Adobe Alternatives

Never used photoshop.
Manage nicely without it :)
 
ariel7515 said:
Linux + Gimp + UFRaw :)
Click to expand...

GIMP is pretty much there but it still needs some polishing. The next few releases should really bring it up to a point where it's really great (specifically I'm looking at 16 bit images and adjustment layers). Actions would be nice but I have a feeling that will never happen as too much is done via plugins.
 
Maybe it will take a while to get used to Gimp, if you coming from PS, but is the best aletrnative and is free. You can work with raw files using UFRaw or dcraw with Gimp, and there is another free software called RawTherapee.
 
Just trying to learn Paint.Net was attracted to the tutorials which I found easy to follow. Ive tried to use photoshop and failed dismally!
 
One of the problems with some of these free packages is that no matter how hard I try to stop them they download crap such as Mysearch... etc onto my PC.

It's worth buying a package just so you don't have to deal with the malwear :razz:

There seem to be a few free JPEG processors about but free RAW processors seem to be thinner on the ground.
 
Give Faststone a try. It will convert raw, it's very easy to use, plus it's free. I love it on my PC, but sadly they don't do a version for Mac, which I now have.
 
Ta. Will do.

I downloaded UFRaw and it works on my Panasonic files :D

Has anyone menmtioned Rawtherapee yet? Some people are getting very good results with it. I've had it for years.
 
crofter said:
I mostly use Canon's DPP that came with my camera, why spend more?
Click to expand...

Because it only does 1% of what photoshop and Lightroom can do!
 
odd jim said:
Really??
Click to expand...

In my LIMITED experience, it isn't bad. However - why would I use it when photoshop lightoom and photoshop have massive amounts of info on how to use it, and are free if you look hard enough.
 
supersammy said:
In my LIMITED experience, it isn't bad. However - why would I use it when photoshop lightoom and photoshop have massive amounts of info on how to use it, and are free if you look hard enough.
Click to expand...

umm - no they aren't - unless we are talking illegal torrent downloads or very old copies.

Personally I use GIMP on my Linux systems and photoshop elements and lightroom (neither of which are part of the subscription only suite) on the windows machines
 
crofter said:
I mostly use Canon's DPP that came with my camera, why spend more?
Click to expand...

Have you noticed the "transfer to Photoshop" selection? It's there for a reason!

crofter said:
That's just rubbish.
Click to expand...

Last time I looked DPP doesn't have "layers" or "Curves" to name just 2 very useful items. I'm sure that if all you do is some cropping and basic dust deletion then DPP is fine but Photoshop, Lightroom and Elements are all very successful editing programs that contain a plethora of options that DPP does not.

Andy
 
supersammy said:
In my LIMITED experience, it isn't bad. However - why would I use it when photoshop lightoom and photoshop have massive amounts of info on how to use it, and are free if you look hard enough.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't do much in the way of post processing do you?
 
Keebsuk said:
Have you noticed the "transfer to Photoshop" selection? It's there for a reason!Andy
Click to expand...
These days the name "Photoshop" has become synonymous with any image editing program.


Keebsuk said:
Last time I looked DPP doesn't have "layers" or "Curves" to name just 2 very useful items. I'm sure that if all you do is some cropping and basic dust deletion then DPP is fine but Photoshop, Lightroom and Elements are all very successful editing programs that contain a plethora of options that DPP does not.

Andy
Click to expand...

You are right.
DPP is fine as far as it goes, but it all depends what adjustments you want to make. I find Lightroom allows a lot more control than DPP, especially if you use some additional plug-ins.
The highlight recovery of Lightroom is also a lot better than what you can achieve in DPP.
 
Brian G said:
****These days the name "Photoshop" has become synonymous with any image editing program.****

You are right.
DPP is fine as far as it goes, but it all depends what adjustments you want to make. I find Lightroom allows a lot more control than DPP, especially if you use some additional plug-ins.
The highlight recovery of Lightroom is also a lot better than what you can achieve in DPP.
Click to expand...

But it actually means Photoshop.
 
odd jim said:
You clearly don't do much in the way of post processing do you?
Click to expand...

You say that like it's a bad thing, I have very limited skills with PP and always try and get the best from my camera as that's what photography means to ME, not being able to take an ok picture and making it better with a computer.
If that works for you then fantastic but if like me you prefer to get the best from the camera then sometimes PP isn't needed in terms of photoshop, especially if DPP does everything you need it to.
 
skullcandy said:
You say that like it's a bad thing, I have very limited skills with PP and always try and get the best from my camera as that's what photography means to ME, not being able to take an ok picture and making it better with a computer.
If that works for you then fantastic but if like me you prefer to get the best from the camera then sometimes PP isn't needed in terms of photoshop, especially if DPP does everything you need it to.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it was a bad thing?

I'm just putting your comments into perspective, particularly after you accused me of talking rubbish when you have no experience of the software in question.

And please don't make assumptions about people's abilities just because they shoot with PP in mind.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Where did I say it was a bad thing?

I'm just putting your comments into perspective, particularly after you accused me of talking rubbish when you have no experience of the software in question.

And please don't make assumptions about people's abilities just because they shoot with PP in mind.
Click to expand...

I in no way accused you of saying it was bad, I said you say that as if it's a bad thing, there's a difference.

I didn't accuse you of talking rubbish, I do use photoshop elements but it's very rare as half the time I find I like the original shot more than the pp'd version.

And I am in no way making assumptions of people's abilities, let me re-word it slightly, if you take a truly amazing picture straight from the camera and find that it only needs a slight crop or tweak then dpp will be absolutely fine for that situation, if however you take a shot and it needs some work, ie curves and levels then yes photoshop will always be better. I can see now how my previous post came across and I apologise for seeming like a jumped up moron, I'm honestly not. I suppose what I was trying to get across is everyone needs different software for different needs if that makes sense?
 
I think jim is getting confused - it was 'crofter' who accused him of talking rubbish - when he said that DPP can do only 1% or so of what photoshop can- which actually isn't rubbish at all, its a pretty accurate statement
 
big soft moose said:
I think jim is getting confused - it was 'crofter' who accused him of talking rubbish - when he said that DPP can do only 1% or so of what photoshop can- which actually isn't rubbish at all, its a pretty accurate statement
Click to expand...

Yes my apologies SK, I was referring to Crofter when I said that, I think in my tiredness I merged the two posts! :bonk:

I do think PP is an essential part of the whole process though, and I dont subscribe to the 'no PP' brigade (not that I'm accusing anyone here of that but I was getting whiffs of it!).

Lets not forget, PP'ing has been around since the first frame was exposed, otherwise all they'd have to look at would have been reels and reels of negatives! The darkroom has always been essential and we forget (or for some, never knew) how much control you had in the days of the wet darkroom, and dare I say, a lot of the new digital users (and even some film) would have never used a darkroom!
 
Last edited:
I am in no way part of the no pp brigade, in fact I'd love to enhance my pp skills to see what I could do with my images :thumbs:

I still have my canon T90 although it is somewhat gathering dust at the moment due to setting up my own darkroom as snappy snaps keep screwing my film up.

I've only had basics in using a wet darkroom but learned a lot from my dad and do agree that even then there was pp of some sort :)
 
Just use FastStone it has all any decent photographer needs (except Mac users). Who needs layers? I have taken thousands of photos this year some have been published on TV,many in magazines and in newspapers .I have sold many to the public and never needed layers!. Never mind worrying about layers and curves,get out and take some photos,be a photographer.:bat:
 
kestral said:
Just use FastStone it has all any decent photographer needs (except Mac users). Who needs layers? I have taken thousands of photos this year some have been published on TV,many in magazines and in newspapers .I have sold many to the public and never needed layers!. Never mind worrying about layers and curves,get out and take some photos,be a photographer.:bat:
Click to expand...

that rather like saying never mind dark room process just shoot some film

being able to deal with post process whether thats film or digital is part of being a photographer (unless you choose to pay someone to do it for you as with D&P labs)
 
stryvya said:
http://www.photopos.com/index.asp?RefName=PhotoPos_Pro&SoftVer=1.8.9

Totally free
Click to expand...

Not free at all. There's a hideous End-User Licence Agreement.

The term free software is used to indicate a freedom to do with it as you chose, not price. It just happens that most free software can be obtained at no cost.

For me, I've got Darktable, GIMP with GMIC and DCRAW plugins and Hugin. 3 unbelievable, free software tools that will easily cover what most people use Lightroom and Photoshop for, plus world-class panorama and HDR.
 
st599 said:
Not free at all. There's a hideous End-User Licence Agreement.

The term free software is used to indicate a freedom to do with it as you chose, not price. It just happens that most free software can be obtained at no cost.

For me, I've got Darktable, GIMP with GMIC and DCRAW plugins and Hugin. 3 unbelievable, free software tools that will easily cover what most people use Lightroom and Photoshop for, plus world-class panorama and HDR.
Click to expand...

Now GIMP has 16 bit colour it's certainly good enough. I am starting to do astro-photography work and you really need those extra 8bits. The 2.9 beta has them and I really should put some time into trying it out properly.

I am contemplating darktable but I'm used to Lightroom and I've already paid out.
 
theres a plug in for gimp which makes the UI much more photoshopalike as well which is handy for those who are making the change from adobe products
 
maninsuitcase said:
Now GIMP has 16 bit colour it's certainly good enough. I am starting to do astro-photography work and you really need those extra 8bits. The 2.9 beta has them and I really should put some time into trying it out properly.
Click to expand...
The news I've been waiting for for ages! How are you finding the beta? Is it fairly stable (enough to be usable)?

Edit: Oh bother, just had a quick look, no 2.9 for Linux yet.
 
Last edited:
kestral said:
Just use FastStone it has all any decent photographer needs (except Mac users). Who needs layers? I have taken thousands of photos this year some have been published on TV,many in magazines and in newspapers .I have sold many to the public and never needed layers!. Never mind worrying about layers and curves,get out and take some photos,be a photographer.:bat:
Click to expand...

What a stupid post. In the film days, did you leave your films unprocessed on the shelves??

Or have you never shot film?
 
digikam for windows and linux is a fairly presentable replacement for lightroom, supports most raw formats and has the same non-destructive editing, tagging etc.
Just not as snazzy an interface, but its free.
 
odd jim said:
What a stupid post. In the film days, did you leave your films unprocessed on the shelves??

Or have you never shot film?
Click to expand...

Good God Jim take a chill pill and don't be so rude :D The guy obviously processes his shots as he mentions a processing package, maybe you missed that. It's there to be read.

I too have shot many thousands of shots and have never used layers. I have gone through the process and a powerful tool it is and I can see how people would find layers useful but personally I've never actually used them on a real world image and to be honest if I wanted to I'd probably have to learn how to again.
 
woof woof said:
Good God Jim take a chill pill and don't be so rude :D The guy obviously processes his shots as he mentions a processing package, maybe you missed that. It's there to be read.

I too have shot many thousands of shots and have never used layers. I have gone through the process and a powerful tool it is and I can see how people would find layers useful but personally I've never actually used them on a real world image and to be honest if I wanted to I'd probably have to learn how to again.
Click to expand...

He does post process, as does his camera, but I don't think he realises it ;)
 
Carter64 said:
The news I've been waiting for for ages! How are you finding the beta? Is it fairly stable (enough to be usable)?

Edit: Oh bother, just had a quick look, no 2.9 for Linux yet.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be that* hard to build from source on a Linux box though. Might want to investigate into side by side usage though, probably need to pass a configure flag or two.


*I may be VERY wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top