Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Joe S on May 06, 2013, 09:59:43 pm
-
Can anyone give a summary of what, if anything, exists as a replacement for photoshop? I won't do the cloud thing so I guess I will be OK with PS6 until I buy a new camera that is not supported. Then I need a replacement. Capture one is available for a raw conversion so I guess that is one direction. This sure would be a great time for a competitor to rise up!
-
Right now the shining option is Adobe's own Lightroom and Elements 11, both still available as outright buys at bargain prices. And the still buggy Corel PaintShop. And then there's, um, Gimp, which can not hold up a pale candle to Photoshop or LR. If you search "Photoshop Substitute" you will uncover dozens of mostly toy programs. Picassa is a possibility, a lot of web designers like it and it lets you bulldoze through a lot of uncritical images very fast. But we just witnessed a major paradigm shift here, and who knows what may come down the path over the next few years.
-
Hi,
There is no replacement for Photoshop. There are some serious image processing programs, one Photoline 32, it is pretty competent and both PC & Mac. On Windows there is Picture Window Pro.
Best regards
Erik
-
Read through Adobe's various sites today and the comments that were left by users. Looks like they've outraged about 90% of PS users, or maybe those in favour don't comment. It reminded me of a parallel a number of years back, when Hasselblad decided to close their camera systems to backs made only by Hasselblad. Yes, they're still in the game but they dynamic of medium format photography changed a lot in the following years and Phase One is no longer the small company it was back then. Will history repeat itself? Time will tell.
Mike.
-
And then there's, um, Gimp, which can not hold up a pale candle to Photoshop or LR.
Maybe time to re-assess that. Much will depend on what you actually need to do with an image editing program.
There's a HUGE amount of bloat in PS that a lot (most?) photographers don't need. Most of the core functionality for photographers is in The Gimp now.
Suggesting that Picassa might be better is truly bizarre. It hasn't even got a layers option.
Paying £120/yr for ever or downloading The Gimp for free ? It really is a no brainer for anyone with budgetary constraints.
-
^ Well possibly it is time to look at Gimp again. As of two years ago it was pretty wanting compared to PS, and showed a lot of the ragged edges that plague open source programming. I mentioned Picassa among the "toy programs" simply because it has utility to photographers who need to plow through 100's of differing shots in a hurry, something that PS and LR don't do very well.
I don't really see PS as "bloated." I like having lots of stuff available as long as it doesn't impose itself needlessly. But the legacy user interface now seems increasingly awkward when compared to more recent UI paradigms like we see in LR. For instance, who has not been annoyed that he can't immediately rezero a PS slider by double clicking? No big thing by itself, but little things like that add up. And the disparity between the noise reduction in LR and PS is truly puzzling. There are other things too.
-
the legacy user interface now seems increasingly awkward when compared to more recent UI paradigms like we see in LR.
Photoshop is it's own worst enemy. It's commercial and long term users know it so well they don't want any change that would disrupt their work, so Adobe are stuck trying to add "compelling features" without changing anything drastically. The final problem they have is that PS is a mature and feature rich program, what more does it need ?
Go and look again at The Gimp, 2.8 really has matured a lot. Yes, it's open source roots and sporadic development give it a rough edge. However anyone used to PS ought to cope with the UI pretty easily and most of the core functionality photographers need from an image editing program is there for free.
When PS CS4 stops working, that's where I'll go unless something even better turns up.
-
For instance, who has not been annoyed that he can't immediately rezero a PS slider by double clicking?
Double-clicking sliders in my copy of PS zeroes them.
-
CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come. GIMP 2.10 will finally feature support for 16 and 32 bits per channel. It is more and more becoming a considerable alternative to Photoshop. Personally I will keep using CS6 for a few more years and then transition to GIMP. What worries me a bit more is Lightroom CC. Migrating my entire image library over to CaptureOne won't be so simple.
-
CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come. GIMP 2.10 will finally feature support for 16 and 32 bits per channel. It is more and more becoming a considerable alternative to Photoshop. Personally I will keep using CS6 for a few more years and then transition to GIMP. What worries me a bit more is Lightroom CC. Migrating my entire image library over to CaptureOne won't be so simple.
Sounds like a reasonable plan. But the issue gets more complicated on OSX side if you are on a Mac pro.
If Apple decides to release the new Mac Pro with 10.9 and to make it non compatible with 10.8... and if CS6 is not compatible with 10.9... then bye bye Adobe and Apple at the same time...
Otherwise, I will follow your recommendation and stay on 10.6 as long as I can, and then migrate to The Gimp. I have used it a bit and it is in fact pretty good, just needs a bit of time to adjust.
If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...
Staying on Lightroom knowing what is ahead sounds silly, but I am personally using C1 Pro more anyway, so no problem here.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Staying on Lightroom knowing what is ahead sounds silly, but I am personally using C1 Pro more anyway, so no problem here.
Hi Bernard,
I also use Capture One most of the time, for the Raw conversion quality (RawTherapee is also quite good). I'm also glad that I chose to go with the Topaz Labs plugins. Not only do they give relatively good quality with little effort, but also because they can be used together in a blending layer and masking mode with their photoFXlab application. No Photoshop required for that functionality, and there is usually very little editing work left that would require a photoeditor.
More specific compositing work and retouching can be done with the GIMP once it goes 16-b/ch and 32-bit, later this year or the next, and for document/form creation there is the free Scribus. Sure, these are not as slick as their CC alternatives, but it's hard to beat the price.
It will be interesting to see how Google is going to protect it's investment in the Nik plugins.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...
NOT! :) Newly funded open software projects usually just find whole new ways to fritter around in unproductive but interesting trivia. Software projects rarely ever focus themselves in the absence of a single charismatic but tyrannical leader and a very strong profit motive.
-
CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come.
Exactly! If you own it but don't want to go to CC, stick with it as long as you can. Why spend money for Elements? That's a step down. IF 2+ years down the line you see some totally must have new feature in Photoshop CC2, or if CS6 will no longer run on your hardware or OS, maybe subscribing will make sense. I'm keeping my old G5 around just to run a plug-in in CS3 that can't run in newer versions or newer OS.
-
I actually hardly ever PS other than to clean skin in my model photography. If I could do that well with a LR plugin, I don't need PS (even though it would be nice to have it for other purposes).
Maybe we won't see a full PS-like package, but a collection of smaller ones that cater to specific needs.
In my case, I'd rather spend money on something I then own than pay the same amount to Adobe to 'rent.'
-
quote from bill t., reply #11
>>Quote from: BernardLanguillier on Today at 07:32:25 AM
If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...
>NOT! Newly funded open software projects usually just find whole new ways to fritter around in unproductive but interesting trivia. Software projects rarely ever focus themselves in the absence of a single charismatic but tyrannical leader and a very strong profit motive.
In this case, +1 for PhotoLine, pl32.com
-
Sadly, I come to rely on far too many plugins for CS6, otherwise, I would totally be in w/ GIMP.
And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.
I feel back stabbed.
-
> Sadly, I come to rely on far too many plugins for CS6, otherwise, I would totally be in w/ GIMP.
And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.
PhotoLine supports the Common Plug-In Architecture! And you will recognize much of what you learned in PS.
-
And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.
To be fair, a lot of the time spent "learning Photoshop" is often more about learning digital imaging as a whole, not the individual application.
Much of what you've learnt will be transferable to another application.
Just like learning to drive a car in a Honda, then buying a Ford. The controls may be in different places, but they do the same thing.
-
Can anyone give a summary of what, if anything, exists as a replacement for photoshop? I won't do the cloud thing so I guess I will be OK with PS6 until I buy a new camera that is not supported. Then I need a replacement. Capture one is available for a raw conversion so I guess that is one direction. This sure would be a great time for a competitor to rise up!
I just purchased Pixelmator on OSX. $29 . The icons are different. The layout almost similar to PS. Have not tried plug-ins yet. Need to figure out if I can do skin smoothing and healing as well as Photoshop. If it works, I am done. Aperture ($80) + Pixelmator ($29), and I think the license allow the usage on more than one machine.
-
Just spent a few hours with PhotoLine. It appears to be a comprehensive program that uses a very PS-like paradigm. It is not an exact PS clone, but will not take much learning for an experienced PS user. There are a few issues, however. It does not interpret Curves and complex layered images in quite the same way as PS, so a newly loaded, PS-generated file needs some intermediate work on the layer controls to get a similar result. The biggest problem I see is that it crashes with relatively simple and even flat PS files larger than about 1/2GB, at least on my 24GB system. But other than that, I did not seem to run into any software bugs.
I suspect that if you build images starting with PhotoLine, rather than importing existing PS files, it may work quite well. It certainly has a lot of features and feels very responsive. Color management is right on. And the price is very low. At the very least, this would be a satisfactory program for casual users and amateurs, and even pros who don't need a lot of fancy post. And it definitely feels upscale from Elements.
-
^ Well possibly it is time to look at Gimp again. As of two years ago it was pretty wanting compared to PS, and showed a lot of the ragged edges that plague open source programming. I mentioned Picassa among the "toy programs" simply because it has utility to photographers who need to plow through 100's of differing shots in a hurry, something that PS and LR don't do very well.
I don't really see PS as "bloated." I like having lots of stuff available as long as it doesn't impose itself needlessly. But the legacy user interface now seems increasingly awkward when compared to more recent UI paradigms like we see in LR. For instance, who has not been annoyed that he can't immediately rezero a PS slider by double clicking? No big thing by itself, but little things like that add up. And the disparity between the noise reduction in LR and PS is truly puzzling. There are other things too.
For many specific or discreet tasks, such as noise removal, sharpening, extraction one can use nowadays quite satisfactorily third-party programs, such as NIK Dfine and Sharpener, Topaz Detail and Remask. With the just announced Adobe pricing scheme, the third-party developers have now again a good reason to innovate and supply new plugins. Many of these plugins should work also with Photoshop competitors.
-
This seems like it might work into something useful.
ElementsXXL plug-in promises Photoshop features without the pricetag
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2013/04/02/elementsxxl-plug-in-promises-photoshop-features-without-the-pricetag
-
I am thinking of how to prepare for life after adobe if necessary.
For now, I think good advice is don't convert to dng and don't save as a psd if you ever did. I have fortunately always saved as tiffs.
-
For many specific or discreet tasks, such as noise removal, sharpening, extraction one can use nowadays quite satisfactorily third-party programs, such as NIK Dfine and Sharpener, Topaz Detail and Remask. With the just announced Adobe pricing scheme, the third-party developers have now again a good reason to innovate and supply new plugins. Many of these plugins should work also with Photoshop competitors.
True, but relying on a pile of discreet plugins and external programs is never as fluid or fast as a single program with everything integrated within. And there are sometimes conflicts between disparate programs. For instance, installing NIK makes Topaz Resize unstable. I wasted too much time on that one and for several days I felt I had been kidnapped against my will to be an alpha tester. And buying all those discreet programs is not a cheap option. Clunky or not, PS has everything right there and guaranteed to play nice together, and when time is money that's worth something.
-
I am not sure why this Cloud business is such a big issue?
If you are making money out of your photography, you pass on the cost! Photographers already have an incredible high margin on their images - obviously not if you are just giving it away, to compete, that has never really been a viable business model.
If you do this for a hobby, well, then its still cheaper doing this then running a power-boat :-) or an expensive car!
The price of coffee goes up, do you switch to tea?
Most people here, considering the gear they say they have, should find it hard to find this sort of money. It would be nice if we didn't have to pay so much, but like everything else, prices goes up, and so do we have to increase our prices, if we want to keep a particular margin on our products or services.
Anyway, this is just one persons opinion - Happy photoshopping or Gimping ;-)
Henrik
-
I have Adobe Elements 8 and Elements PRemiere 8. How can I upgrade to Elements 11 and Premiere 11? Can I get a disk; I don't want to just download. Is there a reduced price for upgrade? WIll these still work once Adobe goes cloud?
-
Adobe is still being very kind of Elements users! I doubt if a dark cloud will shade bought-outright Elements anytime soon. Looks like they'll hit you up $119.95 for both.
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop-elements/buying-guide.displayTab3.html
-
...relying on a pile of discreet plugins...
I do love a discreet plugin. Even better if it is also discrete.
-
^ One mistake, and they're on you like flies! Speed spelling was never my forty. :)
While man's desires and aspirations stir,
He can not choose but err.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel, Der Herr, line 77.
-
^ One mistake, and they're on you like flies! Speed spelling was never my forty. :)
While man's desires and aspirations stir,
He can not choose but err.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel, Der Herr, line 77.
Sorry. Couldn't resist. Great Grate reply :D
-
I just purchased Pixelmator on OSX. $29 . The icons are different. The layout almost similar to PS. Have not tried plug-ins yet. Need to figure out if I can do skin smoothing and healing as well as Photoshop. If it works, I am done. Aperture ($80) + Pixelmator ($29), and I think the license allow the usage on more than one machine.
+1
I use the same, about 95% Aperture, but I don't make a living shooting pictures. I am guessing that a lot of amateurs originally gravitated to Photoshop because it was the de facto industry standard and so are used to it, but that doesn't mean that other applications out there won't satisfy their needs. Photoshop was very feature-rich, of course, but it's entirely possible that many amateurs weren't making use of all those features anyway. And the other applications won't stand still either, they will improve over time. Eventually, for example, Pixelmator will go 16 bits, all they need is some financial success. Adobe did what they did for their own reasons, competitors will fill any gaps they leave behind.
If I were still on Windows, I'd go back to Picture Windows Pro. It didn't have layers, but you could accomplish the same tasks in a different way. Too bad PWP never migrated to MAC, I'd still be using it.
-
For Mac users, Acorn is worth looking at. I used version 1.x as my simple-when I didn't want to open Photoshop-image viewer but now that it supports layers it's much more powerful. Version 4 was released at the beginning of this month as it available to everyone at the upgrade price of 29.99 until the end of the month (normally $50).
http://www.flyingmeat.com/acorn/
It's available directly from the developer or from the Apple App Store. If it buy it directly try coupon BUCKOFF to save $1. I'm not associated with the company in any way; I'm just a satisfied user.
-
Maybe Apple's Aperture should be part of the discussion. It is OS X only, but at only $80 for a perpetual license, avoiding the new $20/month "Adobe CC tax" might outweigh the "Apple tax" (higher initial hardware cost) in a TCO comparison. Note that keeping OS X up to date now costs only about $20/year, and I believe that each OS X upgrade purchase covers up to five computers.
I expect though that Adobe will maintain Lightroom ("Adobe Photoshop Lightroom", to give its full name) as a relatively affordable, "no subscription required" option, exactly to avoid losing too many of us price-sensitive photographers to the competition.
-
Been playing with Gimp 2.8.4. It does not have non-destructive adjustment layers. When did PS get adjustment layers? A long time ago, like maybe version 4? This does not bode well for alternative seekers. Yes there are the old workarounds we used with PS3, what fun those were! The good news is, there are posts from 2009 saying adjustment layers will be here in about a year. Open source, yeah baby!
Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.
-
The only thing wanting for an alternative to Photoshop is sustained consumer demand to fund it and experienced engineering talent to design it.
Both of which may soon be provided courtesy of Adobe.
-
Been playing with Gimp 2.8.4. It does not have non-destructive adjustment layers. When did PS get adjustment layers? A long time ago, like maybe version 4? This does not bode well for alternative seekers. Yes there are the old workarounds we used with PS3, what fun those were! The good news is, there are posts from 2009 saying adjustment layers will be here in about a year. Open source, yeah baby!
Somebody please tell me I'm wrong.
Adjustment layer feature is coming, according to GIMP, and unstable version (version 2.9x) of GIMP is now capable of working in 16 and 32 bit per channel modes, both integer and float. Color management has been improved as well, and thanks to support by AMD and Google the GEGL library can do GPU-side rendering and processing with OpenCL.
-
Adjustment layer feature is coming, according to GIMP...
And they will support and honor all Photoshop created layers? Or it will create it's own layers. HUGE difference.
-
When did PS get adjustment layers?
Last century. I've been on Photoshop since 1.0.7. If memory serves me, we got Layers in 2.5 or 3.0 (NOT CS, but the third actual release).
-
I believe adobe could satisfy most photographers, if they chose, with a somewhat upgraded version of elements that was not in the clouds.
-
Last century. I've been on Photoshop since 1.0.7. If memory serves me, we got Layers in 2.5 or 3.0 (NOT CS, but the third actual release).
I think layers was version 3. I started with 2, the first with CMYK, and I think layers was one full version later.
-
I think layers was version 3. I started with 2, the first with CMYK, and I think layers was one full version later.
Crap, I can't open my CMYK PS files in Photoshop versions earlier than 2? <G>
Pretty sure you're right about version 3. I recall those layers with much excitement and was happy I didn't have to use that 3rd party software that had layers prior to Photoshop (College). Anyone remember that one?
-
Just spent a few hours with PhotoLine. It appears to be a comprehensive program that uses a very PS-like paradigm. It is not an exact PS clone, but will not take much learning for an experienced PS user. There are a few issues, however.
I also just took a look at Photoline. It would be a very solid alternative to PS for me except I couldn't get the soft proofing mode to work worth a damn. That's a deal breaker for me. It might be a "MAC OS10.8 doesn't play nice with Photoline" issue, but I have a help request in with support at PHotoline to see if they can help me figure it out. Otherwise, Photoline seems to be a very robust image editing tool with lots of sophistication, e.g., layers and masks, LAB/HSL color modes, etc... you know, the kind of pro stuff that mere amateurs supposedly don't care about!
-
The What and When of Photoshop history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Photoshop_version_history).
While we groan about this or that issue with PS, the little omissions and gotchas in most of these alternative softwares show us where the real value of PS lies. It may be awkward and a little retro, but its rough edges have been smoothed out. You know what they say...the first 90% of a software package is completed in 10% of the time, the rest never happens. It's a credit to Adobe that almost all "the rest" is actually in place.
-
My question about photoline and gimp and the other alternatives is this: do they have the same kind of sophisticated selection tools as photoshop? I'm still old school: select, then edit....
-
The selection tools in PS are in a class by themselves, with huge improvements over the last few versions. Add to that things like mask refinement and non destructive mask blurring and many other refinements and there seems to be very little real competition for PS right now, at least for those who rely on masking and layering.
And the unfortunate thing about those refinements is that many of them are covered by software patents. So it's not just a matter of cloning the functionality. In many cases a new piece of software would have to use significantly different paradigms and techniques, hugely increasing the effort required to achieve similar functionality.
I invite the users of PS competitors to correct me on this, but it seems like Gimp and some other PS-like programs are using something closer PS5 as a model, rather than the later CS versions. It occurs to me this may be partly because of patent issues, dating from the unfortunate day in the 90's when software patents were first granted.
-
The selection tools in PS are in a class by themselves, with huge improvements over the last few versions. Add to that things like mask refinement and non destructive mask blurring and many other refinements and there seems to be very little real competition for PS right now, at least for those who rely on masking and layering.
And the unfortunate thing about those refinements is that many of them are covered by software patents. So it's not just a matter of cloning the functionality. In many cases a new piece of software would have to use significantly different paradigms and techniques, hugely increasing the effort required to achieve similar functionality.
Hi Bill,
Even a seemingly simple application like photoFXlab (http://www.topazlabs.com/photofxlab/) by Topaz Labs offers blending layers functionality, and edge aware brushes, and it doesn't screw up color when changing brightness. Besides that, it's a command center unleashing the excellent Topaz Labs plugins that can be added when the user wants specific functionality, like advanced masking, or noise reduction, or tonemapping, or Black and White conversion, or you name it.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Even a seemingly simple application like photoFXlab (http://www.topazlabs.com/photofxlab/) by Topaz Labs offers blending layers functionality, and edge aware brushes, and it doesn't screw up color when changing brightness. Besides that, it's a command center unleashing the excellent Topaz Labs plugins that can be added when the user wants specific functionality, like advanced masking, or noise reduction, or tonemapping, or Black and White conversion, or you name it.
Exactly. And the most important point for those of us counting down the years before we have to find an alternative to CS6 is that the current photoFXlab has been developed in a world where Adobe hadn't yet dropped a bomb on its customer base.
Give Topaz Labs, GIMP, et al, four or five years of development in a world where tens of thousands of ex-Adobe customers are clamoring for an alternative to Photoshop, and the feature sets of those applications won't remotely resemble what they are today.
Supply and demand.
-
Look what happened when some enterprising folks got together and created Open Office. There is a free version of all the MS Office programs that are compatible with MS file formats. Even some in the corporate IT sector are taking a long look at it as a way of saving money. Folks can vote with their pocket book (there is a donation link on the homepage). This is the one really good way of expressing outrage (for those who are outraged).
-
Look what happened when some enterprising folks got together and created Open Office. There is a free version of all the MS Office programs that are compatible with MS file formats. Even some in the corporate IT sector are taking a long look at it as a way of saving money. Folks can vote with their pocket book (there is a donation link on the homepage). This is the one really good way of expressing outrage (for those who are outraged).
Hi,
And interestingly, when the original OpenOffice[/color]]OpenOffice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/[color=blue) sponsor Sun was acquired by Oracle, and Oracle started pushing the developers in a direction they didn't want, the developers left, and LibreOffice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice) was born.
Cheers,
Bart
-
^ And because of OpenOffice and Libre Office, Microsoft introduced a $100 "home" version of Microsoft Office, which is comparable to its much more expensive suite. So by similar chemistry, maybe someday we'll see a Photoshop Home version that is not just Elements.
-
^ I think the development of an equivalent Photoshop Home version that is not just Elements is inevitable. But as their stock continues to drop today (on the trading floor and otherwise), I increasingly doubt it will have Adobe's name on it.