I GIMP, therefore I am - some thoughts and a poll.

I started with PS7 before I had even heard of Gimp. As I became used to using it, it didn't seem to make any sense to change to something else, and learn a new interface.

I've upgraded since to CS3 and then 4 for a couple of features that they offer, and also to be able to use ACR with my newer cameras.

Hey Simon, interesting thread!

I got along for a number of years without Photoshop, and don't see Photoshop as the "must have" tool for everyone; in fact you could certainly hazard a statement that for "most" people it's overkill, especially as other apps like the Gimp have evolved over the years.

I don't know, though, that avoiding Photoshop will automatically make someone try to improve their photography -- I think that has to come from within you no matter what tools you use (or misuse). You hear that kind of thinking from some people who argue their case for shooting jpeg rather than Raw -- they say that shooting jpeg makes them try harder to get good images, and imply that shooting Raw encourages them to be lazy -- and it makes me go "Huh?" -- I don't see it as one way or the other.

I spent some years using freeware software, then moved to Elements, but in time as my volume grew I decided I needed some of the high power tools that the full Photoshop offered, and I've never regretted it. But, one of the main tools I was after was the top-of-the-line Raw processor (in CS2 at the time) which was pretty unmatched. That and the batch/automation tools in Photoshop made a huge difference.

Of course, that was before Lightroom and a new era in Raw workflow, and my copy of CS3 tends to gather dust, but that's really another topic!

seaside wrote in post #9523999
Greetings Simon, good topic.

Glad you like a bit of proper discussion, Chris!

Perhaps that's another aspect here? Quite a few POTNers have commented in other threads that due to the cheapness and ease of "getting into digital" the web is awash with crappy images. Does this make it easier to stand out if you "have talent", or are you drowned by the sheer scale of images, or do people move their expectations downwards?

Which I also respect 100%....and enjoy trying myself. As I said earlier, IMO, it's part of the creative process, and perhaps, as you say, it's a signal that photography and photographers have to "get with the times, man!" if they want to survive.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #9524640
I've used GIMP & liked it....then I had a chance to teach PS, so I went back to PS7....I'm still using PS7 & I don't miss the new advanced features along with their advanced prices.

Good reasoning Frank, and I think you're in a whole different category regarding why you would use particular software. But for the average (or above average) POTNer, I still feel CS4 et al. might be something that could come waaaaaaaay down the line.

Is this where people are confused? They assume they need the latest, most expensive consumer-software in order to produce great photos?

basroil wrote in post #9525287
...the above shot could have probably been done 100% in LR1 if you tried/were lucky...

That was the whole point - for the festival Maya went to (the girl in post #1) her kimono was various pinks. The flower in her hair was matching tones and hues, and the cup, by chance matched too. It had to be done in layers with masks....and in the GIMP, was a doddle, and cost me zip!

Sorarse wrote in post #9527422
I started with PS7 before I had even heard of Gimp.

Here's a question at ya....who told you about PS7? I was pondering on this the other day, because I often here non-togs say, "Oh...that picture must have been photoshopped". Where did they hear that term, and how has it become a verb!?!?!! Well done Adobe!

tonylong wrote in post #9527539
Hey Simon, interesting thread! I got along for a number of years without Photoshop, and don't see Photoshop as the "must have" tool....you could certainly hazard a statement that for "most" people it's overkill....

You could be right....but "most people" don't know/suspect this, and perhaps that's another reason why the web is awash with crappy photos. I can hear the phrase, "It's OK, I'll just photoshop it to look good", ringing in my head...

"Hmmm, the force is strong in this one...."

Exactly right Tony! Needing to upgrade software due to high image editing needs, business requirements, batch-processing, pro-tog deadlines, etc., makes 100% sense to me. But getting there should, IMO, take time, and not like this scenario: "Hey honey, I'm just popping out to buy me one of those digital camera thing-a-me-bobs!" "OK darling. And don't forget to buy everything the salesman tempts you with, otherwise you won't be able to take great photo-ma-gigs with it!!!"

skygod44 wrote in post #9527802
Here's a question at ya....who told you about PS7? I was pondering on this the other day, because I often here non-togs say, "Oh...that picture must have been photoshopped". Where did they hear that term, and how has it become a verb!?!?!! Well done Adobe!

It was a photographer friend of my grandmother. I just remember him telling me about what you could do with software designed for editing photographs. At the time I was using a G2, and didn't do any PP work on my images.

In fact, when I first installed PS7, I couldn't make head nor tail of it, and promptly uninstalled it. I didn't load it up again for some time; after I'd read up a bit more on what PP was all about, and a few tutorials on using PS7.

skygod44 wrote in post #9527802
Exactly right Tony! Needing to upgrade software due to high image editing needs, business requirements, batch-processing, pro-tog deadlines, etc., makes 100% sense to me. But getting there should, IMO, take time, and not like this scenario: "Hey honey, I'm just popping out to buy me one of those digital camera thing-a-me-bobs!" "OK darling. And don't forget to buy everything the salesman tempts you with, otherwise you won't be able to take great photo-ma-gigs with it!!!"

Heh! It helped that my entry to the digital imaging world was scanning a bunch of 4x6 and 5x7 photos with a flatbed scanner back in the early '90s when digital cameras were just a very expensive tool used by only a chosen few. I tackled photos one at a time in the software provided by my company (HP) which migrated from freeware to the early versions of Elements. Photoshop proper became a legend over that period of time, but for me it was both out of reach and not needed.

'Course getting my first digicam and getting a handle on Elements got me evolving but compact digicams didn't with me produce the compelling case to upgrade my software. Things did begin to change as I looked at the world of both DSLRs and Raw shooting and processing, though, and the ability to hone in on, say, birding finally, and event shooting...!

Sorarse wrote in post #9535029
It was a photographer friend of my grandmother....when I first installed PS7, I couldn't make head nor tail of it, and promptly uninstalled it....

I think that's quite common when you consider that the majority of people will take their memory card to a shop, click on the screen, and few minutes later out pops some prints that look almost exactly like what they saw on-screen.
Looking at editing software for the first time, and I went, "Whoah?! What the **** is all this about?!?!?!" It takes time to get to grips with the concept even, of "layers". What the heck is a "layer"? These things need to soak into our brains, IMO, and then - and ONLY then - can we truly enhance the photos we've taken. I guess I don't really care how we do that, but I still feel that leaping straight into image editing might be missing part of the joy of capturing an image beautifully, simply by pressing that little button on the camera at exactly the right moment, because that's how you planned it.

tonylong wrote in post #9535268
[Sorry to clip you, Tony]....in the early '90s when digital cameras were just a very expensive tool used by only a chosen few....Photoshop proper became a legend over that period of time, but for me it was both out of reach and not needed....

Maybe, PS should be seen as "out of reach" for longer?
Maybe we should/could simply encourage newbies to get to grips with their camera and lens set-up using freeware during that period until they are sure they "get" the gestalt of what we do?
Perhaps this approach would help to widen the difference between "photographers" and "people who snap away at any old crap with a digital camera", thus helping to reduce issues such as this one, raised in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=820287 by Anthony Mair.

skygod44 wrote in post #9535403
I think that's quite common when you consider that the majority of people will take their memory card to a shop, click on the screen, and few minutes later out pops some prints that look almost exactly like what they saw on-screen.
Looking at editing software for the first time, and I went, "Whoah?! What the **** is all this about?!?!?!" It takes time to get to grips with the concept even, of "layers". What the heck is a "layer"? These things need to soak into our brains, IMO, and then - and ONLY then - can we truly enhance the photos we've taken. I guess I don't really care how we do that, but I still feel that leaping straight into image editing might be missing part of the joy of capturing an image beautifully, simply by pressing that little button on the camera at exactly the right moment, because that's how you planned it.

Well, now, I don't know -- after all the Gimp is pixel editing the same as Photoshop is. Now if you get a shot that can't be improved by post-processing, then of course more power to ya! But, of course, even the great Ansel Adams and great shooters throughout photographic history have made abundant use of the dark room. We are just fortunate enough to be able to bypass the mess!

No argument from me as far as starting with the low cost tools that can do the majority of the work that Photoshop can. In fact, I routinely advise people to start with getting as much as you can out of DPP and try out the low-cost alternatives -- I usually suggest Elements because it's inexpensive, I'm familiar with it, and it introduces you to the "jargon" and also contains a whole lot of the toolset with Photoshop. I have encouraged people to check out the Gimp simply because I sympathize with the open source/freeware crowd and I know the Gimp has accumulated a lot of tool support, but I've only really looked at it once and by then I was pretty happy with what I was using.

skygod44 wrote in post #9535403
Maybe, PS should be seen as "out of reach" for longer?
Maybe we should/could simply encourage newbies to get to grips with their camera and lens set-up using freeware during that period until they are sure they "get" the gestalt of what we do?
Perhaps this approach would help to widen the difference between "photographers" and "people who snap away at any old crap with a digital camera", thus helping to reduce issues such as this one, raised in this thread: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=820287 by Anthony Mair.

The photoshop CS4 trial is a full version AND free, just limited to 30days. And it's much easier to use (in my experience) than gimp.

tonylong wrote in post #9535877
Well, now, I don't know -- after all the Gimp is pixel editing the same as Photoshop is. Now if you get a shot that can't be improved by post-processing, then of course more power to ya! But, of course, even the great Ansel Adams and great shooters throughout photographic history have made abundant use of the dark room. We are just fortunate enough to be able to bypass the mess!

Sorry, maybe my words were confusing.
I meant that editing is all well and good - I also used to do it in a darkroom, so know all about the mess....and the smell! Sheesh!
But what I mean is, so many people seem to think that, as a simple example, every photo they take can-and-should be cropped. Whereas, taking an extra second, if time allows, to move so that the view through the camera is 99% what you want in the final image, will, IMO, improve a lot more than just the framing.....

skygod44 wrote in post #9535896
Sorry, maybe my words were confusing.
I meant that editing is all well and good - I also used to do it in a darkroom, so know all about the mess....and the smell! Sheesh!
But what I mean is, so many people seem to think that, as a simple example, every photo they take can-and-should be cropped. Whereas, taking an extra second, if time allows, to move so that the view through the camera is 99% what you want in the final image, will, IMO, improve a lot more than just the framing.....

No argument there, that (and other composition ideas) and "understanding exposure" are things people need to learn no matter what software they use. And I do admit I'm a bit befuddled when I see people who have bought into an expensive DSLR and expensive editing software but who evidently haven't done some real homework in basic photography. But each person has his own way to get to what will helpfully become a fulfilling pasttime or profession. And we help when we can!

'Course for me I'm often shooting at distance subjects and am not planning on buying the 800 lens I would love to have, so cropping is a very good friend of mine. But when I can I do my best to frame the shot the way I want. I do, though, crop a lot for an alternative aspect ratio. And, sometimes I'll even crop a landscape shot to a portrait orientation to get two entirely different takes out of one image! It's fun messing around with things!

Need a little love for Lightroom/Aperture in this Simon...

I probably do 90% of my processing without ever going to CS4.

I started out with PS 4.0, was in a Design and Digital Production class. It is all I ever knew

I installed GIMP back in the very early days and had some trouble with the way it wanted to take over.. replacing icons and such. I'm sure it is much better now with open source and it is at least 5 or 6 year later now

I installed LR and my current desktop would never run it properly (Dell)...
Now I have reformatted my HD, got rid of all the Dell "stuff" and added an additional HD.. and now it runs beautifully

I'm just stuck in PS and still haven't upgraded to CS4, but it's what I know and where I'm comforatble.. ...even before I started editing photographs, cuz when I started with PS.. it was still the era of film!

I think the GIMP is great for those that need it, but I think if you're a pro or desire to be a pro in the photography/graphics field, then you need to learn and use photoshop.

It's like being a home builder but not knowing how to use a hammer. Yes, you may be able to build a house without one, but everyone else around you, uses hammers and it's not usually a good idea to be the odd-man out in cases like this.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9536024
I think the GIMP is great for those that need it, but I think if you're a pro or desire to be a pro in the photography/graphics field, then you need to learn and use photoshop.

It's like being a home builder but not knowing how to use a hammer. Yes, you may be able to build a house without one, but everyone else around you, uses hammers and it's not usually a good idea to be the odd-man out in cases like this.

Or, maybe it's like being a home builder using a hammer when you could be using a nail gun! Your point, that when someone is on a professional track they are best served by the best, highest-power software, is right, in fact Simon alluded to that in his OP.

Jay, I haven't really focused on Lightroom in this discussion, I was staying away from being Raw-centric, but oh yeah, if you are a serious Raw shooter you want a great Raw processor. I still encourage people to start with DPP, but given the limits of DPP and the toolset in Lightroom, I'd place LR right at the top of software to explore with the free trial. Now in fairness I have plenty of respect for Aperture, although I've never actually used it, but the local adjustment tools in LR give it the solid edge over anything else out there, IMO.

When talking about Gimp, I think people sometimes forget that the idea is NOT to get you to switch from PS to using the Gimp. That would be just plain silly... OF COURSE anyone using photoshop already will find Gimp difficult, plus there is no real INCENTIVE to switch. You've already paid for your PS license... that is a strong motivation to learn and use it. I would TOO!

Gimp... people may try it and immediately say "I don't like the interface." That may be a valid complaint, but how much of it is brought on by the common thought of 'If it's free, it can't be any good... I'm not going to waste my time figuring it out if its not absolutely magical."

Plus there is the percieved value of expensive software being worth more. I recently read about a home theater projector company that found if they raised prices by hundreds of dollars, their sales actually skyroceted. Another company is apparently repackaging another blu-ray player (uncannily identical performance in test results) into a new chasis, and charging a $3000 premium, likely knowing SOMEONE is going to pay it. Not to beat a dead horse, but same goes for HDMI cables.

Granted, Photoshop is a bit different from the latter two extreme examples... there are actual real-world benefits to CS4... the question is are they worth the premium, ESPECIALLY to the complete newbies who want to do nothing more than crop/rotate or give a little pop to their images?

Even if they want to use layers, masks, cloning, etc... they don't need CS4 for that... they could get something free or cheap, grow with it - then make an educated choice if they feel they need CS4. I've heard of many people give up on Elements because its too complicated, and go back to using Picasa feeling they wasted money!

Note, that approach doesn't apply to everyone... some may already have experience from school or elsewhere with photoshop and want to stick with what they know. Others have known needs which PS fills (edit: especially professionals.) But again, my point of view is directed toward those just starting out in PP world and/or those with limited budgets.