Photoshop or not

[BonfireGirl]

I like to make tin badges and I need a program that will allow me to size a picture (eg into a specific sized circle) and add some text over the image.

Should I purchase Photoshop (and if so, which type) or is there an easier/cheaper way to perform this function?

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated

 

[mal92]

Hi
try Paint.Net. It's free, very comprehensive and can do what you need easily.

 

[BonfireGirl]

Ooooh - will research!

Many thanks

 

[Dave54]

Another alternative is The Gimp. Open source, free. Good text tools, layers, filters. etc. etc.
The Windows build page is here
http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/
but there are versions available for Mac and of course Linux.

You might also be interested in Inkscape, again free, but a vector drawing program. Allows you to draw shapes, fill them with colour, put text along a path (line) import bitmaps etc. etc.

 

[Rider]

A 'vector' type of program could be more suitable for your requirements. This would include Inkscape as has been mentioned. Others are Serif DrawPlus - CorelDraw - Xara Photo and Graphic Designer. Not all free (CorelDraw has a Home & Student version) but they produce images and graphics that are infinitely resizeable over an over again (up or down). A bitmap program program can't do this so well. Read the difference between vector and bitmap programs here:

http://www.cs.sfu.ca/CourseCentral/165/common/guide/html/sec-bitmapvector.html

 

[mattylad]

I would seriously stay clear of purchasing any Serif program.

Not because there is anything wrong with the software, but the sales will hound you forever more.
I made the mistake of buying something 10+ years ago, they still haven't forgotten me

 

[ericmark]

Photoshop is super expensive and it would seem now they are moving to subscription rather than out right buying and although a great program there are a host of free programs that do nearly the same.

Lightroom also Adobe is more aimed at the Photography but even that is expensive.

Gimp with UFraw will handle most photos but the conversion from RAW to Jpeg is where it falls down. If your photos are already as Jpeg then it does a great job.

Others like Picturenaut allow high dynamic range and Hugin for panorama work are all good.

To reduce picture size even with Photoshop CS5 installed I use FastStone Photo Resizer which can also add a copy-write logo. This may do the add text bit that your after.

The problem is they all take some learning how to use. Because I had to use Photoshop for college I learnt how to use that package and don't really want to move to another. But also near every function has two or more ways to do same thing.

In the camera club if I want to do something then with Lightroom or Photoshop there are many able to help me. However with Gimp there is only one member who seems to use it and this is the problem.

I am sure Gimp will do near everything that Photoshop will do but it's the finding out how which is the problem.

Also photoshop as well as upgrades has two main versions. Elements is very much cut down but CS5 and now CS6 is far more expensive.

All in all I would advise against Photoshop as although likely the best it's costly to up-grade. I was running CS4 which did all I wanted until I changed camera and found I had to upgrade to CS5 for it to work with the RAW files and even then I had to download and install a upgrade to the RAW for it to work.

In the main photographers use Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom because of the way it handles RAW files and unless your camera is taking in RAW there is little gain.

Most cheaper cameras only take in Jpeg only the higher end compacts and DSLR cameras use 16 bit RAW files most cameras convert to Jpeg in camera with no option to save as RAW. If that is the case with you then no point in spending out for software you don't need.

 

[Dave54]

I agree with most of what you say Eric. I never wanted to be tied to updating PS every time I got a new camera, and so I've been using the Gimp for years.
I certainly won't be considering joining the "Creative Cloud" any time soon with it's monthly payments. Really, although there have been various "improvements" to PS over it's various versions, there is little in there that can't be achieved with open source software. The big issues most people have with it is the lack of 16 bit processing, which can be a problem sometimes for very critical uses, and the lack of "non destructive editing" like adjustment layers. The 16 bit processing at least should be addressed with the next full release. There is a gimp community with news and tutorial here, http://www.gimpusers.com

I thought the whole point of UFRaw was to read RAW files and convert to your preferred output? I don't use it myself, but it appears that for Windows it is now a stand-alone program and doesn't really integrate into Gimp.
I use RawTherapee which allows you to either output files in your preferred format, or open the RAW file in the editor of your choice.

Just one other point. If you only have a jpeg file to work with and are working on it with any editor at all, then save it as a lossless format before actually doing any work. For instance that could be either Tiff, PSD in the case of PS, or XCF for Gimp. Work and save into that file only outputting as a jpeg as the final action. Similarly with RAW files you intend to edit. Either output as a lossless file type, or save as that type leaving the jpeg until last.
Jpeg is a lossy format, and repeatedly saving to the same file will degrade the quality.

 

[ericmark]

Tried the RawTherapee and I am impressed. Seems to work very well. As to UFraw think there were two versions integrated with GIMP and stand alone but no where near as good as RawTherapee anyway.

 

[Dave54]

Yes I like Raw Therapee too. The shadow recovery is pretty good I reckon, and I like the look of it's output from the standard settings.
I read about UF Raw on their site the other day. It seems that it doesn't integrate into the Gimp now under Windows. It never was really a Windows program as such in any case. It's meant for Linux really.

 

[ericmark]

Camera RAW 6.5 which comes with Photoshop CS5 has both some advantages and disadvantages when compared with RawTherapee, but the main thing is to change means re-learning how to do each function.

The graduated filter and adjustment brush are powerful tools allowing one to extract the maximum from the RAW file before being converted but creating multi-images then loading into layers can produce the same results.

This to me is a problem when swapping programs one has to re-learn not only the base program but how to use the other programs after with many names for the same function it is not easy to migrate one to another.

Photoshop even uses different names for same functions where the adjustment brush in RAW does nearly the same as dodge and burn in the main program.

Photoshop has two large advantages. One is most of the Photo magazines show how to process using Photoshop and second is most Colleges also use Photoshop and don't have any other programs loaded onto their machines. I saw how school levers from schools who used Paint Shop Pro had a hard time converting. Add to this the use of Mac Computers which may be better but most of us are not use to using the combination key sets used with Mac.

Personally I think schools and colleges should have the free programs be it open office, gimp, or the other host of good ones we use at home. But they are training for the industry not the home. But industry does not use the free programs as people they employ don't know how to use them. Which comes first?

The host of cameras which seem to be updating there RAW files on a regular basis forcing users to update software however will likely push out Photoshop. To have to convert files into DNG before you can open them is a lot of fiddling and if I had a camera where that was required or I swapped to RawTherapee then I would swap.

 

[Dave54]

All valid points, and if I was already set up with PS I wouldn't bother to change for the present at least. I have tried PS some time ago, in one of the earlier CS versions, and it certainly is "nicer" in some respects than Gimp. I couldn't really justify the cost though, and while "Elements" is a possible compromise, it doesn't (I believe) have 16 bit processing, or the pen tool which I sometimes use if isolating objects.
From a personal perspective my own present photographic work flow is based around RawTherapee for conversion, and the Gimp for post. I was using the Pentax software for conversion until recently, but after trying RT it won me over. I don't often read the magazines, and most of the tutorials I've seen are easy enough to adapt if need be. I don't need to work in either college or industry at present. So I have no problems with having to relearn skills.
I have this feeling that there is a largely unfounded prejudice against open source software in some quarters. It seems to be based around the idea that "You get what you pay for", and that it is in some way inferior because it is "free". If more people actually tried it they might find that it will do exactly what they need. Open Office which you mention, is an excellent case in point. For most general office type work I can't see why anyone would need anything else.

 

[Rider]

I used Corel Photo-Paint for years but being part of the CorelDraw Suite, it is expensive. I don't use it enough now to justify buying the latest version but do have the Home & Student version. Although good value for money, I think version X6 is stripped down a bit too much (can't customise toolbars). So these days I use the more affordable Xara Photo & Graphic Designer. This can work with both vector graphics and photographs. For a fast image viewer, I use Faststone (free). This too can carry out edits if required.

The original post seems more about working with graphics than photos. The need to resize was mentioned, so I thought I'd just come back to how a vector program might be better for doing that. I think most who design objects from scratch on the computer would need a vector drawing program rather than a photo/bitmap one. This being because it is possible to produce a picture as separate moveable and resizeable objects.

I drew this pencil (link to image below) in a vector program and have taken it apart to show the various bits. They are all resizeable up or down if necessary without losing any clarity:

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/pencilcomp-2.jpg

I drew this image using a vector program...

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/combidials.gif

..and made a small example of it showing the difference between resizing upwards using a vector program compared to a photo/bitmap program.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u78/Mart44/marts-graphics/vectorbitmap.jpg

All of the mentioned programs have their merits but for purely drawing/designing, a vector program is better?

 

[foxhole]

You could do a simple job like that with powerpoint.

 

[mattylad]

Considering she has not been back since April, I think the OP is using the one in the 2nd post.

Although I still think Gimp is more than adequate.