Slashdot Mirror


GIMP 2 for Photographers

Jon Allen writes "A glance through any photography magazine will confirm that Adobe Photoshop is the accepted standard image editing software, offering almost unparalleled power and control over your images. However, costing more than many DSLR cameras, for non-professionals it can be a very hard purchase to justify (and of course for Linux users this is a moot point, as Photoshop is not available for their platform). Luckily, the free software community has provided us with an alternative. The GIMP, or Gnu Image Manipulation Program, offers a huge amount of the power of Photoshop but is available at no cost. Additionally GIMP is cross-platform, available for Windows, Mac, Linux, and Unix." Read below for the rest of Jon's review. GIMP 2 for Photographers author Klaus Goelker pages 185 publisher Rocky Nook / O'Reilly rating 9/10 reviewer Jon Allen ISBN 978-1-933952-03-1 summary A great book for anyone with more than a passing interest in improving their photos The one downside to using GIMP is that most magazines and photography books use Photoshop in their articles and tutorials, so if you do choose GIMP there's a bit more of a learning curve. Now once you're used to GIMP you'll find that many of Photoshop's features have equivalents, albeit with a different user interface, but getting that initial level of experience and familiarity with the software can be rather difficult. The GIMP does come with a manual, but it is really more of a reference guide and while very comprehensive it is not particularly friendly for new users. GIMP 2 for Photographers aims to rectify this.

Written clearly from a photographer's point of view (the author is a photographer who also teaches image editing), this book takes a task-oriented approach, looking at the types of editing operations that a photographer would require and then showing how to perform each task in the GIMP.

Rather helpfully, the GIMP software (for Windows, Mac, and Linux) is included on the book's accompanying CD. This means that you can follow each tutorial using the exact same version of software as the author, which really helps to build confidence that you're doing everything right.

I already have GIMP installed on OS X, so to test out the instructions in the book I performed an installation from the CD on a clean Microsoft Windows XP machine.

The exact filenames of the installation packages on the CD differ slightly from those in the accompanying README file, but the instructions in the book do list the correct files and after following this procedure the installation went without a hitch. The setup files do not ask any overly 'techie' questions, so it literally took less than 5 minutes to set up a fully working system.

As well as the GIMP application, the CD also includes all of the sample images used in the book, and for each editing tutorial the "final" image is provided so you can check your own work against the expected result.

Even more usefully, the CD contains an electronic copy of the complete book as a PDF file, so you can keep it on your laptop as a reference guide, invaluable when editing images on location (or on holiday).

I'd have to say that this is without a doubt the most useful CD I've ever received with a book. Providing the applications and example files is good, giving readers instant gratification without needing to deal with downloads and websites (which may well have changed after the book went to press). But including the complete book on the CD as well is nothing short of a masterstroke, and something I'd love to see other publishers adopt.

As for the book itself, the author takes us through basic GIMP operations — opening and saving files, cropping, resizing images, and printing. Once these basics are out of the way, the book moves on to a series of examples based on "real-life" image editing scenarios.

These examples are very well chosen, both in the fact that the vast majority of the techniques shown are genuinely useful, but also in the way that they are ordered. Each example introduces a new feature of the software, building up your knowledge as you work through the book. By the end you can expect to be skilled not only in "standard" editing — adjusting color balance, fixing red-eye, removing dust spots, and so on — but also in compositing, perspective correction, lighting and shadow effects, and building panoramic images.

Between the examples there is a good amount of more "reference" type material, with detailed descriptions of the various menus, tool bars, and dialogs you will encounter while using the software. Combined with lots of well-labelled screenshots this strikes a very good balance, ensuring that even after going through all the tutorials you'll still get value from the book as something to refer back to.

Overall the quality of the writing and general production standard is very high indeed. There are some points where it is noticeable that the book was originally published in German, but this never becomes a stumbling block to the reader's understanding. Most importantly though, the author employs the "show, don't tell" philosophy throughout which is key to successful teaching.

In conclusion, I would have no hesitation in recommending GIMP 2 for Photographers to anyone with more than a passing interest in improving their photos. And even if you already use image editing software, the book is well worth a read — I have been using GIMP for several years and still learned a great deal. The accompanying CD is the icing on the cake, making GIMP 2 for Photographers a simply essential purchase.

You can purchase GIMP 2 for Photographers from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

30 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. New version of GIMP? by gravis777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was quite confused by this article at first. Does this mean there is a new verison of Gimp out for Photographers? What's wrong with the current version of Gimp? Surely this is not an article refering to the release of Gimp2, that was released a while back.

    After reading and rereading the article, I think I have come to the conclusion that this is a review of a book, and the review was aimed at the non-slashdot community.

    1. Re:New version of GIMP? by rucs_hack · · Score: 3, Insightful

      some people are really trying to pimp up the gimp recently.

      Thing is, it isn't, and never has been as good as photoshop, so the professional world aren't going to accept it while photoshop is better.

      And its not just because photoshop is proprietary, its just better suited to what the professional photographer and artist need to make a living. Gimp needs several more years with a much *much* larger workforce and some serious intent to make it so good that people won't even think of using anything else, and I don't see that happening just yet.

    2. Re:New version of GIMP? by PitaBred · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why? Seriously, why is it worse than Photoshop? Except for things like CMYK output (where the actual features just don't exist in the Gimp), there's no reason that the Gimp can't replace the expensive Photoshop for everyone except the pure professional users. But hey, the second sentence of TFA talks about the point of the book (Did you even read past "Gimp"?):

      "However, costing more than many DSLR cameras, for non-professionals it(Photoshop) can be a very hard purchase to justify"

      The purely pro market that Photoshop absolutely can't be replaced in isn't a big market. The Gimp is perfect for 95% of people's photo manipulation needs, though, and that's why it's great software. You don't have to pay anything for software that is more powerful than almost any home user will ever be able to fully utilize.

    3. Re:New version of GIMP? by Asmodai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The user interface is just horrendous. Every time I keep trying to use it and it just shows that despite all the best of intentions the coders on the project just have no clue whatsoever what constitutes a useful user interface.

      Of course, that is my opinion. Your own may differ...

      --
      Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
    4. Re:New version of GIMP? by justin12345 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interface and everything aside, the big stumbling block with the Gimp was its lack of support for more then 8 bits per channel. I would love to be able to use the GIMP, I can't afford to keep up with Photoshop, but without support for more then 8 bits per channel you wind up with some pretty nasty artifacts if you do any major editing.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    5. Re:New version of GIMP? by brassman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The user interface is just horrendous. Every time I keep trying to use it and it just shows that despite all the best of intentions the coders on the project just have no clue whatsoever what constitutes a useful user interface.

      Yes, that sums up my experience with Photoshop quite well....

      I rather liked Paint Shop Pro, and bought upgrades faithfully from version 1 right up through 7 or so. It was bliss. Left mouse button, right mouse button. Foreground, background. Simple, obvious, ergonomically sound.

      Then Corel got their hooks into it. PSP X is maddening.

      --
      "Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
    6. Re:New version of GIMP? by blincoln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The user interface is just horrendous. Every time I keep trying to use it and it just shows that despite all the best of intentions the coders on the project just have no clue whatsoever what constitutes a useful user interface.

      Agreed. I have trouble even pinning down one specific aspect of it that is the problem, because so much is wrong with it.
      The one that always sticks in my mind is how when I create text, rather than simply creating a new layer with the text in it, the GIMP also sets that new layer to be only just big enough to hold the text, so if I've made text in the center of a larger image, the text layer has a border of null space around it. So if I try to do something like manually create a drop shadow effect, most of it will be clipped at the edges.
      Now that I know that this is the case, I can resize the layer to be big enough (although I wish I could just enable a checkbox where this would be the default behavior, because I would have to do it *all* of the time assuming the GIMP were my main image editor). But before then? It took me hours to figure out that that's what was happening, because I had no idea someone would ever design an image editing app that way.
      Also, the file dialogues are horrendous (other than being able to pick the file type to save as by typing the appropriate extension, which is clever). Maybe they work better on Linux, but on Windows they are the clunkiest things ever. Would it really be that hard to at least allow the use of the OS's own file dialogues, if not make it the default behavior?
      Adobe has gotten a bit sloppy about the quality of the last few revisions of Photoshop (having to delete my preferences file to make Merge To HDR work? Am I suddenly on a Macintosh running OS 8.5 in 1999 again?), so an alternative that worked solidly would be awesome.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    7. Re:New version of GIMP? by Nim82 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking as an artist, you really only need a few select tools to do most jobs. I rarely (if ever) use 90% of Photoshop's so called features, or Bloat.

      For the majority of artists/users, with the possible exception of those who wish to print directly from the app, GIMP has more than enough power to deal with their demands. The problem with it's low adoption is threefold; learning curve, advertising and name. The learning curve is a big problem. The UI is even more awful than PS's (which is saying something) and this is compounded by the lack good training material or training courses available. Advertising speaks for itself, Adobe can afford it, gimp can't. The name is also a factor here. I recently got quizzed on software by an 'older' artist wishing to go from film to digital. I mentioned GIMP and got a dirty look, trying to make him see past the name was a big issue and in the end he went for Photoshop, 'cos of the brand name. I suspect this is an even bigger problem with the suits in the corporate environ.... this is a wider open-source issue too.

      Personally, I use Paint Shop Pro, it's dirt cheap and the designers actually bothered to make a UI that enables a degree of efficiency. It's quite surprising how many people use it (and others) in the industry, yet hide behind Photoshop when discussing editors, almost as if they are afraid to admit they aren't using the industry standard. Yet the work they produce is just as good and usually produced faster... Adobe has built a mythos that their overpriced product is the be-all and end-all for graphics work. It's bullshit. They have the monopoly, that is all. There are many, often cheaper or free, programs just as capable (and more-so in some areas of work). A lot of these programs also support PS plugins just fine.

    8. Re:New version of GIMP? by tomknight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess this article being in the "Book Reviews" section wasn't a giveaway?

      --
      Oh arse
  2. [Ff]ree vs Piracy by OmegaBlac · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However, costing more than many DSLR cameras, for non-professionals it can be a very hard purchase to justify
    Which is probably why Adobe Photoshop is one of the most pirated pieces of commercial software. Cost certainly has not harmed Photoshops popularity and the fact that it is perceived to be a "standard" by many means that most people without the funds to purchase it would rather choose to pirate the software instead of relying on a [Ff]ree alternative such as the GIMP.
    1. Re:[Ff]ree vs Piracy by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one who does not have to excepting the odd moralist loon.

      That's why Photoshop has such good market penetration. The perceived need for it drives BOTH purchase and piracy, which reinforce it as a standard. This model works very well and there is no reason to change it.

      Want to reinforce OSS alternatives to commercial soft? Join the fight against warez to keep the competition from getting the benefits of "pirates" chumming the market with their stuff!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  3. I wish Gimp were a photoshop clone by impactor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been using photoshop for about 10 years now and have become very proficient. I recently made the switch to linux. The only real application i havn't found a replacement for is photoshop. I have tried using GIMP but their are just too many problems with it. While it is probably acceptable for those who have never used photo editing software before, anyone who has touched photoshop will feel severly handycapped. When i first heard about GIMP i was hoping it would simply be an attempt at cloning photoshops capabilities and interface. Perhaps someone has an answer to this question: why during the design stage did the developers not simply stick with the industry standard interms of interface/menus? Does anyone know where the developers are planning on taking GIMP in the future?

  4. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by iamacat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why would super-expensive software be so dumb that it can not detect that I am editing an 128x128 pixel icon and adjust undo steps automatically?

  5. Deep Color by Speare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not about the oft-slagged interface, it's about actual capability falling behind the curve.

    It's going to be a common rant in this thread, I am sure, but the fact is, GIMP is falling behind because it has not yet mainstreamed any support for "deep color." It is stuck in an 8-bits-per-channel world, which is fine for many forms of web graphics and proofing, but has some serious limitations in advanced photography. Many photographers are getting quite interested in HDR, RAW, and ICC. What few plugins exist for these in the GIMP world are incomplete and only allow you to import their results back into the limits of an 8-bits-per-channel world.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  6. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You just have to look at it from programmer's point of view.

    This is why most linux applications are nowhere near ready for the desktop.

    not flaming.

  7. Re:GIMP != Photoshop by ajs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not even close. True! Photoshop isn't half as useful to me as The Gimp. Many of the features that I use on a regular basis are available to photoshop users only if they buy commercial plugins from third parties. What's more, I use The Gimp under Linux which means that I don't have to deal with a horrible operating system just to edit my photographs.

    For Web work, The Gimp is unrivaled. For some sorts of print work, I would either use Photoshop or Inkscape, depending on what it was that I needed to do. For editing stills for film, I'd use Cinepaint or Photoshop.
  8. PS CS3 costs more than a DSLR? Um... no... by Aphrika · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Last time I looked, here in the UK they were about the same price - £569, although it'll be more for the camera (maybe £900+) if you're going to be wanting a decent lens. You're also assuming that said DSLR fanatic already has a computer, which you can also argue is a requirement.

    If you're going to pony up between £500 and £1000 for a camera, then it's worth factoring in the price of software, especially as you don't need to buy film.

    I mean that's like getting a film SLR and moaning about the cost of darkroom kit... it's the same with any hobby; horse riding isn't just the price of a horse, fishing isn't just the price of a rod and digital photography isn't just the price of a digital camera, you have to account for all the necessary extras as they say...

  9. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The problem is that if you consistently work with small files and get used to having a long undo trail then you may get surprised when you only have a short history when you open a big file.

    Sheesh. You're really stretching to find a reason. It doesn't do it because Adobe hasn't put it in. And the reason they haven't is probably because there's not a lot of call for it. That seems like a perfectly reasonable answer.

    Photoshop is an amazing program. I'm surprised the reviewer wrote "almost unparalleled." It's flat-out unparalleled. But it's undo, and even its history feature, are not as good as they could be.

  10. THAT interface by Attila+the+Bun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People who complain about Gimp's interface aren't just whingeing for the sake of it. Gimp is immensely capable, but dear god, why is the interface split across so many windows? Photo editing in Gimp is a chore, chasing little windows around the desktop with the mouse.

    It's a terrible pity, because so much work has gone into making Gimp. To can do almost everything an amateur photographer could want, but after a few weeks using it I went looking for an alternative and bought Photoshop Elements. Elements is missing a few features, but it's a pleasure to use, and that's why so many people use it instead of Gimp.

  11. Re:No 16bit support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why don't you shut the fuck up and get back to work?

    I'm sick and fucking tired of you little bitches saying open source is sooo much better, but when someone points out that you're MISSING A CRITICAL FEATURE... y'all act like cunts and scream that "no one owes you anything".

    Seriously.

    Release a commercial level product or get the fuck out of the market.

    Go ahead. Mod me down. I don't give a shit. Most people agree with me.

  12. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by niceone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You just have to look at it from programmer's point of view.

    That might be the best UI insult I have every seen :)

  13. Re:GIMP has some issues by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When I used GIMP, I didn't expect a Photoshop clone. But I *did* expect a program with a GUI that was at least intelligible.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  14. Re:CMYK is irrelevant by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yea, my main issues are pre-press at this point, so that's my primary concern. CMYK support is one of those things...Work with OSS enough, and you start seeing things like that. CMYK is only useful for a specific niche, granted, Adobe knows damn well that that niche buys TONS of licenses.

    Your issue #3 is the one that always jumps out and bites me whenever I'm using GIMP. You don't have to have adjustment layers, but once you're used to them, it's hard as hell to go back.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  15. Re:CMYK is irrelevant by justin12345 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that number 2 is the real show stopper and what you said about CMYK only really being useful these days if you are doing prepress. What I wanted to add is that almost all images benefit from having a greater dynamic range during the input phase. Even if your output is going to be 8 bits per channel (which it often is), if you do any real manipulation to the image you need some data to throw away, 12 or 16 bits in your source. Otherwise you get some really nasty artifacts, sometimes in the form of color banding and sometimes in just a 'digital-y look' to the image. Its really apparent if you look at late 90s digital that they generally only had 8 bpc to work with.

    I would say that amateurs (as well as artists and illustrators) actually need the extra channels even more then professionals do, as amateurs rely on post processing more, where as a professional will usually strive to get it all in camera if possible so as to minimize the amount of work they have to put into the shoot.

    --
    Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
  16. Re:GIMP has some issues by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The Gimp isn't a free Photoshop clone! I want a free Photoshop clone that does everything exactly the same way, rather than learning how a different program works, even though it may be a more powerful interface in the end!"

    Did I translate that right?


    No, you didn't. It's more like this:

    The GIMP is non-intuitive and nobody can explain to me how it's supposed to be better.


    The rest of that fluff you added to the translation might actually hold water if there wasn't already enough demand to cause GIMPShop to be created.
    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  17. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by Telvin_3d · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because "Computing" isn't a profession. A computer is a tool/household appliance, not a job.

  18. Two reasons by BigBadBus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Two reasons why I've tried GIMP and will *NOT* return to it unless it has: a) a better GUI b) better documentation How do you expect ordinary users to use it, regardless of how wonderful it is, if its hard to use and isn't intuitive? Even MS Paint is better, and easier to use than GIMP's functionality!

  19. For the love of god, rename it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If appearances, didn't matter, we wouldn't need image manipulation programs! Time and again, I've seen professional photographers reject the GIMP. Why? Not because it lacks patented color spaces or features, though it does. Simply because the name is cringeingly embarrassing. They'll use some awful shareware app if they can't use photoshop, not the GIMP.

    Now, as some borderline autist developer, you may not care about such things, and think their embarrassment is stupid and irrational. but arty types - including digital media workers - tend to be emotional and less than entiely rational. They're *all about appearances*. When they're talking shop to their colleagues, they don't want to be saying "I just opened up the gimp".

  20. Re:In a lot of ways, Gimp is more intuitive than P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You fuckwit, they DO, this is why we have automatic transmission, power steering, ABS and so on.

    You don't really understand what dumbing down means, do you ?
    They don't dumb down the innards of the cars. Just like you are not dumbing down the code running the software. You are making the UI easier to use. In the case of your vehicles, they make it easier to steer, brake and so on. And they make them safer and safer.

    A driver is not a mechanic. And a photographer is not a programmer. Photographers don't care for UIs designed by programmers for programmers.

  21. Re:How come no FREE version of this BOOK ?? by FelixGordon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It makes no sense to you that these authors are trying to make a living? Seems perfectly sensible to me. Still better than buying a book on Photoshop, learning the skills, and still having to drop a huge chunk of money on the software.