A program called made by Binuscan called Photoretouch pro, it has a very useful function called bX-ray which can reveal invisble image faults in scans such as CCD stops, Newton Rings, JPEG compression artefacts, etc.
www.binuscan.com
A program called made by Binuscan called Photoretouch pro, it has a very useful function called bX-ray which can reveal invisble image faults in scans such as CCD stops, Newton Rings, JPEG compression artefacts, etc.
www.binuscan.com
I've read there is a newcomer called something like Acrylic. It comes from Microsoft, but given that's it is available for free, it might be worth a try if you have time on your hands. In my opinion, this time would be more productively invested in reading a PS book.
One of the main advocates of PWP is Norman Koren, by the way. Check
http://normankoren.com/PWP_intro.html
I've seen Norman's prints, and they are superb. He says that in general he spends only 1/4 to 1/2 hour per print, which speaks volumes about the efficiency of a PWP workflow.
Corel Photo-Paint is another alternative. I often use it for cloning because I find that tool easier to use than in Photoshop. Overall the program is very similar to Photoshop, but costs substantially less. You can try a free download from the Corel website.
Acrylic is a poor substitute for PS. GIMP is OK, however if you want LAB, CMYK, or support for large scans....GIMP isn't for you. GIMP is terribly slow on large MF scans that I do while PS rocks on through them without a problem.
I'm afraid that if you are serious about control in a digital darkroom, you'll need the power and versatility that PS offers.
The previous posts seem to have the list of options covered. As for the learning curve with PS, I second the Real World Photoshop books. To learn PS and many other graphics applications inexpensively, you might check into the lynda.com on-line learning center's list of titles. $25 buys a month's unlimited access to all their tutorials. Learn at your own pace. Then for expert instruction you can invest in a workshop.
I second the vote for Picture Window Pro. I have been using Photoshop on a G4 Mac and I agree that the program seems to be overkill for photography and tedious to learn. Also, I simply hate the Mac (yeah, you read that right). PWP seems to be enough for photography, and to my surprise and delight it seems to run fine on a Linux box using the Wine emulator. As for the GIMP, it works pretty well but the current version won't do 16-bit/channel color (PWP will) so it's not ready for serious photo editing yet. There is a fork of GIMP called Cinepaint that will do up to 32-bit/channel color (very interesting) but it is currently "alpha" software and crashes easily with large files. It's not ready for prime time.
Mike Lewis
mikelewisimages.com
"I agree that the program seems to be overkill for photography and tedious to learn."
I depend on quite a few photoshop-only features in order to get photographs to look as good as possible. And I'm not talking about special effects; I'm talking about tools that allow you to do the basics while destroying as little image integrity as possible. If you don't know what I'm talking about, it's because you haven't learned the advanced photoshop techniques requrired to do this. Once you learn them, there will be no going back to anything else.
This Photoshop thing leaves me Cold! I am a Photoshop wizard, and I've no friggin use for it outside the Day Job, and that job is all about brute-function. Have you PS people no expertise, no lives?
I also think that Photoshop is a remarkably good piece of software - though the learning curve is not trivial and never-ending. I futz endlessly with my prints, so I can't imagine using any tool that couldn't support all my adjustments in adjustment layers (or something equivalent) where I can endlessly change my mind without degrading image quality. I think this is especially true when you want to start 'dodging and burning' (and I do this with masks on adjustment layers rather than something as primitive as the dodge and burn tools that work directly on the pixels).
When I consider the amount of $$ I have invested in the various tools I use (cameras, lenses, computers, software) and the amount of time I spend using them and the value I derive from them, I'm always pretty happy with the Photoshop equation.
If I was cranking out images for something like stock photography, then I might want to opt for something simpler and faster. But in that case I probably wouldn't bother with the time, expense and additional hassle of LF either!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks