photoshopping

[mick70Participant @mick70]

[mick70Participant @mick70]

ok very off topic here but.

getting new tattoo but want to combine 2 pics.

both images having special personal meaning.

how hard is photoshopping to learn?

considering my eldest boy is on phone as tech support cos not much cop with computers.

and any free programmes out there?

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

Hi, Happy to do it for you if you want, PM me if it will help.

Martin

[mick70Participant @mick70]

thank you will pm you.

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Good offer " naughtyboy"

"How difficult is Photoshop to learn?" – very! Certainly too much for a "One off" project .

Norman

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

The best free alternative to Photoshop is GIMP, which is available for Windows, Linux and Apple.

Like Photoshop GIMP is stuffed with features. Learning to use it properly is a serious challenge even though there are many tutorials on the web and some books about. However, although intimidating at first, it turns out that many image processing tricks are easy when you know how.

To combine two images:

• Download GIMP (it's big!)
• Start Gimp (Displays 3 windows; Toolbox, Image and Layers)
• Select File->Open first.picture
• Select File->Open As Layers second.picture
• From the Layers Window, experiment by selecting different Modes. 'Normal' hides one picture behind the other, but most of the other modes have a transparency effect. When you find the mode that produces the best result, Right Click in the Layers Window and select "New From Visible'. The new combined image can be saved, exported as a jpg, or printed.

It gets complicated if the pictures have to be scaled, aligned, colour corrected, or otherwise edited. Well worth learning if you're interested, but not if you only use it once or twice.

Dave

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

I am restoring a Delapena hone (as well as other kit). I wanted to Photoshop the Delapena logo, because the transfers on my machine were damaged. So I thought "photoshop". I gave up, because learning the system for a "one off" was just too much. I have redrawn the logos and painted them by hand. I now have to get them put onto a decal or transfer medium.

Andrew.

P.S. I know that the logos do not contribute to any improvement in honing. my philosophy is that if I restore to "as new" standards. Then I tend to keep the machines in first class order. I don't have the urge to do this if the finished product looks "tatty", even if it is functionally perfect! OK so I am a bit of an idiot, but I don't care.

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Posted by Andrew Tinsley on 17/04/2017 17:51:18:

I am restoring a Delapena hone (as well as other kit). I wanted to Photoshop the Delapena logo, because the transfers on my machine were damaged. So I thought "photoshop". I gave up, because learning the system for a "one off" was just too much. I have redrawn the logos and painted them by hand. I now have to get them put onto a decal or transfer medium.

Andrew.

P.S. I know that the logos do not contribute to any improvement in honing. my philosophy is that if I restore to "as new" standards. Then I tend to keep the machines in first class order. I don't have the urge to do this if the finished product looks "tatty", even if it is functionally perfect! OK so I am a bit of an idiot, but I don't care.

I did a class in graphics and design as part of a college course I did, the photoshop software was kind of being seen as too much of a quick fix, the first go-to, at that point in time, it probably still is seen this way.

when really the teacher held firmly to the philosophy that there was nothing you couldn't do in photoshop that could've been done in real life, manual skills, you just have to be much more resourceful about it.

I'm sure it's a lot better than you think it is.

Michael W

[richardandtracyParticipant @richardandtracy]

I havehad GIMP on my PC. I have now removed it. I got so irritated by the STUPID and unrelated names they gave to some of the menu options, it meant that I could never find the filter I wanted. I was looking for a name a human would call it, & not what a self absorbed techie geek idiot would.

The nail in the coffin for it, as far as I was concerned, was the menu options 'ProgramFoo' and 'Macro Foo'. The was one piece of childishness life is too short to have to put up with.

Other irritants were that 'Save As' didn't offer other file formats, like .jpg, that was confined to 'Export'. The Save dialogue never went back to the last directory used, had to navigate to it. Stupid, obvious, easy to correct, user interface mistakes that had lasted years because the programmer had never taken as much as one second to think about the non-techie user.

Programs are there to make life easy. GIMP didn't, it made life harder, more difficult, wasted time and increased irritation. Avoid.

I still use a copy of PaintShop Pro 5 I got as a freebie on the front of a magazine years ago. It is outdated, but it works well, is like an old friend and behaves in a way you'd expect.

Regards

Richard.

 

Edited By richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:12:39

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:09:00:

Programs are there to make life easy. GIMP didn't, it made life harder, more difficult, wasted time and increased irritation. Avoid.

And much the same thing could be said about the later versions of PaintShop Pro. On the other hand, any (Jasc) version before Corel got hold of it …….

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

Trying to help out the OP here but will need images larger than 9kb…

As with many things PShop is a difficult program to dabble in without basic image knowledge re resolution perspective etc.

Will do my best…

Martin

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:09:00:

I havehad GIMP on my PC. I have now removed it. I got so irritated by the STUPID and unrelated names they gave to some of the menu options, it meant that I could never find the filter I wanted. I was looking for a name a human would call it, & not what a self absorbed techie geek idiot would.

The nail in the coffin for it, as far as I was concerned, was the menu options 'ProgramFoo' and 'Macro Foo'. The was one piece of childishness life is too short to have to put up with.

Other irritants were that 'Save As' didn't offer other file formats, like .jpg, that was confined to 'Export'. The Save dialogue never went back to the last directory used, had to navigate to it. Stupid, obvious, easy to correct, user interface mistakes that had lasted years because the programmer had never taken as much as one second to think about the non-techie user.

Programs are there to make life easy. GIMP didn't, it made life harder, more difficult, wasted time and increased irritation. Avoid.

I still use a copy of PaintShop Pro 5 I got as a freebie on the front of a magazine years ago. It is outdated, but it works well, is like an old friend and behaves in a way you'd expect.

Regards

Richard.

Edited By richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:12:39

Hi Richard,

I take it you're not a fan then!

GIMP is just a tool. It isn't 'stupid', it just does things a particular way. I ought to have mentioned that anyone familiar with Photoshop, who believes in the absolute rightness of it's interface and jargon, might well dislike GIMP. Many GIMP users despise Photoshop for similar reasons. I think both opinions are wrong.

My advice is that, if anyone has a need to edit images and doesn't want to cough up for Photoshop, then GIMP is well worth trying.

Dave

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Posted by richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:09:00:

I havehad GIMP on my PC. I have now removed it. I got so irritated by the STUPID and unrelated names they gave to some of the menu options, it meant that I could never find the filter I wanted. I was looking for a name a human would call it, & not what a self absorbed techie geek idiot would.

That is more than a little harsh. That so called "self absorbed techie geek" that you so quickly dismiss as an "idiot" has donated thousands and thousands of hours producing a product, that while it may not meet your exacting standards, has served millions of other users very well. Personally I find the geek speak to be a little twee, but having to learn a little geek jargon is a small price to pay for the privilege of gaining access to the power of a program such as the Gimp at no other cost.

The Gimp may not be the easiest of programs to learn, but given the power that it places in the user's hands that shouldn't be too surprising.

Most people make the mistake of thinking that everything should be so intuitive that after only a few hours of playing around with the menus they should be capable of being productive with it.

Unfortunately that is the wrong approach. The only really effective way to learn a complex program like the Gimp is to work methodically through a decent tutorial. Although there are likely dozens of good online tutorials, my preference is for hard-copy in which case I can recommend the very reasonably priced "GIMP Handbook" which may be downloaded as a PDF or purchased in a magazine format.

Posted by richardandtracy on 17/04/2017 18:09:00:

Other irritants were that 'Save As' didn't offer other file formats, like .jpg, that was confined to 'Export'.

Actually there is a very good reason why it is done that way, and it is also completely consistent with the how the majority of other programs work. Even the ubiquitous Microsoft Word "saves as" a .docx but uses export for a .txt file. The reason being that an application's native format normally carries far more information than can be included in many other "export" file formats.

For example the Gimp supports layers, a powerful feature not found in .jpg or most of the other common graphics files formats. Imagine spending a few hours editing an image with different layers perhaps containing title text on its own layer. Saving the image as a jpg will necessitate that the layers are flattened into each other, after which when the program is exited, all layer information is lost. Imagine how difficult it would be to change or move the font at a later date, something that would have been trivially easy if it was saved in the program's native format instead.

Clive

[CirclipParticipant @circlip]

ALL graphics and drawing programmes take time to learn and are NOT the instant fix many seem to want. Sadly, compewters have given the impression that a few keystrokes create masterpieces, Hmm, same applies to machine tools, twiddle a few handwheels and out comes an Ingineerin wonder. A few quid to spare?, dash down to the local tool emporium and the goods therein will make you an instant metalworker/welder/cabinetmaker.

Regards Ian.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

What's the difference between Photoshop and GIMP? About £200 per year.

Adobe are following Windows lead and selling the latest version for about £200 for a one year licence.

GIMP is free. Both take some effort to learn. About £20 will buy a good book on using GIMP.

Russell

[Mark Simpson 1Participant @marksimpson1]

"I havehad GIMP on my PC. I have now removed it. I got so irritated by the STUPID and unrelated names they gave to some of the menu options, it meant that I could never find the filter I wanted. I was looking for a name a human would call it, & not what a self absorbed techie geek idiot would"

GIMP is an opensource project, and free…. use it or pay a lot more; the choice is yours.

The use of FOO (and BAR) is quality programing…"Metasyntactic variables" or placeholder names; commonly used when developing new ideas but not yet ready to name them properly; more than you will ever need to know at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasyntactic_variable

(The use of FUBAR, as in engineering, denotes a world class errror condition )

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by clivel on 18/04/2017 04:59:23:

For example the Gimp supports layers, a powerful feature not found in .jpg or most of the other common graphics files formats. Imagine spending a few hours editing an image with different layers perhaps containing title text on its own layer. Saving the image as a jpg will necessitate that the layers are flattened into each other, after which when the program is exited, all layer information is lost. Imagine how difficult it would be to change or move the font at a later date, something that would have been trivially easy if it was saved in the program's native format instead.

 

Any decent graphics program supports layers – even when the picture is not of a chicken – and sure, you need to flatten to save as a jpg (amongst others). But that has nothing to do with whether you need a separate menu selection to do so. You simply include jpg as one of the save formats and warn when saving that the image will be flattened ("Do you want to proceed Y/N?"  ).

At that point you assume that the user knows what he's doing and don't try to protect/mother him any further.

 

(Edited  to remove yet another stupid winky.)

Edited By Bandersnatch on 18/04/2017 22:08:42

[clivelParticipant @clivel]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 18/04/2017 22:03:05:

Any decent graphics program supports layers – even when the picture is not of a chicken – and sure, you need to flatten to save as a jpg (amongst others). But that has nothing to do with whether you need a separate menu selection to do so. You simply include jpg as one of the save formats and warn when saving that the image will be flattened ("Do you want to proceed Y/N?" ).

At that point you assume that the user knows what he's doing and don't try to protect/mother him any further.

Save, saves in the applications native file format which supports all features offered by the program. Export saves in a foreign file format which will support some but most likely not all of the features offered by a program.

Two different results, two different operations – not too hard to understand I don't think.

 

Edited By clivel on 18/04/2017 22:32:13

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by clivel on 18/04/2017 22:31:30:

Save, saves in the applications native file format which supports all features offered by the program. Export saves in a foreign file format which will support some but most likely not all of the features offered by a program.

Two different results, two different operations – not too hard to understand I don't think.

 

No, not too hard I do think. Then again, I don't have any difficulty understanding the single menu save selection used by other programs, and, like Richard, find it less cumbersome.

Frankly, I think it indicates more the modular nature of the programming, split between multiple programmers, than it does about any conscious attempt on their part to create a friendly interface for the end user.

In any event, none of these programs is directed at the casual user but rather the advanced amateur or pro. Anyone in that category knows enough to save frequent backups in native format while working on a project (and also to save multiple versions along the way). Saving to jpg et al, if at all, will be the final step and he doesn't need his hand held at that point – if at all.

Edited By Bandersnatch on 18/04/2017 22:53:56

[MikeParticipant @mike89748]

Personally, I find Corel Paintshop Pro much easier to learn than Photoshop. It does what I want it to do, and the results are acceptable to a leading magazine group.

Edited By Mike on 19/04/2017 06:21:55

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I like using a very old version of Corel Paint best for simple image adjustments. I use Photoshop CS2 for astro work, because there are some very good and inexpensive plugins, but I bought the latest PaintshopPro recently for £20 on offer and I think it's rather better than (at least the old version of) Photoshop.

I didn't get on with Gimp, yes I did find its menu selections confusing, deliberately chosen to be at odds with PS, I suspect. They dropped the 'the' years ago so you can always spot long-time Gimp users

I also have Astra Image for sharpening and noise removal and Raw Therapee for playing with RAWS, as well as things like Irfan View and various Exif viewers, not to mention at least four five dedicated image processing programs for astronomy…

The most useful image processing program was the simple one in Windows Vista. You could alter contrast and colour balance enough to correct scanned images with little effort, no frills and an undo function that worked at any time in the future.

Am I obsessive?

[Author]

Posts