If I started a thread for GIMP users and what it can do, any takers?

[Chris Dubea]

One of the enormous shortcomings of GIMP at least on the Windows version is printing.

It's pretty much impossible to print effectively.

I agree.

Typically I save the image to a PDF and print that.

Probably makes color management at best tricky, no?

The Linux version is much better.

IIRC both the Mac OS and the Linux versions use CUPS for printing, but Windows does not have CUPS so the only GIMP printing options are crude and buggy.

If I'm honest, I've haven't printed an image as such in many years. Most of my printing is gift cards and such with cartoons not imagery. So definitely not as critical.

If I had to print an image from GIMP, I'd use my Linux box.

My wife and I were born and raised in New Orleans, btw. We left the area in 2007.

--
Chris

 

[arrow501]

Nikon NX Studio - https://www.nikon.co.uk/en_GB/product/apps-software/nx-studio

Hi arrow501,

That looks quite good. Interesting.

The only thing is, even though I have a Nikon camera at the moment, I don't want to be tied to Nikon.

Mark_A

Hi Mark, good point. For the time being, NX Studio would likely be better than Faststone for creating your jpegs to edit in GIMP. If you have Faststone setup to create jpegs from the raw data you won't be getting noise reduction or lens corrections applied. If Faststone is exporting the jpegs from the jpegs embedded in your raw files it's likely they are not full size. You can test to make sure you are getting the best quality jpegs out of Faststone by shooting raw plus jpeg, exporting a jpeg from your raw how you usually do it, then comparing that with the jpeg from the camera.

 

[Digital Nigel]

Nikon NX Studio - https://www.nikon.co.uk/en_GB/product/apps-software/nx-studio

Hi arrow501,

That looks quite good. Interesting.

The only thing is, even though I have a Nikon camera at the moment, I don't want to be tied to Nikon.

Mark_A

Hi Mark, good point. For the time being, NX Studio would likely be better than Faststone for creating your jpegs to edit in GIMP. If you have Faststone setup to create jpegs from the raw data you won't be getting noise reduction or lens corrections applied. If Faststone is exporting the jpegs from the jpegs embedded in your raw files it's likely they are not full size.

That depends on the camera. I think, with Nikon, they are full res, but more compressed than the OOC JPEGs.

You can test to make sure you are getting the best quality jpegs out of Faststone by shooting raw plus jpeg, exporting a jpeg from your raw how you usually do it, then comparing that with the jpeg from the camera.

Yes, good idea.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

The more complicated editing where with GIMP you have to watch out becomes an issue where your edit is e.g. eight operations and you may want to create different versions. If you decided to modify something you did three steps ago, in most cases your only option is to perform multiple undos, redo the step as modified, then redo the subsequent operations. There are limited undo levels / memory for them, and sometimes redoing the subsequent steps is laborious and/or difficult. The great thing about a largely non-destructive editor like Affinity Photo is that it's quick and easy to go back to something you did ten steps ago and modify it, remove it, or temporarily disable it. With GIMP that works fine for text layers, otherwise not so much.

This is a major concern for me and ranks very high on my priority list. If possible I want my raw workflow to be 100% non-destructive. For that reason I would not go anywhere near GIMP as it is the champ among raster editors for destructive editing.

Affinity Photo is better in that regard but is still a destructive raster editor and can not provided a 100% non-destructive raw workflow.

Of the workflows and tools I have used with Affinity Photo, the only thing I found to be other than totally parametric and non-destructive was cloning in Affinity Photo 1 (I have not tried cloning in Affinity Photo 2). Otherwise, everything I've done used tools like adjustment layers and live filter layers. At least in many cases it may simply be a matter of using the non-destructive version of the tool, e.g. instead of Filter -> Blur -> Diffuse Glow..., use Layer -> New Live Filter Layer -> Blur -> Diffuse Glow....

Healing, cloning, spotting -- retouch tools in Affinity are destructive including in the most recent version. There's no alternative way around it.

That is not really true, and was not really true in version 1 (at least by version 1.7 or so). You can clone non-destructively in Affinity Photo--it simply isn't totally parametric. Basically, you create a layer above the one whose image data you want to clone or whatever, start that layer blank, and put the cloned pixels onto the new layer. At that point you can go back and hide that layer, or erase part of it, and either modify or redo your cloning etc. None of this modifies the underlying pixel data on the layer from which you're cloning.

However, this cloning is not truly parametric or whatever you want to call it. Affinity Photo is not recording the cloned pixels as 'clone from this area and put the cloned pixels over here'. So e.g. if you tweak the color of the underlying layer, then the cloned pixels will no longer match color with the now-modified source pixels.

A long time ago I started a thread about this and posted some examples about an extensive retouch job I did (face with pimples, stray whiskers, etc.), where after lots of retouching work, I decided I wanted to tweak the skintone somewhat. I'd done the cloning etc. as described above. Thinking, 'I'll tweak the global color as part of the raw conversion in DxO, export a new TIFF, copy those pixels, post them over the base layer in Affinity, and then all my parametric edits will adjust properly from there.' Alas, they did not. Now all the cloned etc. areas were discolored relative to the underlying / remaining areas. I was not happy. There are techniques to mitigate this problem, but it exists.

So I rate Affinity Photo capable of non-destructive cloning etc., but--as with using a filter layer versus simply applying a filter--you have to do it the 'right way' to avoid destructive effects.

Photoshop is no better.

That I can't comment on.

 

[Mark_A]

Hi Mark, good point. For the time being, NX Studio would likely be better than Faststone for creating your jpegs to edit in GIMP. If you have Faststone setup to create jpegs from the raw data you won't be getting noise reduction or lens corrections applied. If Faststone is exporting the jpegs from the jpegs embedded in your raw files it's likely they are not full size.

Hi arrow501, FastStone offers a "save as jpg" button when looking at raws which is what I have been using but it probably is a medium res jpg because it compresses a 30mb raw into a 4mb jpg.

Anyhow no matter because I am going to go to raw editing as soon as I can decide which open source package to use - and then that particular problem will just go away

At the moment I am quite interested in Darktable.

Mark_A

 

[Digital Nigel]

Hi Mark, good point. For the time being, NX Studio would likely be better than Faststone for creating your jpegs to edit in GIMP. If you have Faststone setup to create jpegs from the raw data you won't be getting noise reduction or lens corrections applied. If Faststone is exporting the jpegs from the jpegs embedded in your raw files it's likely they are not full size.

Hi arrow501, FastStone offers a "save as jpg" button when looking at raws which is what I have been using but it probably is a medium res jpg because it compresses a 30mb raw into a 4mb jpg.

It’s a full res file, compressed to whatever extent you specify.

 

[Mark_A]

According to those who have been kind enough to share there are the following options: Darktable

I have watched some video tutorials on Darktable, it seems quite capable. I might download it and have a play.

Mark_A

 

[Ysarex]

The more complicated editing where with GIMP you have to watch out becomes an issue where your edit is e.g. eight operations and you may want to create different versions. If you decided to modify something you did three steps ago, in most cases your only option is to perform multiple undos, redo the step as modified, then redo the subsequent operations. There are limited undo levels / memory for them, and sometimes redoing the subsequent steps is laborious and/or difficult. The great thing about a largely non-destructive editor like Affinity Photo is that it's quick and easy to go back to something you did ten steps ago and modify it, remove it, or temporarily disable it. With GIMP that works fine for text layers, otherwise not so much.

This is a major concern for me and ranks very high on my priority list. If possible I want my raw workflow to be 100% non-destructive. For that reason I would not go anywhere near GIMP as it is the champ among raster editors for destructive editing.

Affinity Photo is better in that regard but is still a destructive raster editor and can not provided a 100% non-destructive raw workflow.

Of the workflows and tools I have used with Affinity Photo, the only thing I found to be other than totally parametric and non-destructive was cloning in Affinity Photo 1 (I have not tried cloning in Affinity Photo 2). Otherwise, everything I've done used tools like adjustment layers and live filter layers. At least in many cases it may simply be a matter of using the non-destructive version of the tool, e.g. instead of Filter -> Blur -> Diffuse Glow..., use Layer -> New Live Filter Layer -> Blur -> Diffuse Glow....

Healing, cloning, spotting -- retouch tools in Affinity are destructive including in the most recent version. There's no alternative way around it.

That is not really true, and was not really true in version 1 (at least by version 1.7 or so). You can clone non-destructively in Affinity Photo--it simply isn't totally parametric. Basically, you create a layer above the one whose image data you want to clone or whatever, start that layer blank, and put the cloned pixels onto the new layer. At that point you can go back and hide that layer, or erase part of it, and either modify or redo your cloning etc. None of this modifies the underlying pixel data on the layer from which you're cloning.

Photoshop works the same way and that still meets my definition of destructive editing. The editing is destructive if you are forced to redo work unnecessarily in order to implement a change. The editing is non-destructive if all edits update a change. AP's raster cloning layer will not update changes made to prior adjustments and you end up forced to redo all the cloning/healing work -- in other words your original work is destroyed by the failure of the raster cloning layer to update.

AP and PS remain destructive editors in a raw workflow.

However, this cloning is not truly parametric or whatever you want to call it. Affinity Photo is not recording the cloned pixels as 'clone from this area and put the cloned pixels over here'. So e.g. if you tweak the color of the underlying layer, then the cloned pixels will no longer match color with the now-modified source pixels.

A long time ago I started a thread about this and posted some examples about an extensive retouch job I did (face with pimples, stray whiskers, etc.), where after lots of retouching work, I decided I wanted to tweak the skintone somewhat. I'd done the cloning etc. as described above. Thinking, 'I'll tweak the global color as part of the raw conversion in DxO, export a new TIFF, copy those pixels, post them over the base layer in Affinity, and then all my parametric edits will adjust properly from there.' Alas, they did not. Now all the cloned etc. areas were discolored relative to the underlying / remaining areas. I was not happy. There are techniques to mitigate this problem, but it exists.

So I rate Affinity Photo capable of non-destructive cloning etc., but--as with using a filter layer versus simply applying a filter--you have to do it the 'right way' to avoid destructive effects.

Photoshop is no better.

That I can't comment on.

 

[Mark_A]

According to those who have been kind enough to share there are the following options: Darktable

I have watched some video tutorials on Darktable, it seems quite capable. I might download it and have a play.

I am playing with Darktable now

First impression: wow so many ways to mess up a perfectly good photo

Mark_A

 

[Ysarex]

According to those who have been kind enough to share there are the following options: Darktable

I have watched some video tutorials on Darktable, it seems quite capable. I might download it and have a play.

I am playing with Darktable now

First impression: wow so many ways to mess up a perfectly good photo

Mark_A

Yep, that's one of DarkTable's problems. It is in that regard very expensive software. For example you have a raw file that would benefit from highlight reconstruction. Let's compare DarkTable and Capture One -- both do highlight reconstruction.

Let's start with C1, what do we need to do? Open the raw file, and you're done. C1 will recognize the need for highlight reconstruction and will do the industry's best job of it without you lifting a finger. Your cost in time and effort = 0.

On to DarkTable then. DarkTable will not recognize the need so you have to do that. You're maybe using the filmic rgb module at the time and you notice there's an option there for reconstruct, well let's try that. 15 minutes later you may start concluding that the reconstruct option in filmic rgb sucks really bad as you're not having much success. Well maybe it's you and you're missing something. You're frustrated and you don't know. Go ask Google; Is there some other option? Yes! There's a separate highlight reconstruction module! Let's try that!

Oh bleep! There's a drop menu and four different highlight reconstruction methods, which one is best for your photo? Oh bleep bleep bleep! One of those options has another drop menu with 6 choices!

Does DarkTable do a good job with highlight reconstruction? It's fair to better than fair, but LR and C1 do better still with zero cost in time and effort. DarkTable's cost in time and effort is huge by comparison. Welcome to the world of FOSS.

 

[maltmoose]

According to those who have been kind enough to share there are the following options: Darktable

I have watched some video tutorials on Darktable, it seems quite capable. I might download it and have a play.

I am playing with Darktable now

First impression: wow so many ways to mess up a perfectly good photo

Mark_A

Yep, that's one of DarkTable's problems. It is in that regard very expensive software. For example you have a raw file that would benefit from highlight reconstruction. Let's compare DarkTable and Capture One -- both do highlight reconstruction.

Let's start with C1, what do we need to do? Open the raw file, and you're done. C1 will recognize the need for highlight reconstruction and will do the industry's best job of it without you lifting a finger. Your cost in time and effort = 0.

On to DarkTable then. DarkTable will not recognize the need so you have to do that. You're maybe using the filmic rgb module at the time and you notice there's an option there for reconstruct, well let's try that. 15 minutes later you may start concluding that the reconstruct option in filmic rgb sucks really bad as you're not having much success. Well maybe it's you and you're missing something. You're frustrated and you don't know. Go ask Google; Is there some other option? Yes! There's a separate highlight reconstruction module! Let's try that!

Oh bleep! There's a drop menu and four different highlight reconstruction methods, which one is best for your photo? Oh bleep bleep bleep! One of those options has another drop menu with 6 choices!

Does DarkTable do a good job with highlight reconstruction? It's fair to better than fair, but LR and C1 do better still with zero cost in time and effort. DarkTable's cost in time and effort is huge by comparison. Welcome to the world of FOSS.

darktable sure can be a drain on time to learn and filmic really is evil in that regard.

So ill save the op some time and use sigmoid and highlight reconstruction inpaint opposed which will work great for 99% photos. These can be set by default to autoload along with any other setting.

 

[Mark_A]

darktable sure can be a drain on time to learn and filmic really is evil in that regard.

So ill save the op some time and use sigmoid and highlight reconstruction inpaint opposed which will work great for 99% photos. These can be set by default to autoload along with any other setting.

Hi maltmoose,

I have a lot of learning to do with darktable but I will persevere a while I think.

At the moment settings seem to be to do some changes automatically so when I take a raw from lightable into darkroom it does 11 steps on automatic. Like an "auto" button, and I can scan though and decide which I want to keep.

More basic things though I still haven't mastered, I now know how to import a folder's worth of images to work on, but I don't know how yet to get rid of that lot to start working on another lot.

Mark_A

 

[bakubo]

darktable sure can be a drain on time to learn and filmic really is evil in that regard.

So ill save the op some time and use sigmoid and highlight reconstruction inpaint opposed which will work great for 99% photos. These can be set by default to autoload along with any other setting.

Hi maltmoose,

I have a lot of learning to do with darktable but I will persevere a while I think.

At the moment settings seem to be to do some changes automatically so when I take a raw from lightable into darkroom it does 11 steps on automatic. Like an "auto" button, and I can scan though and decide which I want to keep.

More basic things though I still haven't mastered, I now know how to import a folder's worth of images to work on, but I don't know how yet to get rid of that lot to start working on another lot.

Mark_A

I recommend also that you scan through the darktable manual:

resources

darktable is an open source photography workflow application and raw developer

www.darktable.org

 

[tbcass]

I started using GIMP a few months ago after I lost an Adobe Elements installation in a hard drive failure.

I decided that once I could work our how to do image rotation, image cropping, levels, scaling, sharpening, making borders and exporting to jpg, I would keep using it.

The menus took a little getting used to but it wasn't long before I could do all that and so I decided GIMP is now my editor of choice.

It won't load my Nikon RAW files directly so I am using Faststone Image viewer to convert my RAWs into fine jpg before dragging them into GIMP.

I don't know how many other GIMP users there are on dpreview, but if there are some lets share experiences, tips and tricks.

GIMP, a great value image ediitor!

Mark_A

Wouldn't you be better off saving in DNG, PDF or TIFF format before editing? FastStone gives you that option.

--
Tom

 

[Mark_A]

I recommend also that you scan through the darktable manual:

https://www.darktable.org/resources/

Hi bakubo,

Thank you for the link.

I am reading it.

It doesn't solve my file management questions though, I might try some searches.

Mark_A

 

[maltmoose]

I recommend also that you scan through the darktable manual:

https://www.darktable.org/resources/

Hi bakubo,

Thank you for the link.

I am reading it.

It doesn't solve my file management questions though, I might try some searches.

Mark_A

Not sure i understand the question about file management but you should see the imported files under your collections. Can view it by folder. Then just import some more.

 

[Carol T]

To each their own, and I know some people are hardcore about the FOSS principles, but I would rather pay for polished commercial software than spend a huge amount of time trying to figure out something like Darktable or RawTherapee.

To me GIMP is *really* a no-brainer as you can get Affinity photo for $75 full price or less on sale, and you get updates for years. It isn't like the old days of Photoshop costing $600 for a new license and then hundreds a year for updates.

The thing that makes the choice clear for the FOSS programs is if you are using Linux. Which I have done off and on for for years, and the thing that always drags me back to Windows is the unavailability of the software I use on a daily or at least regular basis, including my photo-processing software.

Also, perhaps some people are extremely limited in funds, or truly into Stallmanism, or just like to tinker and figure out how to do stuff. Or some combination of the three. To each their own. Personally, I made the decision long ago that if I had to use GIMP I just would not do image editing. Pretty much the same with using Darktable or RawTherapee. Fortunately I can afford the commercial packages though.

 

[lacogada]

FOSS principles

FOSS ?

 

[SecondTimeAround]

FOSS principles

FOSS ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

 

[lacogada]

FOSS principles

FOSS ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software

Thanks !