Was a photoshop tutorial but, I did it in Gimp

I saw a tutorial for only photoshop for this image, I was totally sure that A professional like me can make anything in any MID-end software, The highlights are not that good because I don’t know how to do good highlights in gimp as I have just switched from photoshop to gimp.

I hope you like it :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:.


That’s a great result. Could be a lot more realistic tho. That light projection on the deers back should be a lot larger imo. Deer cervus or whatever this is has pretty wide horns so the transition would be smoother and the light would be more spreaded.

Overall, pretty impressive. Just imagine the possibilities when Gimp gets non destructive editing capabilities :smiley:

1 Like

Thanks, I am imagining. And if gimp also supported camera raw, then it would have been more better.

1 Like

I tried already to spread the light to a wide area, but it was giving some weird and bad looking edges, that’s why I just choose to make it spread on a small area.

I will try to make it more realistic.

Here is the improved version of it:-


A really nice edit! But I woudn’t call Gimp low-end software :wink: .


I also wouldn’t call it low-end, but there was no term like free_High-end software or mid-end software, and I am also not a native English speaker, So I had just 2 terms {High-end and Low-end} to say, And I needed to get from a big software to small software like phrase, So there was no option for me. However, I will edit my post and name it mid-end.

1 Like

No need to edit your post :slight_smile: . I just think you can’t just classify software on a linear scale. There is very good free software that can compete with proprietary alternatives. Many proprietary programs restrict the user and are therefore in some respects even inferior to the free competition.
Gimp has many excellent features, but is actually inferior to Photoshop in some respects.
Nevertheless, I enjoy working with Gimp and do not consider it to be “low-end” in comparison to comparable graphics programs. You always have to balance your personal needs with the possibilities of a program.

1 Like

To me the image is totally unrealistic. And that makes it nice. Nice color combination.

2nd edit is nice too, but overglows a bit strong around head and neck IMHO. But maybe that goes into taste and you have to follow your own taste.

1 Like

Creating a good looking glow is hard to do, or at least it is using GIMP or Krita.

It looks like you do not mind constructive criticism: First edit - I think you should make the transition between sparkles and sky more gradual, it is as if you can almost see the border at the moment.

I prefer your first edit to be honest, the effect is better balanced.

Nice job!

EDIT: You don’t mention the tutorial you used, but I had some good result in Krita using this GIMP based one:

Gimp Tutorial : Gold Effect Photo Manipulation [YouTube]

1 Like

It’s relatively easy to get a similar effect even in darktable. Only for the sparkle I had no idea :cry:.

Original photo by Vincent Ledvina [Unsplash License].

vincent-ledvina-zZsBlaGwJiw-unsplash.jpg.xmp (27.0 KB)


That would require a software that can import “effect images”, stars, sparkle, snow etc, and you add it as layer and mask it with whatever opacity you need. Should be very doable in Gimp. darktable is totally the wrong tool here IMHO.

Thanks, this is the actual tutorial:-

Yes, of course darktable is the wrong tool. But it is interessting how easy you can get this kind of glow effect with dt. That’s why I posted the image above. I aggree for additional effects one could export the image and add these in Gimp.

1 Like

And it all depends on your taste, on what you like more. Personally, I like this image more which I made with only this image that is made in gimp:-

And darktable. And then the final result was this:-

1 Like

Actually, I have a CC-BY 0 Avatar, and many people are asking to get that too:-

Hey, I love it!! Really nice glow :slight_smile:

1 Like