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.

26 of 471 comments (clear)

  1. Pulp Fiction by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Funny

    Spencer: Bring out the GIMP.
    Peter: The GIMP's not installed.
    Spencer: Well, I guess you'll have to compile it now, won't you?

  2. Picasa by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 4, Informative

    Picasa is good enough for my photo needs (i.e. straightening, lightening) and it is free too.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Picasa by Entropius · · Score: 4, Informative

      Picasa is excellent, but:

      1) It only has one "sharpen" button with no parameters. For an operation that's as touchy as sharpening, you need more control.
      2) The highlights/shadows/fill light sliders aren't as flexible or as easy to use as the Gimp's curves tool for adjusting contrast.

      Add a proper unsharp mask tool and a tone curve, and Picasa would be able to do 90% of post-process jobs. Now it can only do 10%, simply because curves is so useful.

  3. [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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's when you're supposed to respond with an enthusiastic "Cool!!" then walk over to the software shelf, pick up a copy of PS, and then head on out the door without paying.

  4. No 16bit support by Eugenia+Loli · · Score: 5, Informative

    No 16bit support on Gimp, and so it's NOT a good solution for prosumer or pro photographers. And Cinepaint has forked a long time ago and so many other features are missing from it, so don't even mention it as an alternative. 16bit support on Gimp was first promised in 2002, but it's still not here...

  5. Adobe Lightroom by darthv506 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I would imagine that a large number of photographers have switched over to Adobe Lightroom. It's tailor made for photo work (workflow, organization and processing). It's a very nice piece of software and a lot cheaper than PS CS3!

    1. Re:Adobe Lightroom by photomonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

      IAAPP (I am a professional photographer)

      Lightroom and Aperture are both eye candy and nothing more. They do not replace the functionality of Pshop (including clone-stamping out dust and making color-channel level edits). Additionally, their support for IPTC/EXIF metadata is shaky at best. If you use a server or network storage device to store your image archive, it's kind of fun to watch Lightroom and Aperture shit the bed trying to figure out how to deal with it.

      It's almost like a lot of the developers have realized that everyone and his brother have bought digital cameras, and that they can probably sell yet another expensive 'make my photos stop sucking' software to people who already can't use what they have.

      I've used the Gimp on Windoze and Linux, and it's about where Pshop was at version 4 or 5. All software can be improved upon, and Pshop is no exception. But there is a reason that they have driven everyone else under (or nearly under). It's a damn fine couple of million lines of code.

      In my expert opinion, the best combination for browser/meta editor and editing app has to be Photo Mechanic and Photoshop.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  6. Strawman by KenSeymour · · Score: 4, Informative

    Comparing GIMP to the full version of Photoshop is a straw man argument. Compare it instead to Photoshop Elements. Elements is about $100, not about $700.

    I have used both Elements and GIMP and find Elements much more intuitive. This is even though
    I used GIMP first. Elements also supports the RAW mode for my Nikon D70.

    I now only use GIMP when I don't have access to my home machine, where the one licensed copy I have is installed.

    Elements also allows you to organize your photos into categories without having to create a directory structure. It has built in partial and full backup functions.

    Of course, YMMV.

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  7. Raw mode by GroundBounce · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually GIMP's support for raw files has improved dramatically in the last few years. Install the UFRaw plugin, which most Linux distros package up and which supports the D70 as well as many others.

  8. 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 ]
    1. Re:Deep Color by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      GIMP is getting support for deep colors and multiple color spaces as part of the new graphics engine, GEGL. GEGL was supposed to be part of GIMP 2.4, but it wasn't quite ready so it's been pushed back to 2.6. I don't imagine we'll see GIMP with GEGL before 2009, but it is coming. The new engine will also make lots of things much easier to implement, and much faster and more RAM-efficient, in spite of the hugely-expanded dynamic range.

      Of course, you can't edit your photos with GIMP 2.6 right now, so if you need deep colors, at present you're pretty much stuck with Photoshop. You could also try Krita, but it tends to crash a lot.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  9. 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.

  10. Try GIMPShop by GroundBounce · · Score: 4, Informative

    You might be intrested in GIMPShop. I've never used it, but it is a modified version of GIMP designed to have an interface that is closer to that of Photoshop. There is some Photoshop fuctionality that is missing in GIMP, and this does change that, but it might help long-term Photoshop users become comfortable with GIMP faster, especially if you're in a situation where you need to use both. Again, I've never used it, so I can't speak as to how much it helps.

  11. Paint.net beats GIMP with a stick by Nerdposeur · · Score: 4, Informative

    I do not understand the fascination with GIMP. I have used Photoshop for basic editing for years, and found GIMP to be a nightmare when I tried it.

    Paint.net, on the other hand, is easy to use, works in basically the same way as Photoshop (many of the shortcut commands are even the same), and is free. I now use it almost every day at work for basic web stuff - resizing, erasing undesirable elements with the clone brush, converting formats, etc.

    Maybe I misunderstand GIMP (maybe because I'm running XP), but you know Photoshop and you're looking for a free version, Paint.net will be a much easier transition.

  12. Re:New version of GIMP? by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But for amateur photographers who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on Photoshop, or even a hundred dollars on Photoshop Elements, gimp is a very good alternative. Just an anecdote, I downloaded the free trial for my wife, she tried it out for a bit, and decided that she liked GIMP better than Photoshop. The reason that she tried Photoshop was that one of her graphic designer friends recommended it to her. But having no formal training, she actually found it easier to use GIMP. People who have been using Photoshop for a long time either through actually buying it, or downloading a pirated copy will probably find it easier to stick with Photoshop than to learn to use GIMP. However, amateurs starting out who don't want to spend any money, will probably do just fine with GIMP.

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. CMYK is irrelevant by swillden · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For a professional, you have to have high quality CMYK support. Period. Doesn't matter how good the other features are, if you're stuck with RGB, you're never going to be accepted in the world of the printed page.

    Only if you're working in pre-press. Photographers, even professionals, don't deal with CMYK. Cameras and film scanners are RGB, all retouching is done in RGB, and final images are delivered to magazines/newspapers/whatever in RGB (usually TIFF, sometimes 16 bits per channel, usually 8). Then the pre-press production work begins by moving the images to CMYK and adjusting the colors so they look good in that colorspace and in the print system's color profile.

    This book is for photographers, not pre-press production. For photographers, the real issues that make Photoshop better than the GIMP are:

    1. Nearly everyone knows Photoshop
    2. The GIMP only supports 8 bits per channel
    3. The GIMP lacks adjustment layers
    4. The GIMP lacks the hundreds plugins Photoshop has

    Only item 2 above is a real showstopper, and that's only for images that benefit from greater dynamic range. Item 3 is huge convenience, but can be worked around. Item 4 is also just a convenience factor, but there are some plugins that do stuff that would take hours to do manually. If you need one of those regularly, you're best off getting Photoshop and the plugin.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  16. 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 :)

  17. Re:New version of GIMP? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Informative

    "...which costs an arm, leg, and both testicles..."make money. (I'm not implying that you couldn't with the GIMP, but arguably, you could go farther down that route with PS.) If anybody's curious, the educational version is $300. That's hardly the cost of an arm, leg, and both testicles, especially for a group of people already invested in hardware.

    "...and doesn't run on anything but the crappiest of platforms."

    Right, because ameteur photographers are all running Linux. Photoshop runs on Windows and Mac, plus it's possible to get it running in WINE. This is such a non-point it's not even funny.

    The GIMP is fine for amateurs. Fine, we get that. It's still not Photoshop. If those amateurs want to one day be professionals, that's going to become an important point.

    --

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

  18. Gimp is the software equivalent of "It" by Nephroth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunate pop-culture reference, but using the GIMP reminds me a lot of the episode of South Park in which Mr. Garrison involves an alternative form of transport with a rather unfortunate control interface.

    --
    Our greatest enemy is neither a single man, nor is it a nation, it is, as it has always been, our own greed.
  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: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
  21. I'm a pro photo and I like GIMP by capaslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work as a news photographer at a daily paper full time. We use Photoshop on OS X at work. The only thing GIMP really lacks that would make it unattractive for news work is the lack of CMYK. But I understand Krita can handle CMYK just fine. The other standard stuff -- dodging, burning, adjusting levels and curves, resizing, applying unsharp mask -- GIMP does fine. But I don't think the newspaper industry is interested in GIMP. $600 for Photoshop isn't an issue with most newspapers, plus it's a standard so everyone knows how to use it and you don't need to re-train everyone.

    8bits per channel vs. 12-16 bits per channel isn't really an issue for newspaper work. I've never noticed any fellow photographers use these extra bit depth modes. Everybody seems to stick with 8bit/channel jpegs. RAW is slow and takes up a lot of space on memory cards. Also, bear in mind that newsprint is "axle grease on toilet paper" so any advantage that higher bit depths provide will not be especially noticeable. Heck, just getting the CMYK registration to line up on a press is a big enough challenge!

    8bit/channel images are the standard for Web images. So for newspaper Web sites, GIMP, of course, would be perfectly adequate.

    For personal work, I use GIMP. All my flickr photos are processed using GIMP. When I make prints at the one-hour lab, I bring in my media card full if images adjusted only with GIMP. For me, price is an issue. I strongly prefer not to spend $600 on Photoshop. But also, and just as important, I am a fan of the Free Software philosophy. It appeals to me. For these same reasons and more, I use GNU/Linux and BSD at home, also.

    Regarding GIMPs interface, coming from a Photoshop background, it did seem to be awkward to me at first, but now that I'm familiar with it, GIMP's interface seems fine to me. It all depends on what you're used to.

    I've also used GIMP for personal paid projects ... some individual portraits and some group portraits.

    As an aside, I recently installed GIMP on a family friend's computer. They love it! Here's an actual email I received from them:

    "... I took the copy of the rooster photo you had on my CD to send to Costco to make a large print for my sister. The color was dull, so Drew helped me with GIMP and we got vibrant color and an amazing print. I will send it to my sister framed for Christmas; it will be the perfect gift. Thank you for giving us copies of your terrific photos. I want to learn more about GIMP this year, and this experiment has me excited about the possibilities ... [The IT guy at work] told me we have a book in our professional library on how to use GIMP. I checked it out on Thursday before I left for Helena. I am looking forward to trying it out. It will be good to have a new interest occupying my time every so often."

  22. Re:What makes Photoshop "better" ? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll do my best to answer your question. I'd like to be up-front, though, and tell you that I don't have enough knowledge to give you a vs. comparison of the two. So what I'll do is list off a bunch of the useful features in PS, specifically those I didn't find when I used GIMP about a year ago. Hopefully somebody else can chime in and say "GIMP does this too". (I would VERY MUCH like to be more educated about the GIMP. Since it's free, there's no reason for me to prefer one to the exclusion of the other.)
    • Patch Tool: The Patch tool is a bit like the clone tool only it takes a stab at adjusting the colors of the new pattern to match what you're pasting it into. In simpler terms it's a clone tool with auto color-correction that makes it much much easier to remove blemishes and create seamless images.
    • Layer Groups and Nested Layers: Photoshop has something called 'Layer Groups' which are a little bit like using Folders. This makes organizing an image with tons of layers very easy. Through this organization, you can use one transparency mode for the entire group. A lot of the tricks I do in Photoshop are centered around organization of the layers. It's difficult to explain without showing you in person, but Layer Groups alone were worth the upgrade many years ago.
    • Adjustment Layers: Photoshop has non-destructive layers that do tasks like Levels Adjustment, Invert, Hue/Saturation, Brightness & Contrast, etc. Each of these layers has a B&W Alpha mask you can paint on straight away to limit the area of the image they work on. After you've set them, you can go back and change their values.
    • 16-bit Support: I probably don't need to say too much here. Photoshop works in a 16-bit space. Although, just between you and me, I've found this less interestin since I have adjustment layers. I don't have to do a lot of re-fiddling with images in a destructive sense. But that's a personal preference thing.
    • Smart Objects: Photoshop will take whatever layers you have selected and create a 'Smart Object'. Basically it collapses those images down into a single layer. However, the original layers are still available. They're stored elsewhere. You can move, rotate, scale, warp, and do all kinds of stuff to a Smart Object without it being destructive. It's sort of like... well, imagine you saved a Photoshop file somewhere else. It has a bunch of layers etc. Then imagine opening a new PS Image and referencing that first one. It's just loading it in as it needs it just like an HTML page references a JPG file. If somebody changes that JPG file and reloads the HTML file, the image in the page changes, right? Well, Smart Objects are sort of like that. The key difference is that they're not external files, they're kept within the .PSD file. They show up as one layer, but when you double click them, they show up as a new document with all the layers in tact.

      If you edit that document and save it, you'll see those changes propogated through every instance you used it in your main file. This means you can clone that image around as many times as you like, then change it later. I don't know if I'm explaining this very clearly or not. The simple version is that it's another non-destructive mode Photoshop has. It's relatively new to PS, but man, I cannot live without it.
    • Lens Blur: Making an 'out of focus' image isn't as simple as just applying a blur to it. Photoshop has a lens-blur filter that takes into account the shape of the iris, bloom of specular highlights, and so on. It looks pretty darned convincing. (I can easily picture photographers loving this.)
    • Text and Shape Layers: I'd be a bit surprised if the GIMP didn't have this, but I do not recall seeing it. Photoshop has vector based layers that are non-destructive. You can put in text or create shapes (stars, etc) or whate
    --

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