Photo Editing Software

[wesleyfarnsworth]

<p>I've volunteered to teach a class on basic photo editing techniques. I had planned on using Photoshop as that's the most popular program. But the center I'm going to teach at has asked me to research and find another program that the students could find for around the $20-30 price range. Does anyone have a sugestion of a decent program that would meet this stipulation?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You could try something free, like Google's Picasa. That way you know everyone can get it, and there are no licensing issues for you. Depends on how in-depth you're thinking of getting, technically.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>Gimp</p>

[acarodp]

<p>A fairly obvious choice would be <a href="http://www.gimp.org/">the GIMP</a> , which is open source (thus free) and cross-platform (Linux, Mac & Windows). As far as tiff / jpeg editing goes, it is probably the most powerful solution except photoshop (I mean the real one, not that half joke of elements). Its interface and ergonomics are on the other hand a bit particular and require some learning: it is not a program for absolute beginners, but neither is photoshop for this matter. But for a photoshop-centric person, it can feel quite unusual. The main limits of GIMP are in the lack of 16 bit support and of a decent support for color-managed printing. Also, its raw support is decent but far from great. Depending on what is your concept of "basic" techniques for these classes, these can be problems or not.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>L.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The GIMP is not what I'd throw at beginners. The horrid user interface is unlike most anything else they're likely to use in terms of user interface conventions, it can't handle RAW files, etc. Remember: he's talking about "basic" instruction - and that open source project shows its roots as a developer's beast, not a tool meant for casual users.</p>

[williamting]

<p>You might want to look into GimpShop, it's basically Gimp redesigned to look and act like Photoshop.</p>

<p>Also, Gimp can handle raw files with the ufraw plugin.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Matt,<br>

I agree to a point. First, if you did not see GIMP after version 2 came out a while ago (a fairly long while ago, I believe 2 years?), the interface has vastly improved.Gimp 1.* was pretty much a dog, Gimp 2.6 (the current one) is a very different story, although I agree is not conceived for beginners, and its interface is not what I would call "streamlined". But the real photoshop is not exactly conceived for beginners either.<br>

GIMP's multi window structure is bad in a Windows environment, but under Mac and Linux, where you possess multiple desktops, it actually works better than a single window one (not surprising, it was made so on purpose). I actually wonder how one can live without multiple desktops... but this is just me. GIMP <strong>can</strong> indeed handle RAW files (via URFRaw which is embedded) although as I said the outcome is not thrilling. I would anyway hesitate calling thrilling what comes out of ACR, and the only ACR-based product under 200$ (i.e. Elements) has quite a limited control of raw processing, to the point to be close to worthless. On the other hand: would you throw raw editing to a beginner? If we start speaking about raw converters, the story becomes a lot more complex, but the OP has still a budget of 20$ per student, which again leaves, for what I know, 2 classes of programs: the useless ones, and the open source ones.</p>

<p>If he had said, say 100$, then Elements would be in. It is much less powerful than GIMP as far as editing goes, in my view, but it is much more friendly for sure, and Bridge is a real asset. On the other hand it is so covered in pre-cooked "effects" and so lacking in control (no curves? is it a joke?) that I doubt one can learn much from it. <br>

But at the end the question stays the same: what is it "basic" here? how to open a photo and crop it? move the "exposure" slider? move the "sharpness" slider? Or are we going a bit deeper: cloning? curve manipulation? B&W conversion? channel mixing? maybe even layers? Probably not, but one would like to know...</p>

<p>L.</p>

[wesleyfarnsworth]

<p>Basics = Color Correcting, croping, managing exposure, maybe removing some things from a photograph.<br>

This place offers classes on Basic Composition techniques, how to use your digital camera (covers both P&S and DSLR cameras), they also have classes on photographing animals, so they are looking for a class to teach those that have a P&S camera basicly how to download them to their camera and edit them. All this with the intent of them being able to upload to their choice of websites to share the finished photos with family and friends.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Gimp... ugh. Dreadful program, worst interface I've ever seen. Don't bother unless you're also comfortable with the quirks of working outside the familiar Windows or Mac interface. It has virtually nothing to recommend it other than being free, which appeals to folks who disdain OS's that actually have to be licensed and paid for. It's a wonk's wet dream. Like using a coat hanger to unlock your car door instead of a key. I'm sure Luca is the exception, but most of the folks I've seen recommending Gimp also love to gloat over people who are so stupid they actually pay for a licensed operating system that's reasonably well documented and supported.</p>

<p>IOW, the OP's specific description - "...basic photo editing techniques..." - automatically disqualifies Gimp from consideration.</p>

<p>If you don't need or plan to teach selective editing techniques involving selections, layers, masks, etc., but just want to teach basic global editing to correct photos, along the lines of a minilab or DIY kiosk type interface, the best freebies include Picasa, FastStone and Irfanview. Each has unique strengths and some maddening weaknesses, but all are easy to use.</p>

<p>Of the three Picasa would probably be the most intuitive for most beginners. It's also well integrated for online sharing, thanks to Google's devious infiltration of the interwebs. Neither FastStone nor Irfanview is oriented toward web sharing in the way Picasa is. I have gripes about Picasa, but what it does it does very well.</p>

<p>In the under-$100 territory the most intuitive software I've seen is made by PictoColor. Their iCorrect EditLab Pro is about as good as it gets for global (non-selective) edits to fix color, contrast, etc. It can even selectively correct colors within a limited range, such as skin tones, without also throwing off the color for the entire photos. That's something you can't do with Picasa, FastStone or Irfanview, and can't do with Photoshop, Elements, Paint Shop Pro, Picture Window Pro or comparable programs without getting into selective controls (brushes, selections, masks, layers). PictoColor also offers simpler programs in the iCorrect line, some very comparable to those user friendly kiosks at minilabs. Gearheads, wonks and pixel peepers will hate the PictoColor software, but ordinary people who just want to fix their photos will like it.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ah, my post and Wesley's overlapped. Given the clarification you specified, the answer is Picasa. Look no further. It's what I would recommend to my mom, friends, family, anyone who doesn't want to go nuts trying to learn a non-intuitive interface.</p>

<p>One of the wonders of Picasa is that by default it will automagically ferret out every image in most file formats throughout the entire computer. Which means, be careful - it'll also find and make thumbnails of your... umm... adult alternative entertainment photos and movies.</p>

[dennisgg]

<p>Paint.net<br>

http://www.getpaint.net/ - freeware (they have a way to donate if you like it). It is actually very good, pretty easy to use, feature packed, can take plugins (http://paintdotnet.forumer.com/viewforum.php?f=16). </p>

[Mary Doo]

<p>Picassa is great. One other excellent freebie worth checking into would be <a href="http://www.faststone.org/download.htm"><strong>FastStone Image Viewer</strong> </a>(<a href="http://www.faststone.org/download.htm">http://www.faststone.org/download.htm</a>).</p>

<p>The price is right!</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>Gimp... ugh. Dreadful program, worst interface I've ever seen. Don't bother unless you're also comfortable with the quirks of working outside the familiar Windows or Mac interface. It has virtually nothing to recommend it other than being free, which appeals to folks who disdain OS's that actually have to be licensed and paid for. It's a wonk's wet dream. Like using a coat hanger to unlock your car door instead of a key. I'm sure Luca is the exception, but most of the folks I've seen recommending Gimp also love to gloat over people who are so stupid they actually pay for a licensed operating system that's reasonably well documented and supported.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I don't want to totally hijack the thread so this will be my last post on this, but again I might have to ask whn you have seen the GIMP the last time. Your response is pretty much along the lines of the most extreme "gimp hating" posts I have seen a number of times from people who never tried it in the last years, and simply do not want to move a millimeter beyond the known way of Adobe. Which, mind you, is quite legitimate. On the other side of the river there are the "GIMP is the second coming of Jesus" folk, which are of course just as off im my view. Personally, I find that GIMP interface as I said is still far from good and would need a good rationalization, not in the sense of being "photoshoppped", but in the sense of becoming coherent and eliminate some obvious mistakes. But for me the prize for the worst interface in the photo editing categories (as well as perhaps the worst resource usage) goes still squarely to Nikon Capture NX.</p>

<p>The point is, part of your argument is actually upside down. I use GIMP because I DO value the price I pay for things. The guys who love to crack open they own car do not use GIMP. They use pirated copies of Windows or OSX, pirated Office, and very pirated PS CS4, Lightroom and so on. You might be quite sure they upgraded to CS4 before many. One of the strong reasons why MS office and Adobe Photoshop are so mainstream is that a lot of people do not pay for them. Not the only reason by a long shot, but surely one.<br>

Now, I pay for what I buy, and if I don't want to pay, I use open source. I refuse to give Adobe 1000 euros for what is sold in USA for 600 dollars and in any case is not worth for me either price. It is not worth for me because it does not do for me much that I cannot get done with Bibble 5, GIMP, and a little application of my brains and my goodwill. The only serious limit of GIMP for me is hte printing side, so I bought Elements, which I open to print and close afterwards because it is not half as powerful and configurable as a software which I get for free. Every time I wanted to translate a technique from PS to GIMP, it took me less than couple of hours (in the very worst case) to find out how. And I learned a lot of things in the process, so that the first time it was a couple of hours, the second was one hour and the third was likely 20 minutes. Afterwards, I did often not even need to really look at the instructions, and seeing the result I conceived a way to get there. I'm sure this does not hold for every technique and PS is clearly more powerful. But for my needs it worked up to now. The day I will find something I really want to do and I cannot do with what I have (including my brain in the assets) I will take out the wallet and pay what is needed (if I can afford it of course).<br>

I'm well aware that this might not hold for people with more demanding needs or standards, or the need to comply with clients' standards and so on. I don't need CS4, I don't need 24 MP full frame either. If you offer me a free D3x with full lenses and a free copy of CS4 in a nicely wrapped box, I will be happy to accept them, however ;-).</p>

<p>Back on topic. For the needs Wesley mentions, I agree GIMP is way an overkill. The point is I'm spoiled and I did not really imagine that one needed to teach how you <em>download</em> the images on the computer. For that level, I agree that the likes of Picasa are much more suitable... except perhaps the cloning business which I don't know whether is available on Picasa, Irfan & Co... That paint.net thing looks quite nice on the other hand, I cannot try it because I'm on mac...</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

[howardstanbury]

<p>Let me shout out for Picnik (picnik.com) the free web-based picture editor. It's embedded in Flickr (click on 'Edit this' to load it) but also serves other web photo hosting sites such as Picasaweb, Facebook, and others.<br>

A premium version ($25) gives access to more sophisticated tools and effects, including levels adjustments. Unlike Picasa it does not handle RAW files, but it does offer more detailed editing capabilities and is well worth a trial. You need to have a reasonably current version of Flash installed to get the most out of the program.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Aww, heck... Luca, I'm just grumpy about the Gimp because too often it's suggested reflexively, without the accompanying warning that it's a tool for experts, just like Photoshop, and not necessarily suitable for everyone.</p>

<p>I don't get worked up over Ken Rockwell the way some folks do. But my pet peeves are Gimp and Strobist. Both are good, both have their places. But it's aggravating to see someone ask a question about studio lights and modifiers and see three posts all spouting "Read Strobist!" It's the equivalent to responding to a question about the Nikon D3X with "Get a Coolpix!"</p>

<p>Same thing happens whenever someone asks for a very basic, easy to use and inexpensive or free photo editing program: "Use GIMP!" Never mind the fact that it demands learning an entirely new interface and isn't remotely suitable for the specific needs of a casual photographer.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm not an Adobe fan. Haven't used Photoshop since the earliest versions on my old Macs. I've been using the same old copies of Corel Photo Paint 8 and Jasc Paint Shop Pro 7 for years. They're familiar, do what I need and only lack the ability to work with raw files, so I use other stuff for conversions. But I *don't* reflexively respond "Paint Shop Pro!" when the person asking the question doesn't need it, just because I happen to use it. Heck, I only use PSP7 and PP8 when I need selective editing tools, brushes, masks, layers, etc. For my casual snapshots I do quick fixes in Irfanview, FastStone or Picasa. Most of the time my JPEGs don't need any editing, so I use Irfanview to burn autorun slideshows for family and friends.</p>

<p>If you're going to recommend Gimp, be prepared to also coach the person through the entire setup process, because it's not going to be intuitive to someone accustomed to the typical Windows or Mac interface. That isn't necessary with Picasa because it's well designed, intuitive, well integrated with the Windows platform and the web, can deliver prints, autorun slideshows on CD, backups and other handy features, and suits the needs of many thousands of casual photographers. Nope, it's not a great photo editing package and lacks serious tools for selective editing. But it does the trick for many folks and won't turn them off from pursuing more serious photo editing software when they're ready to step up.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>GIMP is now as easy to setup as any other application, at least under Windows, but I'd agree that the interface might put off beginners. The Paint.NET editor suggested by Dennis would be a good choice if your students are Windows users - it's easy to do simple stuff, but Curves, Levels and Layers are there if you want to go 'advanced' later on, and much of what is learned can be transferred to Photoshop (or even GIMP) later. As an editor, Picasa seems almost too simple to warrant a course, unless the students really have no experience with any application beyond a web browser. Elements would be nice (what's the educational price?) and does have stuff like Curves nowadays.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Lex,<br>

installing GIMP under mac (at least the version that gimp.org more or less officially support, the one you are redirected to from their download page) ias as easy as for any other mac application: open the disk image and drag gimp.app in the applications folder.Then you have to decide what to keep open and what not in terms of windows and tabs ant this sort of things, but the default is I guess fairly sensible. But yes, it is a program conceived for experts. I was skewed by the fact that the OP wanted to use photoshop, so I imagined that the "basic" was something basic for advanced amaeurs and the like: curves, layers...</p>

<p>Back on topic, I see just today <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1240318801.html">in the news on Imaging Resource</a> that Lightcraft, the guys that produce that nice LightZone raw converter, came out with this new simple and affordable photo editor called <a href="http://www.lightcrafts.com/">Aurora</a> . It should come for $20, just as the OP want, and apparently (I did not download it, mac version is not yet ready) it is something that he should fit well his purpose.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>This thread had an unexpected impact on me. I'd deleted my old copy of Picasa 2 in order to try Picasa 3, which turned out to be too bloated for my puny PC. So I uninstalled both a year or so ago.</p>

<p>But after fighting with my Nero CD burning software for the past week, having to reboot after every burn, I remembered how easy Picasa 2 was for burning autorun slideshows that also preserved the JPEGs, NEFs and TIFFs intact via the "Gift CD" feature. I uninstalled Nero, reinstalled Picasa 2 and immediately solved my problem with burning backup CDs with the handy autorun slideshow feature for folks who aren't computer savvy. I'd used that feature extensively in 2005-2006 for sharing many copies of CDs with family and friends, and had forgotten how handy it was.</p>

<p>I still wouldn't rely on Picasa as my primary photo editor, mainly because Picasa 2 only saved to JPEG format. But what it does, it does very well.</p>

[mariodennis]

<p>Rather than look at software first, I'd consider what it is newcomers to digital image processing should be learning: adjusting HSL, adjusting brightness/contrast, cropping to improve composition, straightening to correct horizon problems, red eye correction, and sharpening. Picasa can do all of that, plus it helps organize images, displays EXIF and teaches users about its usefulness, it's free, and Google updates it periodically. It's also not a resource hog. The interface is a bit quirky and not my favorite, but I can live with it on my netbook. RAW processing is not a beginner's goal so I wouldn't worry about finding software that can handle it.<br>

GIMP, Photoshop Elements, Paintshop Pro, CS4, and others can do the same thing and then some, of course. GIMP is free but overkill for newcomers. Elements is perfectly respectable and many of us who use CS4 cut our teeth on Elements, so no sneering at it, please. Adobe's Photoshop.Com is also worth considering as is the Piknik site.<br>

<br /> If the goal is to introduce basic image processing, entice new users to look beyond basic corrections into something creative and dare I say FUN, Picasa is a great choice.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>Luca, have you tried the newer versions of Photoshop Elements? 6 or 7? They are very good and quite powerful programs - more than most would ever need.<br>

They are also user friendly - IMO. I would find it hard to believe if isn't good enough for people new to photo editing, such as the class the OP is talking about.<br>

Oh, and Lex, you can adjust curves in Elements 7 to a certain extent under Enhance > Adjust Color > Adjust Color Curves. It's not as powerful as PS CS4 but still doable.<br>

But PSE7 is still $70 US even when purchased as a teacher or student.</p>