How good is Gimp?

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

In article ,
"Russell D." wrote:

On 09/19/2016 01:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:01:59 +0000, Joop wrote:

How good is Gimp? Does it have the same functionality as Photoshop?

Gimp has its (many) uses, but for photography work, I generally use
Darktable; available for linux only at present. Results for my purposes
are far better than Gimp. You could call it an open-source (and free)
equivalent to the Lightroom or Photoshop experience.


Hmmm. I guess I need to give Darktable another go. I tried and early
release and didn't like it much so just continued with GIMP.

Darktable has a very cool UI but is, IMO definitely a raw converter in
my book. A very well featured such. I would think that it would team up
well with LightZone for external editing. I've used both under OSX but
have in the end for various reasons preferred non Adobe propriety
solutions, but they are still installed on my system for backup.

http://www.darktable.org/about/screenshots/

http://lightzoneproject.org/gallery/...use-over-image
s-see-description-click-expand
--
teleportation kills

On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:14:49 +0200, android wrote:

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

In article ,
"Russell D." wrote:

On 09/19/2016 01:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:01:59 +0000, Joop wrote:

How good is Gimp? Does it have the same functionality as Photoshop?

Gimp has its (many) uses, but for photography work, I generally use
Darktable; available for linux only at present. Results for my
purposes are far better than Gimp. You could call it an open-source
(and free) equivalent to the Lightroom or Photoshop experience.


Hmmm. I guess I need to give Darktable another go. I tried and early
release and didn't like it much so just continued with GIMP.

Darktable has a very cool UI but is, IMO definitely a raw converter in
my book. A very well featured such. I would think that it would team up
well with LightZone for external editing. I've used both under OSX but
have in the end for various reasons preferred non Adobe propriety
solutions, but they are still installed on my system for backup.

http://www.darktable.org/about/screenshots/

http://lightzoneproject.org/gallery/...ts-mouse-over-
image
s-see-description-click-expand

Yes, Darktable is excellent for raw conversions, though I've had good
success enhancing jpg's without provoking those unsightly artifacts and
posterization that you sometimes get when tweaking curves at the limits
(e.g. in Gimp). The 32-bit floating-point 'Lab colorspace' workflow no
doubt helps.

Of course Gimp and Darktable each have their own capabilities and
features. I use both for different things.

I don't claim to be a proficient photographer, or even a good one; nor
have I explored all the possibilities in Darktable. Some examples I
posted on my Twitter feed (look for #Darktable tag) -

https://twitter.com/1r5

On 2016-09-22 18:14:49 +0000, android said:

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

WHY?
The last thing we need is to spread the BS!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 09/22/2016 02:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-09-22 18:14:49 +0000, android said:

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

WHY?
The last thing we need is to spread the BS!

Why is it BS?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 2016-09-22 21:35:36 +0000, "Russell D." said:

On 09/22/2016 02:39 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-09-22 18:14:49 +0000, android said:

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

WHY?
The last thing we need is to spread the BS!

Why is it BS?

This started as a GIMP thread in alt.photography and that is where it
should stay.

Inevitably discussions regarding the virtues of GIMP when compared to
other photo editing software degrade into a flamewar. I have my opinion
in this matter, and I have chosen to hold my tongue because it leads to
the sort of exchange delivered by nospam and Floyd.

If GIMP works for you, go ahead and use it. What we don't need is for
android to expand the potential for a flamewar to another NG by adding
an unwanted X-Post, or intended by the OP. He makes a habit of that
sort of thing and that is BS.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 20160922133915625-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2016-09-22 18:14:49 +0000, android said:

Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

WHY?
The last thing we need is to spread the BS!

If fits that its charter better then why not?
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
android wrote:
Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

In article ,
"Russell D." wrote:

On 09/19/2016 01:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:01:59 +0000, Joop wrote:

How good is Gimp? Does it have the same functionality as Photoshop?

Gimp has its (many) uses, but for photography work, I generally use
Darktable; available for linux only at present. Results for my purposes
are far better than Gimp. You could call it an open-source (and free)
equivalent to the Lightroom or Photoshop experience.


Hmmm. I guess I need to give Darktable another go. I tried and early
release and didn't like it much so just continued with GIMP.

Darktable has a very cool UI but is, IMO definitely a raw converter in
my book. A very well featured such. I would think that it would team up
well with LightZone for external editing. I've used both under OSX but
have in the end for various reasons preferred non Adobe propriety
solutions, but they are still installed on my system for backup.

Which of these can preserve the full dynamic range (i.e., bits per
channel) of the original raw image? Last I heard, Gimp is still stuck
at 8 bits per channel.

--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |

In article ,
(Paul Ciszek) wrote:

In article ,
android wrote:
Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

In article ,
"Russell D." wrote:

On 09/19/2016 01:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:01:59 +0000, Joop wrote:

How good is Gimp? Does it have the same functionality as Photoshop?

Gimp has its (many) uses, but for photography work, I generally use
Darktable; available for linux only at present. Results for my purposes
are far better than Gimp. You could call it an open-source (and free)
equivalent to the Lightroom or Photoshop experience.


Hmmm. I guess I need to give Darktable another go. I tried and early
release and didn't like it much so just continued with GIMP.

Darktable has a very cool UI but is, IMO definitely a raw converter in
my book. A very well featured such. I would think that it would team up
well with LightZone for external editing. I've used both under OSX but
have in the end for various reasons preferred non Adobe propriety
solutions, but they are still installed on my system for backup.

Which of these can preserve the full dynamic range (i.e., bits per
channel) of the original raw image? Last I heard, Gimp is still stuck
at 8 bits per channel.

Darktable and Lightzone are, as far as I know 16bit. Darktable is a RAW
converters with some extensive editing features and the Lensfun lens
correction. Lightzone is IMO more of an editor than a converter. Both
have experimental and unique user interfaces.
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
android wrote:
In article ,
(Paul Ciszek) wrote:

In article ,
android wrote:
Cross posted to: rec.photo.digital

In article ,
"Russell D." wrote:

On 09/19/2016 01:53 PM, Ian Smith wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2016 22:01:59 +0000, Joop wrote:

How good is Gimp? Does it have the same functionality as Photoshop?

Gimp has its (many) uses, but for photography work, I generally use
Darktable; available for linux only at present. Results for my purposes
are far better than Gimp. You could call it an open-source (and free)
equivalent to the Lightroom or Photoshop experience.


Hmmm. I guess I need to give Darktable another go. I tried and early
release and didn't like it much so just continued with GIMP.

Darktable has a very cool UI but is, IMO definitely a raw converter in
my book. A very well featured such. I would think that it would team up
well with LightZone for external editing. I've used both under OSX but
have in the end for various reasons preferred non Adobe propriety
solutions, but they are still installed on my system for backup.

Which of these can preserve the full dynamic range (i.e., bits per
channel) of the original raw image? Last I heard, Gimp is still stuck
at 8 bits per channel.

Darktable and Lightzone are, as far as I know 16bit. Darktable is a RAW
converters with some extensive editing features and the Lensfun lens
correction. Lightzone is IMO more of an editor than a converter. Both
have experimental and unique user interfaces.

Darktable is 32-bit float. GIMP 2.9 is pretty much any thing from
8-bit integer to 64-bit float that you might desire, but work fastest
at 32-bit float.

GIMP 2.9 is called a development release because there are things they
what to add before they call it 2.10, but it's every bit as usable and
stable as the so-called "stable release" 2.8.

On 5/11/2016 4:10 @wiz, nan wrote:

GIMP 2.9 is called a development release because there are things they
what to add before they call it 2.10, but it's every bit as usable and
stable as the so-called "stable release" 2.8.



Actually, it isn't usable.
It has been 2.9 "development" for YEARS now!

Might be useful for those running Loonix.
For those of us who use the most used desktop and laptop OS, Windows,
it's pretty much useless as there is no supported Windows executable.

There is a download of a series of hodge-podge executables calling each
other out and pretending to be an editor. It isn't and it is as unstable as.

GIMP lost the boat for photographers using PCs 10 years ago when its
developers point blank refused to do higher bit-depths than 8.
Even now, it still hardly supports any colour above 8 bits!