PDA

View Full Version : Photography Software



winjeel
April 25th, 2009, 06:43 AM
I've already asked about sync'ing iPhones when using Ubuntu, but the second issue that I need to get past is photo editing software. I need professional level stuff, like PhotoShop and LightRoom 2.3. I've considered LightZone, but wondered if there's others, and possibly better. (And yes, I've tried Gimp, albeit, the windows ed', but wasn't too impressed).

RPG Master
April 25th, 2009, 08:37 AM
F-spot is nice for archiving JPGs.
Rawstudio and UFRaw are both good RAW converters (UFRaw is nice and simple but is meant individual images while Rawstudio has more setting you can tweak and allows for batch converting).

And if you really dig deep, GIMP is very nice (just look at all my photos :)).

Giant Speck
April 25th, 2009, 08:38 AM
If you are used to using Photoshop, you can attempt to install it using WINE. I've heard it runs very well in WINE.

winjeel
April 25th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Thanks for replying.

I've just installed Wine, but couldn't get iTunes to be installed on an external drive. I fear that I won't be able to do the same with LightRoom. In fact, I hoped that I wouldn't have to reinstall software that I've already got on my hard drive on the c:\ side. But still, it's good news to hear that at least PhotoShop works with Wine. And thanks for the other programmes, I'll check them out, too. BTW, I mainly work with raw files, and so jpegs are just an extra that are at times useful for my workflow.

Incense
April 25th, 2009, 11:46 AM
AFAIK, no one has had any luck getting Lightroom to run under wine. Photoshop (http://wiki.winehq.org/AdobePhotoshop) CS2 runs really well under WINE, but CS3 and CS4 both have issues. So if you feel that you HAVE to use Lightroom (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=5839) then you'll need windows in a VM or on it's own partition. I have personally moved away from Adobe by using DigiKam as a lightroom replacment, UFRAW + Gimp as a photoshop replacment, and if I really need it, raw Studio for more complex batch conversions. As for iTunes... it's not going to happen, not without a virtual machine like VirtualBox or VMWare with Windows installed. At that point you can setup your device to sync with itunes.

Though he hasn't updated in a while, there is a fantastic blog about linux and photography at http://jcornuz.wordpress.com/. Flickr also has some great discussions on opensource photography.

lzfy
April 25th, 2009, 11:59 AM
Digikam (http://www.digikam.org/)?

koshatnik
April 25th, 2009, 01:14 PM
Photography software is broad term. Lightroom is a cataloging tool, Photoshop is a graphic design tool. What do you need?

Bibble has a native linux client, as does Lightzone, which you've already mentioned. TBH, there's not a great deal in the way of Pro apps for linux, so you're on the wrong platform really - get a mac or use windows.

I dont touch anything in Wine personally.

You could always VM XP and use lightroom. Easier to just use XP natively, if you ask me.

For native linux apps, Bibble is very good and the nearest to native pro photography software you're going to get (apart from lightzone).

There's also Cinepaint as well, which is a digital retouching tool.

Bölvağur
April 25th, 2009, 02:59 PM
BTW, I mainly work with raw files, and so jpegs are just an extra that are at times useful for my workflow.

you should have said that. There is a gap between the amateurs and pros. And that is the high end amateurs which uses jpeg files -.-


Bibble (http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibble5/videos.html) is very well made and better optimized speed wise than other similar programs.

koshatnik
April 25th, 2009, 07:24 PM
you should have said that. There is a gap between the amateurs and pros. And that is the high end amateurs which uses jpeg files -.-


I've never understood why anyone shoots in RAW. THere is simply no need to. Also, no external software can match the jpg conversion your camera processor can achieve. As a pro photographer, I just dont have time to **** about with 700 RAW files after a shoot. Plus, I tend to get exposure right when I press the shutter, so no need for hours in PS "fixing" shots.

Alot of people use the excuse of shooting in RAW to print big. Shoot in .tiff for those shots, or change your dpi settings for jpg.

:confused:

pwnst*r
April 25th, 2009, 07:28 PM
http://www.gimpshop.com/

Giant Speck
April 25th, 2009, 07:31 PM
http://www.gimpshop.com/

He already said he didn't like Gimp. Suggesting Gimpshop would be even worse, considering it's based off an old version of Gimp.

pwnst*r
April 25th, 2009, 08:20 PM
He already said he didn't like Gimp. Suggesting Gimpshop would be even worse, considering it's based off an old version of Gimp.

but he likes photoshop and it's laid out similar. older version? yes, because the huge list of "improvements" with the current version is so important. just like people that "buy" the newest release of PS. lol, like they use more than 5% of what PS can actually do.

sarang
April 25th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Also see the replies in http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1016950

Giant Speck
April 25th, 2009, 08:32 PM
but he likes photoshop and it's laid out similar. older version? yes, because the huge list of "improvements" with the current version is so important. just like people that "buy" the newest release of PS. lol, like they use more than 5% of what PS can actually do.

Gimpshop is based on Gimp 2.2.11, which is over three years old. That is a substantial difference. It would be like still using the alpha version of Firefox 2.0.0 or using Ubuntu 6.04 Dapper Drake.

And just because the interface is similar to Photoshop does not mean that the application as a whole will work like Photoshop. He obviously said he didn't like Gimp. Dressing up Gimp to make it look like Photoshop isn't going to make it suddenly become Photoshop.

pwnst*r
April 25th, 2009, 08:34 PM
Gimpshop is based on Gimp 2.2.11, which is over three years old. That is a substantial difference. It would be like still using the alpha version of Firefox 2.0.0 or using Ubuntu 6.04 Dapper Drake.

And just because the interface is similar to Photoshop does not mean that the application as a whole will work like Photoshop. He obviously said he didn't like Gimp. Dressing up Gimp to make it look like Photoshop isn't going to make it suddenly become Photoshop.

he said he didn't like gimp in windows and didn't specify WHAT he didn't like. so my recommendation stands, kthx.

winjeel
April 26th, 2009, 12:42 AM
Thanks all for the replies, it's appreciated. I still have XP on another partition, so I have a fall back. As Giant Speck points out, dressing up Gimp to look like PhotoShop, doesn't make it PhotoShop, but I'm affraid to admit, that that was perhaps my initial impulse when I first tried Gimp.

I've had a look at the "Linux Photography Blog (http://jcornuz.wordpress.com/)" and the first post I see wasn't (rep) wasn't encouraging (Murphy's Law I suppose), but that doesn't mean that everything else that came before it wasn't useful. I've bookmarked it and peruse.

Especially for other photographers, I'll let you know how I get on.

(And I use raw because I can more accurately adjust the colour in white balance, and work the tone curve using more and more accurate colour information)

Tibuda
April 26th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I've had a look at the "Linux Photography Blog (http://jcornuz.wordpress.com/)" and the first post I see wasn't (rep) wasn't encouraging (Murphy's Law I suppose), but that doesn't mean that everything else that came before it wasn't useful. I've bookmarked it and peruse.Have you seen the date that post was published?

winjeel
April 26th, 2009, 01:54 AM
Have you seen the date that post was published?

Garrrr... (frustration let out) ... (sigh of relief)

Frenske
April 29th, 2009, 10:39 AM
I've never understood why anyone shoots in RAW. THere is simply no need to. Also, no external software can match the jpg conversion your camera processor can achieve. As a pro photographer, I just dont have time to **** about with 700 RAW files after a shoot. Plus, I tend to get exposure right when I press the shutter, so no need for hours in PS "fixing" shots.

Alot of people use the excuse of shooting in RAW to print big. Shoot in .tiff for those shots, or change your dpi settings for jpg.

:confused:

The JPEGs that comes out of the camera is just an interpretation of the RAW data. This interpretation is done by software in the camera written by persons who might be colour blind and think blue skies are red. Hence often I am not happy about their interpretation. RAW converters help me to interpret the RAW data the way I would like to see it or how I think the scene was. Adjusting JPEGs is destructive and leads to noise and offers less control than in RAW.

cb951303
April 29th, 2009, 10:49 AM
Also, no external software can match the jpg conversion your camera processor can achieve.

jpg conversation is nothing fancy, any software can do it at the same quality.

@OP if you want a photoshop like pro image editor check this out: http://www.kanzelsberger.com/

racerraul
April 29th, 2009, 12:31 PM
I'm a photoshop to GIMP convert...
In my experience the more I used GIMP the more familiar I got with it.

It even has the capability of using your old photoshop plugins...
http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/04/03/8-handy-tweaks-to-make-gimp-replace-photoshop/

if you are serious about it, put in a real effort. And by that I mean expect some challenges...

I even have my Sypder2 colorimeter working to calibrate my monitor in ubuntu.

handy
April 29th, 2009, 04:26 PM
Use Nikon & JPG:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

& DxO Optics Pro' software:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dxo/optics-pro.htm

koshatnik
April 29th, 2009, 04:30 PM
jpg conversation is nothing fancy, any software can do it at the same quality.


Nope. I did a shoot once in RAW + hi qual Jpeg, then converted RAW shot in LightRoom and then in Capture NX.

Lightroom Jpeg conversion was awful, and noticeably inferior to both Capture NX and the camera's jpg conversion. Overall, the camera jpg was NOTICEABLY better. At higer ISO settings, the camera kills external RAW conversion tools.

At 5ft wide, that print will look pretty terrible.

cb951303
April 29th, 2009, 07:52 PM
Nope. I did a shoot once in RAW + hi qual Jpeg, then converted RAW shot in LightRoom and then in Capture NX.

it seems like you don't understand what a RAW is. if you converted the RAW directly to JPG of course both pictures will look different and converted one will be lower quality. that's not related to JPG conversation.

JPG algorithm is not a state secret. it's a free image format. any converter will do the same conversion whether it's hardware or software

koshatnik
April 29th, 2009, 10:19 PM
it seems like you don't understand what a RAW is. if you converted the RAW directly to JPG of course both pictures will look different and converted one will be lower quality. that's not related to JPG conversation.

JPG algorithm is not a state secret. it's a free image format. any converter will do the same conversion whether it's hardware or software

Err, yes I do. And the conversion algorithm is closely guarded. Nikon, for example, have released their conversion algorithm to Adobe, but not to Apple, so users of Aperture have a botched algorithm on NEF raw files.

JPG is a free image format, converting proprietary RAW data to JPG, is down to the RAW converters ability to assess a proprietary format. A camera converts RAW to jpg on the fly and does it better than any external package.

As I've stated. I do this for a living, and I've conducted a wide range of conversions with many packages. I have to, I print big and qaulity matters. Camera JPG beats every single package every time.

I still don't know why people insist on shooting in RAW all the time. Its utterly pointless.

cb951303
April 30th, 2009, 06:05 AM
Err, yes I do. And the conversion algorithm is closely guarded. Nikon, for example, have released their conversion algorithm to Adobe, but not to Apple, so users of Aperture have a botched algorithm on NEF raw files.

Images are simple they all have pixel data (some compressed) that's it. Once you know how to get the pixel data the conversation is all the same. But in the case of RAW files, there is more than pixel data which have to be interpreted and converted to pixel data first. This is where it may appear quality differences *NOT* in JPG conversation.



JPG is a free image format, converting proprietary RAW data to JPG, is down to the RAW converters ability to assess a proprietary format. A camera converts RAW to jpg on the fly and does it better than any external package.

if you know how to adjust RAW files in a software package, conversation will be at least the same quality and better in general thanks to customization advantage. You can't just take a RAW, convert it to JPG and expect the same quality. That would murder the whole purpose of RAW files.



As I've stated. I do this for a living, and I've conducted a wide range of conversions with many packages. I have to, I print big and qaulity matters. Camera JPG beats every single package every time.

I still don't know why people insist on shooting in RAW all the time. Its utterly pointless.

I don't mean any disrespect but a lot of pro photographers that I know consider RAW as a blessing. Quoting from wikipedia:


Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format, and is usually the one "closest" to the real picture in the sense that it preserves most of its details. Raw image formats' purpose is to faithfully record both 100% of exactly what the sensor "saw" or "sensed" (the data), and the conditions surrounding the recording of the image (the metadata).

From a technical point of view, with RAW data you have everything you need to form the exact same JPG that you camera is capable of producing because your camera itself uses the same RAW to generate the JPG. But in the process, it gets rid of all the metadata that may be useful to you.
It's an undeniable truth that if you need more freedom over you picture, RAW files are way to go.

Wiebelhaus
April 30th, 2009, 06:12 AM
A user here named "Niva (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=506729)" Was able to do this:

Source thread: (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=7181455#post7181455)


http://www.eternalseven.com/images/2009/ubuntu-girl.jpg

Try it again , acclimation period will be a couple of weeks I'm sure , there's a Gimpshop (http://www.gimpshop.com/) A GIMP hacked to look like photoshop's menu bars. might help you during your acclimation period.

Cheers.

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 08:10 AM
Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format, and is usually the one "closest" to the real picture in the sense that it preserves most of its details. Raw image formats' purpose is to faithfully record both 100% of exactly what the sensor "saw" or "sensed" (the data), and the conditions surrounding the recording of the image (the metadata).

This is wrong for a start. RAW data is already downsampled data from the camera sensor. RAW cannot capture "everything" the sensor sees as you'd end up with RAW files of hundreds, probably thousands of megabytes. A camera sensor is an analogue, by the way. You have to downsample the data to get it on the card.

Also, I prefer to get the shot right when I press the shutter, rather than spend lots of pointless hours piddling about in RAW packages fiddling with exposure settings.

cb951303
April 30th, 2009, 08:37 AM
This is wrong for a start. RAW data is already downsampled data from the camera sensor. RAW cannot capture "everything" the sensor sees as you'd end up with RAW files of hundreds, probably thousands of megabytes. A camera sensor is an analogue, by the way. You have to downsample the data to get it on the card.

I don't know where you get your information but you're wrong. RAW data as its name points out is raw. Meaning it's unprocessed. It's the direct dump of the sensor.

The thing you call 'downsampling' is what a sensor do. It catches the light (which creates electric signals) and the sensor takes this electric signals and converts them to RAW pixel data by interpreting signal levels.



Also, I prefer to get the shot right when I press the shutter, rather than spend lots of pointless hours piddling about in RAW packages fiddling with exposure settings.

that's you choice, but it doesn't make RAW a "useless" thing as you stated.

Dixon Bainbridge
April 30th, 2009, 10:31 AM
I don't know where you get your information but you're wrong. RAW data as its name points out is raw. Meaning it's unprocessed. It's the direct dump of the sensor.

The thing you call 'downsampling' is what a sensor do. It catches the light (which creates electric signals) and the sensor takes this electric signals and converts them to RAW pixel data by interpreting signal levels.


Yes, its unprocessed, but unprocessed data that has been downsampled, albeit by the sensor. So technically Koshatnik is right.

Raw doesnt provide the amount of dynamic range information required to make it worthwhile shooting and processing, imho. Sensors arent capable of capturing every detail of colour for example. The output if they did would be huge. RAW is massively downsampled data and should not be compared to a film neg, as it often erroneously is.

You can correct just as much information in jpg as you can in raw with modern editting software, and reading back through this discussion I have to agree with other people that have said that shooting jpg yields better results than converting raw externally afterwards.

Saves time too.

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 11:01 AM
The issue is, amongst both pro and amatuer photographers, is seeing RAW as some kind of photographic panacea - "its ok I over exposed that shot two stops, I'm shooting in RAW, I can fix it..."

You can't.

There's not enough data, even in RAW, to fix that. Get the exposure right first time, shoot in jpg. No need to screw around in RAW then.

handy
April 30th, 2009, 11:25 AM
if you know how to adjust RAW files in a software package, conversation will be at least the same quality and better in general thanks to customization advantage. You can't just take a RAW, convert it to JPG and expect the same quality. That would murder the whole purpose of RAW files.

I don't mean any disrespect but a lot of pro photographers that I know consider RAW as a blessing. Quoting from wikipedia:

From a technical point of view, with RAW data you have everything you need to form the exact same JPG that you camera is capable of producing because your camera itself uses the same RAW to generate the JPG. But in the process, it gets rid of all the metadata that may be useful to you.
It's an undeniable truth that if you need more freedom over you picture, RAW files are way to go.

From my research, most pro' photographers consider RAW to be a waste of their precious time. As they can now get such superb JPG photo's directly from their camera's; that may only need to perhaps be run through DxO to remove any camera/lens aberrations, or to straighten out wide/ultra wide/fish-eye lens distortion. Photoshop & the like, of course have their specific uses when required.

Also, JPG image colours are constant across cameras, & do not vary with different camera makes & models as RAW does, which can be a real pain with regard to the RAW formats.

Truly, most pro's consider RAW a total pain in the rrr's that wastes their time, it has become redundant now on modern semi-professional & professional cameras, & would only be used in the very rare circumstances where it is most suitable for the desired result.


This is wrong for a start. RAW data is already downsampled data from the camera sensor. RAW cannot capture "everything" the sensor sees as you'd end up with RAW files of hundreds, probably thousands of megabytes. A camera sensor is an analogue, by the way. You have to downsample the data to get it on the card.

Also, I prefer to get the shot right when I press the shutter, rather than spend lots of pointless hours piddling about in RAW packages fiddling with exposure settings.

I agree completely with your statement. RAW has been made redundant due to the continuing remarkable advances in both camera & lens technology. I would not be at all surprised to see the RAW formats all but completely disappeared in the next 5 years.

If a photographer (especially a pro') can get the shot they want directly from their camera, because it is smart enough to allow them to avoid labouring over RAW images for hours;- allows them to escape the depths of photoshop, except perhaps for just a quick levelling &/or crop, or other simple slide setting, lets them run a batch of photo's through DxO to intelligently auto correct any faults in their camera & or lenses, then, they, the photographer, has just saved SO much time labouring over such tedious processes that they can enjoy their profession/hobby more, & if they are a pro', they can get a whole lot more productive work done.

This time saving intelligence is what is coming out now in cameras such as the Nikon D90. They are making it so easy for anyone to get the right photo (if they know what one is!? lol) directly from the camera on the spot.

This is photographic magic, the intelligence built into these semi-pro, & beyond, cameras, is truly remarkable, the serious photographers job has just very recently become oh so much easier.

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 01:25 PM
From my research, most pro' photographers consider RAW to be a waste of their precious time. As they can now get such superb JPG photo's directly from their camera's; that may only need to perhaps be run through DxO to remove any camera/lens aberrations, or to straighten out wide/ultra wide/fish-eye lens distortion. Photoshop & the like, of course have their specific uses when required.

Also, JPG image colours are constant across cameras, & do not vary with different camera makes & models as RAW does, which can be a real pain with regard to the RAW formats.

Truly, most pro's consider RAW a total pain in the rrr's that wastes their time, it has become redundant now on modern semi-professional & professional cameras, & would only be used in the very rare circumstances where it is most suitable for the desired result.



I agree completely with your statement. RAW has been made redundant due to the continuing remarkable advances in both camera & lens technology. I would not be at all surprised to see the RAW formats all but completely disappeared in the next 5 years.

If a photographer (especially a pro') can get the shot they want directly from their camera, because it is smart enough to allow them to avoid labouring over RAW images for hours;- allows them to escape the depths of photoshop, except perhaps for just a quick levelling &/or crop, or other simple slide setting, lets them run a batch of photo's through DxO to intelligently auto correct any faults in their camera & or lenses, then, they, the photographer, has just saved SO much time labouring over such tedious processes that they can enjoy their profession/hobby more, & if they are a pro', they can get a whole lot more productive work done.

This time saving intelligence is what is coming out now in cameras such as the Nikon D90. They are making it so easy for anyone to get the right photo (if they know what one is!? lol) directly from the camera on the spot.

This is photographic magic, the intelligence built into these semi-pro, & beyond, cameras, is truly remarkable, the serious photographers job has just very recently become oh so much easier.

Yep, spot on. Raw is a proprietary format and is model specific. Good luck reading your raw files in 10 years time when your camera is long obsolete. Jpgs and tiffs will always be readable.

I think the value of raw has been overplayed by people that dont shoot in anger, and dont print. One final point - why do something manually on a computer what your camera can do in a millisecond, and much better?

handy
April 30th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Yep, spot on. Raw is a proprietary format and is model specific. Good luck reading your raw files in 10 years time when your camera is long obsolete. Jpgs and tiffs will always be readable.

I think the value of raw has been overplayed by people that dont shoot in anger, and dont print. One final point - why do something manually on a computer what your camera can do in a millisecond, and much better?

My thoughts exactly.

I want to get the results as quickly as possible, & the in-camera technology is making so much computer software obsolete.

As I alluded to previously, this absolutely magnificent in-camera technology has changed semi-&-fully professional photography beyond recognition. The Nikon D90 has set such high standards for a semi-pro' camera that it has blown the cameras costing $1000's more right out of the water.

You may have guessed that as soon as I can find the funds I will be purchasing a D90 with an 18-200 VR lens. :) It will take me some time to save up for the following ultra-wide or fish-eye that follows... lol

Personally I can't imagine the need for an any more advanced or sophisticated set of photographic technology than the above mentioned kit, it should really always be more than I need. :)

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 02:40 PM
My thoughts exactly.

I want to get the results as quickly as possible, & the in-camera technology is making so much computer software obsolete.

As I alluded to previously, this absolutely magnificent in-camera technology has changed semi-&-fully professional photography beyond recognition. The Nikon D90 has set such high standards for a semi-pro' camera that it has blown the cameras costing $1000's more right out of the water.

You may have guessed that as soon as I can find the funds I will be purchasing a D90 with an 18-200 VR lens. :) It will take me some time to save up for the following ultra-wide or fish-eye that follows... lol

Personally I can't imagine the need for an any more advanced or sophisticated set of photographic technology than the above mentioned kit, it should really always be more than I need. :)

I shoot Nikon. The D90 is a peach. I use a D300 when I use digital. Mostly shoot in film still.

cb951303
April 30th, 2009, 02:45 PM
Yes, its unprocessed, but unprocessed data that has been downsampled, albeit by the sensor. So technically Koshatnik is right.



RAW data is already downsampled data from the camera sensor


I may have misunderstood that. What I claimed is that RAW data = exactly what sensor interpreted from the light, I never claimed RAW = real scene data (which would be impossible). And as I explained earlier what you call "downsample" is what a sensor *do*. There is no need to say that it's downsampling of the real scene. That's obvious :)



Raw doesnt provide the amount of dynamic range information required to make it worthwhile shooting and processing, imho. Sensors arent capable of capturing every detail of colour for example. The output if they did would be huge. RAW is massively downsampled data and should not be compared to a film neg, as it often erroneously is.

It's a fact that JPG has 8 bit data per channel whereas RAW files generally have 12 - 16 bit data per channel. This means RAW data has higher dynamic range. Whether it's worthwhile or not depends on the artist.



You can correct just as much information in jpg as you can in raw with modern editting software, and reading back through this discussion I have to agree with other people that have said that shooting jpg yields better results than converting raw externally afterwards.
Saves time too.

I can't agree with that.

For example there is no sharpening in RAW data which is a nice advantage because, in low-light scenes, sharpening applied to the JPG created by camera may create artifacts. That also depends on the quality of the camera. By applying the sharpening later you can minimize glitches. Afterall there are a lot of sharpening algorithms in image editors that may suit to the specific shooting situations. In contrary, you cam only knows 1 algorithm.

Plus you can adjust white balance on a JPG file by only losing bit depth.
Color saturation, contrast, brightness etc. all can be adjusted for a JPG image but as in white balance you'll lose bit-depth and color gamut.

There is also the exposure compensation which lets you bring out details and shadows that is impossible with a JPG file. You can only adjust brightness but what's gone is gone. You can't bring out the non existent details or shadows.

I'm not going to discuss about proprietary RAW formats etc. as those are the subjects of a another discussion. (Though I must add that I agree with you there).

PS: I'm not by any means claiming that shooting JPG images are low-quality. I'm just pointing out that, saying "shooting RAW is a waste of time" is an overstatement. Afterall camera creates the JPG from the RAW data itself and does it with a limited horse power whereas image softwares work on high performance machnines and they don't have to worry about making the algorithms frugal. In such a situation I don't see how it's possible for a post-processed RAW file to be lower quality than JPG unless the person doing to processing is a ****** photoshop user :)

Michael Steinberg
April 30th, 2009, 03:17 PM
RawTherapee is a good Lightrrom clone, though I sometimes have stability problems with the EC for 2.4 and have to use 2.3 instead.

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 03:20 PM
I may have misunderstood that. What I claimed is that RAW data = exactly what sensor interpreted from the light, I never claimed RAW = real scene data (which would be impossible). And as I explained earlier what you call "downsample" is what a sensor *do*. There is no need to say that it's downsampling of the real scene. That's obvious :)



It's a fact that JPG has 8 bit data per channel whereas RAW files generally have 12 - 16 bit data per channel. This means RAW data has higher dynamic range. Whether it's worthwhile or not depends on the artist.



I can't agree with that.

For example there is no sharpening in RAW data which is a nice advantage because, in low-light scenes, sharpening applied to the JPG created by camera may create artifacts. That also depends on the quality of the camera. By applying the sharpening later you can minimize glitches. Afterall there are a lot of sharpening algorithms in image editors that may suit to the specific shooting situations. In contrary, you cam only knows 1 algorithm.

Plus you can adjust white balance on a JPG file by only losing bit depth.
Color saturation, contrast, brightness etc. all can be adjusted for a JPG image but as in white balance you'll lose bit-depth and color gamut.

There is also the exposure compensation which lets you bring out details and shadows that is impossible with a JPG file. You can only adjust brightness but what's gone is gone. You can't bring out the non existent details or shadows.

I'm not going to discuss about proprietary RAW formats etc. as those are the subjects of a another discussion. (Though I must add that I agree with you there).

PS: I'm not by any means claiming that shooting JPG images are low-quality. I'm just pointing out that, saying "shooting RAW is a waste of time" is an overstatement. Afterall camera creates the JPG from the RAW data itself and does it with a limited horse power whereas image softwares work on high performance machnines and they don't have to worry about making the algorithms frugal. In such a situation I don't see how it's possible for a post-processed RAW file to be lower quality than JPG unless the person doing to processing is a ****** photoshop user :)

The processing inside a camera is very advanced, dedicated piece of digital hardware. For example, Nikons own incamera processing hardware and algorithm is going to be doing a better job of creating a jpg than you will in PS on an uber PC. Otherwise, whats the point of buying a £1000 Nikon body?

From the research I have conducted, in various packages, comparing images side by side, printed large, the camera's processor yields better results than post processing raw afterwards. /shrugs.

I can only go by my experience. Try it yourself.

I dont need to fart around with white balance or rescuing shadow details in raw, because I expose properly to start with. I know how to use a camera properly, im guessing that alot of people that shoot raw dont know how to use a camera properly, hence all the fiddling about in raw afterwards. So be it. All I know is, I save 12 hours of time shooting jpg after a shoot than shooting raw, and that means my clients are happy.

cb951303
April 30th, 2009, 03:44 PM
The processing inside a camera is very advanced, dedicated piece of digital hardware. For example, Nikons own incamera processing hardware and algorithm is going to be doing a better job of creating a jpg than you will in PS on an uber PC. Otherwise, whats the point of buying a £1000 Nikon body?


well it's not the processor :) sensors are pretty expensive (I know it because I worked as a telemetry engineer responsible from the post-processing of a RAW data taken from a high-resolution CCD sensor)
Plus the lens.



I dont need to fart around with white balance or rescuing shadow details in raw, because I expose properly to start with. I know how to use a camera properly, im guessing that alot of people that shoot raw dont know how to use a camera properly, hence all the fiddling about in raw afterwards. So be it. All I know is, I save 12 hours of time shooting jpg after a shoot than shooting raw, and that means my clients are happy.

I'm not arguing with that. I know JPG images are very high quality. And also I'm aware that quality of image depends 99% on the capability of the artist not whether it's JPG or RAW.

I'm just pointing out (as a technical person) that RAW data can't be lower quality than JPG after proper post-processing.

koshatnik
April 30th, 2009, 04:08 PM
I'm just pointing out (as a technical person) that RAW data can't be lower quality than JPG after proper post-processing.

I'm not arguing that either. I'm saying that, converting the raw to jpg yields better results when the camera does it, than it does when you take your raw data and put it through a raw processing package of your choice and output a jpg.

Wish I could show you the test prints. You'd see what I'm getting at then. :P

RPG Master
April 30th, 2009, 07:34 PM
I shoot in RAW not so that I can fix a bad exposure, but so that I can bring out the colors in my photos (something that my Sony a200 tries to do to its JPGs anyway, but I can do a better job then it in GIMP). Its best to do that with 12 bit color then 8 bit color.

gregorio
May 1st, 2009, 04:38 PM
I do believe that those who have 'cut their teeth' on film photography, especially on a camera with no automatic controls, have a distinct advantage in that they had to learn proper exposure. But there is no reason why anyone would learn proper exposure no matter what the camera. I would recommend anyone who loves photography to read Ansel Adams' books. These books are, of course, talking of film, but the same principles of light apply no matter if we are talking film or sensor.

To jpg or not to jpg. That is the question. If one gets the results that one likes right out of the camera with a jpg file, then why bother with post processing? But, one always views through the lens of the camera one has. I'm reading a lot of viewpoints from professionals. I can understand that, in this light, that time is money and it is impractical to post process when good results come right from the camera. Unfortunately, not all can afford the equipment that a professional uses to get good results, or results at all iso's, right out of the camera. There have been many cameras that are more affordable to the masses that take fine photos at a lower iso but crank it up to iso 400 and the results out of camera leaves a bit to be desired. If there is the option of taking that photo in raw, then usually, post processing can give one much better control over the results (and there one gets into the detail over noise debate). And frankly, if one knows how to operate the post processing software properly, than one can get as good if not better results than from the in-camera processor. I've seen it many times from many different cameras, even the expensive dslr's. However, for many of the results, it couldn't be distinguished at print level. A big question is getting into how much time does one have to do these things?

But a jpg is a jpg. Depending on the level of compression, one will get artifacts. If the compression is low, then the artifacts are hardly noticeable. Also, if one would like to convert photos to B&W, then jpg puts one at a distinct disadvantage. Jpg color, while limited to 8 bits per channel, still has over 16 million colors. Much more than my color blind eyes can discern. But, if one wants B&W, then jpg limits the photo to only 256 levels of brightness. Is that really sufficient for all the nuances of a B&W photo? Hardly. And if you rely on the in-camera B&W software to do the work and it records the photo in jpg, well you are in the same boat. One option would be if one's camera stores the photos as a tif file, but then those get really big. So, a practical solution is to shoot in raw, and then convert the raw file, on computer, to a lossless format and then manipulate the photo to B&W. So, here is the question if one is interested in B&W. Just which photos will one want to do? Many times one doesn't know until one looks at it on screen, or in print and thinks 'hey, that would be a great B&W'. Well, if it's already a jpg, then too bad. So, for B&W, post processing is really only a practical way to go. But that would leave out the Gimp, because it only works in 8 bits, at least for now.

So, after all this rambling, I think it depends on what one has for equipment and what one wants to do with the photos one takes and what kind of time one has. Post processing can be and is a time consuming project. But if one is stuck with a camera that does not give the results that one likes, then it's an option to consider.

winjeel
May 2nd, 2009, 12:29 AM
Some good discussion on raw vs. jpeg. I'm raw all the way, the colour gamut is larger, and you can properly adjust the colour temperature, which is something you can't do with jpegs.

In the 'old' days, and still today of course, with film you adjust your processing to bring out the best results, bringing out the most colour, the right tones, and the right tonal range, which are all things that we now do electronically. If you're interested, film is still used, and by professionals (who use slr), look here at APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/home.php). Anyway, they use scanned film. I'd rather get my film scans back in tiff format, but locally, they can only (or willing to) do only jpeg. So, if I used exclusively film, then gimp and others might be fine.

But I also use mrw, for my Konica Minolta, so if I could work out how to install LightZone, then I'd be happy. It must be downloaded (not via Synapse or Software Sources), and it comes down in tar.gz format, of which I don't know what to do with. Any ideas?

isbiyanto
May 6th, 2010, 05:05 PM
If you are used to using Photoshop, you can attempt to install it using WINE. I've heard it runs very well in WINE.

works in cs2 only :(

winjeel
May 9th, 2010, 05:12 AM
You all maybe interested in an article I wrote on Linux and Photography: http://winjeel.com/Documents/PhotographyonLinux.pdf It is possible to get PS to work in Wine, and there is a link in that article worth checking out.

BLTicklemonster
July 27th, 2010, 08:39 PM
The JPEGs that comes out of the camera is just an interpretation of the RAW data. This interpretation is done by software in the camera written by persons who might be colour blind and think blue skies are red. Hence often I am not happy about their interpretation. RAW converters help me to interpret the RAW data the way I would like to see it or how I think the scene was. Adjusting JPEGs is destructive and leads to noise and offers less control than in RAW.

I'm not comfortable editing images in RAW. The seat cushions keep riding up me bum.
:)

Okay, seriously, I used the pentax software that came with my camera and got nowhere. I used UFRAW, and got nowhere. I'm missing something, I'm sure, but It appears as though editing in RAW is like using wood to cement your driveway. Anybody got any links to somewhere where RAW is spelled out simply?

earthpigg
July 27th, 2010, 10:44 PM
RE: Gimp vs Photoshop.

Only because I don't think anyone has pointed this out yet.

If someone has spent 5 years using and learning Photoshop and maybe even read a book or two on it... then of course two hours or two weeks of Gimp will result in an inferior experience with Gimp.

Assume 10% of the time spent learning Photoshop is devoted to learning universal photo manipulation concepts & theory, and the remaining 90% of the time is spent learning the specific piece of software called Photoshop to apply those concepts and theory.

If we go with those numbers, than someone who has spent 500 hours learning Photoshop will need to spend 450 hours on GIMP to be able to accomplish the same thing. Instead of 10% and 90%, maybe you think its 40% and 60%. OK, no prob, recalculate with those numbers. 300 hours.


So, my suggestion to the OP: with the above in mind, dual boot and gradually shift. Don't pressure yourself, and don't let anyone else pressure you. When you are in a time crunch, use Photoshop. When not on a time crunch, and if you feel like it, make the effort to learn how Task XYZ is done in GIMP.

I didn't "like" that many of the years spent learning Windows software went out the Window when I made the transition, either. So, I dual booted for a year or so. I never assumed, however, that my personal inability to accomplish a given task was the same as the software in question "not being professional quality."

I'm sure there are also Microsoft Certified this-and-that Professionals with a decade of professional experience that firmly believe that "Linux does not offer professional quality server software", too.

No one likes pointing the finger at themselves, and every professional that has invested large amounts of time into learning this-or-that software has every reason to repeat as loudly as possible for the world to hear "this-or-that software is the best, everything else sucks, and I happen to be an expert in this-or-that software so hire me". This includes Linux/Unix sysadmins, too, if they aren't at home on Windows Servers. Even if Windows Server is the ideal solution to a given problem, they may never say so... because that reduces their value as an employee, and may even be the same as offering a letter of resignation to the employer.

I believe this same effect plays a role in the oft-quoted statement that "GIMP is not professional quality software".

I'll use myself as an example, here. I was a Marine Infantryman and later an Embassy Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Embassy_Guard). If I am looking for work in physical security of some type, would I ever admit that there is any physical security professional of any type anywhere on the planet that is superior to a Marine Embassy Guard with a background in the Infantry? No, of course not.

In fact, I might just go put some ridiculous claims in that wikipedia* article to increase my perceived value as an employee, huh? And, while we're at it, if I had some personal blog relating to physical security... I might just claim that my potential competitors (ie: Secret Service, DoD Bodyguards... and GIMP users?) aren't true professionals.


All of this being said: If you have invested years and years into learning the specific Photoshop and LightRoom software, and you always operate on a tight time budget, then it may simply be unfeasable for you to make the transition until your time budget changes. Re-learning how to do Task XYZ on a different set of software does take time.


*Actually, what I have done is remove ridiculous claims from that wikipedia article that my former peers apparently put in... because I don't intend to ever do work in physical security again, I value the accuracy of wikipedia over claims that Marine Embassy Guards are some type of super ultra commando ninjas that represent the absolute pinnacle of human evolution. :P Seriously, you should have seen that wikipedia article as it was a few years ago.

BLTicklemonster
July 28th, 2010, 11:07 AM
I beg to respectfully differ. I spent a good portion of the last 14 years on PS, and took classes learning it, and have a good bit under my belt.

When I came over to Linux, I had to learn something else, and Gimp was no problem whatsoever. I prefer Gimp's layout now way more than PS's, too.

If, no, "when" our new business pans out, I intend to purchase the newest PS for sure, but for now, we run nothing but Linux software, and are doing fine.

What I really want to know at this point in time, though, is what can a person do to take rgb and convert it to cmyk for publishing? And what exactly does GEGL "do" anyway?

earthpigg
July 28th, 2010, 11:18 AM
I beg to respectfully differ. I spent a good portion of the last 14 years on PS, and took classes learning it, and have a good bit under my belt.

When I came over to Linux, I had to learn something else, and Gimp was no problem whatsoever. I prefer Gimp's layout now way more than PS's, too.


given the full content of your disagreement with me, i don't mind at all that this was your experience and i'm perfectly glad to be told i am wrong.

i certainly wouldn't mind if others agreed with you, as well.

what i hope does not happen, however, is folks reading the blogosphere declaring gimp "not suitable for professional applications" prematurely because they have read & been influenced so many other people saying just that. i suppose that is what i was driving at, though i wasn't very clear or focused in my post.

handy
July 28th, 2010, 11:37 AM
I thought your post was a beauty earthpigg.

& BLTicklmonster, I didn't just say that to be contrary to you. :) (though I certainly have been missing the opportunity of late)

BLTicklemonster
July 28th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Hello, Handy, long time no disagree!

Earthpigg, everyone learns at their own pace and some folks pick up on stuff quicker. But I agree, GIMP can be used professionally for sure, and is nothing to be frowned upon at all.

robert shearer
July 28th, 2010, 12:37 PM
Anybody got any links to somewhere where RAW is spelled out simply?

What I really want to know at this point in time, though, is what can a person do to take rgb and convert it to cmyk for publishing? And what exactly does GEGL "do" anyway?

http://meetthegimp.org/tables-of-content/

Great video podcasts. From an Ubuntu user too !.

Scroll through the contents and there are several RAW shows ;) (keep yer pants on, not that sort of RAW show)

BLTicklemonster
July 28th, 2010, 01:05 PM
:) Thank you!!!

:popcorn:

frodon
July 28th, 2010, 01:07 PM
I use the following software:
GIMP + UFRAW plugin
hugin (panorama maker)
qtpfsgui (HDR)

It took me some time to learn GIMP but now i wouldn't use anything else even if photoshop was released for linux. It is just the best photo editing software for me but unfortunately not the easiest to learn.

On the other hand i really long for a full 16bit GIMP support which should come soon.

BLTicklemonster
July 28th, 2010, 01:56 PM
I have ufraw, but have never been able to make heads nor tails of it.

I love Hugin, and need to find out if I have to license it if I an going to use it professionally. (working on a book :) )

As for hdr, I have been making a desaturated layer then inverting it, then changing it to an overlay for a long time. that gives close to hdr properties. And it's funny, when I found out about HDR, I was like, "oh, I'm already on that sort of". There's a plugin called theilr cheap hdr or something for gimp that does good hdr (for me) and there's a contrast overlay in fxfoundry that does a really good job, also.

then there's gradient overlays that can save a picture if you use them right...

frodon
July 28th, 2010, 02:25 PM
If we talk about GIMP plugin for HDR like effect there's one i do really love :
http://tir.astro.utoledo.edu/jdsmith/code/exposure_blend.php

As the name tells it it is an exposure blending plugin, it doesn't increase the dynamic range but provides a nice exposure merging capability. It is the plugin i use the most as HDR often gives a less "natural" result.

But yeah ... hugin just plain rock !

BLTicklemonster
July 28th, 2010, 03:37 PM
I agree about HDR's look. It's too surreal for my taste. I'd rather just increase the dynamic range using overlays.

Dixon Bainbridge
July 28th, 2010, 09:07 PM
I've yet to see a HDR image that hasn't made my eyes vomit.

yorkie
July 28th, 2010, 10:53 PM
For RAW files try Darktable new kid on the block at darktable.sourceforge.net/

ElSlunko
July 29th, 2010, 12:54 AM
Started playing with the tonemapping plugin from the fxfoundry pack and really like it.

http://gimpfx-foundry.sourceforge.net/

DownTown22
August 20th, 2010, 02:26 AM
I've yet to see a HDR image that hasn't made my eyes vomit.

Really? Have you seen Trey Ratcliff's (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/) work?

handy
August 20th, 2010, 03:57 AM
Has anyone got Lightroom 3, to work under Wine?

winjeel
August 22nd, 2010, 01:02 PM
Are there any monitor calibration tools that actually work, yet? I've tried Iprof, but it seems some essential components aren't included and so I can never attempt to calibrate my monitor with it. On the XP side of my computer, I've got a Spyder to sort it out.

ssam
August 22nd, 2010, 02:10 PM
Are there any monitor calibration tools that actually work, yet? I've tried Iprof, but it seems some essential components aren't included and so I can never attempt to calibrate my monitor with it. On the XP side of my computer, I've got a Spyder to sort it out.

install gnome-color-manager (its called icc profile installer in the software center). works with my huey.

a recently opensourced raw program is rawtherapee.

another advantage of RAW: the is continued development in raw processing. a new algorithm could improve your old photos.
http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/

BLTicklemonster
August 22nd, 2010, 06:16 PM
install gnome-color-manager (its called icc profile installer in the software center). works with my huey.

a recently opensourced raw program is rawtherapee.

another advantage of RAW: the is continued development in raw processing. a new algorithm could improve your old photos.
http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/

Do you mean icc-profiles? what does it do, how is it used?

ssam
August 22nd, 2010, 06:21 PM
Do you mean icc-profiles? what does it do, how is it used?

probably best to use synaptic or do:
sudo apt-get install gnome-color-manager
to make sure you get the correct package.

then go to system->preferences->Colour profiles

if you have a colour measuring tool connected there will be an option to create a profile

Dixon Bainbridge
August 22nd, 2010, 06:21 PM
Really? Have you seen Trey Ratcliff's (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/) work?

I have now.

Still dreadful. Sorry.

DownTown22
August 23rd, 2010, 01:56 AM
I have now.

Still dreadful. Sorry.

Guess it's not everybody's thing because it really doesn't get better than his work.

winjeel
August 23rd, 2010, 02:24 AM
lol... HDR can be good... just for the right mood... not for making ordinary photography 'special'. Needless to say, I've seen very few cases where HDR was exactly the right process to use.

I haven't heard of anyone getting LR3 to work in Wine, yet. I'm hoping the dispute between Adobe and Apple will flare up again, and that LR will become available... out of revenge on Linux.

I've tried RAWtherappee and have more complaints and troubles than what it's worth. Bibble 5 is definitely the weapon of choice as Linux-native software, it is really good. The only reason why I haven't got it is that I can't calibrate my monitor in Linux. What's the point of adjusting images when you don't know if you've gone too far or not. You really need to see the colours properly to be able to get white balance (colour temp), reds, blues, greens exactly right. Just need software from Spyder... Here's an article I wrote about Linux and photography, I'm sure you'll agree and disagree with bits. It'd be interesting to hear what these are: http://winjeel.com/Documents/PhotographyonLinux.pdf

handy
August 23rd, 2010, 03:40 AM
@winjeel: Great intro' thanks for posting it.

By the way in the 2nd last sentence in the 2nd last paragraph, you could replace the word "very" with "well".

I can't help it, I read every letter. ;)

winjeel
August 23rd, 2010, 04:30 AM
@winjeel: Great intro' thanks for posting it.

By the way in the 2nd last sentence in the 2nd last paragraph, you could replace the word "very" with "well".

I can't help it, I read every letter. ;)

lol... thanks. :)

Dixon Bainbridge
August 23rd, 2010, 11:13 AM
Guess it's not everybody's thing because it really doesn't get better than his work.

One thing I've learnt in 26 years of taking pictures is, less is more.

frodon
August 23rd, 2010, 11:26 AM
The only reason why I haven't got it is that I can't calibrate my monitor in Linux. What's the point of adjusting images when you don't know if you've gone too far or not. You really need to see the colours properly to be able to get white balance (colour temp), reds, blues, greens exactly right. Just need software from Spyder... What is your issue with calibrating your screen ?

I have a "spyder 2 express" and screen calibration is just fine through dispcalGUI. It gives even better result than with the spider 2 express software which is really poor in term of quality compared to dispcalGUI.

I use the stand-alone package:
http://dispcalgui.hoech.net/

If you need help for this, open a dedicated thread and send me the link, i will help you.

winjeel
August 23rd, 2010, 01:44 PM
What is your issue with calibrating your screen ?

I have a "spyder 2 express" and screen calibration is just fine through dispcalGUI. It gives even better result than with the spider 2 express software which is really poor in term of quality compared to dispcalGUI.

I use the stand-alone package:
http://dispcalgui.hoech.net/

If you need help for this, open a dedicated thread and send me the link, i will help you.

Thanks for the offer. I borrowed the Spyder from a friend, so I need to get a hold of that again (or get my own), and then run dispcalGUI (in Ubuntu). Thanks for the tip. :)