Photographer Talk

[megamania]

I use lightroom as its non-destructive.

That's very interesting. Can you give me an idea of how it works?

Does it save the original jpg and the "description" of the changes made to the picture?

[koshatnik]

Are there any free programs you'd recommend?

None pro level, no.

Amateur use, picasa3 is ok for general pootling about. Other than that, I just use lightroom.

That's very interesting. Can you give me an idea of how it works?

Does it save the original jpg and the "description" of the changes made to the picture?

Nope, it doesnt save anything until you export your changed image or the unchanged image (depending on what you've done/not done to the original). All it does is remember what you did to the photo - so it saves a log file for that image I guess. You can reset to the original shot anytime by hitting reset.

Simples.

[Daveski]

I use lightroom as its non-destructive.

If you use GIMP and are happy with layers, then you can always have a 'master' layer as the original untouched image. You can duplicated this layer and make as many changes as you like to this and other layers leaving the original untouched.

With this method you can always keep the multiple layers with the multiple stages of change and go back to any at any time. The native format of a GIMP image will then always contain at least the original as well as your changes as separate layers.

You only 'Flatten' these multi-layers and export as a separate file when you are done.

This is how most Photo Shop users work I believe.

[koshatnik]

If you use GIMP and are happy with layers, then you can always have a 'master' layer as the original untouched image. You can duplicated this layer and make as many changes as you like to this and other layers leaving the original untouched.

With this method you can always keep the multiple layers with the multiple stages of change and go back to any at any time. The native format of a GIMP image will then always contain at least the original as well as your changes as separate layers.

You only 'Flatten' these multi-layers and export as a separate file when you are done.

This is how most Photo Shop users work I believe.

Not exactly efficient workflow. Can't imagine doing that for hundreds of images.

This is precisely the reason why linux isn't adopted more widely. Doesn't have pro tools for pro work.

[joninkrakow]

Not exactly efficient workflow. Can't imagine doing that for hundreds of images.

This is precisely the reason why linux isn't adopted more widely. Doesn't have pro tools for pro work.

I'm not exactly sure what the two have to do with each other. I mean, is not Photoshop a "pro" tool? I've been using Photoshop since version 3 or thereabouts. This is how you do things in Photoshop, as the previous poster stated. Granted, there are other tools nowadays that make Photoshop and the GIMP look downright prehistoric, but one can hardly call either tool _non-professional_. As I said, I've used Photoshop for years. I _like_ Photoshop. GIMP, especially with version 2.6, is every bit as capable and professional, IMO, as Photoshop. Different, yes--but no less capable, other than the all-important 16 bit capability. In fact, since I upgraded my Mac to Intel, my old Photoshop no longer works. I have been dabbling with GIMP for a couple years, but now, both in OSX and on Linux, I'm dependant upon it. And it's come through with shining colors. In fact, on a whim, I recently used GIMP to create the image below. When I was shooting this series of photos, I accidently let my aperture close down, and my background wasn't blurred enough. I used GIMP to "fix" that. Needless to say, GIMP is no lightweight, and it takes second place to nobody. It is capable of pro-quality work.... but that brings up another point.

My mistake in my photo was a rather silly one. Pros don't make those kinds of mistakes. Real pros get it right in camera. They don't have time to "photoshop" or "gimp" hundreds of photos. They shoot them right, and they "edit" by tossing the flops. That's what the real pros do. You save the hard work for those pictures you really can't afford to give up, but those should be the _real_ exceptions...

Ah, but I'm a GIMP addict....

Edit: I forgot to mention that my avatar pic is a combo effort between Photoshop and GIMP. Gimp did some things I wanted better, and Photoshop others. That's how it works.

-Jon

[koshatnik]

I'm not exactly sure what the two have to do with each other. I mean, is not Photoshop a "pro" tool? I've been using Photoshop since version 3 or thereabouts. This is how you do things in Photoshop, as the previous poster stated. Granted, there are other tools nowadays that make Photoshop and the GIMP look downright prehistoric, but one can hardly call either tool _non-professional_. As I said, I've used Photoshop for years. I _like_ Photoshop. GIMP, especially with version 2.6, is every bit as capable and professional, IMO, as Photoshop. Different, yes--but no less capable, other than the all-important 16 bit capability. In fact, since I upgraded my Mac to Intel, my old Photoshop no longer works. I have been dabbling with GIMP for a couple years, but now, both in OSX and on Linux, I'm dependant upon it. And it's come through with shining colors. In fact, on a whim, I recently used GIMP to create the image below. When I was shooting this series of photos, I accidently let my aperture close down, and my background wasn't blurred enough. I used GIMP to "fix" that. Needless to say, GIMP is no lightweight, and it takes second place to nobody. It is capable of pro-quality work.... but that brings up another point.

I don't use GIMP or Photoshop, ever. I was talking about photo workflow tools, although lightzone and bibble have native linux clients, linux could certainly do with more choice. And no one in digital image making will take linux seriously as a platform until Adobe starts making native linux clients for its apps.

My mistake in my photo was a rather silly one. Pros don't make those kinds of mistakes.

I hear ya, I'm a pro myself. Andplenty do. Pro means you do it for money, its not a gauge of your ability to take good shots. Most serious amateurs I know are better than 80% of pro's I've met.

Real pros get it right in camera. They don't have time to "photoshop" or "gimp" hundreds of photos. They shoot them right, and they "edit" by tossing the flops. That's what the real pros do. You save the hard work for those pictures you really can't afford to give up, but those should be the _real_ exceptions...

Yes and no. I've had times where I've shoot a whole sequence of 50 shots and afterwards wanted them all set to a different kelvin degree white balance. Good luck doing that in GIMP or PS.

When I shoot bands playing live in some dingy grot-hole, I often autotone 400 shots in Lightroom, then chuck the crap ones. Again, good luck autotoning 400 shots in GIMP or PS.

[ozzyprv]

I think you both koshatnik and joninkrakow are right.
GIMP/Photoshop are not workflow tools, not in Mac, not in Widnow$, not in Linux.
For that you use programs like Lightroom, Bible, digiKam, and maybe Darktable, etc.
I am pretty sure you can make batch tone adjustments in digiKam using the batch processor. Last entry of the post was some time ago (amy 2009), Linux photography workflow tools have come long way...

[linuxforartists]

This has been an awesome thread. I've been following news regarding Linux as a creative platform. You guys have named a lot of good programs to check out. Thanks for the tips!