Gimp vs PS Elements?

N

NPUK

Messages
432
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
No
Hi... Does anyone have reasonable experience of using both Gimp and PS Elements.?
I currently use Lightroom 6 standalone version which is usually all I need but occasionally I'd like to be able to blend two images (eg. Differently exposed foreground in milkyway shot) or maybe a bit of focus stacking etc.
I have done a bit of online research but it seems unclear to me whether each of these programs can do each task I mentioned and whether one is much easier to use in conjunction with Lightroom.

Any opinions?

Thanks
 
Retune said:
One thing I'd suggest is also to take a look at Affinity Photo, which is cheaper than PS Elements (especially as it's currently on offer at a 30% discount), and does blending and focus stacking: https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/photo/
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion and heads up about the discount. I did consider it and may try the free trial. I saw a comparison video on YouTube but affinity photo seemed much slower than PS Elements on the same computer plus I wondered if PS Elements would link better with Lightroom.
 
I would get both demos and see how they compare for LR compatibility and speed on your system. It is possible to use AP as an external editor with LR, though I'm guessing PE may integrate more closely. On the other hand, I think you're stuck with 8-bit layers on PE.
 
I'm currently using LR 5.7 and PSE15, works well for my needs. There used to be a work around to get 16-bit layers in PSE, but I don't know if it's still there in the latest version and I've forgotten how to do it. I have dabbled with GIMP and I think it's a very powerful editor, but just decided to stick with what I have. No particular reason, I just didn't fancy going another learning curve (even though I'm still learning about PSE).
 
Thanks for the input. I have downloaded Affinity Photo trial but I'm not convinced it will be particularly more useful for my needs than using GIMP which I have previously tried so I'll put more effort into trying to learn to use that better first.
 
DB72 said:
Thanks for the input. I have downloaded Affinity Photo trial but I'm not convinced it will be particularly more useful for my needs than using GIMP which I have previously tried so I'll put more effort into trying to learn to use that better first.
Click to expand...
Be sure to look at the recent huge Gimp 2.10 release. Which is loaded with enhancements.
The very latest one is 2.10.4 now.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Be sure to look at the recent Gimp 2.10 release. Which is loaded with enhancements. The very latest one is 2.10.4 available here: https://www.gimp.org
Click to expand...

Thanks ianp5a.... I did wonder if it had improved at all as it was quite a while ago I downloaded it. So thanks for the headsup, I'll now make sure I update.
 
I haven't used the gimp for years but I switched to elements 9 years ago from it. I found elements much easier to use. Although gimp was a powerful tool
 
Try Partha's build of GIMP 2.10.4 (Download from www.partha.com). It includes Nufraw RAW converter and the latest GMIC filter pack. I can thoroughly recommend it.

GIMP-2.10.png
 
Last edited:
The main problem with Gimp is that there are no adjustment layers, so you can not go back and modify them at a later point during editing as you can is photoshop and AP
AP seem to be a fully fledged editor on par with photoshop in scope., but differs in detail.
It is not non destructive like Lightroom , nor is it an asset management tool.
But AP would make a fine editor to go alongside Lightroom.
I do not edit in lightroom, I do that in photoshop, and only manage my images in Lightroom.
If I had to work "Free" I would work with Gimp, but I would not like it.
 
I had to use GIMP for a few jobs and it is fine. It is not as powerful as full photoshop, missing out some tricks but we have 16bit support, layers, masks and all the major tools. Maybe it takes a little longer but basically I could get the same results in the end.

PS Elements I would consider is castrated package and best avoided free or paid.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The main problem with Gimp is that there are no adjustment layers, so you can not go back and modify them at a later point during editing as you can is photoshop and AP
.
Click to expand...

That's true. But you can make use of regular layer through special blending modes to mimick a lot of the adjustment layer functionality. I guess curves with complex adjustment would be the one you'd struggle to replicate.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Good to know, but the work is not yet started, however it could be a game changer.
Unless well implemented it could be resource and memory heavy, so it could slow things down.
Click to expand...
Adjustment layers use GEGL. If you've seen the speed of GEGL operations in the latest versions it's very impressive. Even on my 6 year old i5 with intel on board graphics.
 
Last edited:
Well I ended up carrying out a test based on the type of image I'm likely be wanting to use GIMP or PS Elements for. I'm happy enough doing the processing in Lightroom but then when it comes to merging two photos together that's where I need GIMP or PS Elements. It seems that Elements is a slightly better at doing that and also slightly easier and quicker to get a better result. The image below was merged first in Gimp and then in Elements, uploaded large for ease of comparison.

The GIMP version has a more noticeable join between the rock and sky even though I took more time and more care in selecting the area to mask.

This is the GIMP image...
brimham-composite-gimp by DB 72, on Flickr

This is the PS Elements image...
brimham-composite-elements by DB 72, on Flickr

So, in answer to my original question it seems that Elements may be the most suitable for me in this instance. The only problem now is the free vs not free aspect for something I will only use occasionally.

Thanks for all the input.
 
Last edited:
DB72 said:
Well I ended up carrying out a test based on the type of image I'm likely be wanting to use GIMP or PS Elements for. I'm happy enough doing the processing in Lightroom but then when it comes to merging two photos together that's where I need GIMP or PS Elements. It seems that Elements is a slightly better at doing that and also slightly easier and quicker to get a better result. The image below was merged first in Gimp and then in Elements, uploaded large for ease of comparison.

The GIMP version has a more noticeable join between the rock and sky even though I took more time and more care in selecting the area to mask.

This is the GIMP image...
brimham-composite-gimp by DB 72, on Flickr

This is the PS Elements image...
brimham-composite-elements by DB 72, on Flickr

So, in answer to my original question it seems that Elements may be the most suitable for me in this instance. The only problem now is the free vs not free aspect for something I will only use occasionally.

Thanks for all the input.
Click to expand...

I think it is more a question of how you did the selecting and masking out rather than Gimp V Elements. I think both could do this equally well.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
I think it is more a question of how you did the selecting and masking out rather than Gimp V Elements. I think both could do this equally well.
Click to expand...

I used the intelligent scissors in gimp to get the closest selection I could but even then it took much more effort than in elements and whichever method I tried in gimp it seemed almost impossible to get an edge as clean as I got easily in PS elements.
 
DB72 said:
I used the intelligent scissors in gimp to get the closest selection I could but even then it took much more effort than in elements and whichever method I tried in gimp it seemed almost impossible to get an edge as clean as I got easily in PS elements.
Click to expand...
The G'MIC plugin in Gimp does masking really easily. Among many other things. Always install G'MIC.
 
Downloaded the trial of Affinity Photo today, I had tried it when it first showed its face But did not care for it.
It is now much better though I still don't like the raw processor, but let me qualify that. I quite like many things about it, but it does not make all the firmware corrections for the Fuji lenses as lightroom and Photoshop do. it seems to be doing something, but you can make Distortion and vignette corrections far better by hand, albeit slowly. and it hardly corrects for CA and fringing at all. Which is something you never even notice in PS. Nor does affinity allow you to use the Fuji built in film simulations.

I tried working on a Tiff that I had converted from raw in PS. and some of the tools in Affinity work very well indeed. I also like how you can compare the starting point with the present position at any time.
I would certainly be happy to Use the Non Raw parts of the program. at the price now it is astonishing vale. but its poor support for Fuji make it a no no for me at this time.
 
Last edited:
Raw processing definitely isn't AP's strong point. For Fuji files (even with Photoshop) I'm currently using Fuji's own Raw File Converter, another of those Silkypix-based packages like Nikon's Capture NX-D. Not the slickest interface, but a decent converter with (obviously) full support for the film simulations.
 
If I was starting out today, I'd almost surely go for Affinity as the pixel editor, (and it's a good time to get in there whilst the price is at an introductory level). There's no argument against having pro level software rather than denatured noddy versions like - well, no names. You don't have to use all the features, but they're there if you need to stretch. Go in at the top rather than piddle about at the bottom is always a good plan, I think - it doesn't hurt.

At this point I'd probably couple it with DxO Photolab as raw converter (and hence main engine for the modern workflow) - a pretty damn capable app at a decent price (but you'll have to tolerate all those sidecar files that record the process history for each raw file).

Those who demand a copious asset management facility along with their processing might stick with LR ... after all, if you have that many images to catalogue, you can surely afford the rent?
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
The main problem with Gimp is that there are no adjustment layers, so you can not go back and modify them at a later point during editing as you can is photoshop and AP
Click to expand...

This isn't really correct. True there isn't a feature labelled "adjustment layers" in GIMP, but the layer mechanism is there so you can do exactly the same sort of stuff in GIMP, you just need to know what you are doing! (i.e. its less automated and packaged). Or download a script file made by somebody else who knows what they are doing - which can then automate it for you. Such scripts simply add new commands and there are thousands of them available from the community. You end up with a layer controlling the effect and the layer's Opacity control acting as the slider to control the amount. You can turn the layer on and off to apply or remove the effect at any time. A layer mask can control what parts of the image it effects. An adjustment layer in all but name!

GIMP also has a History feature which shows every step you have carried out on an image since it was loaded as a "stack" of thumbnails labelled with the commands used. You can click on any step in this stack to return the image to that point. So if you do something that goes wrong, you simply back off down the history and try again. This is slicker and much more adaptable than the stepwise undo feature I have seen in other editors since you can jump up and down the stack as you like (unless you do something destructive like flattening the image!).

I know lots of Lightroom and not a few PS users through my local photography club and I haven't found anything yet that they can do that I can't do in GIMP - and there are one or two things I can do that they struggle with in their tools!
 
Last edited:
StuartUK said:
This isn't really correct. True there isn't a feature labelled "adjustment layers" in GIMP, but the layer mechanism is there so you can do exactly the same sort of stuff in GIMP, you just need to know what you are doing! (i.e. its less automated and packaged). Or download a script file made by somebody else who knows what they are doing - which can then automate it for you. Such scripts simply add new commands and there are thousands of them are available from the community. You end up with a layer controlling the effect and the layer's Opacity control acting as the slider to control the amount. You can turn the layer on and off to apply or remove the effect at any time. A layer mask can control what parts of the image it effects. An adjustment layer in all but name!

GIMP also has a History feature which shows every step you have carried out on an image since it was loaded as a "stack" of thumbnails labelled with the commands used. You can click on any step in this stack to return the image to that point. So if you do something that goes wrong, you simply back off down the history and try again. This is slicker and much more adaptable than the stepwise undo feature I have seen in other editors since you can jump up and down the stack as you like (unless you do something destructive like flattening the image!).

I know lots of Lightroom and not a few PS users through my local photography club and I haven't found anything yet that they can do that I can't do in GIMP - and there are one or two things I can do that they struggle with in their tools!
Click to expand...
Yes. But it's good that the new functions in Gimp 3.2 will make it a little easier to use than the scripts today.
And yes you can create images just as good as expensive programs.
 
Last edited:
I am completely ignorant about Photoshop/Lightroom/GIMP (but hey, this is the internet and that stops no-one with an opinion :) ) but on the Gimp prehistory page for 1995 it reads “
During Christmas break we encountered Photoshop 3.0 and discovered the “joy of layers". This functionality was deemed absolutely necessary and will part of the next release of the GIMP.”
So they are taking a damn long time about it if it’s still not there :(or maybe it’s a different sort of “layers”?
 
sphexx said:
I am completely ignorant about Photoshop/Lightroom/GIMP (but hey, this is the internet and that stops no-one with an opinion :) ) but on the Gimp prehistory page for 1995 it reads “
During Christmas break we encountered Photoshop 3.0 and discovered the “joy of layers". This functionality was deemed absolutely necessary and will part of the next release of the GIMP.”
So they are taking a damn long time about it if it’s still not there :(or maybe it’s a different sort of “layers”?
Click to expand...
Gimp has layers. It just doesn't yet have adjustment layers as in Photoshop. Which are useful for productivity. But obviously not essential, as Photoshop didn't have them for a long time. I used to use Corel's adjustment lenses, many, many years ago in Corel Photo Paint. They worked in the same way.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top