Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: What options exist currently to Photoshop?  (Read 4990 times)
Joe S
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


« on: May 06, 2013, 08:59:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Can anyone give a summary of what, if anything, exists as a replacement for photoshop?    I won't do the cloud thing so I guess I will be OK with PS6 until I buy a new camera that is not supported.    Then I need a replacement.   Capture one is available for a raw conversion so I guess that is one direction.    This sure would be a great time for a competitor to rise up!
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2013, 09:58:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Right now the shining option is Adobe's own Lightroom and Elements 11, both still available as outright buys at bargain prices.  And the still buggy Corel PaintShop.  And then there's, um, Gimp, which can not hold up a pale candle to Photoshop or LR.  If you search "Photoshop Substitute" you will uncover dozens of mostly toy programs.  Picassa is a possibility, a lot of web designers like it and it lets you bulldoze through a lot of uncritical images very fast.  But we just witnessed a major paradigm shift here, and who knows what may come down the path over the next few years.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7665


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2013, 10:15:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There is no replacement for Photoshop. There are some serious image processing programs, one Photoline 32, it is pretty competent and both PC & Mac. On Windows there is Picture Window Pro.

Best regards
Erik
Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5791



WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 07, 2013, 01:39:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Read through Adobe's various sites today and the comments that were left by users.  Looks like they've outraged about 90% of PS users, or maybe those in favour don't comment.  It reminded me of a parallel a number of years back, when Hasselblad decided to close their camera systems to backs made only by Hasselblad.  Yes, they're still in the game but they dynamic of medium format photography changed a lot in the following years and Phase One is no longer the small company it was back then.  Will history repeat itself?  Time will tell.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2013, 01:55:03 AM »
ReplyReply

And then there's, um, Gimp, which can not hold up a pale candle to Photoshop or LR.
Maybe time to re-assess that. Much will depend on what you actually need to do with an image editing program.
There's a HUGE amount of bloat in PS that a lot (most?) photographers don't need. Most of the core functionality for photographers is in The Gimp now.

Suggesting that Picassa might be better is truly bizarre. It hasn't even got a layers option.

Paying £120/yr for ever or downloading The Gimp for free ? It really is a no brainer for anyone with budgetary constraints.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:28:56 AM by Rhossydd » Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2013, 03:10:05 AM »
ReplyReply

^ Well possibly it is time to look at Gimp again.  As of two years ago it was pretty wanting compared to PS, and showed a lot of the ragged edges that plague open source programming.  I mentioned Picassa among the "toy programs" simply because it has utility to photographers who need to plow through 100's of differing shots in a hurry, something that PS and LR don't do very well.

I don't really see PS as "bloated."  I like having lots of stuff available as long as it doesn't impose itself needlessly.  But the legacy user interface now seems increasingly awkward when compared to more recent UI paradigms like we see in LR.   For instance, who has not been annoyed that he can't immediately rezero a PS slider by double clicking?  No big thing by itself, but little things like that add up.  And the disparity between the noise reduction in LR and PS is truly puzzling.  There are other things too.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2013, 03:19:13 AM »
ReplyReply

the legacy user interface now seems increasingly awkward when compared to more recent UI paradigms like we see in LR.
Photoshop is it's own worst enemy. It's commercial and long term users know it so well they don't want any change that would disrupt their work, so Adobe are stuck trying to add "compelling features" without changing anything drastically. The final problem they have is that PS is a mature and feature rich program, what more does it need ?

Go and look again at The Gimp, 2.8 really has matured a lot. Yes, it's open source roots and sporadic development give it a rough edge. However anyone used to PS ought to cope with the UI pretty easily and most of the core functionality photographers need from an image editing program is there for free.
When PS CS4 stops working, that's where I'll go unless something even better turns up.
Logged
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 265


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2013, 05:20:40 AM »
ReplyReply

For instance, who has not been annoyed that he can't immediately rezero a PS slider by double clicking? 

Double-clicking sliders in my copy of PS zeroes them.
Logged

BernieKohl
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2013, 05:33:43 AM »
ReplyReply

CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come. GIMP 2.10 will finally feature support for 16 and 32 bits per channel. It is more and more becoming a considerable alternative to Photoshop. Personally I will keep using CS6 for a few more years and then transition to GIMP. What worries me a bit more is Lightroom CC. Migrating my entire image library over to CaptureOne won't be so simple.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8208



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2013, 07:32:25 AM »
ReplyReply

CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come. GIMP 2.10 will finally feature support for 16 and 32 bits per channel. It is more and more becoming a considerable alternative to Photoshop. Personally I will keep using CS6 for a few more years and then transition to GIMP. What worries me a bit more is Lightroom CC. Migrating my entire image library over to CaptureOne won't be so simple.

Sounds like a reasonable plan. But the issue gets more complicated on OSX side if you are on a Mac pro.

If Apple decides to release the new Mac Pro with 10.9 and to make it non compatible with 10.8... and if CS6 is not compatible with 10.9... then bye bye Adobe and Apple at the same time...

Otherwise, I will follow your recommendation and stay on 10.6 as long as I can, and then migrate to The Gimp. I have used it a bit and it is in fact pretty good, just needs a bit of time to adjust.

If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...

Staying on Lightroom knowing what is ahead sounds silly, but I am personally using C1 Pro more anyway, so no problem here.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3767


« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2013, 10:31:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Staying on Lightroom knowing what is ahead sounds silly, but I am personally using C1 Pro more anyway, so no problem here.

Hi Bernard,

I also use Capture One most of the time, for the Raw conversion quality (RawTherapee is also quite good). I'm also glad that I chose to go with the Topaz Labs plugins. Not only do they give relatively good quality with little effort, but also because they can be used together in a blending layer and masking mode with their photoFXlab application. No Photoshop required for that functionality, and there is usually very little editing work left that would require a photoeditor.

More specific compositing work and retouching can be done with the GIMP once it goes 16-b/ch and 32-bit, later this year or the next, and for document/form creation there is the free Scribus. Sure, these are not as slick as their CC alternatives, but it's hard to beat the price.

It will be interesting to see how Google is going to protect it's investment in the Nik plugins.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2013, 01:02:52 PM »
ReplyReply

If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...

NOT!  Smiley  Newly funded open software projects usually just find whole new ways to fritter around in unproductive but interesting trivia.  Software projects rarely ever focus themselves in the absence of a single charismatic but tyrannical leader and a very strong profit motive.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 07, 2013, 01:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply

CS6 will be a viable product for a long time to come.

Exactly! If you own it but don't want to go to CC, stick with it as long as you can. Why spend money for Elements? That's a step down. IF 2+ years down the line you see some totally must have new feature in Photoshop CC2, or if CS6 will no longer run on your hardware or OS, maybe subscribing will make sense. I'm keeping my old G5 around just to run a plug-in in CS3 that can't run in newer versions or newer OS.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
johnvr
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #13 on: May 07, 2013, 02:17:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I actually hardly ever PS other than to clean skin in my model photography. If I could do that well with a LR plugin, I don't need PS (even though it would be nice to have it for other purposes).

Maybe we won't see a full PS-like package, but a collection of smaller ones that cater to specific needs.

In my case, I'd rather spend money on something I then own than pay the same amount to Adobe to 'rent.'
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 07, 2013, 02:36:01 PM »
ReplyReply

quote from bill t., reply #11
>>Quote from: BernardLanguillier on Today at 07:32:25 AM
If all of us decide to fund The Gimp with 1/3 of the cost of PS CC... they will converge very quickly to something great. This looks like a perfect candidate for a great multi-M$ Kickstarter project...

>NOT!    Newly funded open software projects usually just find whole new ways to fritter around in unproductive but interesting trivia.  Software projects rarely ever focus themselves in the absence of a single charismatic but tyrannical leader and a very strong profit motive.

In this case, +1 for PhotoLine, pl32.com
Logged

buggz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 37


« Reply #15 on: May 07, 2013, 02:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Sadly, I come to rely on far too many plugins for CS6, otherwise, I would totally be in w/ GIMP.
And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.
I feel back stabbed.
Logged
Hening Bettermann
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 570


WWW
« Reply #16 on: May 07, 2013, 04:41:26 PM »
ReplyReply

> Sadly, I come to rely on far too many plugins for CS6, otherwise, I would totally be in w/ GIMP.
And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.

PhotoLine supports the Common Plug-In Architecture! And you will recognize much of what you learned in PS.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 07, 2013, 04:50:14 PM »
ReplyReply

And then there is the time I put in to learn PS.
To be fair, a lot of the time spent "learning Photoshop" is often more about learning digital imaging as a whole, not the individual application.
Much of what you've learnt will be transferable to another application.

Just like learning to drive a car in a Honda, then buying a Ford. The controls may be in different places, but they do the same thing.
Logged
yaredna
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 51


« Reply #18 on: May 07, 2013, 05:18:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Can anyone give a summary of what, if anything, exists as a replacement for photoshop?    I won't do the cloud thing so I guess I will be OK with PS6 until I buy a new camera that is not supported.    Then I need a replacement.   Capture one is available for a raw conversion so I guess that is one direction.    This sure would be a great time for a competitor to rise up!

I just purchased Pixelmator on OSX. $29 . The icons are different. The layout almost similar to PS. Have not tried plug-ins yet. Need to figure out if I can do skin smoothing and healing as well as Photoshop. If it works, I am done. Aperture ($80) + Pixelmator ($29), and I think the license allow the usage on more than one machine.
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2693


WWW
« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2013, 05:38:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Just spent a few hours with PhotoLine.  It appears to be a comprehensive program that uses a very PS-like paradigm.  It is not an exact PS clone, but will not take much learning for an experienced PS user.  There are a few issues, however.  It does not interpret Curves and complex layered images in quite the same way as PS, so a newly loaded, PS-generated file needs some intermediate work on the layer controls to get a similar result.  The biggest problem I see is that it crashes with relatively simple and even flat PS files larger than about 1/2GB, at least on my 24GB system.  But other than that, I did not seem to run into any software bugs.

I suspect that if you build images starting with PhotoLine, rather than importing existing PS files, it may work quite well.  It certainly has a lot of features and feels very responsive.  Color management is right on.  And the price is very low.  At the very least, this would be a satisfactory program for casual users and amateurs, and even pros who don't need a lot of fancy post.  And it definitely feels upscale from Elements.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad