10 Alternatives to Photoshop


snappychappy

Link Posted 28/08/2013 - 20:54

johnriley

Link Posted 28/08/2013 - 21:11
Probably the only one that really comes close is GIMP. And even that not really.

It depends how much of Photoshop we use I guess.
Best regards, John
Last Edited by johnriley on 28/08/2013 - 21:11

steven9761

Link Posted 28/08/2013 - 23:50
Not so sure that any photo editing suite is "worthwhile" (I'm going to get "controversial" here...) - surely the whole ethos of photography is to get the "best" image "in-camera", and only use these prog's to "tweak" the image. The downside to digital photography is that we can fire off 1,000,000 shots just to get that one image that makes the statement we were aiming for, whilst disposing of the other 999.999 "wasted" shots. Don't get me wrong - in photographic terms, I'm doing the "doggy-paddle" at the shallow end of the pool, whilst a lot of the members here are at the other end of the pool - some training for the Olympics, so to speak. In a perverse way, I like to make mistakes with my photography, study the images, then think about how/what I have to do to improve them. Software permits us to adjust colour, light, shadows, highlights, focus, chromatic abberation, etc - but are we (newbies/post-film photographers) truly learning anything?

johnriley

Link Posted 28/08/2013 - 23:54
Yes, we're learning more than we ever did, and more quickly as well.

I need Photoshop to set the contrast and brightness levels, to crop, to resize for the required end use, and indeed to add effects when I want to. All these are legitimate things to do and made rather more comfortable to do that when I had the darkroom. I now sit in a Comfy Chair with coffee on tap rather than standing up all day surrounded by chemical fumes.

The ethos of photography is to produce great images, how we get there is immaterial.
Best regards, John

steven9761

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 00:05
johnriley wrote:
Yes, we're learning more than we ever did, and more quickly as well.

I need Photoshop to set the contrast and brightness levels, to crop, to resize for the required end use, and indeed to add effects when I want to. All these are legitimate things to do and made rather more comfortable to do that when I had the darkroom. I now sit in a Comfy Chair with coffee on tap rather than standing up all day surrounded by chemical fumes.

The ethos of photography is to produce great images, how we get there is immaterial.

Doesn't the smell of hot coffee drive you crazy though, John??

I take your point - There's a good and bad side to everything. I just feel that (from a purely personal perspective) I'm not really learning anything about myself in a photographic sense if I choose to adopt the "shoot first - ask questions later" approach.
Last Edited by steven9761 on 29/08/2013 - 00:06

johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 00:25
Maybe it's just the way you're thinking about Photoshop? If you think first and use PS to polish and prpare the image would that fit your approach better?
Best regards, John

MrB

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 00:38
johnriley wrote:

The ethos of photography is to produce great images, how we get there is immaterial...

...as long as the journey involves Pentax gear.

Philip

johnriley

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 06:55
I know that was tongue-in-cheek Philip, but what equipment you use is really not material either, as long as you lke it.

However, as we know we are actually on Pentax User, so it's odds-on we'll be using Pentax gear!
Best regards, John

steven9761

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 07:55
johnriley wrote:
Maybe it's just the way you're thinking about Photoshop? If you think first and use PS to polish and prpare the image would that fit your approach better?

You have hit the nail on the head, John. The expression "if you wrap a pig in a pink ribbon, it's still a pig" springs to mind. I'm trying to move my approach away from firing off hundreds of the same images in the hope of getting one good shot, to something more akin to the good old days of film photography where you thought a bit more about what you were trying to achieve due to the cost of film, processing, etc. I used to be "serious" about my photography many years ago, but thanks to the weird hours I work, I don't get as much time to get back into the swing of things. Maybe if digital photography was around when I done most of my travelling I'd have a better knowledge of how to use a DSLR, as I never travelled overseas without a camera, be it the little Vivitar compact, or the Pentax SFX, or even buying a Kodak disposable from the airside shops at Heathrow!!

gwing

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 09:08
steven9761 wrote:


I take your point - There's a good and bad side to everything. I just feel that (from a purely personal perspective) I'm not really learning anything about myself in a photographic sense if I choose to adopt the "shoot first - ask questions later" approach.

That's true - if you never engage your brain you aren't ever going to learn anything.

But I think the more you take a photo study it and work on it the more you understand the gap between how you perceived/imagined/wanted the image to come out and the reality from the camera - and that's the first step to working out how to achieve more without needing (as much) post processing.

Mongoose

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 09:44
for me the only one on that list which even comes close as a Photoshop replacement is GIMP. There are one or two which I haven't used though.

Paint.NET for example is Paint with knobs on, it's excellent as a replacement for the standard windows app which gives a little bit more power for editing screenshots and the like, but if it replaces Photoshop for you then you never actually USED photoshop and should have saved your money!

Inkscape is an interesting inclusion. I love that piece of software. I don't know of anything else which can do what it does, free or not. However, it's a totally different type of software from Photoshop, I wouldn't even think about loading a photograph in Inkscape.
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

snappychappy

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 14:37
Digital vs Film, IMHO digital has vastly increased the number of people taking up photography and the manipulation of shots I welcome to an extent so long as not to many of the shots original elements have not been added to or removed. The shot below would have been very difficult to get with film.



Hands by SFB579 , on Flickr
My piccies.

JAK

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 14:50
snappychappy wrote:
Digital vs Film, IMHO digital has vastly increased the number of people taking up photography

I doubt the overall number has changed. Most families had a camera of some sort but I guess it depends on what you mean by taking up photography.

snappychappy wrote:
and the manipulation of shots I welcome to an extent so long as not to many of the shots original elements have not been added to or removed.

That can be done with film too.

snappychappy wrote:
The shot below would have been very difficult to get with film.

I can't think why film couldn't do that quite easily! Why would it have been difficult with film (and do you mean with a negative or a slide?)

John K
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 29/08/2013 - 14:53

Mongoose

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 15:48
There's a big difference between owning a camera and even using a camera and being into photography.

My wife owns a camera, uses it often and quite frankly has more natural talent with it than I do, but she's not really interested in photography as a hobby or an artform, she just likes to have pictures of places and events along lifes road.

One thing Digital has deffinitly done is to increase the number of people doing their own development. The barrier of having the space and time to set up a dark room has been removed, since the tools of this trade are now a computer and some editing software. This side of the hobby has increased to such an extent that many people seem to believe it didn't happen before
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

AxelLuther

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 16:05
I think for bread and butter features like contrast, color corrections, vibrance etc. you can use many tools which are available in the market. When it comes to more complex workfllows, you more and more end-up in a situation where it is hard to think of an alternative. Simple example is the content-aware deletion in Photoshop - you can reach similar results with basic features of other tools but it is so much faster in Photoshop.

I also agree with John - there are actually two major steps you do as a photographer - the things you do with the camera and the things you do with the software (comparable to dark rooms in the old days).
It is never just the camera, doesn't mater how well it is handled. When you work with RAW (to not let the camera do all the processing) you anyway have to process. There are things you simply can't do with just using the camera - like in this picture of a duck - I was shooting it through a glass - with all the negative side-effects - you could see the dirt and scratches on the glass, tons of reflections (although I used a pol filter but some reflection swhere still there) and lots of water drops produced by the duck - as it came out of the camera, it was looking like a picture of a duck swimming behind an ugly glass. After 10 min with Photoshop, it looked like a picture how I wanted it.....

_____________________________________________

Colors are the lack of darkness

You find more of my pictures here: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/axelluther or on my web page: www.axel-luther.com
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.