I ran Linux as a desktop for ~10 years and have just switched to OS X, but pulled in GIMP/Darktable/VueScan workflow even though I have access to the Adobe suite. I shoot film, develop at home, print in my darkroom, then scan my negatives if I ever want to share them digitally (rare-ish since the whole point of shooting film for me is to get off the computer, but like to share sometimes). (The GFX50R isn't yet on my radar screen in part for this reason, though support is clearly on the way.) I buy slightly-older hardware, and I check for Darktable compatibility before purchase/rental. Lensfun and Darktable do a great job of keeping up with new hardware, but it often takes at least a few months for new cameras to be supported. Adobe's close relationships with camera manufacturers (and large developer team) ensures that new cameras and lenses are supported almost at release. The improved content-aware fill is remarkable, but I never need it. I've been occasionally curious about Lightroom/Photoshop's capabilities, but have never felt that I was lacking anything so grievous as to consider a switch.įurthermore, I'd have to run an entirely different OS from the one I've been using since 2002, and lash myself to a licensing model that would be both crippling and expensive.įrom my perspective, Adobe's tools do have remarkable capabilities and substantial support. My 2c.Īs an anecdotal counterpoint, I'm a dedicated amateur photographer who works entirely on a Debian stack (Darktable/GIMP). But the fact that they curse Adobe but still use Photoshop tells you a lot about the fact that Gimp just does not cut it for them. And it is not for lack of trying - they do try Gimp (and Liminar, and Affinity and such). If there were a viable option many users would migrate. Maybe Gimp does not need to be that tool for artists, but if it does its developer community needs to be more engaged with photography crowd.Īs a data point: current Adobe licensing model is almost universally hated. I have seen many, many artists try Gimp only to go back. Those who want a visual interface to drag sliders around, instanly see how things would look and edit based on tight coupling with that visual perception still choose Photoshop. It is, however, a lame duck to photographers (and I think many other artists) when compared with Photoshop. It does well the tasks that can be automated or thought about in terms of algorithms (rotate all images, resize, stretch levels to 0-255, etc.).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |