 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / February 2007"The Gimp" and its plugins?
Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins do you recommend? > Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > do you recommend? I've got it installed but don't use it that much. Try the beta 2.3. If you're scanning to tif, you don't need many plug ins other than those installed, but Gimp has a website that shows the latest plugins. I use DarwinPorts on Mac. If you're on Windows, I believe there are various compiled binaries now, but I don't really know much about them. > Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > do you recommend? Yes it is a perfectly acceptable alternative to PhotoShop. Interface may take some getting used to but no more than Photoshop's. I have not yet found the need for any plugins, in fact the compiled binaries on Windows and Mac OS come with verious special effects plug ins that mostly I've never even looked at. What plug ins do you think you might need? On 28 Jan, 12:02, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > > Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > > do you recommend?Yes it is a perfectly acceptable alternative to PhotoShop. Interface may [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What plug ins do you think you might need? Anti noise/grain plugins >> Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins >> do you recommend? > > Yes it is a perfectly acceptable alternative to PhotoShop. Interface may > take some getting used to but no more than Photoshop's. Agree in both cases. > I have not yet found the need for any plugins, in fact the compiled > binaries on Windows and Mac OS come with verious special effects plug > ins that mostly I've never even looked at. If you want to scan directly from Gimp, you'll need the Xsane plugin. I'm not sure if it comes with the Windows or Mac versions by default. It doesn't with Kubuntu Linux packages, but it is only a few clicks away in Synaptic. > What plug ins do you think you might need? I.e. what effects do you need? -- Lassi On 29 Jan, 12:00, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: > >> Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > >> do you recommend? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > What plug ins do you think you might need?I.e. what effects do you need? I note they have a despckler but I was wanting something more to reduce film grain. > On 29 Jan, 12:00, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I note they have a despckler but I was wanting something more to > reduce film grain. Haven't tested them all (too many). If you don't find anything that suits your tastes, you can always write your own with Python. -- Lassi On 30 Jan, 19:50, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: > > On 29 Jan, 12:00, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Haven't tested them all (too many). If you don't find anything that suits > your tastes, you can always write your own with Python. Do you mean as a plugin or separate. If a plugin then I get the impression that maybe the Gimp has come to the end of the line with its current architecture. I don't know how difficult it would be to change a plugin to work with a new architecture when it come along. > On 30 Jan, 19:50, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > wrote: ... >> Haven't tested them all (too many). If you don't find anything that suits >> your tastes, you can always write your own with Python. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > its current architecture. I don't know how difficult it would be to > change a plugin to work with a new architecture when it come along. You can write your own plugin using Python. I wouldn't call it the end of the architecture - quite the opposite: the architecture is very flexible, since you can hang your own dongles on it using a well documented API. http://www.gimp.org/docs/python/index.html -- Lassi On 31 Jan, 12:05, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: > > On 30 Jan, 19:50, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -- Lassi Can I do this on a Windows XP PC? > On 31 Jan, 12:05, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Can I do this on a Windows XP PC? It's a Gimp feature. Should work with any OS. -- Lassi On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> wrote: > > On 31 Jan, 12:05, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It's a Gimp feature. Should work with any OS. Then I might look into it. > On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Then I might look into it.- Hide quoted text - I've got python as part of Cygwin on my PC. Can I use that or does it have to be another one? >> On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I've got python as part of Cygwin on my PC. Can I use that or does it > have to be another one? Don't know, really. I'm running pure Linux... -- Lassi What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment format of this group? Take it somewhere someone cares. >>> On 31 Jan, 12:51, Lassi Hippeläinen <lahip...@ieee.orgies.invalid> >>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -- Lassi > What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment > format of this group? Gimp might be usable for scanning. Unlike spelling, it's at least potentially relevent. > Take it somewhere someone cares. If they had some useful information, I'd care. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment > > format of this group? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If they had some useful information, I'd care. Exactly. If medium format film gets used then it will mostly be in a scanned form and the scanning itself makes extra problems. Then there is the graininess of film which is becoming out of fashion so some "processing" might be required. Then there is the cost of Adobe Photoshop to consider. Then there is the limitations of it and its plugins so that medium format photography gets merged in with all this. > > > What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment > > > format of this group? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > plugins so that medium format photography gets merged in with all > this. If you want useful information about Gimp, there's a Gimp website and a Gimp group, and a Gimp irc channel, and stuff. B. Grain isn't the issue in medium format that it is in 35 mm. C. This used to be a more active group in terms of actually talking about medium format cameras but being Usenet, it's now full of people who probably don't own a medium format camera probably trolling. Photo.net has got better medium format information. I've learned more about what sort of film holders to buy to replace the Epson holders I have than I've ever read any particularly useful information about scanning here. [SNIP] > C. This used to be a more active group in terms of actually > talking about medium format cameras but being Usenet, it's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ever read any particularly useful information about scanning > here. Which sort of holders did you get? I've been wondering about getting better holders for my 4990, for doing 6x12 and 6x17 and also what to do about formats like half plate and 13x18 that are nowhere near the usually supported sizes. Peter > [SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > formats like half plate and 13x18 that are nowhere near the usually > supported sizes. Haven't gotten them yet, but this is the site: http://www.betterscanning.com/ I'm not connected with them in any way other than the guy is a Photo.net member and other people praise them. The recommendations say to get the anti-Newtonian glass while you're at it. I don't think he has anything for half-plate or 13x18, but 13x18 isn't going to fit on a 4990 unless you're measuring in cm, I don't think. > > [SNIP] > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.betterscanning.com/ Ah, I'd wondered if they were the way to go - glad to hear they seem recommended. > I'm not connected with them in any way other than the guy is a > Photo.net member and other people praise them. The > recommendations say to get the anti-Newtonian glass while > you're at it. Interesting, thanks. > I don't think he has anything for half-plate or 13x18, but > 13x18 isn't going to fit on a 4990 unless you're measuring in > cm, I don't think. No, no one seems to :-( Guess it's time to play with some black delrin sheet, or something like that. 13x18 is a cm size: it's the European equivalent of 5x7, and currently seems a bit easier for me to get in the emulsions I like than 5x7 is. Peter > What does your running Linux have to do with the medium format equipment > format of this group? > Take it somewhere someone cares. I only answered a question that was put to me. But the fact is that digital publishing is changing the whole landscape of photography. Therefore software, scanners, printers, and anything connected with personal computers (including the OS) is becoming an equipment issue. Even in MF. If you aren't interested in the Gimp, skip the threads that mention it in the header. That's why the header is there. -- Lassi, owner of three MF cameras and a Diana > If you want to scan directly from Gimp, you'll need the Xsane > plugin. I'm not sure if it comes with the Windows or Mac versions by > default. It doesn't with Kubuntu Linux packages, but it is only a few > clicks away in Synaptic. Is the Gimp better than Photoshop in this respect? What I mean is that if I scan directly into Photoshop, the application is blocked until the scanning is complete (which makes the feature useless if I can scan 4-24 frames at the same time - I'd rather scan into files using a separate application in that case.) > > If you want to scan directly from Gimp, you'll need the Xsane > > plugin. I'm not sure if it comes with the Windows or Mac versions by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frames at the same time - I'd rather scan into files using a separate > application in that case.) Trying Gimp Beta 2.3 right now, it called up my Epson scanning program from GimpTwain, which came with the install. (I tend to scan with Vuescan). I suspect that it wouldn't be any different from Photoshop in that regard but I didn't attempt a scan. I'm using the DarwinPorts version of Gimp Beta 2.3. >> If you want to scan directly from Gimp, you'll need the Xsane >> plugin. I'm not sure if it comes with the Windows or Mac versions by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > frames at the same time - I'd rather scan into files using a separate > application in that case.) The plugin is blocked, but Gimp itself can still run (at least in Linux). You can edit the previous picture while the next one gets scanned in the background. BTW, I forgot to mention that there is a Gimp-PhotoShop hybrid called GimpShop. The Gimp engine hiding behind a very PS-like user interface. http://www.gimpshop.net/ -- Lassi > Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > do you recommend? I used a couple years ago under both Windows and Linux. The main complaint I have is while doing USM that you have to set the parameter, let it run, examine the result, undo, change parameters, run it... eg: the pre-viewing while adjusting is not very good. They may have improved it in the meantime. My other complaint is that it ran in 8-bit image mode. There was a separate version of it that did images in 16 bit, however it missed a lot of the other upgrades to the main Gimp edition. In short, the user interface is not as natural to use as PS, and the 16 bit image mode is not (was not, anyway) in the main release. It's worth a try (as it costs nothing but time), but keep your expectations in check. Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins >> do you recommend? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Cheers, > Alan Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version. On Jan 29, 9:53 am, Richard Polhill <richard.n...@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: > >> Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > >> do you recommend? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version. yeah, definitely. but it *STILL* doesn't do 16 bit... :-( there is a plug-in that's supposed to let it use 16-bit files, but it crashed my Windoze box when I tried it. Haven't tried that one in Linux, though. > yeah, definitely. but it *STILL* doesn't do 16 bit... :-( > there is a plug-in that's supposed to let it use 16-bit files, > but it crashed my Windoze box when I tried it. Haven't tried > that one in Linux, though. Question is, does 2.3.* do it? There is no Slackware package so I will need to compile from source. However, it has a fair few dependencies to be compiled first si it will take a little while. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk > > yeah, definitely. but it *STILL* doesn't do 16 bit... :-( > > there is a plug-in that's supposed to let it use 16-bit files, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to compile from source. However, it has a fair few dependencies to be > compiled first si it will take a little while. don't know. the last one I compiled was for Suse and was 2.1. been using the windows version since. there is a gimp newsgroup, might be worth a post there? comp.graphics.apps.gimp >>> Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which >>> plugins do you recommend? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> > Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version. Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks. Hmm - exactly - from my usage I'd rank 16/48 bit image handling, levels, curves, layers with masks, blur and unsharp masking as the most important features. I probally could get away with nothing else. Krita for KDE looks interesting - handles 16 bit and floating point images I think, early days though - levels is not on the version I have on this machine. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk On Feb 1, 12:06 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > > Progressed a lot since then. You may be impressed with the current version. > > Does it answer the questions above? If not, then no thanks. Actually, it does answer: > >> The main complaint I have is while doing USM that you have to set the > >> parameter, let it run, examine the result, undo, change parameters, > >> run it... eg: the pre-viewing while adjusting is not very good. They > >> may have improved it in the meantime. The USM preview window is now resizeable and easily moveable across the original image, with a thumbnail as a guide. The same applies to just about every other effect filter. > >> My other complaint is that it ran in 8-bit image mode. There was a > >> separate version of it that did images in 16 bit, however it missed a > >> lot of the other upgrades to the main Gimp edition. Still the case, as I said. There is a plug-in that lets it do 16-bit, but the Windows version of it didn't work at all and the guy who wrote it couldn't care less about that environment so that one is really only a go for linux users. > >> In short, the user interface is not as natural to use as PS, and the > >> 16 bit image mode is not (was not, anyway) in the main release. "natural to use as PS"? I've heard a lot about PS, but "natural" to use is news to me... :-) Anyways: the UI in GIMP 2 is completely different. You can even set it to have a "Windows" look, or a "Linux" or "Unix" look, depending on your taste. Natural to use? I don't know: to me it's obvious and easy to figure out, to the point where I rarely have needed the manual. As for 16bits, read above. HTH > "natural to use as PS"? I've heard a lot about PS, but "natural" > to use is news to me... :-) I have absolutely no issues with the UI of PS. > Anyways: the UI in GIMP 2 is completely different. You can > even set it to have a "Windows" look, or a "Linux" or "Unix" look, > depending on your taste. Natural to use? I don't know: to me it's > obvious and easy to figure out, to the point where I rarely have > needed the manual. As for 16bits, read above. Well... I don't want to use my Linux machine for photo editing. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> "natural to use as PS"? I've heard a lot about PS, but "natural" >> to use is news to me... :-) > I have absolutely no issues with the UI of PS. I'm sure you don't; nor do I. However nobody sane would refer to it as "natural" I'm sure you'll agree. >> Anyways: the UI in GIMP 2 is completely different. You can >> even set it to have a "Windows" look, or a "Linux" or "Unix" look, >> depending on your taste. Natural to use? I don't know: to me it's >> obvious and easy to figure out, to the point where I rarely have >> needed the manual. As for 16bits, read above. > Well... I don't want to use my Linux machine for photo editing. Basically, what you want is a 16-bit/channel photo editor? Then it seems that GIMP isn't for you then. Still very good though at any price, let alone free. >>> "natural to use as PS"? I've heard a lot about PS, but "natural" >>> to use is news to me... :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm sure you don't; nor do I. However nobody sane would refer to it as > "natural" I'm sure you'll agree. It depends on what is implied by natural. To me it is logical, well thought out and easy to learn. So, natural. > Basically, what you want is a 16-bit/channel photo editor? Then it seems > that GIMP isn't for you then. Still very good though at any price, let > alone free. So useless. I have no quibbles about payinf a reasonable price for Photoshop. CS 2 is quite expensive and I hope they come out with a $300 offer for CS 2 when they officially phase in CS 3. (As they did when they phased in CS 2). Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > Does anyone use "The Gimp" as an image editor and if so, which plugins > do you recommend? Big discussion about this on the Pentax Discussion List - consensus seems to be it's useful if you have to run Linux, but the alternatives for Mac & Windoze are better despite the costs. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.