What is Digg?130 Comments
- norman619, on 08/22/2008, -3/+25Sorry guys but no opensourse app out there can hold a candle to Adobe's suit of applications. I have tried to have my graphics workstation be Linux but it wasn't happening. Oh, and let's not forget Adobe appe are the industry standard. I'd love to know what real options exist on Linux for non-linear video editing.
- arjie, on 08/22/2008, -1/+18Sorry guys, but this isn't for all you Mac and Windows users. It's not asking you to switch your operating system or anything. It's a helpful and informative article for Linux users who photograph. God, you people think the whole world revolves around you, go away and leave us in peace.
Personally, I've used GIMP, and I think there are a lot of UI improvements that it could have which appear really simple and which would have a nice effect. It's a bit hard to make the toolbars not show up in the taskbar, and to act in one coherent manner, though Compiz makes this easier with Window grouping and tabbing. I found F-spot not very useful, I didn't use it much because of that. The only problem I still have is that I actually like modal dialogs, and I know this because in GIMP when you choose a filter, sometimes the dialog will pop under the main image, and you won't know it's there unless you look at the taskbar (and that's hard because of each toolbar having it's own space there).
Also, I have an old digital camera (I'm not a photographer), a Nikon DC-995, and while it is listed in gphoto it doesn't ever manage to detect. Fortunately, it is loaded neatly as a USB device so that's handy.
qtpfsgui [ http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/ ] gives some really nice results, but I'm not much of a HDR nut, though I do like to try it out just for fun. Some of the tonemapping operators in qtpfsgui don't seem to give a result whatever the type of photo I take, it's just completely black. But others are good and give a nice image. I got one where the clouds were nicely coloured and so were the darker trees and the brighter lights below. Other operators make it look like those images on flickr, just random colours here and there, ugly stuff which you can't look at because it hurts. That happens on loads of HDR programs, I suppose. After all, it all depends on the user. However, my gripe is that the parameters are cryptic, you can't associate them with anything in the photo. they're called alpha, delta, stuff like that. Then again, that's just my amateur's impression. - pyrates, on 08/21/2008, -5/+22I had a look over the names of each program or tool that you had mentioned, and none of them conveyed what the tool was supposed to use. Programmers may be good at programming but they're terrible when it comes to creating a product name. But linux does have a ways to go. Glad to see someone though point out where the flaws are, what things need improving, what things need work on, and what things just don't plain exist on linux that do on other platforms.
- HillerMylife, on 08/22/2008, -1/+14I have never before heard anyone describe the Creative Suite as buggy in any capacity. The only criticism I could throw at it in that regard would be that it might be bloated, but I don't care much about that. That sort of comes with its great versatility.
- Narcism, on 08/22/2008, -2/+13Specific examples? There isn't anything I can't do in Creative Suite.
No offense (a phrase that voids me of any responsibility of what I'm about to say), but you're likely a retard. - stonebone4, on 08/22/2008, -1/+11http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3
I've always been curious about that. - inactive, on 08/22/2008, -4/+14Linux for pornography!? I'll take six!!
- Kelmon, on 08/22/2008, -1/+10You're right - I don't believe you. CS3 works fine for me, thanks, let alone "barely runs". What a load of nonsense.
- DeathJux, on 08/22/2008, -1/+10"CS3 barely runs under OS X at this point"
lolol, surely you jest? Have you used a Mac made in the last three years with CS3? It's so good it feels like cheating sometimes (panorama photomerging, for example). - Vadi0, on 08/21/2008, -0/+9http://a.viary.com/ is a very nice web-based art suite in development.
- tibbon, on 08/22/2008, -7/+16Call me when there's killer RAW support that is well updated for recent cameras (d3, etc), and a program that has a workflow like, if not better than, Aperture... oh and also an image editor as powerful/easy/smooth (with good UI) as Photoshop. Until then, I'm going to stay where photo editing is best done... on a Mac.
- skinjester, on 08/22/2008, -1/+9photoshop & illustrator suck? jeez, I've wasted 10 years - If only I'd had the opportunity to use the "awesome" Linux equivalents... jeez what were my employers thinking? We could have been running the GIMP or some crap like that instead .. oh right, we were looking to do graphic design, you know... for money.
- HonoredMule, on 08/22/2008, -1/+9Yes is is.
http://some.torrentsite.or.other/ - SmellyGeekBoy, on 08/22/2008, -1/+9Well, unless you count netbooks, GPS devices, servers, and cellphones.
- arjie, on 08/22/2008, -1/+9Well, Aperture and Photoshop atleast are quite obvious to the user. I mean, you know, aperture, shutter, camera that sort of thing. And Photoshop has Photo in it.
But I agree that we do recognise 99% of our stuff through brand-recognition. If someone said, "I bought a Sonata" I'd assume they're talking about the Hyundai car, not about a piece of music. Google - It means nothing whatsoever. Apple - They're not a fruit company. IBM - The initials convey nothing; International Business Machines does, but so does GNU Image Manipulation Program. Safari - That's stretching it to mean it implies the internet. Macintosh - how the hell does that mean 'computing device'. Windows, Vista, Ubuntu - How do those mean Operating System or Computer? Firefox - browser?
It's very true. Few things are named after what they do. - garrettg84, on 08/22/2008, -4/+11So lets say adobe or any other graphics app NEVER adds features???? Where would they stand...exactly where they did 10 years ago. You sir, are an idiot, almost all software packages are a work in progress, thats why there are version numbers...
Do your work on what you feel comfortable with, linux, windows, mac...but at least come up with valid arguments. - Narcism, on 08/22/2008, -11/+18Didn't read the article, there isn't any amount of rationalization that can somehow make me forget Photoshop exists.
- norman619, on 08/22/2008, -1/+8Thanks for the link. It looks like an interesting app. I'm gonna test drive it.
Thanks again. - rowjimmy, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8"Linux is too big a pain in the ass even for professional programmers to mess with"
microsoft certified does not a professional programmer make. - deathguppie, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6Cinnellerra may be a good app, but it is way to complicated for my tastes.
Believe it or not I use Blenders (blender.org) sequencer, is one of the best non-linear editors available on linux. All of the crossovers are customizable to no end, you can do size and location using the IPO curves for time, you can even use another movie as the transition if you want to. The nodes based rendering system allows you to handle colors in all kinds of way's including a built in croma key (blue screen). You can then pipe sequences through color correction and blend them together separate out colors.. etc.
...and on top of that you can animate in 3d mapping movies as textures on cubes, or spheres etc... it really is an amazing tool.
Oh, and it handles full HD, Cineon, OpenEXR, iris.. build in ffmpeg ... well, enough said.. - Narcism, on 08/22/2008, -0/+6@HillerMylife
Even then, I wouldn't call it bloated because in almost every application I've used indepth, I've had to have gotten my hands dirty with some of the more obscure features. - garrettg84, on 08/22/2008, -2/+8This argument is not about an operating system, don't make it about one. This is simply stating whats available on another OS. If you are satisfied with using **insert proprietary app here** and never exploring other options, good, stick with what you've got. For those of us who either cannot afford the greatest and latest Mac Platform, or simply chose to support open source, this is a great article on letting us know whats available. The people who value something like this likely do not have the cash to throw at something like Aperture or Photo Shop or any of the other corporate goodies you all seem to have your nutz in a bunch over. I swear photo nuts are just as bad as apple fan boys and linux whores.
- HillerMylife, on 08/22/2008, -1/+7Photoshop might run poorly if you're still using a PowerPC chip. It's fine on any Mac made in the last three years.
- SixOrSoPapers, on 08/22/2008, -2/+7Work in progress says nothing about where it stands relative to other operating systems. For example, 85.4% of the top 500 supercomputers are running Linux, as compared to 1% for Windows and 0.4% for Mac OS. Unlike Microsoft's desktop market saturation, this is due to merit, not clever marketing and distribution schemes. Is Linux for high performance computing a work in progress? Sure. But it still dominates.
All good software programs are works in progress (at least making bug fixes). - fotoman, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5Well, with a username like 'fotoman' I think I should get into the comment mix :-D
First off, I am a pro photographer and have been for decades. Been 100% linux since 2001. No problems at all using linux as a photographer. I have NEVER had a client complain about the quality of the product that I deliver to them: prints, files for 18 foot banners, website, international magazines, etc.
The Gimp for photo editing, poster design, etc (BTW, the Gimp does resizing better than PS for large images in less steps); GQview for quick viewing, sorting and slideshows; Inkscape for logos and other SVG needs; ImageMagick for all sorts of tasks including CMYK conversion when needing to prepare prepress works, and my kickass contactsheet script; jhead for various header manipulations [thumbnail, timestamp, etc]; NoiseNinja for my noise reduction needs; a little Perl/TK app I wrote for IPTC work; and Action Image for my high volume workflow [custom event photography application]
I don't shoot RAW, so haven't played with any of the newer tools, but from my initial trials back in 2002, dcraw did a fantastic job. dcraw BTW is the basis for MANY of the free/commercial RAW tools that people use including: ACDSee, Photoshop, BreezeBrowser, InfraView, Lightzone, Picase, Vue Scan, etc, etc.
There is a new product out there called BlueMarine ( http://bluemarine.tidalwave.it/ ) which looks similar to Aperture/Lightroom. Haven't played with it, but it looks promissing. - jerrycan, on 08/22/2008, -2/+7Photoshop? That's just a verb now. Yeah, I hear ya though.
- icexe, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5Cliff's Notes version: Digital imaging on Linux still sucks, but is getting incrementally better.
- Kelmon, on 08/22/2008, -0/+5With all due respect, photography is not a poor man's hobby. Good quality glass is expensive and there's no getting around that fact. Mind you, a good photographer with a bad camera will still produce better pictures than a bad photographer with a good camera.
- arjie, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6Personally, I find the Nikon software bloated and uncomfortable. My dad always has trouble with it until he learns how to use it to transfer photographs. That's all that it's to do and it does it uncomfortably. The inbuilt Open Folder in Windows XP or the inbuilt viewer in Ubuntu (or any GNOME distro at least, I'd think) are much better than that nkvwmon crap.
In case you're wondering, here are my problems with it:
1. It takes a long time to start after you plug in the machine
2. The resident program is 2MB, my dad's old machine has a total of 256MB. That's just the program that waits for the camera to be plugged in. The rest is even bigger.
3. It frequently crashes.
4. The interface isn't consistent, some parts had rounded buttons, others had standard windows buttons
5. It doesn't remember folders well.
There you go. Frankly, Linux is better off without that crap. - ArthurSucks, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6CMYK should be implemented in Gimp 2.6. The unstable build of 2.5.3 already has GEGL.
- DestroyFascism, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6One thing I really love is using images in Ubuntu. The way the files zoom in and out is superb. Desktop zoom is awesome and the gimp does have all the tool you need from basic to advanced editing.
Fspot needs work but its concept is great. Digital camera images need to be deletable when saved. File renaming in Ubuntu is miles and miles over Windows with ability to number, date and name each image batch mode.
File cache is superior to windows and a folder with over 1000 x 10 megapixel images with fully thumbnail in seconds without freezing. Once thumbnails are visible you can zoom in and out simply. These features of Linux are superb and I have not gone back to windows because doing this in Ubuntu is just damned fast.
I hope to see the day when a Linux native Photoshop option is available or The Gimp is able to respond and come out with better ideas (as present in some tools) and a more polished UI. I like the way it is, it just needs more polish. RAW support would also be welcome. - npowel, on 08/22/2008, -1/+6I have to agree about Adobe. Since I discovered Lightroom I totally rely on it, it saves a ridiculous amount of time. And as much as people like to say that programs like GIMP are as good as Photoshop, in reality they're nowhere near.
Whilst I'm a Linux user the majority of the time, it's Windows every time once my CF cards are in. - flyzipper, on 08/22/2008, -7/+11As a Nikon user, this is my main barometer regarding the viability of Linux ... http://tinyurl.com/6rkjhl
Quote: "Nikon Software is designed for Windows and Mac OS opersting [sic] systems only ... Nikon do not have any plans at present to support Linux, UNIX or any other operating system". - jerrycan, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4What's your phone number? Just want to be ready.
- suldar, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5Absolutely, why would you change your set up if your happy with it and it works? The article that I'm sure you took the time to read before commenting concluded that Linux for photography was a "work in progress" and "not a drop-in replacement for Windows or MacOS for photography yet. Far from it. You can use Linux for serious photography, but critical pieces are still missing or are too kludgy for efficient work; you need to be willing to accept sacrifices.".
- directrix13, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5I've used Nikons (higher end) on Linux for years. They work flawlessly. I also added an extension to the gphoto software package running on Linux that allows you to use it tethered to react to various device events like when a new image is captured. Again, works flawlessly (the same cannot be said about Windows software as it costs a pretty penny that I do not wish to spend). I can use UFRaw to import raw images flawlessly. I have no problems with Nikon cameras. Not only do I have no problems, but it just works on Linux. No driver downloads or additional software purchases. It just works. The same is no where near true on Windows.
- Vadi0, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5That's fine.
Only part that isn't fine is that they don't want to make it run on Linux. - inactive, on 08/22/2008, -1/+5I use Lightroom 2 for Mac, and love it. Aperture is a kick-ass program as well. What's Linux got to compete with those?
- HonoredMule, on 08/22/2008, -3/+7To be fair, the only reason we recognize 99% of the stuff we do is not because the name actually describes the program/product well (or at all), but through brand recognition and marketing. Which of the following terms would tell you exactly what the related product is and does if you didn't already know?
Aperture
Lightroom
Photoshop
iLife
ACDSee
Most of those appear to have something to do with photography, but precisely what is left up to the imagination, and the reader could be wrong on even that point. If you want names that mean something, you have to exit the software industry altogether. Black & Decker's site, for example, lists these products:
8" Automatic Adjustable Wrench
12 Volt Cordless High Performance Drill / Driver
Mouse Sander/Polisher with Comfort Gel Grips
3 Speed RTX Rotary Tool with Bonus Spring Clamps
But let's be fair. Software is far more abstractly defined. Naming software packages that clearly is utterly impossible. That means proprietary software automatically has a huge clarity/recognition advantage by virtue of brand name recognition (and association made between that and a product name to understand its purpose), proactive product presentation, and product placement. - HonoredMule, on 08/22/2008, -3/+7I don't follow your logic in declaring Aperture and Photoshop obvious. If Aperture is so self-evident, what might the imaginary software "Lens" do? And can I make marketworthy and sell my photos in Photoshop, browse and purchase stock images, or do I just buy prints? I Bet "SLR" would be awesome for...batch rotating images? Also, given the software context, "image editing software" is practically the default guess anyway for anything photography-related, and that still says very little about the feature set or strengths of the application. These two are lucky because they happen to cover the gamut.
Fireworks and Illustrator are not so lucky. Apparently they do vector graphics (doesn't Photoshop as well?) and Illustrator seems to be exclusively for that. But even a fair bit of reading does little to differentiate these 3 products which are even from the same company! You'd think they'd at least want to help you find the software that best suited your needs, but it looks more like they want to coerce you into buying bigger bundles.
One of the big reasons I like open source software is because it is largely driven by utility rather than marketability. It does make finding the right tool for the job harder, but then I have the advantage of being able to thoroughly test drive everything for free, and in the end...if it exists...I find the perfect fit rather than someone else's guestimated fit for my needs. Sadly open source hasn't done that well for photography, but times do change. - flyzipper, on 08/22/2008, -0/+4Thanks for the pointers ... especially UFRaw. I'll take a look.
- norman619, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Well can you blame them? Adobe is a business not a charity. They have shareholders to answer to. The money and time required to make them available to Linux users makes it impossible to sell to the shareholders as a good business decision. We all agree that Linux is a great OS. I use it myself on my file and multimedia servers. The big problem here is user base. Linux does not command enough market share to justify the cost. Linux supporter are going to have to find some way to convince people start using Linux en-mass because only then will we start to see companies like Adobe view Linux as a viable platform for their products.
- irinotecan, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I thought the biggest issue facing Linux is that Adobe still has patents on the CMYK color wheel which tends to make color picking in applications like GIMP inferior to Photoshop (and of course, Adobe won't port Photoshop to Linux)?
- jonsterling, on 08/22/2008, -1/+4I've used CS3, and I must say that is is some of the best software I've ever touched. I admit that there are a ton of things I would like changed, but nothing beats Photoshop and Indesign.
I've tried using the opensource "alternatives", and they don't cut it. Scribus is a big load of *****, and gimp is not only really hard to use, but it doesn't do crap. - stevenmansour, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I'm a photographer who works entirely in Linux - the irony is that the two applications that see the most use, Bibble RAW and Adobe Photoshop, are either closed-source and/or non native. I use Bibble to manage my RAW workflow and for RAW processing (imo it blows the pants off of Adobe Lightroom, which in turn blows the pants off of Aperture), and I have Photoshop CS2 running through WINE.
I'll use GIMP for some light work, and RAWStudio when I just want to make one print and don't need much granular control over the RAW conversion parameters. I also *love* the Nautlius right-click scripts to batch convert, resize or rotate images, without having to use any other app.
I would love to see open-source RAW management tools do what Bibble does, or see the GIMP's interface and plug-in architecture catch up with and exceed Photoshop. Until then, though, I have no problem using closed-apps within the context of an open operating system. The alternative - running them under a buggy (Vista) or restrictive (OS X) OS - just isn't viable to me. - assortedg, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Are you responding to the actual blog post or the 4 sentence blurb at the top of this page? The article is a thoughtful overview of where digital photography programs on Linux stand and resources people can use, not a statement of "Linux rUl3s! ***** ph0toSh0p!"
And he gives a bunch of details on what you can use. How do you think your opinion of "Well I tried it and it didn't work" helps anyone? - ArthurSucks, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3Gimp will be a much more powerful tool when it switches to v. 2.6. We'll have full use of the 32bit color processing of GEGL.
- csimpkin, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I always thought it would be nice if adobe ported to linux and then made their own "Adobe Appliance". Put in a nice lcd and handle storage with lvm so you can toss in more storage space when it is needed. Make a custom desktop environment to use all of their applications in a nice workflow. Could you imagine picking up an Adobe box for photographers for a few grand?
- stonebone4, on 08/23/2008, -0/+3Blender really is a wonderful program...I've been screwing with it since 2001 and it's incredible to see how much it's grown and developed into a legitimate alternative to expensive modeling software.
- Frost9999, on 08/22/2008, -0/+3I find it odd that you don't shoot RAW. That's like using film but saying "I don't use negs"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is