Free editing software

[Jacob Y]

Hello,

I have been using GIMP 2 as my editing software but find if insuffcient in some areas.

Do any of you have a suggestion of a better free editing software?

Thanks,

Jacob Y.

[spacecadet]

How about the software which came with the camera? I believe the suite which came with my Sonys can be quite useful.

But +1 for Philippe's post. It's not the question you asked, but your first port of call should be saleable subjects. THere are 33,230 pix of daffodils on Alamy.

[Andy Holmes]

DxO Optics Pro 8 was offered free for a period when version 10 was rolled out. If you search online, I think you can still find sites offering free downloads.

[Matt Ashmore]

Until very recently, I used Nikon Capture NX-D to process raw files and then GIMP to process the resultant JPEGs.

I recently switched to an Adobe CC subscription (so Lightroom and Photoshop) and I honestly think it's one of the best decisions I've made recently as I can do so much more, so much easier (removing purple fringing easily 90% of the time for example).

 

If you look around, you might be able to find an offer to get a discount on your first year. I was given a photography magazine subscription for Christmas which as a 'member' of the magazine subscription gets me 30% discount for my first year of my Adobe CC subscription.. so I pay £6.80 (I think it is) a month at the moment... which is about the price of two or three pints of beer in an English pub (depending on where in the country the pub is!). You might be able to find similar offers for Adobe elsewhere. If you search the forums, this was all discussed quite recently.

[DHill]

... so I pay £6.80 (I think it is) a month at the moment... which is about the price of two or three pints of beer in an English pub ...

Or close to one unit of that rapidly-devaluing currency we all  (kind of) get paid here, the AlamyLicenceFee ;-)

 

I have long thought of photography purchases in terms of how many licences of my images have to be sold to cover the cost.  

[hdh]

"It takes money to make money." There's no way around that 

 

I really think it's worthwhile to make a little investment in good editing software (and cameras and lenses). It'll improve the way your images will look, speed up your workflow and result in - if you shoot the right images - a lot more sales. An image in which both shadows and bright parts show details will sell far better than one with pitch black and overexposed parts.

 

On the other hand, you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't develop "an eye" for interesting, saleable subjects ........... you'll sell very poorly.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Agree to invest into cameras and lenses. 

For software I disagree and find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for. 

(take Libre Office for instance - I personally do not know any better)

 

My daughter, who does a lot of editing went from Gimp to Photoshop two years ago and now is back at using Gimp. 

Also a matter of preference, I believe - switching from one system to another is not effortless once you got used to one. 

I started now my first steps with Darktable, a free raw editing software and find it very pleasing and intuitive. 

Lacking comparison to other systems, hence better may be out there.

 

No real mentionable sales while I am here since late October last year.

Maybe I belong to the category that have that underdeveloped eye for sellable pictures. 

 

Edit:typos

[Phil Robinson]

It's not free, but Photoshop Elements is a lot cheaper than full Photoshop and does everything you'll need unless you're going to lots of advanced manipulation. I tried Gimp for a while but gave up.

[chrumu]

For very basic and free postprocessing and picture organization you could consider Apple Photos, if you have a Mac. Then there also used to be Google Picasa for both Windows and MacOS, but Google recently discontinued it. Still, it might be worth consideration. Apparently there is a successor called Google Photos, but I have no idea if it still allows basic postpocessing like Picasa did.

 

 

I myself rely on both paid and free tools. In the past I used Apple Aperture but then switched to Lightroom (stand-alone license, no subscription) a few years ago. For advanced editing I use GIMP.

 

 

Christoph

[NYCat]

 

"It takes money to make money." There's no way around that 

 

I really think it's worthwhile to make a little investment in good editing software (and cameras and lenses). It'll improve the way your images will look, speed up your workflow and result in - if you shoot the right images - a lot more sales. An image in which both shadows and bright parts show details will sell far better than one with pitch black and overexposed parts.

 

On the other hand, you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't develop "an eye" for interesting, saleable subjects ........... you'll sell very poorly.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Agree to invest into cameras and lenses. 

For software I disagree and find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for. 

(take Libre Office for instance - I personally do not know any better)

 

My daughter, who does a lot of editing went from Gimp to Photoshop two years ago and now is back at using Gimp. 

Also a matter of preference, I believe - switching from one system to another is not effortless once you got used to one. 

I started now my first steps with Darktable, a free raw editing software and find it very pleasing and intuitive. 

Lacking comparison to other systems, hence better may be out there.

 

No real mentionable sales while I am here since late October last year.

Maybe I belong to the category that have that underdeveloped eye for sellable pictures. 

 

Edit:typos

 

 

I hope you don't mind this comment. You didn't ask for feedback on your photos but you say you are not getting sales. I find many of your images too dark. You might search for some of your subjects on Alamy and then compare the ones that show up on the first pages with your images. Then use your own judgment about whether you need to make brighter versions.

 

Paulette

[Cryptoprocta]

 

"It takes money to make money." There's no way around that 

 

I really think it's worthwhile to make a little investment in good editing software (and cameras and lenses). It'll improve the way your images will look, speed up your workflow and result in - if you shoot the right images - a lot more sales. An image in which both shadows and bright parts show details will sell far better than one with pitch black and overexposed parts.

 

On the other hand, you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't develop "an eye" for interesting, saleable subjects ........... you'll sell very poorly.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Agree to invest into cameras and lenses. 

For software I disagree and find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for. 

(take Libre Office for instance - I personally do not know any better)

 

My daughter, who does a lot of editing went from Gimp to Photoshop two years ago and now is back at using Gimp. 

Also a matter of preference, I believe - switching from one system to another is not effortless once you got used to one. 

I started now my first steps with Darktable, a free raw editing software and find it very pleasing and intuitive. 

Lacking comparison to other systems, hence better may be out there.

 

No real mentionable sales while I am here since late October last year.

Maybe I belong to the category that have that underdeveloped eye for sellable pictures. 

 

Edit:typos

 

Like NYCat, I know you didn't ask for a crit, but it doesn't seem that your free software is very good at correcting converging - or diverging - verticals.

[Betty LaRue]

 

"It takes money to make money." There's no way around that 

 

I really think it's worthwhile to make a little investment in good editing software (and cameras and lenses). It'll improve the way your images will look, speed up your workflow and result in - if you shoot the right images - a lot more sales. An image in which both shadows and bright parts show details will sell far better than one with pitch black and overexposed parts.

 

On the other hand, you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't develop "an eye" for interesting, saleable subjects ........... you'll sell very poorly.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

 

Agree to invest into cameras and lenses. 

For software I disagree and find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for. 

(take Libre Office for instance - I personally do not know any better)

 

My daughter, who does a lot of editing went from Gimp to Photoshop two years ago and now is back at using Gimp. 

Also a matter of preference, I believe - switching from one system to another is not effortless once you got used to one. 

I started now my first steps with Darktable, a free raw editing software and find it very pleasing and intuitive. 

Lacking comparison to other systems, hence better may be out there.

 

No real mentionable sales while I am here since late October last year.

Maybe I belong to the category that have that underdeveloped eye for sellable pictures. 

 

Edit:typos

I really don't want to step on your toes here, but in the interest of being helpful, I suggest this.

You have around 9 images of a blackbird where 3 would do.

You have around 19 of a peacock. You need pare those down to only 5 or less. If you use multiples, have a horizontal, a vertical, and any extras should have markedly different poses or action, closeup or distant.

These similars are killing your ranking. You can do searches for threads where this is discussed.

If you got rid of everything over 3-5 per subject, you will probably have a port that is 1/4-1/3 of what you have now, but a more effective one.

Don't feel bad. I constantly fight this tendacy myself. There are people here with relatively small ports who edit so tightly that they have only two. A horizontal and a vertical. Period. They have nice sales and ranking. I will continue to work hard at limiting my similars, and suggest you do the same.

[fotoDogue]

For very basic and free postprocessing and picture organization you could consider Apple Photos, if you have a Mac. Then there also used to be Google Picasa for both Windows and MacOS, but Google recently discontinued it. Still, it might be worth consideration. Apparently there is a successor called Google Photos, but I have no idea if it still allows basic postpocessing like Picasa did.

 

 

As far as I know, Apple Photos doesn't support IPTC which is the industry standard if you're serious about photography.

 

Anyone who can't afford PhotoShop should consider Lightroom or PhotoShop Elements. I've been using PhotoShop since the mid 90s and it's taking me a while to learn Lightroom. Still, the ease at which I can locate and track individual images among the 50,000 or so on my hard drive is invaluable. Any of these programs are well worth the time and money spent.

[M.Chapman]

 

 

"It takes money to make money." There's no way around that 

 

I really think it's worthwhile to make a little investment in good editing software (and cameras and lenses). It'll improve the way your images will look, speed up your workflow and result in - if you shoot the right images - a lot more sales. An image in which both shadows and bright parts show details will sell far better than one with pitch black and overexposed parts.

 

On the other hand, you can have the best equipment in the world, but if you don't develop "an eye" for interesting, saleable subjects ........... you'll sell very poorly.

 

Cheers,

Philippe

Agree to invest into cameras and lenses. 

For software I disagree and find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for. 

(take Libre Office for instance - I personally do not know any better)

 

My daughter, who does a lot of editing went from Gimp to Photoshop two years ago and now is back at using Gimp. 

Also a matter of preference, I believe - switching from one system to another is not effortless once you got used to one. 

I started now my first steps with Darktable, a free raw editing software and find it very pleasing and intuitive. 

Lacking comparison to other systems, hence better may be out there.

 

No real mentionable sales while I am here since late October last year.

Maybe I belong to the category that have that underdeveloped eye for sellable pictures. 

 

Edit:typos

 

 

I hope you don't mind this comment. You didn't ask for feedback on your photos but you say you are not getting sales. I find many of your images too dark. You might search for some of your subjects on Alamy and then compare the ones that show up on the first pages with your images. Then use your own judgment about whether you need to make brighter versions.

 

Paulette

 

+1 Good advice

 

Many of your pictures are taken in strong sunlight giving deep shadows and bright highlights. If you use the shadow and highlight adjustment sliders you may be able to improve matters. Here's an example of one of your images  (before adjustment is on left). Be careful if working with 8 bit files as these sliders can introduce noise and/or banding. However, if working with low ISO RAW images, it's amazing what can be done to salvage pictures taken in non-ideal lighting conditions.

 

[Stephen Rees]

I used the Gimp for a few years when I was using linux but have been using photoshop elements the last few years.  There are other free programs, Paint.net is quite basic but I have used it to run photoshop plugins.

As soon as Affinity Photo has a windows version, I will be using that.  Its around the price of elements and from what I've seen, it does a lot more.

[hdh]

 

 

 

I hope you don't mind this comment. You didn't ask for feedback on your photos but you say you are not getting sales. I find many of your images too dark. You might search for some of your subjects on Alamy and then compare the ones that show up on the first pages with your images. Then use your own judgment about whether you need to make brighter versions.

 

Paulette

 

+1 Good advice

 

Many of your pictures are taken in strong sunlight giving deep shadows and bright highlights. If you use the shadow and highlight adjustment sliders you may be able to improve matters. Here's an example of one of your images  (before adjustment is on left). However, be careful if working with 8 bit files as these sliders can introduce noise and/or banding. However, if working with low ISO RAW images, it's amazing what can be done to salvage pictures taken in non-ideal lighting conditions.

 

 

Thank you very much, very good advice that I will definitely consider, but do not want to take over the thread with this.  

All my pictures were straight out of camera jpgs and unedited apart from the removal of a bird here and there.

 

I only just started exploring raw editing and see already what it can do to improve pictures, for the good part of the past two years I have raw of every picture I took. 

Also have calibrated my screen now, which took me a good part of the last two weeks. This also makes a *huge* difference. 

[MDM]

 

 

 

 

I hope you don't mind this comment. You didn't ask for feedback on your photos but you say you are not getting sales. I find many of your images too dark. You might search for some of your subjects on Alamy and then compare the ones that show up on the first pages with your images. Then use your own judgment about whether you need to make brighter versions.

 

Paulette

 

+1 Good advice

 

Many of your pictures are taken in strong sunlight giving deep shadows and bright highlights. If you use the shadow and highlight adjustment sliders you may be able to improve matters. Here's an example of one of your images  (before adjustment is on left). However, be careful if working with 8 bit files as these sliders can introduce noise and/or banding. However, if working with low ISO RAW images, it's amazing what can be done to salvage pictures taken in non-ideal lighting conditions.

 

 

Thank you very much, very good advice that I will definitely consider, but do not want to take over the thread with this.  

All my pictures were straight out of camera jpgs and unedited apart from the removal of a bird here and there.

 

I only just started exploring raw editing and see already what it can do to improve pictures, for the good part of the past two years I have raw of every picture I took. 

Also have calibrated my screen now, which took me a good part of the last two weeks. This also makes a *huge* difference. 

 

 

What you have not said here but have stated in another thread is that you refuse to use anything by Microsoft or Apple for whatever reason. This is extremely limiting for anybody who is taking their photography seriously and clearly you are or you wouldn't be using a 50MP Canon camera or investing in a >3- inch monitor (other thread).

 

It's all very well to say you "find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for." This may be true for office type programs but that is clearly not the case for image processing and editing. You obviously mean well but providing such incorrect advice in a thread like this, particularly when you don't actually edit your images, is not really appropriate or useful to the OP.  I don't mean this in a negative way as you are clearly a nice person from reading your posts but I think it is best that we provide advice on topics where we have at least some practical knowledge.

 

To the OP: A modern digital photographer needs to be using a high quality raw processor, a database (or DAM) to manage the files generated and, for many of us, a pixel-based image editor. And not just using but becoming expert eventually in certain important areas (raw development in particular). The Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop package fits the bill perfectly for most of us and is extremely good value, even better for those in the USA. There are alternatives but none that I am aware of that perform all of these functions. Do yourself a favour and subscribe for $10 or so a month (presuming you are not a Linux user).

[hdh]

What you have not said here but have stated in another thread is that you refuse to use anything by Microsoft or Apple for whatever reason. This is extremely limiting for anybody who is taking their photography seriously and clearly you are or you wouldn't be using a 50MP Canon camera or investing in a >3- inch monitor (other thread).

 

It's all very well to say you "find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for." This may be true for office type programs but that is clearly not the case for image processing and editing. You obviously mean well but providing such incorrect advice in a thread like this, particularly when you don't actually edit your images, is not really appropriate or useful to the OP.  I don't mean this in a negative way as you are clearly a nice person from reading your posts but I think it is best that we provide advice on topics where we have at least some practical knowledge.

 

To the OP: A modern digital photographer needs to be using a high quality raw processor, a database (or DAM) to manage the files generated and, for many of us, a pixel-based image editor. And not just using but becoming expert eventually in certain important areas (raw development in particular). The Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop package fits the bill perfectly for most of us and is extremely good value, even better for those in the USA. There are alternatives but none that I am aware of that perform all of these functions. Do yourself a favour and subscribe for $10 or so a month (presuming you are not a Linux user).

 

Appreciate your comment and not going to start a flame war - I have my reasons and they are definitely not monetary - call it religion if you want.

I will happily use the best open source alternative available - which does include software with a price tag. 

 

I don't believe to have made any recommendation, only shared what I and my family use and have experience with.

[MDM]

 

What you have not said here but have stated in another thread is that you refuse to use anything by Microsoft or Apple for whatever reason. This is extremely limiting for anybody who is taking their photography seriously and clearly you are or you wouldn't be using a 50MP Canon camera or investing in a >3- inch monitor (other thread).

 

It's all very well to say you "find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for." This may be true for office type programs but that is clearly not the case for image processing and editing. You obviously mean well but providing such incorrect advice in a thread like this, particularly when you don't actually edit your images, is not really appropriate or useful to the OP.  I don't mean this in a negative way as you are clearly a nice person from reading your posts but I think it is best that we provide advice on topics where we have at least some practical knowledge.

 

To the OP: A modern digital photographer needs to be using a high quality raw processor, a database (or DAM) to manage the files generated and, for many of us, a pixel-based image editor. And not just using but becoming expert eventually in certain important areas (raw development in particular). The Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop package fits the bill perfectly for most of us and is extremely good value, even better for those in the USA. There are alternatives but none that I am aware of that perform all of these functions. Do yourself a favour and subscribe for $10 or so a month (presuming you are not a Linux user).

 

Appreciate your comment and not going to start a flame war - I have my reasons and they are definitely not monetary - call it religion if you want.

I will happily use the best open source alternative available - which does include software with a price tag. 

 

I don't believe to have made any recommendation, only shared what I and my family use and have experience with.

 

 

Believe me - a flame war or any kind of hassle with anybody on this forum is the last thing I would do . This is a professional forum and there is no place for anything like that here. I detest that type of behaviour in fact where people feel they can say or do anything hiding behind anonymity - not the case here. Rational argument based on fact is what I go for and I am happy to argue with anybody as long as it is fact-based and rational. I also like to be helpful but I do believe in being straightforward.

 

As I said I think you are a nice and sincere person and that is genuine . I was just making a comment based on what I was reading in this thread and from previous conversations with you about monitors. I was simply taking issue with your statement that you "find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for." I really don't believe that this is the case with image processing and editing software and that explains my advice to the OP.

[hdh]

Believe me - a flame war or any kind of hassle with anybody on this forum is the last thing I would do . This is a professional forum and there is no place for anything like that here. I detest that type of behaviour in fact where people feel they can say or do anything hiding behind anonymity - not the case here. Rational argument based on fact is what I go for and I am happy to argue with anybody as long as it is fact-based and rational. I also like to be helpful but I do believe in being straightforward.

 

As I said I think you are a nice and sincere person and that is genuine . I was just making a comment based on what I was reading in this thread and from previous conversations with you about monitors. I was simply taking issue with your statement that you "find that open source software is competitve at least if not better than software you actually pay for." I really don't believe that this is the case with image processing and editing software and that explains my advice to the OP.

 

 

The OP asked for advise on free software - can you specify what is fact and what is believe, please?

[MDM]

I'm afraid I don't have time to test out open source software for Mac at the moment so hearsay is the best I can do and from what I hear there is nothing to match Adobe right now as a complete package. I also don't have time or inclination to take this any further. Apologies if I offended you in some way. It wasn't intentional.

[hdh]

I'm afraid I don't have time to test out open source software for Mac at the moment so hearsay is the best I can do and from what I hear there is nothing to match Adobe right now as a complete package. I also don't have time or inclination to take this any further. Apologies if I offended you in some way. It wasn't intentional.

No offense taken! 

 

Edit: Sorry, should also have said thanks for your honest answer (+1)

[hdh]

If it is not editing but processing that you do, Darktable may also be an option and it is available for Mac and Linux

https://www.darktable.org/about/features/

[Jacob Y]

Hello,

Thank you for your advice.

Is there a way to buy Photoshop outright as opposed to paying for it monthly?

I also recently looked at my pictures on a search and did notice that they are kind of dark.

Thanks,

Jacob Y.

[Jacob Y]

Hello,

In a few days you will notice that I have only 113 pictures now.

I deleted 15 pictures in accordance to your advice about duplicates.

I appreciate your advice and will pull others as I resubmit them brighter.

Thanks,

Jacob Y.

[MDM]

Hello,

Thank you for your advice.

Is there a way to buy Photoshop outright as opposed to paying for it monthly?

I also recently looked at my pictures on a search and did notice that they are kind of dark.

Thanks,

Jacob Y.

 

 

I don't think Photoshop is still available for purchase but it was/is very expensive (over $600 I think). If you see it advertised cheap, then it is unlikely to be a legal version. In any case, you really should check out Lightroom (comes with the $10 a month package) which now performs many of the basic functions that used to be mainly in the realm of Photoshop. Lightroom is still available for purchase and not too expensive (probably around the cost of a year's subscription) but I would think the wisest move would be to subscribe.