP 2.2.17, create a new layer, then Edit > Fill. To load the selection, right-click the layer in the layer stack then choose Alpha to Selection.
Actions / history (I actually had to open The Gimp and look because I wasn't 100% sure about this one ... I was right, I can't find a "history" dialogue or equivalent). It's nice to be able to jump to a specific point in the history without having to ctrl+z a bunch of times.
In GIMP 2.2.17, try File > Dialogs > Undo History.
GIMPie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cinepaint (Score:2)
Too little, too late (Score:2, Informative)
PS CS3 costs more than a DSLR? Um... no... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to pony up between £500 and £1000 for a camera, then it's worth factoring in the price of software, especially as you don't need to buy film.
I mean that's like getting a film SLR and moaning about the cost of darkroom kit... it's the same with any hobby; horse riding isn't just the price of a horse, fishing isn't just the price of a rod and digital photography isn't just the price of a digital camera, you have to account for all the necessary extras as they say...
THAT interface (Score:4, Insightful)
People who complain about Gimp's interface aren't just whingeing for the sake of it. Gimp is immensely capable, but dear god, why is the interface split across so many windows? Photo editing in Gimp is a chore, chasing little windows around the desktop with the mouse.
It's a terrible pity, because so much work has gone into making Gimp. To can do almost everything an amateur photographer could want, but after a few weeks using it I went looking for an alternative and bought Photoshop Elements. Elements is missing a few features, but it's a pleasure to use, and that's why so many people use it instead of Gimp.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://gimpshop.blogspot.com/2005/10/what-is-gimpshop.html [blogspot.com]
It brings a more Photoshop-like interface to the Gimp.
Gimp is the software equivalent of "It" (Score:5, Funny)
Two reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
For the love of god, rename it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, as some borderline autist developer, you may not care about such things, and think their embarrassment is stupid and irrational. but arty types - including digital media workers - tend to be emotional and less than entiely rational. They're *all about appearances*. When they're talking shop to their colleagues, they don't want to be saying "I just opened up the gimp".
A little on topic... (Score:4, Funny)
Well, besides all the obvious things a 17 year old looks for on the net, he was hanging out on a discussion forum for video games. The first post of his that I found was this:
paint sux use gimp.
As a father, I'm conflicted.
I'm a pro photo and I like GIMP (Score:4, Interesting)
8bits per channel vs. 12-16 bits per channel isn't really an issue for newspaper work. I've never noticed any fellow photographers use these extra bit depth modes. Everybody seems to stick with 8bit/channel jpegs. RAW is slow and takes up a lot of space on memory cards. Also, bear in mind that newsprint is "axle grease on toilet paper" so any advantage that higher bit depths provide will not be especially noticeable. Heck, just getting the CMYK registration to line up on a press is a big enough challenge!
8bit/channel images are the standard for Web images. So for newspaper Web sites, GIMP, of course, would be perfectly adequate.
For personal work, I use GIMP. All my flickr photos are processed using GIMP. When I make prints at the one-hour lab, I bring in my media card full if images adjusted only with GIMP. For me, price is an issue. I strongly prefer not to spend $600 on Photoshop. But also, and just as important, I am a fan of the Free Software philosophy. It appeals to me. For these same reasons and more, I use GNU/Linux and BSD at home, also.
Regarding GIMPs interface, coming from a Photoshop background, it did seem to be awkward to me at first, but now that I'm familiar with it, GIMP's interface seems fine to me. It all depends on what you're used to.
I've also used GIMP for personal paid projects
As an aside, I recently installed GIMP on a family friend's computer. They love it! Here's an actual email I received from them:
"... I took the copy of the rooster photo you had on my CD to send to Costco to make a large print for my sister. The color was dull, so Drew helped me with GIMP and we got vibrant color and an amazing print. I will send it to my sister framed for Christmas; it will be the perfect gift. Thank you for giving us copies of your terrific photos. I want to learn more about GIMP this year, and this experiment has me excited about the possibilities
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GIMP != Photoshop (Score:4, Insightful)
For Web work, The Gimp is unrivaled. For some sorts of print work, I would either use Photoshop or Inkscape, depending on what it was that I needed to do. For editing stills for film, I'd use Cinepaint or Photoshop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, interpolating will blur the image slightly, even when scaling down, so most of the time applying a small to moderate amount of sharpening or unsharp-mask makes the images look much better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)