That's great feedback. I have to imagine this article is not aimed at pro photographers who know their stuff better than anyone and thus can handle both the complexity and price of Photoshop (and other pro-level tools), but for the average enthusiast who wants to skip Adobe, there's something to be discovered here. I personally discovered Pixelmator on Mac is truly something.There are at least three additional products that should near the top of any serious photog's short list: Capture One by Phase One, DXO's Photolab, and Skylum's Luminar. Capture One is (arguably) the leading purveyor of RAW processing and Luminar -- a newish product -- incorporates state-of-the-art AI to speed selection and image manipulation. DXO's Photolab seamlessly and automatically implements leading edge optical and sensor corrections while offering most of the image manipulation capacity of Photoshop (short of layers).
It works with Rosetta, but not native. It's my understanding that GIMP on the latest versions of macOS is kind of buggy.Anyone knows if GIMP supports Macbook M1 Silicon?
Roger that on ". . . not aimed at pro photographers . . ." but, honestly, GIMP and Elements are both at least as complex to operate as Photoshop beyond the "user-guided" stage. Indeed Adobe used to advertise that the whole purpose of Elements was to get users familiar with the ". . . Photoshop way of doing things." Ahem. They probably do not claim that anymore.That's great feedback. I have to imagine this article is not aimed at pro photographers who know their stuff better than anyone and thus can handle both the complexity and price of Photoshop (and other pro-level tools), but for the average enthusiast who wants to skip Adobe, there's something to be discovered here. I personally discovered Pixelmator on Mac is truly something.
It works with Rosetta, but not native. It's my understanding that GIMP on the latest versions of macOS is kind of buggy.
GIMP is a worthy alternative and it's as complete as it can get for a completely free software.
And about the subscription based model all corporates are following - I don't think this would have become a trend if the consumers didn't support this modus.
Paying once and keeping it forever is much more reasonable than feeding these corporates every month. In the end, people pay more than what they would have spent for a pay-once product, ...and continue paying.
But consumers don't care.
First of all, you can't print even the full range of 8 bit color to paper.Also the article should have mentioned some of the limitations of these products; Photoshop Elements, for example, is limited to 8 bit color channels which means many of its tools leave (highly visible and objectionable) chroma banding on long-tonal-scale images. This is a serious limitation for almost all photographers. Virtually all raw-capable cameras these days generate 12 bit color and most support 14 bit which means that Elements leaves a huge fraction of the color palette on the table. Adobe has refuse to implement 16 bit color after decades of requests saying that this capability requires the "full product." All three of the tools I cite -- as well as many on the list like Gimp -- support 16 bit color channels.
First of all, you can't print even the full range of 8 bit color to paper.
Second of all, I've never seen all these wild aberrations you attribute to 8 bit color.
And third, (and most importantly) GIMP lacks adjustment layers, and, (after duping the background), "levels" is the first layer I open after that. I had GIMP installed once, opened it up, looked for adjustment layers, and said to myself "WTF am I supposed to do with this"?
Keep in mind, I was trained on Photoshop proper. And, most of the monitors around, are only 8 bit color anyway, (16.7 million colors).
(This all sounds complicated but Gawd knows it much simpler than wet chemistry color . . .)
With all due respect I believe that you are confusing the bits of color in an output image/device with the intermediate states required when doing image manipulation (which is the whole point of this software after all). A fair summary of this topic is contained here:
The relevant portion -- looking only at the luminescent channel -- of what happens with 8 bit discretization errors (I.e., that which generates banding) induced by using image processing tools is about halfway down the page. I tried to cut and paste that section here to no avail.
The point is while "yes" you are correct about 8 bit channels that are assigned when generating, via the gamut mapping function, output image formats such as JPGs (or, for that matter, printing or displaying to screens) that process cannot infer data for intermediate states not computed in image manipulation. Since, as I pointed out, virtually all of our capture devices do so in 10, 12 or more bits of color depth and write them that way to Raw files, a tool that doesn't throw these data away (as PS Elements prides itself in doing) would seem like a major feature.
There are photogs that capture only in JPG and thus are limited to 8 bit color at capture; if you are happy working in an 8 bit color flow by all means do so. You can do that however on just a cell phone. If you take the trouble to do something else getting the full measure of these tools capability in output files/prints would mean 16 work flow . . . until you generate the gamut used in the final output file/print.
-- gary ray