Alternatives to PS - what they can and can not do?

[Ben Syverson]

One note that will inevitably come up... GIMP only supports 8 bit images in the main branch (I believe), but there are 16 bit beta versions available.

GIMP is frankly not a tool I would use, but those of you considering it should not discount it for lack of 16 bit.

[Ben Syverson]

I think there is a chance that Apple will jump in with an alternative product. The reasons they might:

1) They have plenty of cash on hand. They actually have enough cash to (theoretically) purchase all the buildings in Manhattan
2) They hate Adobe
3) They have some expertise in the market (aperture)
4) They have expertise in software development and the software engineers to do it
5) They have a very loyal customer base which would make it easier to pull customers who otherwise are tough to pull from Adobe

Even if there isn't a huge profit potential, I could see Apple doing it just to make Adobe sweat. I'm not saying they will, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.

If I had to guess (and it's just a guess) I would imagine that Apple already has their own app in the vein of Photoshop. It would be a nuclear option in case Adobe ever really angers them. If so, it will probably never see the light of day.

Relations aren't that dire between the companies right now. Besides, at this point they could easily buy Adobe outright and cancel the Windows versions. That would be a better threat.

[Preston]

Here's one for you Mac folks that looks pretty good. It's called Acorn.

Unfortunately, there's no Windows version.

--P

[Ken Lee]

GIMP only supports 8 bit images ... but those of you considering it should not discount it for lack of 16 bit.

That's the main reason I do not use it.

[Ken Lee]

Here's one for you Mac folks that looks pretty good. It's called Acorn.

Note: Acorn requires OS X verison 10.8+

That being said, it appears to support PNG and TIFF files in 32-bit format. Now we're talking !

[mdm]

Picture window pro is functional if somewhat clunky, true 16 bit, text editable curves files for digital negatives people and fussy printers. Saves super fast compared to photoshop. does masking. but the older version i have does not have anything like context sensitive spot healing brush (but there is a clone tool) and there is no photokit sharpener plug in. I usually crop and do curves in picture window pro, spot and sharpen in photoshop, also layers and resize and sharpen to print, and use lightroom export to resize to web. Somewhat eccentric workflow, but photoshop takes some learning. Windows only.

[bdkphoto]

Maybe. And maybe for some people that is an acceptable alternative. But the thought of having to use Lightroom to do what I do is not a welcome thought - not even close. I do 90% of my work in Photoshop for a reason.

Greg,

I've gone the other direction over the last 2 years, I'm at 90% with lightroom and only use PS for big retouching, transformations, and stitching. With LR 5 the new transform features look very promising too. It took me a while to warm up to LR, but now I find it has too many advantages for my workflow. That said, the other 10% is still really necessary.....

[Matus Kalisky]

Here's one for you Mac folks that looks pretty good. It's called Acorn.

Unfortunately, there's no Windows version.

--P

This looks interesting - PSD import is possible too!

******

On a general not about Lightroom. There seem to be strong opinions about it. Could those that have experience with both Lightroom and PS state what is really missing in Lightroom and what can be worked-around?

[John O'Connell]

On a general not about Lightroom. There seem to be strong opinions about it. Could those that have experience with both Lightroom and PS state what is really missing in Lightroom and what can be worked-around?

Sure. Every time I look into Lightroom, I check and see if it has a channel mixer. It still doesn't have a channel mixer. Since I only do B&W prints, and the reason I use digital is to apply contrast filtration to color captures in post-production, I think the channel mixer is pretty important.

I've used other tools to do B&W conversions, and I've seen the Lightroom dialog. I still prefer a workflow with the channel mixer. I'm sure there are other functions I use that don't exist in Lightroom, but that's the big one for me.

Just for the record, I'm not that angry at Adobe over this, but software and computing costs are a big deal in digital work. (Plus the fact that my printer was just orphaned by HP and I can't even buy photo inks for it anymore. Argh!)

[Greg Miller]

Greg,

I've gone the other direction over the last 2 years, I'm at 90% with lightroom and only use PS for big retouching, transformations, and stitching. With LR 5 the new transform features look very promising too. It took me a while to warm up to LR, but now I find it has too many advantages for my workflow. That said, the other 10% is still really necessary.....

Hi Bruce. I respect your opinion on this. Thanks for adding your input.

Here are some things that Lightroom does not have that are critical for my workflow:

1) No blending modes. Almost all of my color balance, contrast, and saturation changes are made with a blending mode to avoid things like changing saturation and hue when making a contrast change. I am a propoent of using color theory to optimize an image. e.g. When changing color balance, don't also change luminosity and saturation (which happens unless you change the blending mode).
2) No ability to overshoot an adjustment and then back off with the opacity slider
3) No stitching of multiple photos
4) No manual blending of two images with different exposures (with high dynamic range scenes)
5) No organizing of adjustments through layers and groups (and with labels)
6) No targeted dodging and burning with a very specific curve