Photoshop Alternatives

[Bill Pierce]

A lot of us grew up on Photoshop. It’s been around a long time. But it has evolved into a program meant as much for designers and illustrators as photographers. Photoshop CS6 is very expensive, The subscription version has met a modest amount of resistance. More and more photographers are turning to far less expensive programs programs like Lightroom, Capture One, DxO Optics Pro, Iridient Developer, AccuRaw and many more.

Lightroom is my workhorse processor. But I experimented with a lot of others because of Lightroom’s initial weakness with Fuji’s non-Bayer files and still use other programs for the initial processing of Fuji files. It’s been interesting using other processors. And I’ve just scratched the surface. There are a lot of good, affordable systems out there. I thought it might be interesting if folks could give a quick, short description of one of the many alternative programs they use and its most outstanding advantages.

Here’s one. PHOTO NINJA does an good job with Bayer and Fuji files, is very simple and quickly produces very colorful color images or black-and-white images with excellent mid range contrast and clarity when you open a raw file. Of course, if you wish to take the time, extensive manipulations are available. But the images it produces when you open the file are often excellent.There are a lot of detailed reviews on the web.

Your favorite image processor? What and WHY?

 

[Bill Clark]

I use CS4 but if I were to change this has interesting features:

http://www.ononesoftware.com

 

[Ronald M]

I will probably use CS6 until it not viable. Leica files are DNG. Nikons can be converted if necessary. CS6 already does more than 99% require.

If my machine broke, I would use capture one. It has local controls and I am not required to use a "library".

Light room is CS with fewer controls.

 

[Bill Clark]

Haven't looked/tried the new On One but it looks like it has layers and blending which is important for me. Plus being a cheapie it looks reasonably priced.

 

[TXForester]

GIMP is a feature full and free program.

 

[peterm1]

If you are interested in a good image processor that is a powerful BUT INEXPENSIVE alternative to any version of Photoshop, try Corel Paintshop Pro (version x6 - also known as version 16, is the latest.) While PSP started off as a fairly naf, pale imitation of PS, over the years it has matured into a fully featured image processing tool complete with selections, layers, actions, blending modes and all the gamut of PS features and tools. It really is very good - especially for the price.

Plus it has for a long time had many wizards and tools that were not featured in PS and which are specifically designed for the needs of photographers. For example a simple horizon straightening tool and a perspective correction tool to prevent that "falling over " look in buildings. In fact many of the tools that PSP has as standard were only available in PS through a plug in. (Although I concede that it has caught up somewhat).

I used to use PS Elements for my post processing needs - a product which I thought provided most of what a photographer needs by comparison with the full PS version which is complex and expensive as hell. But I was introduced to the Corel product more or less by accident and decided to stick with it. BTW it also supports most (not all) PS third party plugins.

The reason I use this instead of Lightroom is mainly because I need things like selections and layers and these have not been available in LR - at least the versions I have tried.

The list price for PSP here in Oz is around $100. About 2/3 the cost of elements and a tiny fraction of full PSP was - not sure now that it has to be subscribed to.

The following link will provide a list of features of the last few versions.

http://www.corel.com/static/product_content/psp/x6/pspx6_family_comparison_chart_en.pdf

 

[shadowfox]

darktable (like Lightroom)
GIMP (like Photoshop)

Both are free.
I still use Lightroom 3 on my PC.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I'll second PSP as a very suitable alternative to Photoshop but it is only on the Windows platform as yet. I bugged Corel about it a couple years ago and they said that they were thinking about Mac. Still are apparently.

 

[thegman]

I do very little manipulation, mainly cropping/resizing and perhaps a little tweaking of the curves, so Paint.NET is more than enough for me.

 

[Godfrey]

A lot of us grew up on Photoshop. It’s been around a long time. But it has evolved into a program meant as much for designers and illustrators as photographers. ..

Your favorite image processor? What and WHY?

Um, Photoshop was originally designed for graphic designers, intended to process images and pixel graphics for inclusion into page layout companion apps. It's only in the past six or seven years that the photography portion of it has been expanded by a large amount. The total photography marketplace for Photoshop is about 6% of its sales.

I have used Lightroom since it was the second public beta in early 2006. It's been enhanced with almost everything I need for my photography. I've never taken to the odd Fuji sensor, find it too fussy and fiddly to bother with, and LR has worked beautifully with Leica, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony digital cameras. I hardly ever touch Photoshop anymore and stopped buying upgrades with Photoshop CS5.

G

 

[mrtoml]

I use Lightroom mostly, but recently got a Fuji XE2 and had some issues with the raw processing in LR5. I downloaded Photo Ninja yesterday and it works as an external editor from within LR. It is pretty nice at the initial render of the Fuji raw and I am going to experiment with it some more.

The problem with a lot of software it seems to me is that it doesn't incorporate very user friendly digital asset management if any at all. LR is pretty good at this.

 

[Ranchu]

I use Canon's dpp, it's rock solid software that does everything I need with no surprises.

 

[Rikard]

Capture One is excellent and not that expensive.

 

[Aristophanes]

I've used Pixelmator and find it useful.

 

[Bill Clark]

Hey Godfrey,

I thought Photoshop was first developed for photographers. Not to nit pick with you but correct me if I'm wrong. I thought there are a lot more photographers who used to buy ps as compared to others.

Aren't some of the terms used ps derived from the analog darkroom?
Check this out:

http://www.storyphoto.com/multimedia/multimedia_photoshop.html

 

[Bill Clark]

Of course this link is an article from 2000. As this is an eternity in the technology world a lot has happened since then.


None the less it does offer information on the beginnings of Photoshop, where it came from and used by photographers, graphics folks and a host of others.

 

[marcr1230]

I've used Pixelmator and am very happy with it.
Also have used ArtStudio on the iPad - very powerful

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just don't see any reason for PS.
I do right exposure on the spot, I enhance it with on the lens filters.
All I need in PP is WB, some exposure adjustments and retouching.
LR does it all.

 

[Bill Clark]

With digital capture, I'm 100% RAW. I need a way to process then convert to JPEG. For me, ACR works for me.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I am surprised that ACDSee Pro 7 has not been mentioned above.