GIMP

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.

In article SrEuk.209$sq3.51@trnddc07, Mike -- Email Ignored
wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.

nospam wrote:
In article SrEuk.209$sq3.51@trnddc07, Mike -- Email Ignored
wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.


Why is elements a better choice for that?

For the OP, you can get rid of dust spots against skies etc using NX ,
selection tool & blur, or painting them out using the brush tool (select
b/g colour using colour picker). Obviously not for more complicated
cloning etc.

In article , Me
wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.

Why is elements a better choice for that?

it does more and it is much faster than gimp. also, camera raw is
highly regarded and can now mimic the look of other raw processors,
notably the camera maker's own software.

nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?
photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.
Why is elements a better choice for that?

it does more and it is much faster than gimp. also, camera raw is
highly regarded and can now mimic the look of other raw processors,
notably the camera maker's own software.

ACR isn't as good as Nikon's Capture NX for raw conversion in general -
and nowhere near as good with the latest generation of cameras with
auto-ca correction, ADL, vignette control, and standard and customisable
picture controls (able to be shared/used with jpeg & raw in camera - or
in Nx) (I'm not sure if auto ca correction is in the D90). With other
makes of camera YMMV - it might be as good as anything else.

"Faster" than gimp? Not sure what that means. Gimp seems fast enough
rendering large image files. Like full photoshop, there's a learning
curve. Recent versions seem very stable.

Gimp has some better features than photoshop. The perspective clone
tool and perspective correction tools are IMO better. Resizing /
resampling is better, with Lanczos interpolation included. Jpeg
compression options and preview is also IMO better. Gimp is also now
ICC colour aware. The only real downsides are that it's limited to 8
bit colour, and totally useless (IMO) for printing.

In article , Me
wrote:

Why is elements a better choice for that?

it does more and it is much faster than gimp. also, camera raw is
highly regarded and can now mimic the look of other raw processors,
notably the camera maker's own software.

ACR isn't as good as Nikon's Capture NX for raw conversion in general -

which raw output is 'best' is the subject of endless debates. camera
raw is considered to be among the better ones, as are the camera
maker's own software. also, with the new profiles, camera raw can
produce the same tonality and colour as nikon's software (or others),
so it's very difficult to even tell the difference anymore.

and nowhere near as good with the latest generation of cameras with
auto-ca correction, ADL, vignette control, and standard and customisable
picture controls (able to be shared/used with jpeg & raw in camera - or
in Nx) (I'm not sure if auto ca correction is in the D90). With other
makes of camera YMMV - it might be as good as anything else.

yes, nikon's software does a lot of that automatically which is quite
nice. nevertheless, camera raw can do it too, it just takes a little
tweaking, and the settings can be saved as a preset to be used again.

"Faster" than gimp? Not sure what that means. Gimp seems fast enough
rendering large image files. Like full photoshop, there's a learning
curve. Recent versions seem very stable.

it means that it takes less time to do the same step in photoshop than
in gimp with the same image on the same hardware. many operations are
real time (e.g., levels, curves), even with *huge* images, while on
gimp, it lags, and sometimes by quite a bit. opening raw images is
also faster, and there are numerous shortcuts to improve workflow.

Gimp has some better features than photoshop. The perspective clone
tool and perspective correction tools are IMO better.

how so?

Resizing /
resampling is better, with Lanczos interpolation included. Jpeg
compression options and preview is also IMO better. Gimp is also now
ICC colour aware.

barely. and photoshop has been colour managed for a decade.

The only real downsides are that it's limited to 8
bit colour, and totally useless (IMO) for printing.

that's one of many downsides. another huge drawback is that it lacks
adjustment layers. photoshop also has smart filters and camera raw can
work on a smart object for completely non-destructive editing.

cs4 is going to advance it even further.

Me wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article SrEuk.209$sq3.51@trnddc07, Mike -- Email Ignored
wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch
tools. A friend suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

photoshop elements is a much better choice. another alternative is
adobe lightroom, which can edit images nondestructively as well as
manage image libraries.


Why is elements a better choice for that?

It's a better choice generally. User interface is better than the
quirky Gimp - Gimp is sometimes in realtime with preview; sometimes set
and wait and retry. Some filters in 8 bit/color; some not. Versions of
Gimp that do wxyz some that do uvwx but none that do uvwxyz...

(To be fair, not all of the features in Elements work above 8/b/col
either; but you can process an image at one level (16b/col) and then
when done, convert the image to 8 bit to continue with the other
filters/features).

Elements has the Adobe raw import built in and as new cameras come out
and you need the raw you DL it and drop it in the right directory and
it's done. Gimps gets raw via an add on s/w package (whether this is a
plug in or a pre-process, I'm not sure... but it certainly means
maintaining both Gimp and the bolt on s/w.

You can try Elements for free for 30 days or so (and you can get Gimp
for free, period). I've used only v. 3 of Elements and the prior "PS
lite editions" and they do 98% of what any serious amateur will need.
(I now use CS3).

For the OP, you can get rid of dust spots against skies etc using NX ,
selection tool & blur, or painting them out using the brush tool (select
b/g colour using colour picker). Obviously not for more complicated
cloning etc.

Elements. Or CS3. Or Lightroom. But Elements is the least expensive.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.

The Gimp will do that and more. Just browse the plugin page it has most
every tool needed there and more added all the time. And you get to save
the $$ for more camera gear.

Jim

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:19:49 +0000, James wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.

The Gimp will do that and more. Just browse the plugin page it has most
every tool needed there and more added all the time. And you get to save
the $$ for more camera gear.

Jim

As far as I can see, Gimp allows only 8 bit colors. My camera takes
14 bit. If I am in error, please let me know.

Thanks,
Mike.

Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:
On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 23:19:49 +0000, James wrote:

On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 21:56:02 +0000, Mike -- Email Ignored wrote:

I use Nikon Capture NX, but I need healing and patch tools. A friend
suggested I try GIMP. Any comments?

Thanks,
Mike.
The Gimp will do that and more. Just browse the plugin page it has most
every tool needed there and more added all the time. And you get to save
the $$ for more camera gear.

Jim

As far as I can see, Gimp allows only 8 bit colors. My camera takes
14 bit. If I am in error, please let me know.

That's right.
Gimp is fine for PP as final step - ie after any large adjustments to
colours, levels etc, which might cause visible integer rounding
posterisation effects. In my case, I'd always do those all of
adjustments using the raw converter, gimp as final step for ie
perspective correction, major cloning etc.

Operations that can be done with PS elements while in 16 bit colour mode
were very limited last time I looked at it - so if fully editing in 16
bit colour-space is needed, then full price PS is also needed.