🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/3LqnCuJ 🎁

Gimp or photoshop what would you recommend?

davholla

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Jun 16, 2015
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
1,474
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I use rawtherappee for editing raw files but I am wondering what I should use for other edits.
I am not planning to do anything fancy, but I want to a) remove dust b) change back grounds and cover some small annoying things.
In the past I have used GIMP, but I find really hard (probably I am the problem I am not that good with this sort of thing).

Should I a)try some more GIMP training or buy photoshop? (I am not very confident that I will be good with photoshop to be honest, I don't have very good control of a mouse or even a tablet).
 
Photoshop Elements might suit your needs rather than paying for full PS. I believe it's still a non subscription stand alone software.
 
I've found Light Room easier to use than Photoshop and GIMP is just impossible for me to learn.

Although, (I'm told anyway), GIMP is just as if not better than Photoshop once you learn it.
 
GIMP rocks but steep learning curve. However, lots of help with it on Google.
 
I've used GIMP quite a bit but have transitioned to DXO PhotoLab because 1) It opens CR3 files and I can't get GIMP to do this 2) Lightroom is a subscription whereas DXO PhotoLab can be purchased. The other problem I have with GIMP is (and this may simply be my inability to figure out how to do this) it appears presets cannot be saved and then applied en masse to a set of images.

Other than that GIMP, for me, is excellent.
 
I have GIMP and find it not very intuitive and hard to navigate. The quality of the photo edits are high though. I find I don't use it because of the effort to edit and being that I'm not a computer aficionado its tedious.
 
rawthereapee should be able to remove dust spots and small items. i'm not sure any program is really that good at changing backgrounds without a lot of user input. they've all got sky replacement tools now, but you have to be really careful which sky you use as a replacement.
 
rawthereapee should be able to remove dust spots and small items. i'm not sure any program is really that good at changing backgrounds without a lot of user input. they've all got sky replacement tools now, but you have to be really careful which sky you use as a replacement.

rawtherapee can't remove small items and such ... it doesn't have a local editing capabilities .. latest version allows a local adjustments but still it doesn't have anything like brushes or heal tool or something like that

I use rawtherappee for editing raw files but I am wondering what I should use for other edits.
I am not planning to do anything fancy, but I want to a) remove dust b) change back grounds and cover some small annoying things.
In the past I have used GIMP, but I find really hard (probably I am the problem I am not that good with this sort of thing).

Should I a)try some more GIMP training or buy photoshop? (I am not very confident that I will be good with photoshop to be honest, I don't have very good control of a mouse or even a tablet).

depends on you ... personally I use RawTherapee + GIMP, I am used on it .. I have even full support for PS because my wife is graphic designer with huge knowledge of vector and raster editing .. I have macbook air in my photography bag with PS and LR there but I am not using that because I'm used on home computer with Gimp ... but of course I don't wanna say that PS is bad (or worse), it's just based on priorities .. my personal opinion is this:

at the beginning, it's easier and smoother to work in PS because of non-destructive editing (which is dealbreaker for some, GIMP doesn't have it) but later when you know what you have to do, GIMP is same potent as PS ..
 
Keep using RawTherapee and add Affinity Photo for the things RawTherapee can't do.
 
Photoshop because It solely depends on your practice and concentration. It's fun to learn photoshop and apply it. I have learned a lot from youtube, Udemy justlean etc. But self practice is really important.
 
I don't like these deterministic recommendations ... There is more software around than just Adobe stuff ... (Affinity, Capture One, Open Source programs and many more ...)

It's like with cars, you need to learn howto drive a car, then you will be able to +/- drive all cars .. For the beginning, for understanding and learning a basic concepts (colours theory, raw processing, leayers, retouching) I'd recommend to start with some Open Source software like with RawTherapee + GIMP ... along with that, you can start experimenting with anything what you want but my personal opinion is: the more different cars you will drive (not only at the beginning), the better driver you're going to be .. so advising to somebody to lock him/herself in one (golden if you wish) cage and barricade there is in my opinion truly toxic advise ..
 
I don't like these deterministic recommendations ... There is more software around than just Adobe stuff ... (Affinity, Capture One, Open Source programs and many more ...)

Yes, there are lots of adequate software apps and good results can be obtained using different apps. It is also fair to say that there are dominant professional choice apps for good reason and there are some advantages to using the same tools that are most popular and most used.

What we do have that is deterministic are basic editing principles and practices that should be considered since they apply regardless of the specific software apps but should inform the choice of app type and usage.

For example you can have your camera save a raw file and/or a processed RGB file as an original. In almost all cases when the camera saves a RGB file it will save a JPEG and all camera JPEGs are lossy compressed. If you edit a lossy compressed RGB image and make changes to the tone/color you will cause irreparable damage as the changes you make interact with the compression grid. Many people chose to do exactly that tolerant or oblivious to the damage. It's OK if they understand the parameters of their choice, but many do not.

Photo processing apps come in two fundamentally different structural types: 1. Raster editors and 2. Parametric editors*. Choosing one or the other is in part determined by the structure of the file you are editing, for example raw files require a parametric editor to convert them to RGB images. In many cases an RGB image can be edited by either type of editor. The type of editor you use effects how you work and the results you can achieve. For example you noted earlier in this thread the issue of non-destructive editing. It is a deal breaker for some and for good reason. Both parametric and raster editors can work non-destructively but with limitations. The tendency is for parametric editors to be 100% non-destructive while most raster editors are only partially non-destructive. It's no big deal for an enthusiast/hobbyist to want or need to make a change to an edit and find they have to re-do an otherwise unrelated aspect of the edit. It can be a huge deal if a Pro encounters a similar situation (maybe a client request) and the number of photos is in the hundreds.

Raster editors dramatically increase your disk storage requirement -- by as much as 80%. They also increase file management complexity. Both issues compound with larger numbers of photos.

Most amateur photographers don't have a clear understanding of these types of concerns. The OP started this thread stating he uses RT and wants to consider what additional raster editing app would be a good choice for further edits. RT is a parametric editor. RT's editing is 100% non-destructive. If you begin an edit in a parametric editor and then continue to edit in a raster editor odds are you're giving up the option for your editing to remain 100% non-destructive. Adding the raster editor kicks in the extra disk storage and kicks out the ability to edit non-destructively.

That begs a question not often enough considered; can we keep the editing parametric and avoid the extra disk storage and loss of non-destructive editing?

These issues apply universally regardless of specific software apps.

*There are a few crossovers.
 
WHAT JOE SAID^^^^^ I always cringe with these types of posts because they quickly sink into a "Mine is Better" argument, like which vehicle is better, without consideration or understanding of the work required. If you remember nothing of Joe's post, please remember this "It is also fair to say that there are dominant professional choice apps for good reason and there are some advantages to using the same tools that are most popular and most used." What might work well for the occasional edit, quickly falls by the wayside in a pro environment where the number and sophistication of the edits required quickly outpace the hobbyist level software, but then there are those who will never require these things. So choose what works for you with an understanding of what you're getting.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top