confused about software ...

[WhoDo]

But it does do layers, stacking, and all that stuff. I think part of the learning curve difficulty is if you are coming from other software. If Gimp is the first you experience, I don't see it as any harder than most other pieces of software I have come across. I could name worse ...

Yes, it most certainly does layers AND layer masks and the latest version even does content-aware fill (although not to the standard of CS6). If you start with LR4 and try to take on GIMP, it's a culture shock. If you start with GIMP and use the tutorials to get right inside it then it will come more easily. Only problem is GIMP doesn't do RAW editing. You have to use Ufraw or DCraw or Raw Therapee or ... can't remember the name of the BEST free raw converter that's GIMP-compatible, but I'll dig it up if you're really interested. GIMP also doesn't do 16-bit editing ... yet. You have to be content with 8-bit colour depth. Otherwise it's brilliant and there are a host of add-on tools for photographic processing.

I started with GIMP, and still have it on my iMac along with PSE9 and LR5. I resort to it when I can't find what I want in PSE or LR ... pretty rare but who cares if it's free?

[Dazz1]

Yes, it most certainly does layers AND layer masks and the latest version even does content-aware fill (although not to the standard of CS6). If you start with LR4 and try to take on GIMP, it's a culture shock. If you start with GIMP and use the tutorials to get right inside it then it will come more easily. Only problem is GIMP doesn't do RAW editing. You have to use Ufraw or DCraw or Raw Therapee or ... can't remember the name of the BEST free raw converter that's GIMP-compatible, but I'll dig it up if you're really interested. GIMP also doesn't do 16-bit editing ... yet. You have to be content with 8-bit colour depth. Otherwise it's brilliant and there are a host of add-on tools for photographic processing.

I started with GIMP, and still have it on my iMac along with PSE9 and LR5. I resort to it when I can't find what I want in PSE or LR ... pretty rare but who cares if it's free?

I currently have UFRaw for when I want to open a RAW file directly in Gimp, but I find Rawtherapee is such an outstanding program in it's latest incarnations (I just compiled 4.0.11.8 yesterday) that I am using it more and more, and Gimp is becoming the just editor for preparing for web publishing and stuff like that.

Gimp is only a few versions away from using GEGL (scheduled for v3). Then it will be full 32bit floating like Rawtherapee, bypassing 16 bit altogether. As for add-on tools - the G'mic under Gimp is one I use all the time and think is very well done. With that and FX-Foundry, you have more options than you could wish for. I have not yet needed to even think of writing my own script - but it's nice to know that fallback is there too.

Maybe that will whet the OP's appetite for giving it a go

[oxygen45]

Thankyou both. I am a student so have found somewhere selling CS6 for about $180 which looks like an excellent option. Sleeping on the couch when (or if) the minister of finance finds out many not be so good though. Worth it?

[WhoDo]

Thankyou both. I am a student so have found somewhere selling CS6 for about $180 which looks like an excellent option. Sleeping on the couch when (or if) the minister of finance finds out many not be so good though. Worth it?

At student rates, the combination of Photoshop Elements and Lightroom should cost about the same amount or less, shouldn't it? There will be a heap of stuff in CS6 that you probably won't use, but it's your call.

[WhoDo]

Gimp is quite a powerful tool, but when you try and search for instructions on how to do something the information isn't as readily available as photoshop

Maybe you aren't looking in the right places, Endo? There are a myriad of online tutorials for GIMP and there is also an online, searchable manual that can be downloaded if you'd prefer. Just saying.

[Dazz1]

I have to agree. I have always been able to find out easily how to do things in Gimp. The more people that refuse to pay ridiculous sums of money to greedy companys, the faster the available info grows too.

[wmphoto]

For those using MAC's have a look at Pixelmator. Cheap, has almost the same functionality of PS, cheap, buttons / icons / etc very similar to PS, cheap and if you have used PS or PSE in the past it has a very familiar layout and the swap over was smooth. Did I mention it is cheap?

Only downside is it still has a few bugs and crashes occasionally, but the latest release seems to have improved a lot of this.

[WhoDo]

For those using MAC's have a look at Pixelmator.

... or GIMP for Mac, which I have alongside my PSE and Lightroom 5. I go back to GIMP when I want to do something and can't work out how in either LR or PSE. Go figure.

[JimmyCat]

Well we always hear about Adobe LR & PS, but does any one use Corel PaintShop Pro & what are your thoughts about their software. It is a cheaper product and the company I used to work for used it all the time and the main person who did all the photography & graphics said it Adobe wasn't worth the extra expense & corel could do just as good a job.

Interested in others thoughts.

I have used Paintshop Pro for years mainly for general graphics work and web sites. I think it lost its way a bit when Corel bought it and released the X series in that those releases seemed to be a compromise on both the straight graphics design and photo processing (which wasn't a strong feature in early releases). When I moved to an iMac, I lost the ability to run Paintshop so I have installed Corel Aftershot but haven't really had the time to fully evaluate it. I find that Nikon View NX2 is more than sufficient at the moment for my requirements given my fairly basic camera skills but as time goes on and my camera skills (hopefully) improve I will do more work with Aftershot rather then the Adobe products based on both cost and familiarity.

[ricktas]

I have used Paintshop Pro for years mainly for general graphics work and web sites. I think it lost its way a bit when Corel bought it and released the X series in that those releases seemed to be a compromise on both the straight graphics design and photo processing (which wasn't a strong feature in early releases). When I moved to an iMac, I lost the ability to run Paintshop so I have installed Corel Aftershot but haven't really had the time to fully evaluate it. I find that Nikon View NX2 is more than sufficient at the moment for my requirements given my fairly basic camera skills but as time goes on and my camera skills (hopefully) improve I will do more work with Aftershot rather then the Adobe products based on both cost and familiarity.

I would agree. I learned to process photo using paint shop pro many years ago. I swapped to photoshop and Photoshop CS (1). From memory I was using PSP v4 or V5 at the time. I swapped purely cause Photoshop was the 'industry standard'. I found it a bit of a learning curve and that some of the features in photoshop were more convoluted to get to the same result as Paint Shop Pro methodology offered. I then just used photoshop more and more cause I had paid for it and thus my reasoning was that it cost to much to not use it, and I have not used Paint Shop Pro for years now.

But I would be more than happy to recommend it to anyone, as it is a good bit of software. Though I think the releasing of photoshop elements bit into their price market a fair bit.

[Hyfly]

+1 for Wetpixels recommendations using Gimp - Ufraw - RawTherapee free software.
True, starting off from scratch initial experience with these can seem daunting.
Without question PS is 'the' industry standard. Free software mentioned here seems at odds with what we
feel/imagined is needed. If you have the time and sometimes more than a dash of patience in the initial process
this software can meet 95% of most amateur togs needs without $$$ cost.

[ravenau]

I reckon Corel should jump ship and go to the Linix, Ubuntu, or Mint side then some of the other software companies might see that when everyones drops M$ that M$ is a joke.

Unfortunately, for me at least, Linux photography software just isn't up to scratch.

I have a separate Windows machine that I use almost only for Photography, Lightroom 4 in particular.

Corel AfterShotPro (previously BibblePro) runs on Windows and Linux.
I used Bibble for a while but kept getting frustrated with the interface but it's actually quite a good product.
Unfortunately for it (and me) Lightroom 4 just works so much better I'm willing to continue to maintain a separate machine for photos.

Ian

- - - Updated - - -

What would be the best recommendation for software to start using layers, panorama & photo merging? Mainly want to try my hand at these tools with landscapes.

Using LR4 for management and PP at the moment and think it is excellent. Would only be using a second program occasionally so free would be good for now

I use LR4 and Photoshop Elements.
The only thing I use Elements for is stiching panoramas, LR4 does everything else I need.
I also use the TPG-Elemental LR plugin to provide callout to Elements from LR similar to the LR callout to Photoshop. It's a bit clunky but, since I use it so little, I can live with it.

I don't want to pay for Photoshop when I'll use so little of it's function, plain and simple.

Ian

- - - Updated - - -

While we are talking about software alternatives, has anyone tried Rawtherapee? I am playing around with it at the moment. Also, I have to throw Gimp in the ring as yet another alternative that I use all the time.

I often check how Rawtherapee is going since it is available on Linux.
It looked quite promising in the beginning but, IMHO, has failed to progress and in particular has failed to fix some annoying problems.

The noise handling is very poor and I don't really want to have to save as a JPEG and then process using NeatImage and end up with a RAW and a JPEG when the LR4 noise handling is so good.

My point here is that loading an image into Rawtherapee I can "see" the noise straight away wheras in LR I need to zoom in to see it.
That's not good to start and then the reduction itself is poor.

I've found the interface hard work out too and some of the adjustments appear to add stuff that just isn't there, like the white haze you might see in low contrast images.

Maybe I'm just fussy and in many ways the product is quite good, I've just focused on the reasons I chose not to use it.

AfterShotPro is better than Rawtherappe, IMHO, but won't use that either,

Ian

- - - Updated - - -

I currently have UFRaw for when I want to open a RAW file directly in Gimp, but I find Rawtherapee is such an outstanding program in it's latest incarnations (I just compiled 4.0.11.8 yesterday) that I am using it more and more, and Gimp is becoming the just editor for preparing for web publishing and stuff like that.

Please don't get me wrong, what I say is just my personal opinion, nothing more.

I check out ufraw from time to time as well and I have to say my experience with it has been terrible but if that wasn't the case there is the lens correction limitation.
There aren't enough lenses in the database and the things that are corrected are limited and performing even a simple lens calibration is a big pain when all the lenses I have are already present in LR4.

The lens correction limitation isn't restricted to ufraw either, it's also a problem with AfterShotPro and is one of the reasons I'm not willing to work harder to learn how to use it (but maybe the frustration I've experienced in the past would drive me away anyway).

Ian

[Dazz1]

My point here is that loading an image into Rawtherapee I can "see" the noise straight away wheras in LR I need to zoom in to see it.
That's not good to start and then the reduction itself is poor.

That's odd, as you can only see the real noise when zoomed 1:1 (or in the 1:1 zoom window), sort of how you describe LR to work also. None of the sharpening, noise reduction, and a bunch of other stuff is applied until you view it at 1:1, or until you export it.

[ravenau]

That's odd, as you can only see the real noise when zoomed 1:1 (or in the 1:1 zoom window), sort of how you describe LR to work also. None of the sharpening, noise reduction, and a bunch of other stuff is applied until you view it at 1:1, or until you export it.

Yeah, I just had a look at v4 and it does actually seem better so I may have to take that back, at least partly.
What I was implying is that the RAW conversion isn't as good as I'd like it to be.

I end up using high ISO a lot and that's why I'm sooo noise sensitive.
The visible noise on conversion doesn't happen often and when it does it's usually seen in things that are black.
The noise handling in the current version does seem better than it was last time I looked.

Also, I hadn't noticed that Rawtherapee can use LCP lens profiles which is pretty cool.

Ian

[paulheath]

just a thought but did you know Photoshop is the worlds most pirated software as is lightroom and any other adobe program.......... just thought id let you know
i personally use LR5 and Photoshop CC

[ricktas]

just a thought but did you know Photoshop is the worlds most pirated software as is lightroom and any other adobe program.......... just thought id let you know
i personally use LR5 and Photoshop CC

Be careful where this thread heads. Discussion about pirating software is not allowed on AP. Refer to the site rules - rule 17

[paulheath]

sorry rick , i was not condoning pirating the software i was merely stating a fact that i thought other members might find of some interest. once again i apologizes

[ricktas]

sorry rick , i was not condoning pirating the software i was merely stating a fact that i thought other members might find of some interest. once again i apologizes

all good, just posted to make sure the thread did not head in a direction that meant we would have to ban people. We can talk about piracy in general and issues around piracy, but I just wanted to make sure that your post did not turn the thread into a discussion of where/how etc

[Kym]

Within the context of the site rules - rule 17 we do need to recognise that software © infringement is rife.
NB: Piracy is what greenpeace have been charged with in Russia, © infringement is the actual offence we are dealing with.

I will start a thread on the subject -- which will be moderated -- to discuss the impact of © infringement on photography.

[Jcas]

I joined a local group, and a lot of its members are singing the praises of ACDSee, i used it years ago and thought i would check it out, it is a big improvement over its earlier versions, i have it on my PC but mainly use PS (creature of habit i guess), but i would say ACDSee is worth looking at if your looking for budget software.