25 replies to this topic

[Michael Covington]

Now that GIMP 3 is out, what do people think of it?  For the final finishing of astrophotos, and for editing terrestrial photos, I vacillate between Photoshop and Affinity Photo (the latter much more affordable).  I found GIMP hard to use when I tried GIMP 2 and got the impression there were a lot of inconsistencies in its approach to things.  How is it now?

(BTW, I'm not afraid of elaborate software -- I'm something of a PixInsight geek -- so when I say GIMP 2 struck me as awkward, it wasn't beginner's fear.)

[scanner97]

Interested in first reactions as well!

 

I vacillate between Photoshop and Affinity Photo

 

Please say more.  Quick pros and cons from an astro perspective will be helpful as I look for more detailed comparisons.  My use is purely AP, so I'm not sure PS makes much sense vs Affinity or GIMP.

[vidrazor]

Disappointed they didn't incorporate layer transforms. I understand this is a small team working on this program, but we're now in the third decade of the 21st century, and layer transforms are long overdue in GIMP. They've been working on this version of GIMP for about seven years no less. Krita also does not have layer transforms and, considering how much more and faster evolution Krita has had over GIMP, I'm rather surprised about that really. Photoshop has had layer transforms since the 90s. Affinity Photo has them.

 

Both PS and AP also have layer luminosity masks, AP's being pretty cool in giving you curves adjustments for them over just the standard gradient adjustment in PS, so brownie points for the AP.

 

If I'm not mistaken, GIMP also doesn't have the so called "smart layers" that PS has, I forget what the process is called in AP, but they are essentially container file sub layers that allow you to add additional processes to a layer while not affecting the pixel data (that is "protected" in the container file), and keeping the image layers parametric.

 

When I heard that non-destructive editing had finally come to GIMP, I thought that meant the addition of layer transforms, but sadly, no. So I'm sure the new features will be very welcomed by long time GIMP users, but for me, GIMP is still and also ran.

Edited by vidrazor, 23 March 2025 - 12:09 PM.

[Michael Covington]

On vacillating between Photoshop and Affinity Photo:  I wouldn't buy the current version of Photoshop at Adobe prices, nor do I want to sign up for a subscription.  I use PS 5.5, which I got at educational prices some years ago and have become accustomed to. 

 

Affinity is fine except for two quirks:  (1) It does not freely load and save all formats.  It will load any format but only will save as .afphoto unless you "export" rather than "save as."  (Photoshop wants to save as .psd when you have put something in your image that the original format doesn't support, such as layers, but otherwise will load and save .tif, .png, .jpg, etc.)   I think the latest Affinity will load .jpg and save as .jpg without having to "export."  I need to check on its behavior with others.

(2) Affinity lacks the "Sharpen" filter that I use so much; Affinity has Unsharp Mask, which can do the same when set to a small scale, but it's more work.

Affinity, being up to date, is better at opening camera raw files.   And the price is right.

[WadeH237]

It will load any format but only will save as .afphoto unless you "export" rather than "save as."

Is there a reason that this is a problem?  Isn't is just a different menu that takes you through the same options that "save as" would do?  Also, I've not looked at GIMP 3 yet, but GIMP 2 requires you to use the export menu as well.

 

On a side note, I am getting interested in improving my terrestrial photography skills.  As a part of that, I have updated Affinity to the latest version, and am now going through the video tutorials, just to say what it can do (although I never really explored v1 that much).  I have to say that I am seriously impressed.  My Photoshop version has been frozen at CS5, since I will never rent software.  I'm not sure that I'll ever need to use Photoshop again.

[HenkSB]

Now that GIMP 3 is out, what do people think of it?  For the final finishing of astrophotos, and for editing terrestrial photos, I vacillate between Photoshop and Affinity Photo (the latter much more affordable).  I found GIMP hard to use when I tried GIMP 2 and got the impression there were a lot of inconsistencies in its approach to things.  How is it now?

(BTW, I'm not afraid of elaborate software -- I'm something of a PixInsight geek -- so when I say GIMP 2 struck me as awkward, it wasn't beginner's fear.)

Thanks for the news, so I downloaded and tried it.  This is version 3.0.0 so I expected problems. I loaded a BlurXTerminator-produced M45 image and started stretching using Color->Curves.  Voila, the first roadblock:  the histogram does not get updated after stretching and accepting (click OK).  That makes it practically impossible to use because you are driving blind.  Driving blind, I was able to stretch the image but consider this a big failure. 

 

Next step, removing a gradient.  This is done by duplicating the layer, making the top layer invisible and selecting begin and end point of the linear gradient by sampling the image.  The next step is to make the layer visible again and subtract it.  On making the gradient visible, my gradient did not look at all like the selected colors - it was bright yellow and white.  Second roadblock.

 

 

These are the most important uses I have for Gimp, so back to Gimp 2.  I'd better start filing some bugs.

[Dan Crowson]

Much like the comments above, I also tend use a pre-subscription version of Adobe PhotoShop and I also own Affinity but rarely use it.
 
As someone that heads up imaging meetings for our local club, Gimp has always been mentioned when people what free/low cost software. All these years later it is still mentioned but I know of no one that actually uses it. When someone wants a paint-like program, I tend to always recommend Affinity these days and their sales multiple times a year.
 
Dan

[HenkSB]

I filed my Gimp 3.0.0 "bug" about the histogram issue mentioned above.  It was closed because the workflow has changed, so it is now considered a misunderstanding on my part. 

 

The relevant feature is "non-destructive editing" where you can go back in steps and change the filter (curve) independently of the filters of subsequent steps.  The color curve operation is now a non-destructive editing feature.  To me this is counter-intuitive; in my workflow especially with color curves, every subsequent curve depends on all earlier curves, and I don't expect being able to go back and change a curve independently while the subsequent ones remain the same. 

 

I like destructive editing where I can used Undo to undo a bad step, and where I can simply save results that I want to keep manually in a new layer.  In Gimp 3.0.0 I can still work if I click an extra button (fx) then select "Merge all filters down".  Then I see the current histogram. 

 

I don't like having to do that, and mostly I don't like this counterintuitive behavior that I think is appropriate for linear steps; in astrophotography, when stretching images, most steps are very nonlinear.  PixInSight makes the distinction and allows stretched previewing while still performing linear operations in the initial stage of editing.  But I use Gimp after I'm done with linear-based operations such as BlurXTerminator; I then use Gimp for applying color curves that are very nonlinear.

[HenkSB]

In was advised that there is a "Merge filter" checkbox in the curves dialog where the old behavior can be restored.  It will still take many new users a while to discover this behavior, and how to fix it, just as it took me a few hours.  I hope they can check the box by default.

 

Also, the gradient issue happened because I had selected the wrong gradient type as I found myself - false alarm.   I was hoping for radial gradients or gradients that can be curved in some way but it's still just linear only.

 

So, Gimp 3.0.0 is usable but may have some surprises for Gimp 2 users that take a while to figure out.

[fmendes]

GIMP has a special place in my heart, and I'll update to GIMP 3.

 

Having that said, Affinity has several tools for AP. From the box, it can stack files, although the process is not as refined as, for instance DSS os Siril.

 

Then there is the James Ritson astrophotography macros for Affinity, that has several very good tools. I read somewhere that the latest version has non-destructive stretching, which is simply a great feature.

 

One would need to export images both from GIMP and Affinity to use most common star removal tools. For noise reduction, I used to use Topaz Denoise, that is inferior to dedicated tools such as BXT/NXT. But I don't know how good are Seti astro suite in comparison.

 

Finally, Affinity Photo is cheap for the quality it offers. Not that GIMP is not good, but even the same tools seem to work better on Affinity.

[Phil Cowell]

Anyone looked at SETI Astro Suite?

[vidrazor]

Anyone looked at SETI Astro Suite?

The Seti suite is something you want to use before finishing off in an image editor like PS, AP, or GIMP. There's always some tweaks that are best done in an image editor, especially one with the right tool sets.

[scanner97]

Yes.  Best comparison to SETI Astro Suite would be something like Siril, since both are freeware and offer similar features.

 

I started playing around with SETI and found what I expected.  There are enough differences, coming from Siril, that it takes some effort.  I didn't feel it worth the time to do a detailed comparison with Siril 1.2 since 1.4 will be here soon. I'll spend more time with SETI at some point; just not now.  I'm sure one of the content creators will do something eventually.

 

For someone just starting out, and looking for a good, no-cost alternative to PixInsight, both SETI and Siril have a lot of features.  They both have their own learning curves, though probably not as steep as PI. 

[Charlie B]

Now that GIMP 3 is out, what do people think of it?  For the final finishing of astrophotos, and for editing terrestrial photos, I vacillate between Photoshop and Affinity Photo (the latter much more affordable).  I found GIMP hard to use when I tried GIMP 2 and got the impression there were a lot of inconsistencies in its approach to things.  How is it now?

(BTW, I'm not afraid of elaborate software -- I'm something of a PixInsight geek -- so when I say GIMP 2 struck me as awkward, it wasn't beginner's fear.)

Michael,

 

As a fellow PI geek, what do you use in PS or GIMP that cannot be done in PI?  I used GIMP years ago, but, at that time, it was very limited.  I gave up on PS too.  Now, all my processing is in PI.

 

Regards,

Charlie B

[Michael Covington]

I am not sure my postprocessing cannot all be done in PixInsight.  Adding lettering (captions) to the pictures is the part that comes most naturally in PS.  But I need to check on everything.

[Charlie B]

I am not sure my postprocessing cannot all be done in PixInsight.  Adding lettering (captions) to the pictures is the part that comes most naturally in PS.  But I need to check on everything.

I have just spent several hours boning up on PI annotation on the Pixinsight tutorials on YouTube.  It's very easy to annotate in PI using Render> AnnotateImage and Painting > Annotation.  I've also installed the script TypeCat for building custom databases.  

 

I forgot the new script https://pixinsight.c...notation.20929/

 

Regards,

Charlie B

Edited by Charlie B, 24 March 2025 - 07:29 PM.

[fmendes]

what do you use in PS or GIMP that cannot be done in PI? 

 

I couldn't resist to a funny answer: I could buy a telescope with the price of PI...

 

Explaining: even though I own PI (bought for 240 USD, now price is 324 USD), I understand people not willing to pay for it. For the time I hoped I'd conquer the world with open source and free software, all I used was GIMP. 

Edited by fmendes, 24 March 2025 - 04:17 PM.

[Charlie B]

I couldn't resist to a funny answer: I could buy a telescope with the price of PI...

 

Explaining: even though I own PI (bought for 240 USD, now price is 324 USD), I understand people not willing to pay for it. For the time I hoped I'd conquer the world with open source and free software, all I used was GIMP. 

GIMP is free, but what about PS?  I could not get a scope for what I paid for PI, but I could get an eyepiece or a ZWO planetary camera.   Of course, that would not work for me since I already have PI (I think I paid ~ $229).  I think it's the most cost effective purchase in astronomy I've made to date.

 

Regards,

Charlie

[HenkSB]

I use PI only to run BlurXTerminator and maybe a dynamic background removal.  I do my stacking in DSS (PI takes forever) and take my BXT image to Gimp.  Gimp's color curves are so much better than PI.  Also, saturation and gradient removal in Gimp works fine.  Gimp is much more intuitive than PI.  I abhor the PI interface.

[Charlie B]

I use PI only to run BlurXTerminator and maybe a dynamic background removal.  I do my stacking in DSS (PI takes forever) and take my BXT image to Gimp.  Gimp's color curves are so much better than PI.  Also, saturation and gradient removal in Gimp works fine.  Gimp is much more intuitive than PI.  I abhor the PI interface.

Different strokes, I guess!  As a self-identified PI geek, I find just the opposite. GIMP's interface is much more difficult for me than PI's.  Multi-scale gradient removal in PI is awesome, especially with the MARS database.

 

Regards,

Charlie B

[fmendes]

GIMP is free, but what about PS?  I could not get a scope for what I paid for PI, but I could get an eyepiece or a ZWO planetary camera.   Of course, that would not work for me since I already have PI (I think I paid ~ $229).  I think it's the most cost effective purchase in astronomy I've made to date.

 

Regards,

Charlie

 

I bought it, then I didn't use it for months - cold feet due to the weird interface. Yes, after one understands how it works, it only gets better. But man, those first days... Gimp, I use since before 1.0, so I'm well used to it. Even when I bought Affinity, I used GIMP for a lot of stuff as I was in a hurry and didn't want to learn Affinity.

 

I don't pay for PS, as I mostly refuse their subscription model. But there are people who work with photo, so PS is something that is already there. 

 

Note that I think PI is the best solution for astrophoto processing. But I understand people's pause with learning it.

[HenkSB]

Different strokes, I guess!  As a self-identified PI geek, I find just the opposite. GIMP's interface is much more difficult for me than PI's.  Multi-scale gradient removal in PI is awesome, especially with the MARS database.

 

Regards,

Charlie B

I usually do use gradient removal in PI before starting BXT.  Whatever is left I can deal with in Gimp.  BTW I also like the Blink tool in PI.

 

The trouble with PI is there are too many ways to do the same thing, and each method has too many parameters.  I am really not going to take endless classes on which tool to use and how to use it, give me a break - it should be easier.  Then the weirdness about dragging those triangles just twists my mind the wrong way.  Some people like scripts but the underlying methods might get trashed or changed by PI updates, so they don't work anymore.

[Michael Covington]

The way I sum it up:  If there are 3 good ways to do something, all 18 of them will be implemented in PixInsight

Seriously, though, PixInsight is as much a research platform as anything else.  It is very good for doing serious science.

[mdal]

I use GIMP, and have learned a lot, especially about histograms and not only what they mean, but what can be done using them.

 

With the upgrade to version 3, one feature I miss terribly is the ability to open bayered pictures.  It had been that when opening FiTS files, the choice was to check NAXIS=3, which I never did learn the meaning of.  But now I have looked high and low, including the documentation, for the same functionality.

 

Has anyone found where it was moved to?

 

al

[hobsonpr]

GIMP is free, but what about PS?  I could not get a scope for what I paid for PI, but I could get an eyepiece or a ZWO planetary camera.   Of course, that would not work for me since I already have PI (I think I paid ~ $229).  I think it's the most cost effective purchase in astronomy I've made to date.

 

Regards,

Charlie

GIMP is free indeed and I use it extensively for non-astro photography. However if you wish it to keep developing then I suggest that all users who like it make some annual donation towards it.