Gimp vs Photoshop

>>> [Adobe] can't even get off of two-decades old bicubic algorithms
>>> as the core of all their image manipulation tools, and you want them
>>> to port their software over to another platform?
>>
> Malcolm Smith asked:
>> What are you proposing to replace bicubic - please give some references on
>> the web I can look at.
>>
frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> replied:
> Possibly Lanczos?
> Not in Gimp 2.2, but it is in Gimp 2.4, and does seem to offer
> some improvement over bi-cubic.

Here is a good comparison for downsampling:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm

Another one:
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7py

Upsampling is another issue; references are not as clear-cut.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unlike GIMP or ImageMagick, Photoshop cannot reproduce
>> an arbitrary JPEG quality setting.
>
> I sincerely hope you are wrong!

Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps it can using Save For Web.
I shall have to investigate. But I think Save For Web
always uses 2x2 chroma subsampling.

> I can't imagine that. I typically use 3 different settings on
> a very common basis for each. Low, medium and high (roughly about
> 50-70, 75-90, and 100), all depending on what I'm going to do with it.

Here are the PhotoshopCS2 <=> IJG equivalents, courtesy of Martin Brown.

Level Y resid C resid
0 35 38k 81 16k
1 38 29k 82 13k
2 47 14k 84 7k
3 60 5k 86 4k
4 67 2250 87 2187
5 74 1003 89 930
6 82 254 91 299
* changes to 1x1 sampling
7 77 708 87 3200
8 85 140 89 1070
9 92 83 90 304
10 95 64 93 32
11 97 39 96 0
12 99 5 99 49

(resid means residual from least-square fitting)
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.DeleteThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> No, not yikes, because photoshop is saving exif data.
> If you want to save an "unbloated" jpeg, do
> save for web. I have used a number of different
> systems, and photoshop's jpeg is fine.
> Regarding chroma sampling, I find it degrades
> images to much, and I would not use it even
> if it were there.

Most digital cameras nowadays use 2x1 chroma subsampling
even for highest quality JPEG.

I think you're supposed to retain the same chroma subsampling
to help reduce artifact magnification.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

"Notes for the Clueless" <spamless.RemoveThis@antispam.org> wrote in message
news:3n96d3l9bpthbb9489usnje90vs92e6u5r@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:35:34 +0100, "John Ortt"
> <johnortt.RemoveThis@noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>
>>Rather than simply slating Photoshop and everyone who uses it could you
>>please give some constructive advice on what (in your opinion) people
>>should
>>use.
>>
>
> Oh I see. You're one of the mindless sheep that doesn't have a clue on how
> to
> find and choose the better editors out there unless someone tells you
> which one
> to use.

I am begining to resent being called a mindless sheep!

I am one of the busy people who doesn't have the time to download dozens of
different programmes just to see if they are any good when I have what
appears to be a perfectly good tool.
I am willing to be proved wrong and if I saw a program which I considdered
to be 'far far far' superior to Photoshop I would make the switch but in all
honesty I don't believe it exists.
There are dozens of programs that will be marginally (even vastly) superior
in some areas but the pros will have equal (or greater) cons.

> This, unfortunately, is why PhotoShop is still in use for the last 10
> years. It being promoted by self-appointed "pros" that don't have clue-one
> about
> how utterly outdated their beloved PhotoShop truly is.

Film cameras are also now utterly outdated but it doesn't mean they can't
take stunning pictures in the right hands.
For many people (including me) the time spent learning new software (which
might or might not be better) makes the whole process uneconomical.

> Okay, here's a clue for you.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors

Thanks, I didn't know that even existed, very interesting

> There are no less than 8 editors on that list that FAR FAR FAR surpass
> anything
> that PhotoShop can do for much less than half the price. Some are even
> free.

Are you absolutely sure that they 'far far far surpass anything that
PhotoShop can do' or could you be exagerating a little.

> Start working on finding them. Just like the rest of us did that now know
> better.

I can't be bothered... If it ain't broke don't fix it

> Do you honestly think that I'm going to hand over many months of testing
> and evaluating software to you for free?

If you had and the information had proved useful I would have been grateful.
Since you haven't we are both wasting our time here, but then you seem to
have plenty of it having spent many months testing and evaluating software.

> How do I know what your capabilities
> are.

You don't

> You might need something as rudimentary as PhotoShop and Windows "Paint"
> and couldn't handle the steep learning curve of Canvas or the other better
> editors out there.

Possibly

> Get to work! Educate yourself. Just like the rest of us do.

I am busy educating myself in other things thanks. Good luck with the
research.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>>> Moreover, even when closely reproducing JPEG quality settings,
>>> Photoshop JPEG is bloated, almost 2x the size of GIMP saves.

Lets be clear that attributions have been trimmed and
the above is *not* anything that I said.

>> Yikes.

That was my comment!

>No, not yikes, because photoshop is saving exif data.

Yikes again, EXIF data isn't anything like equal in size
to the image data! Something isn't right...

>If you want to save an "unbloated" jpeg, do
>save for web. I have used a number of different
>systems, and photoshop's jpeg is fine.
>Regarding chroma sampling, I find it degrades
>images to much, and I would not use it even
>if it were there.

You appear to have confirmed what Bill Tuthill said! My
response was as it was simply because I did't know if it
was true or not, and wanted to elicit other opinions to
verify or deny it.

But specifically he said that JPEG in PhotoShop is broken,
and in addition to the bloat, said:

"Unlike GIMP or ImageMagick, Photoshop cannot
reproduce an arbitrary JPEG quality setting."

You are essentially confirming that by saying "save for
web", which indicates to me that arbitrary choice of
quality is not possible, and instead quality must be
selected from a set of specific uses. Not to mention
the comment about chroma sampling...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

Bill Tuthill <ccreekin.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Unlike GIMP or ImageMagick, Photoshop cannot reproduce
>>> an arbitrary JPEG quality setting.
>>
>> I sincerely hope you are wrong!
>
>Perhaps I am wrong; perhaps it can using Save For Web.
>I shall have to investigate. But I think Save For Web
>always uses 2x2 chroma subsampling.

Well, I was fishing for verification, and even though he
denied it, what I read in Roger's response was that you
are exactly right!

>> I can't imagine that. I typically use 3 different settings on
>> a very common basis for each. Low, medium and high (roughly about
>> 50-70, 75-90, and 100), all depending on what I'm going to do with it.
>
>Here are the PhotoshopCS2 <=> IJG equivalents, courtesy of Martin Brown.
>
>Level Y resid C resid
> 0 35 38k 81 16k
> 1 38 29k 82 13k
> 2 47 14k 84 7k
> 3 60 5k 86 4k
> 4 67 2250 87 2187
> 5 74 1003 89 930
> 6 82 254 91 299
> * changes to 1x1 sampling
> 7 77 708 87 3200
> 8 85 140 89 1070
> 9 92 83 90 304
> 10 95 64 93 32
> 11 97 39 96 0
> 12 99 5 99 49
>
>(resid means residual from least-square fitting)

Interesting, but not something I've ever particularly
looked at before. Hence I have no idea how that
compares with ImageMagik or any other tool that I use.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

And I'd like to commend John Ortt for having the
patience to say it correctly and accurately.

"John Ortt" <johnortt RemoveThis @noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>"Notes for the Clueless" <spamless RemoveThis @antispam.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 15:35:34 +0100, "John Ortt"
>> <johnortt RemoveThis @noemailsuppliedasdontwantspam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rather than simply slating Photoshop and everyone who uses it could you
>>>please give some constructive advice on what (in your opinion) people
>>>should
>>>use.
>>>
>>
>> Oh I see. You're one of the mindless sheep that doesn't have a clue on how
>> to
>> find and choose the better editors out there unless someone tells you
>> which one
>> to use.
>
>I am begining to resent being called a mindless sheep!
>
>I am one of the busy people who doesn't have the time to download dozens of
>different programmes just to see if they are any good when I have what
>appears to be a perfectly good tool.
>I am willing to be proved wrong and if I saw a program which I considdered
>to be 'far far far' superior to Photoshop I would make the switch but in all
>honesty I don't believe it exists.
>There are dozens of programs that will be marginally (even vastly) superior
>in some areas but the pros will have equal (or greater) cons.
>
>> This, unfortunately, is why PhotoShop is still in use for the last 10
>> years. It being promoted by self-appointed "pros" that don't have clue-one
>> about
>> how utterly outdated their beloved PhotoShop truly is.
>
>Film cameras are also now utterly outdated but it doesn't mean they can't
>take stunning pictures in the right hands.
>For many people (including me) the time spent learning new software (which
>might or might not be better) makes the whole process uneconomical.
>
>> Okay, here's a clue for you.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
>
>Thanks, I didn't know that even existed, very interesting
>
>> There are no less than 8 editors on that list that FAR FAR FAR surpass
>> anything
>> that PhotoShop can do for much less than half the price. Some are even
>> free.
>
>Are you absolutely sure that they 'far far far surpass anything that
>PhotoShop can do' or could you be exagerating a little.
>
>> Start working on finding them. Just like the rest of us did that now know
>> better.
>
>I can't be bothered... If it ain't broke don't fix it
>
>> Do you honestly think that I'm going to hand over many months of testing
>> and evaluating software to you for free?
>
>If you had and the information had proved useful I would have been grateful.
>Since you haven't we are both wasting our time here, but then you seem to
>have plenty of it having spent many months testing and evaluating software.
>
>> How do I know what your capabilities
>> are.
>
>You don't
>
>> You might need something as rudimentary as PhotoShop and Windows "Paint"
>> and couldn't handle the steep learning curve of Canvas or the other better
>> editors out there.
>
>Possibly
>
>> Get to work! Educate yourself. Just like the rest of us do.
>
>I am busy educating myself in other things thanks. Good luck with the
>research.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

On 28 Aug 2007 08:38:44 -0700, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>> [Adobe] can't even get off of two-decades old bicubic algorithms
>>>> as the core of all their image manipulation tools, and you want them
>>>> to port their software over to another platform?
>>>
>> Malcolm Smith asked:
>>> What are you proposing to replace bicubic - please give some references on
>>> the web I can look at.
>>>
>frederick <lost.TakeThisOut@sea.com> replied:
>> Possibly Lanczos?
>> Not in Gimp 2.2, but it is in Gimp 2.4, and does seem to offer
>> some improvement over bi-cubic.
>
>Here is a good comparison for downsampling:
>http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm
>
>Another one:
>http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7py
>
>Upsampling is another issue; references are not as clear-cut.


Here's a much more glaring example:

http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html

If you read the math section you'll note that the Sinc 256 examples are the same
function as using Lanczos8.

There's hundreds of pages on the net for many years where people have done
similar tests and found out just how lame PhotoShop truly is. But all PhotoShop
users just love sticking their heads in the sand to pretend all is well. The
blind leading the stupid and blind. All because they don't want to face up to
the fact that they just threw away $700 on the advice of some self-appointed
idiot "pro" that told them to.

I hope you all enjoy your image-destroying Bicubic-ONLY PhotoShop. I found much
better software than that many years ago. Even inexpensive and highly capable
PhotoLine 32 (check out that features comparison list at Wiki that someone
posted, it does more than PhotoShop), it also has a Lanczos8 (Sinc 256) option
that you can choose as a default for any of the common editing tools that
require interpolation. IrfanView, FREEware, is even capable of including a
Lanczos routine. When freeware can outclass $700 software there's something
seriously wrong with that $700 software and any fools stupid enough to use and
support it.

PhotoShop users, can you say "I've been had!"? I thought you could. And if not
you'd better learn how to say it. Every PhotoShop buyer, supporter, and user in
existence will eventually be yelling that simple phrase. Not proudly, but at
least they'll be honest with themselves for once in their blind and stupid
little lives.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

Crames <cliff.rames.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you do any composites on linux/unix? I'm thinking of
>> a couple of scenes that I'd like to print on a 30-40
>> inch length of paper with a panoramic made up of several
>> shots. So far I haven't looked into what kind of
>> software is available for stitching them together, but I
>> recall that you've done a lot of that.
>
>Have a look at VIPS/NIPS : http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk
>
>It's used by museums to stitch mosaics of artwork, among other things.
>"It aims to be about half-way between Photoshop and Excel."

Thank you! I've just downloaded that, and from the
discussion I saw it appears to have a *lot* of
potential, far beyond just using it for stitching. I
haven't tried yet of course, but the descriptions gave
me the impression that for anything commonly done via a
batch mode command line script...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Moreover, even when closely reproducing JPEG quality settings,
>>>> Photoshop JPEG is bloated, almost 2x the size of GIMP saves.
>
> Lets be clear that attributions have been trimmed and
> the above is *not* anything that I said.
>
>>> Yikes.
>
> That was my comment!

I was the "2x bloated" poster, and I stand by my statement.
Here is some proof; the PS is 57% larger without EXIF or preview
(and preview must be manually disabled):
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MJfw

> You are essentially confirming that by saying "save for
> web", which indicates to me that arbitrary choice of
> quality is not possible, and instead quality must be
> selected from a set of specific uses. Not to mention
> the comment about chroma sampling...

I just tried PS CS2's Save For Web. I could not make it write
2x1 chroma subsampling. It did write 1x1 at quality levels
down to somewhere between 50 and 60, where it switched to 2x2.

CS2's "Powered by ImageReady" dialog allows a wide choice
of quality levels from 0 to 100, but they have no relationship
that I can discern to IJG quality levels. At ImageReady Q 50,
I was able to duplicate IJG 80 2x2 at about the same file size.

So the interface is basically broken for editing JPEG images
from DSLR and modern digicams, which use 2x1 chroma subsampling.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> Interesting, but not something I've ever particularly
> looked at before. Hence I have no idea how that
> compares with ImageMagik or any other tool that I use.

ImageMagick uses IJG libraries, like GIMP or Irfanview.
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

> Do you do any composites on linux/unix? I'm thinking of
> a couple of scenes that I'd like to print on a 30-40
> inch length of paper with a panoramic made up of several
> shots. So far I haven't looked into what kind of
> software is available for stitching them together, but I
> recall that you've done a lot of that.

Have a look at VIPS/NIPS : http://www.vips.ecs.soton.ac.uk

It's used by museums to stitch mosaics of artwork, among other things.
"It aims to be about half-way between Photoshop and Excel."

Rgds
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop 

In article <spi8d3pofhgkc8gbjjeaaj5v4th3pjo76e RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
spamless RemoveThis @antispam.info says...
> On 28 Aug 2007 08:38:44 -0700, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> [Adobe] can't even get off of two-decades old bicubic algorithms
> >>>> as the core of all their image manipulation tools, and you want them
> >>>> to port their software over to another platform?
> >>>
> >> Malcolm Smith asked:
> >>> What are you proposing to replace bicubic - please give some references on
> >>> the web I can look at.
> >>>
> >frederick <lost RemoveThis @sea.com> replied:
> >> Possibly Lanczos?
> >> Not in Gimp 2.2, but it is in Gimp 2.4, and does seem to offer
> >> some improvement over bi-cubic.
> >
> >Here is a good comparison for downsampling:
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm
> >
> >Another one:
> >http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E7py
> >
> >Upsampling is another issue; references are not as clear-cut.
>
>
> Here's a much more glaring example:
>
> http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>
> If you read the math section you'll note that the Sinc 256 examples are the same
> function as using Lanczos8.
>
> There's hundreds of pages on the net for many years where people have done
> similar tests and found out just how lame PhotoShop truly is. But all PhotoShop
> users just love sticking their heads in the sand to pretend all is well. The
> blind leading the stupid and blind. All because they don't want to face up to
> the fact that they just threw away $700 on the advice of some self-appointed
> idiot "pro" that told them to.
>
> I hope you all enjoy your image-destroying Bicubic-ONLY PhotoShop. I found much
> better software than that many years ago. Even inexpensive and highly capable
> PhotoLine 32 (check out that features comparison list at Wiki that someone
> posted, it does more than PhotoShop), it also has a Lanczos8 (Sinc 256) option
> that you can choose as a default for any of the common editing tools that
> require interpolation. IrfanView, FREEware, is even capable of including a
> Lanczos routine. When freeware can outclass $700 software there's something
> seriously wrong with that $700 software and any fools stupid enough to use and
> support it.
>
> PhotoShop users, can you say "I've been had!"? I thought you could. And if not
> you'd better learn how to say it. Every PhotoShop buyer, supporter, and user in
> existence will eventually be yelling that simple phrase. Not proudly, but at
> least they'll be honest with themselves for once in their blind and stupid
> little lives.

What happens if you convert a .tif or .jpg file to .psd first?
 >> Stay informed about: Gimp vs Photoshop