|
Forums >
Digital Art and Retouching >
A 3 part question.
Feb 23 13 10:15 am Link to stay away from all of them Feb 23 13 10:20 am Link Let the wars begin. Feb 23 13 10:29 am Link Feb 23 13 10:33 am Link It's great that GIMP exists, and it's quite capable, but I use Photoshop. Don't know the third. Feb 23 13 10:37 am Link Are you planning to buy one? I suggest use a free software (like paint.net) until you get to the point where you are consistently finding things you need to do that it won't let you do. Then use the trial versions of the pay softwares to see how they handle the things you can't do easily in the free ware. Then purchase the pay software that lets you do what you want to do. But seems like PS is the industry standard probably easier to get help from other users if you find yourself wanting to do things in PS that you can't figure out on your own. Feb 23 13 10:37 am Link 1) Do not know anything about it. 2) Do not have the time to learn it. 3) My wife downloaded a copy to make her Facebook and personal photos look good. It is not for professional photos. It has a big tendency to "warp" faces. Feb 23 13 10:38 am Link  Moderator Warning!jesse paulk wrote: If you have nothing of value to add to a legitimate discussion, perhaps you should "stay away" Feb 23 13 10:44 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Notorious troll should go elsewhere. Feb 23 13 10:54 am Link
Post hidden on Feb 23, 2013 11:34 am
Reason: not helpful Comments: If you can't contribute to a legitimate discussion without trolling or focusing on the person (not the topic), you will be brigged. Feb 23 13 11:00 am Link Feb 23 13 11:07 am Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Gimp = good enough for 99% of the work you see on here. A lot of guys boast about 32bit editing and CMYK support that Photoshop gives you, then you see that for them these are just words Feb 23 13 11:11 am Link descending chain wrote: isn't that a personal attack? Feb 23 13 11:12 am Link I have used Gimp a lot on my Linux machines, but I own (bought) Photoshop and got certified with Adobe, so that is where my heart lies. I hate portrait professional. Even their ads show such a transformation from human to plastic. I do like soft skin though, and use the Imagenomic Portraiture 2.3 plugin which you can do much better with. As a related note, I also bought OnOne version 6 which had Perfect Portrait. Again, I find it useless for my workflow. I have since upgraded to version 7.1 and it is not much better for that, although the other filters are handy from time to time. Bottom line, if you can learn in Photoshop how to do the effects without using filters, then, you can adequately determine which filters you can use as a time saving feature without overdoing it. I'm no expert, I have just been doing this a long time. Feb 23 13 11:28 am Link Moderator Warning!No more trolling or off topic hijacks. Thanks Feb 23 13 11:29 am Link Virtual Studio wrote: This except that GIMP is a little more high-tech than Elements - It allows you much broader access to color curves, dodge and burn, and other advanced things. I use GIMP for my heavier parts of retouching, Elements for certain things. My workflow actually involves opening the same image back and forth in both for the things I need, mainly because elements can run some plugins GIMP can't. Feb 23 13 11:30 am Link Feb 23 13 12:26 pm Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: 1) Yes! Feb 23 13 12:38 pm Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: GIMP is a full-featured digital editing tool, with some tools more advanced than what Photoshop offers out of the box, but is missing many features required by a lot of professionals, and has an interface that works best if you think like a programmer and not a photographer/artist. But it certainly can be learned. Feb 23 13 01:22 pm Link 1) Gimp? Fine, if not overused. It should never be used to compensate for inept photography or to try to make a heinously fugly llama look human. 2) Photoshop? Fine, if not overused. It should never be used to compensate for inept photography or to try to make a heinously fugly llama look human. 3) Portrait Professional? A tool made to be overused by lazy photographers, IMO. Look at its advertising. It takes horribly-photographed llamas with no makeup and tries to make them look reasonably attractive. The ads don't work and most real-world examples I've seen look downright tragic -- like a horrible accident in the spray-tanning booth. Feb 23 13 01:23 pm Link Feb 23 13 04:24 pm Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Your naivete is... naive. Feb 23 13 07:35 pm Link Orca Bay Images wrote: ^ Feb 23 13 08:00 pm Link 1 Meh 2 Necessary Evil - prefer to do as much as possible using Nikon Capture and Lightroom 3 Meh Feb 23 13 08:08 pm Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Gimp is a program written by some clever people who don't all quite have the expertise of the people from Photoshop, nor even a fraction of the ability to make a usable UI. Feb 23 13 08:46 pm Link 1) GIMP respects its users' four essential software freedoms. 2) Photoshop violates its users' four essential software freedoms. 3) Portrait Professional violates its users' four essential software freedoms. Feb 23 13 10:25 pm Link Joann Empson wrote: Software freedoms? The fuck????? Feb 25 13 09:00 am Link Joann Empson wrote: I don't need to alter Photoshop's source code to meet my own needs. I don't need to see the source code. And while it would be nice to give away copies of Photoshop to my pals for free, that's wrong on so many levels. People should be able to profit from their work and Adobe put a lot of work into PS. Software developers should have the right of product protection, otherwise they'll go broke and the best software we'll have is GIMP. Feb 25 13 12:41 pm Link Don't kow about GIMP, but PS is indispensible, ...and the new version of Portrait Professional v11 is pretty damn unbelievable. I dare say that for the average portrait it's awesome, not at full tilt 100% though... you have to use it like you use spice on food: enough to taste both the food and the spice. But, it depends on what you use it for, and how you use it. Feb 25 13 12:50 pm Link Orca Bay Images wrote: Lazy? sheeeesh... more like I'd like to have a life that doesn't consist of spending needless hours at the computer. PP can do in 30 seconds what it would take me 20 minutes or more to do by hand, and the client would likely never appreciate the difference between the two. Feb 25 13 01:01 pm Link In answer to the comment that Photo Pro does weird things to the shape of faces, you can turn that feature off, or adjust it to whatever level you like, just like every other feature of the program. And no, I don't have any need to see the source code, or modify it. I'm not a computer programmer. Feb 25 13 01:12 pm Link Feb 25 13 01:20 pm Link Kelly Anne-Marie wrote: Sure, but are you referring to the unnatural skin texture that PP generates? Feb 25 13 02:05 pm Link a) I’ve never used GIMP, so I can’t give an informed assessment of it. However, I’m very confident that nothing can come close to matching the capabilities of Photoshop. b) Photoshop is the most capable photo editing software there is – and it has a VERY steep learning curve. After more than a year, there’s still a lot more about Photoshop that I don’t know about it than what I know. For more than a year, I've dedicated every available brain cell to learning Photoshop. c) I’ll probably get flamed for this, but Portrait Professional has its place – although for me it’s a very limited one. When I use it, it’s for a specific purpose. The first thing I do is turn all the automatic features off and reset all the sliders to zero or 50 – whatever it is that represents “no change” for that specific feature. If a model has very dark eyes, I can quickly lighten the irises just enough that there’s some color and life in them (although more and more I do this in Photoshop). It’s faster to whiten teeth and darken lips in PPro than in Photoshop – al though I don’t want the software deciding how much to lighten or darken things. A little bit goes a long way. Sometimes I’ll use PPro to lighten hair overall or to blend splotchy or uneven skin tones a bit (although I'm much more likely to use Imagenomic Portraiture for the latter purpose). If one eye is smaller than the other, sometimes I’ll use it to widen that eye just a little. For me PPro is just a timesaver for specific tasks As time goes on I use it less and less – and D&B more and more (which is why I often spend three hours or more retouching one photo). I don’t like blurring, and I’ve been known to spend over an hour dodging and burning one line is a model’s forehead when I could blur it out in a minute or so. I go for weeks without opening PPro. If I have something like {"Orig Layer") in the photo in the post above mine, I'll reluctantly use Portraiture (before doing anything else except Healing in Photoshop) - and use a layer mask to confine its effects to a limited area of the photo. If I could just have one retouching tool, Photoshop (and Adobe Camera Raw, which comes with it) would be my first choice, Capture One would be my second – and PPro would be my last. Feb 25 13 02:17 pm Link Feb 25 13 05:36 pm Link Feb 25 13 05:41 pm Link |
