Affinity Photo. Same workflow as camera raw + photoshop. I'm not a big fan of the personas but it works great. I don't use it for printing though. There is no background removal tool and there is no relative document resize which I use in photoshop to quickly add a frame to my images.
It does not relative resize like photoshop does. In photoshop you have both options.
"Document" --> "Resize Canvas"
It does not relative resize like photoshop does. In photoshop you have both options.
I agree. Why learn a new program, when Photoshop is extremely versatile. You will have to subscribe for $10/month but you also get Lightroom and you can install both on 2 computers. So if you really wanted to, you could split the subscription, making it even less expensive. And if something comes along in a year that you can buy outright and you're happier with that, you haven't spent the big bucks on Photoshop that it would have cost you in the past to buy the software.
I wasn't asking anything but I see...the plus sign does it in Affinity. In Photoshop there is a checkbox named "relative" and does what the "+" sign does it Affinity. It changes the size by addin or subtracting the amount of units. If I want to increase by x units, I type x and then check the "relative" box.Try typing in "+200 px" to add a 200 pixel border-- unless I'm not understanding what you're asking.
Corel's Paintshop Pro can both read and write PSD files.Is the ability to open PSDs (or what ever the latest file types are) omnipresence in other products on the market or not?
What do people save all their files down as - .PSD or something like TIFF? What happens if you end your CC subscription, are you assuming you will be able to use other products that will be able to open all your .PSD files (for example GIMP)? Or do a mass convert before you end your subscription? Is the ability to open PSDs (or what ever the latest file types are) omnipresence in other products on the market or not?
Background removal is one click in photoshop.
I haven't used "real" photoshop in nearly two decades, but do you mean in the case of the video I linked, it could separate the girl from the background, and get all the wisps of hair?
Not saying it can't-- I've seen "sky replacement" on Luminar 4, and that's flippin' amazing, but I would be impressed if no tweaking was required.
I usually save as tiff (and sometimes as photoshop) and haven't had a problem yet with either, but who knows what tomorrow brings. My photoshop sessions saved as tiff retain all layers, saved selections, alpha masks, filtration, etc. without a hitch. My multilayer photoshop files are a bit more efficient files (smaller size) than the tiff equivalents fwiw. You can export tiff with compression but that feels icky.It is, however, the best way to save an Adobe Photoshop "session"-- the workflow, layers, filters, transforms, etc., that have all taken place during editing. TIFF, even though multi-layer, doesn't really support all that metadata.
So you're likely to be able to open a .psd file whether you use Photoshop or not-- whether that produces the same result as when you open it in Photoshop, is a bit of a question.
You can export tiff with compression but that feels icky.
Wow POVRay, a blast from the past! And I see it’s still available to download.No reason why it should-- As long as you avoid 'jpeg' compression (which I don't think anyone uses), all the compression formats for TIFF are lossless. I believe, although I can't find documentation to support this, that PSD is effectively a compressed TIFF with some Adobe specific extensions.
I'm somewhat old school on these things-- For me, TIFF is a fairly basic, multi-page raster format that supports a couple of modest, lossless compression algorithms. But that was true in 1988 when I was doing TGA files as render output from POVRay, and as soon as PNG became available, that became my single-image format of choice (lossless, decent compression, high bit depth). Also, at the time, it was a blow against the recently patented LZW compression in GIF. So while it's versatile, I'm somewhat anti TIFF for no reason other than natural contrariness.
Wow POVRay, a blast from the past! And I see it’s still available to download.
On my understanding of it, it's for negative to positive conversion and functions like making an enlargement in terms of settings. Exposure, CMY filters, density, and dodge/burn tweaks.To go back to the OP question. Gimp's latest update includes a "negative darkroom" operation but I don't know what it is. I used Gimp when I had a Linux machine but not anymore. Maybe someone can explain. These are the release highlights:
found here:
- Off-canvas point snapping
- GeoTIFF metadata support (georeferencing information embedded within a TIFF file used by map makers)
- Many improvements in the metadata viewer and editor
- Many file format supports improved: HEIF, PSP, TIFF, JPEG, PNG, PDF, DDS, BMP, PSD
- New “Negative Darkroom” operation to simulate enlargement prints from scans of photographic negatives.
- The RAW image import now handles darktable 3.6 and over
- New Kabyle translation
https://www.gimp.org/news/2021/03/29/gimp-2-10-24-released/
The plug-ins are to me the main reason to keep subscribing to PS (plus the fact that PS CS6 on high-dpi screens can give weird displays, and the panorama function in the latest PS works with fewer mistakes than the discontinued Autopano Giga gives me). Is any of the PS competitor software programs compatible with PS plug-ins ?
Thank those of you who pointed me toward Affinity. It has taken me a while to find everything but so far it has everything photoshop has and a few new tweaks. All that money I saved? Got sucked up by 2 Epson Ink Cartridges. LOL.
Have and use Photoshop CS6 and it works well. One of these days it may not.
When that day comes I'll need something to replace it - a program I can buy and use, not rent or lease.
What is out there that will give me what Photoshop can do?
Am looking at Photo editing and finessing images. Don't use Lightroom or any other programs for images. Just Photoshop since version 2.
The problem with Photoshop isn't the licensing model.
The problem is that it is an incredibly powerful and extensive tool, that has capabilities that very few exploit.
To maintain that tool, they need high prices or a relatively expensive subscription option.
Most people need a simpler tool.
If it was $4.00 per month, with an option to save money by paying $34.99 once each year, a stripped down Photoshop would be much more suitable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?