Gimp or Photoshop
Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:41 pm Etc/GMT-1+01:00
I have Photoshop CS3 which I've had for years and hardly use. I also have Gimp 2.8 which is my usual digital tool. They both reside on a 27" iMac.
I recently bought an Epson V750 to go with my new 4x5 toys and scanning my first negs with this monster, I realised that Gimp won't handle 16 bit B&W, choosing instead the reduced overhead of 8 bits. Consulting the Oracle that is the Interweb, there is a strong body of opinion that 8 bits of grey are more than enough. The opposing view is held by my mentor who asserts that 16 bits are a must.
During a recent session with said mentor, who has CS6, he was showing me all the bells and whistles and one by one, I was pretty much able to match them with Gimp equivalents (the devoted would argue that Gimp usually gets the ideas long before PS). So I have spent most of today playing with PS & Gimp to see where there is a no-brianer choice, one over the other. I used an 8 bit scan with Gimp, a 16 bit scan with PS. At first, the 16 bit scan looked sumptuous in Photoshop but after much fiddling, culminating in a print from each, I couldn't really put my hand on my heart and say, 'Yup, this is my choice' and the differences were more because of my lack of familiarity with PS's tools.
After further work, I have two images, one in Photoshop, one in Gimp, which are pretty much identical. Exporting to .jpg the Photoshop image is darker and more striking. Exporting to .tif Photoshop just has the edge, again more to do with tonality than outright detail or sharpness.
So I throw the subject over to the brick-bats and plaudits of the forum. Photoshop - Industry standard but expensive. Gimp - Open Source and therefore free. Should I continue to use Gimp or Photoshop? Should I buy CS6 or should I just use whatever falls to hand? I know there will be a unanimous response...
Graham
I recently bought an Epson V750 to go with my new 4x5 toys and scanning my first negs with this monster, I realised that Gimp won't handle 16 bit B&W, choosing instead the reduced overhead of 8 bits. Consulting the Oracle that is the Interweb, there is a strong body of opinion that 8 bits of grey are more than enough. The opposing view is held by my mentor who asserts that 16 bits are a must.
During a recent session with said mentor, who has CS6, he was showing me all the bells and whistles and one by one, I was pretty much able to match them with Gimp equivalents (the devoted would argue that Gimp usually gets the ideas long before PS). So I have spent most of today playing with PS & Gimp to see where there is a no-brianer choice, one over the other. I used an 8 bit scan with Gimp, a 16 bit scan with PS. At first, the 16 bit scan looked sumptuous in Photoshop but after much fiddling, culminating in a print from each, I couldn't really put my hand on my heart and say, 'Yup, this is my choice' and the differences were more because of my lack of familiarity with PS's tools.
After further work, I have two images, one in Photoshop, one in Gimp, which are pretty much identical. Exporting to .jpg the Photoshop image is darker and more striking. Exporting to .tif Photoshop just has the edge, again more to do with tonality than outright detail or sharpness.
So I throw the subject over to the brick-bats and plaudits of the forum. Photoshop - Industry standard but expensive. Gimp - Open Source and therefore free. Should I continue to use Gimp or Photoshop? Should I buy CS6 or should I just use whatever falls to hand? I know there will be a unanimous response...
Graham