The difference a nice photo editing program can do... wow!!!

So I have been wanting Photoshop for years and finally got it this Christmas! I can NOT believe the difference it makes! For giggles I edited some pictures that were done with GIMP before. It has been probably close to a decade since I have used Photoshop, but it's so easy and does an amazing job! Definitely worth the money if you have been thinking about it. I got the combo premiere and photoshop elements 12, now I can edit videos too! :)

GIMP 2
http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps7297653f.jpg

Photoshop
http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/a...psdc58877a.jpg


GIMP 2
http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/a...ps26390a42.jpg

Photoshop
http://i847.photobucket.com/albums/a...psa6e77ea4.jpg

What were you able to do in photoshop than you could not in gimp? Being the nerd I am, I see gimp vs photoshop wars every so often, was curious what your take on it was? I have been forcing myself to learn gimp since it's a inconvenience to have to switch to windows all the time to do photo editing. Photoshop no doubt had way less of a learning curve and content aware fill is awesome. I guess thats the difference between a multi million dollar company and free software lol.

Picture do look great.

The pictures all look great, but the photoshop pics look brighter, cleaner and more defined.

Nice. Looks good.

I love Photoshop. Its more user friendly overall in my opinion with more features. However, I do use Gimp for quick photo editing because some features are faster to utilize than PS. I mainly use PS for digital art and the like.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OhhWatALoser

What were you able to do in photoshop than you could not in gimp? Being the nerd I am, I see gimp vs photoshop wars every so often, was curious what your take on it was? I have been forcing myself to learn gimp since it's a inconvenience to have to switch to windows all the time to do photo editing. Photoshop no doubt had way less of a learning curve and content aware fill is awesome. I guess thats the difference between a multi million dollar company and free software lol.

Picture do look great.

---

I like GIMP bc it's free, and fairly easy to use with a ton of options. Honestly I wasn't sure if PS would be worth the money bc it has the same features, but the features work so much better on PS with a lot less effort. I couldn't tell you why they look clearer/sharper, idk if PS does better with saving, but I did the exact same thing in PS as I do in GIMP. Brightness/contrast, a tick of saturation, paint background white, add logo, and crop.

Time wise, I would say PS cut the time at least in half, maybe more, and like I said, that's the first time I've touched PS in a decade!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artist&writer

The pictures all look great, but the photoshop pics look brighter, cleaner and more defined.

---

The cleanness of the PS pictures boggle my mind. That alone makes PS worth the money!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by satomi325

Nice. Looks good.

I love Photoshop. Its more user friendly overall in my opinion with more features. However, I do use Gimp for quick photo editing because some features are faster to utilize than PS. I mainly use PS for digital art and the like.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

---

I was worried PS would be more difficult, but it's certainly easier/quicker than GIMP at least for what I do.


Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

the difference is minimal in these pics but that is because you bought photoshop elements which I believe is a 50 dollar program?
there are free programs out there that will do as good if not better of a job than elements.

I use Photoshop cs5 on a daily basis ( I know its an edition or 2 old)
HOWEVER real Photoshop is a 700 dollar program and gimp is free.
If you are using Photoshop you probably have a photo studio and need the big difference because you are making money on the photos you take and sell.

for my money and non professionalism I would much rather use gimp because its free and does a great job for a free program.

my mom is a photographer of 25 years and I purchased and learned Photoshop cs5 with her, there is a huge difference when you get in to a program like that.
not to mention macros and everything else you do within it, really is a phenomenal program.

Gimp is great as a free tool.
Not a big fan of Adobe's new licencing model, I'd rather pay for a copy and be allowed to use it as long as I find it useful.
Lightroom is still handy for things like HDR shots. But, for my money I'll stick with Corel's Paintshop Pro, an ill named photo editor that will run scripts, macros, batch process and, plug-ins quickly and intuitively, has tutorials out the wazoo and is substantially less expensive than Photoshop but, not as inexpensive as GIMP.

I'm still on CS5 as well. I'd rather use the older version since CS6 forces you to subscribe to cloud, and I don't want to have to pay for it every freaking month. I do love inDesign though. :D

Lol! I'm still on CS2/CS3.
Hecka old! When I first got it, I thought it was amazing in comparison to what I used before (PS elements).

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I like Lightroom (I am using Lightroom 5) for processing most photos. I find I can do most everything I need to in there and can export to PS if I need add elements or layers.

I consider PS to be more of a creative program, and something like Lightroom to be more of a photo workflow kind of deal.

I do agree though, that most any quality program can make a world of difference. With that said, learning more about actual photography (exposure, lighting, etc...) has made just as big of an impact on the quality of pics I am putting out.

I have CS6 and I have NO idea how to use it for editing photos. *sheepish* I've only ever used photoshop to draw. I think I'll have to read up on that this summer. I have used lightroom during a photo class and really liked it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Royal Hijinx

I like Lightroom (I am using Lightroom 5) for processing most photos. I find I can do most everything I need to in there and can export to PS if I need add elements or layers.

I consider PS to be more of a creative program, and something like Lightroom to be more of a photo workflow kind of deal.

I do agree though, that most any quality program can make a world of difference. With that said, learning more about actual photography (exposure, lighting, etc...) has made just as big of an impact on the quality of pics I am putting out.

---

It really can make a difference, I didn't think so until I compared it! I'm still learning my camera, so that definitely needs work too, lol. My cousin told me to get Lightroom, I've never seen or used it though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marrissa

I have CS6 and I have NO idea how to use it for editing photos. *sheepish* I've only ever used photoshop to draw. I think I'll have to read up on that this summer. I have used lightroom during a photo class and really liked it.

---

Lol trust me, I had to watch a LOT of youtube videos to figure out GIMP, luckily photoshop is pretty similar and easier so I was able to transfer my GIMP knowledge over! :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

It really can make a difference, I didn't think so until I compared it! I'm still learning my camera, so that definitely needs work too, lol. My cousin told me to get Lightroom, I've never seen or used it though.



Lol trust me, I had to watch a LOT of youtube videos to figure out GIMP, luckily photoshop is pretty similar and easier so I was able to transfer my GIMP knowledge over! :P

---

Once you dive into PS, it's fairly intuitive. I started playing with Photoshop back in 94 or 95, and stuck with it up to CS4. I'm by NO means a photographer, but I'm getting really interested in HDR again, so I'm looking at cameras...

If you want some really good tutorials for PS, check out "You Suck At Photoshop" on YouTube. If you can stop laughing you can learn quite a bit!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Wow! That's crazy how different programs handle color.

I've been on photoshop 7 since like 2004 :P

We recently got the whole Creative suite 6 master collection for my dad's job and its amazing the difference between a $700 program then and now even.


I've never bothered with free programs because we've always had my dad's old paid programs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

Once you dive into PS, it's fairly intuitive. I started playing with Photoshop back in 94 or 95, and stuck with it up to CS4. I'm by NO means a photographer, but I'm getting really interested in HDR again, so I'm looking at cameras...

If you want some really good tutorials for PS, check out "You Suck At Photoshop" on YouTube. If you can stop laughing you can learn quite a bit!

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

---

Rofl that sounds awesome! I'll have to check it out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kat_Dog

Wow! That's crazy how different programs handle color.

I've been on photoshop 7 since like 2004 :P

We recently got the whole Creative suite 6 master collection for my dad's job and its amazing the difference between a $700 program then and now even.


I've never bothered with free programs because we've always had my dad's old paid programs.

---

It is crazy, I litterally did the exact same thing and exported them as jpg files in each program. I can only imagine what a really nice program could do!



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

Rofl that sounds awesome! I'll have to check it out!



It is crazy, I litterally did the exact same thing and exported them as jpg files in each program. I can only imagine what a really nice program could do!



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

---

The you suck videos are absolutely hysterical. The first few that I watched, I only watched because they're so damn funny. I've gone back and watched them all multiple times. I even downloaded them.

As far as software, you can usually find older versions on ebay for a fraction of retail. I do a LOT of home recording, and I get a lot of my software that way. Just as an example, my primary sequencer/recording suite is Sonar 8. Retails for $500+, and I paid $50. Without including my guitars amps, or actual physical gear, I would guess I have between 6 and 8 grand in recording equipment, and I MIGHT have spent a third of that. Granted, most of my software is 2 or 3 versions old, but if you're not making a living with it, that's still VERY current.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

The you suck videos are absolutely hysterical. The first few that I watched, I only watched because they're so damn funny. I've gone back and watched them all multiple times. I even downloaded them.

As far as software, you can usually find older versions on ebay for a fraction of retail. I do a LOT of home recording, and I get a lot of my software that way. Just as an example, my primary sequencer/recording suite is Sonar 8. Retails for $500+, and I paid $50. Without including my guitars amps, or actual physical gear, I would guess I have between 6 and 8 grand in recording equipment, and I MIGHT have spent a third of that. Granted, most of my software is 2 or 3 versions old, but if you're not making a living with it, that's still VERY current.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

---

People always say that programs become obsolete in a year or something, but really, they don't.
My dad made a living on old technology for years.
He was using an old mac with a power pc processor and old programs from like 2002 up until this year.

I think that 10 years is the maximum lifespan for everything though :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

Rofl that sounds awesome! I'll have to check it out!



It is crazy, I litterally did the exact same thing and exported them as jpg files in each program. I can only imagine what a really nice program could do!



Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

---

1st things 1st. Work in RAW. And, no I do not mean strip down and get creative/bohemian with your photo editor.
Always try to get the best shot possible with the camera (this can take practice and, the pickier you are the more you'll be learning), then make minor corrections in RAW format for superior results. When I can't work in RAW I try to use lossless formats, they take more memory but, they leave you with fewer artifacts to try to clean up later.
I'm old and a bit of a nerd TIFF and bitmap are still 2 of my most commonly used although, .jpg, .png and, .gif are usually just fine for web based applications.

Very nice!! As a photographer and graphic designer I'm with you- the power of PS always beats GIMP. I also agree that it is much more user friendly.

There are really only 4-5 hard adjustments I do to any of my photos in Photoshop. As I said I am a designer, so I use PS for much, much more. But LightRoom is an excellent alternative to PS if it's only for photos, like Royal Hijinx said.

I like the pics a lot. I'm sure having a solid program must make a world of difference for breeders in online sales, as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven01

1st things 1st. Work in RAW. And, no I do not mean strip down and get creative/bohemian with your photo editor.
Always try to get the best shot possible with the camera (this can take practice and, the pickier you are the more you'll be learning), then make minor corrections in RAW format for superior results. When I can't work in RAW I try to use lossless formats, they take more memory but, they leave you with fewer artifacts to try to clean up later.
I'm old and a bit of a nerd TIFF and bitmap are still 2 of my most commonly used although, .jpg, .png and, .gif are usually just fine for web based applications.

---

This is a great tip. If your camera allows you to shoot in RAW format, then do it. It will take up more space on your memory card but your images won't be played with. JPEG sharpen the image, compress and add an artifact. Plus, you get more editing capabilities.

Also, not sure if this has been said but always make sure to use adjustment layers. Don't go Image->Adjustments... This will make your life easier down the road say you don't like how 2 adjustments clash, you can fine tune everything much easier. And keep a duplicate layer of the original image hidden under everything.

Just some stuff that's helped me along the way.. :)

I have no idea how to shoot in the raw :/

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

I have no idea how to shoot in the raw :/

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

---

Check your camera's manual. It should tell you how to set the format your pictures will be in. Usually they're .jpg or .jpeg by default. You want to change the file format to .raw.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SlitherinSisters

I have no idea how to shoot in the raw :/

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

---

What kind of camera are you shooting with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by patientz3ro

Check your camera's manual. It should tell you how to set the format your pictures will be in. Usually they're .jpg or .jpeg by default. You want to change the file format to .raw.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

---

Oh, ok, weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dev_DeCoste

What kind of camera are you shooting with?

---

A Canon PowerShot sx260hs


Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

My mistake then, RAW format is not available on that camera that I am aware of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raven01

My mistake then, RAW format is not available on that camera that I am aware of.

---

Most point and shoot cameras don't. The next best bet is to shoot in the largest format your camera will allow, and at a fast ISO.

Sent from my HTCEVOV4G using Tapatalk

They have a good point about the ISO.

Put your camera in the largest format it has (often labeled a "fine") and lock your ISO at no more than 400. Since you may not be able to control aperture or shutter speed, you can at least control this aspect, and reduce noise.

Now, lower ISO requires more light, so you will have to compensate with more ambient light or a flash. It is generally better to bounce the flash off something else or at least diffuse it, and you can find tutorials about that on YouTube.