Longing for Lightroom 2/Aperture equivalent for Linux

[HappinessNow]

Longing for Lightroom 2/Aperture equivalent for Linux

[hanzomon4]

I read in a recent ars article that fspot is being developed to become more like lightroom/aperture.. an for professionals

EDIT: It's an article on banshee but they talk about fspot redoing the gui (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/netbook-ui-photo-management-coming-to-banshee-media-player.ars)

[Dragonbite]

I read in a recent ars article that fspot is being developed to become more like lightroom/aperture.. an for professionals

EDIT: It's an article on banshee but they talk about fspot redoing the gui (http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/netbook-ui-photo-management-coming-to-banshee-media-player.ars)

Yes, and I hope they start redoing the GUI some and putting some development into it. F-Spot has been falling further and further behind the competition that I think Picasa running Wine is more used than F-Spot (or would be if F-Spot wasn't the default).

[HappinessNow]

Yes, and I hope they start redoing the GUI some and putting some development into it. F-Spot has been falling further and further behind the competition that I think Picasa running Wine is more used than F-Spot (or would be if F-Spot wasn't the default).

Unfortunately Picasa is far from being a Lightroom 2/Aperture equivalent!

[ad_267]

Digikam is a lot better than F-spot in my opinion, I use Digikam in Gnome. It's probably not close to Lightroom or Aperture but I haven't used those.

[HappinessNow]

Digikam is a lot better than F-spot in my opinion, I use Digikam in Gnome. It's probably not close to Lightroom or Aperture but I haven't used those.

The closest I have seen to Aperture is Raw Therapee (http://www.rawtherapee.com/).

For Lightroom 2 I have seen nothing equivalent thus far.

[jules_cesar_44]

Bibble 5 is the closest thing you can have. It is not free however and is rather buggy at the moment. Version 5.1 will hopefully solve this. The software is extremely fast and almost equivalent to lightroom.

[juancarlospaco]

BlueMarine is the equivalent of Lightroom.

[gwaar]

To add another option, LightZone is a commercial project available on linux, which I've used and liked. I don't know how well it compares to Lightroom, but I've been able to do all I need with my photos, and it has a nice interface and structure (though I suppose they look pretty similar to lightroom in the end).

Anyway, LightZone, if you're willing to drop the 100 bucks for it. It seems professional and well featured. They have a trial as well, if you want to check it out: http://www.lightcrafts.com/lightzone/

[ElSlunko]

Bibble is what I use. 5.1 RC just got released.

[zekopeko]

Yes, and I hope they start redoing the GUI some and putting some development into it. F-Spot has been falling further and further behind the competition that I think Picasa running Wine is more used than F-Spot (or would be if F-Spot wasn't the default).

F-spot just got a new maintainer and the project is invigorated. Looks like there will be a new GUI and speed improvement. They are currently revamping the import dialog.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Lightzone and Bibble are the only acceptable, useable and coherent lightroom equivalents in linux, period.

Rawtherapee has potential, but need major speed and stabilty enhancements. Its certainly not upto the standards of the aforementioned options.

In conclusion there are no free equivalents for Linux, only pay for ones, both of which are excellent.

[HappinessNow]

Lightzone and Bibble are the only acceptable, useable and coherent lightroom equivalents in linux, period.

Rawtherapee has potential, but need major speed and stabilty enhancements. Its certainly not upto the standards of the aforementioned options.

In conclusion there are no free equivalents for Linux, only pay for ones, both of which are excellent.Tried Bibble and found it a major disappointment.

Will take a look at LightZone, but since I own Lightroom 2.2 I doubt I will find anything better; even Aperture has fallen to irrelevance.

[ElSlunko]

Tried Bibble and found it a major disappointment.

Will take a look at LightZone, but since I own Lightroom 2.2 I doubt I will find anything better; even Aperture has fallen to irrelevance.

Sorry to hear that. The UI is kinda bunk but the tools and plugins are powerful as well as the speed and image quality output.

[Rodney9]

Longing for Lightroom 2/Aperture equivalent for Linux

Aren't we all.

Lightroom 3 looks amazing, although $300 ...

[HappinessNow]

Aren't we all.

Lightroom 3 looks amazing, although $300 ...With a university student discount I can get it for $99 at my school's bookstore.

[ElSlunko]

Depending on the type of work you do, the output is similar. I think photography has fallen victim to some pretty tacky processing principals as "techies" started deciding they wanted to be photographers. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a gadget geek as the next guy but as long as a program has a complete toolset & is stable enough -- it's just a tool.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Depending on the type of work you do, the output is similar. I think photography has fallen victim to some pretty tacky processing principals as "techies" started deciding they wanted to be photographers. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a gadget geek as the next guy but as long as a program has a complete toolset & is stable enough -- it's just a tool.

The output is not similiar and the software you use makes one helluva difference. I've done comparisons with all the major photo workflow apps, and when it comes to things like the quality of applying exposure changes and converting from Raw into Tiff or Jpg, there are huge differences in image quality.

I did a crop, +1 exposure compensation and conversion to jpg of the same shot in Lightroom 2, lightzone, Bibble, Aperture 3, Capture One Pro 5 and Nikons Capture NX (I was shooting Nikon at the time). The best to worst were:

Capture One
Capture NX
LightRoom
Bibble/Lightzone
Aperture 3

Aperture 3 was a long way behind Bibble and Lightzone, which were about the same quality wise.

Capture One and NX were very close, but Capture One nicked it for colour rendition.

Anyone that says that any Raw converter is fine and the results are similiar doesn't know what they are talking about. They make a massive difference.

I got Lightroom 3 yesterday. Initial impressions are that its conversions are approaching Pro 5 standards. Its a great bit of kit.

[John Bean]

Depending on the type of work you do, the output is similar. I think photography has fallen victim to some pretty tacky processing principals as "techies" started deciding they wanted to be photographers. Don't get me wrong, I'm as much of a gadget geek as the next guy but as long as a program has a complete toolset & is stable enough -- it's just a tool.

I've been an amateur photographer for five decades, the last one being all digital. I'm afraid your assertions don't match my experience of actually using these tools. Like in any area of craft the tools used are very important, the suggestion that any old tool is as good as any other to do any job is laughable.

I'm not a fan of Adobe and dislike spending money on software so for a long time I resisted using Lightroom in favour of a mixture of assorted second-rate (but free) tools to do the "same" job, believing for a while that although it took longer and was awkward to manage and keep track of everything the end result would be equally good. I was wrong.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gadgets and geeks, it's about having better tools for the job in hand - and Lightroom is currently by far the best - for all sorts of reasons.

[ElSlunko]

What were the issues, differences, and advantages you noticed when doing exposure compensation?

[ElSlunko]

I've been an amateur photographer for five decades, the last one being all digital. I'm afraid your assertions don't match my experience of actually using these tools. Like in any area of craft the tools used are very important, the suggestion that any old tool is as good as any other to do any job is laughable.

I'm not a fan of Adobe and dislike spending money on software so for a long time I resisted using Lightroom in favour of a mixture of assorted second-rate (but free) tools to do the "same" job, believing for a while that although it took longer and was awkward to manage and keep track of everything the end result would be equally good. I was wrong.

It's absolutely nothing to do with gadgets and geeks, it's about having better tools for the job in hand - and Lightroom is currently by far the best - for all sorts of reasons.

You've been an amateur photographer for longer than I've been alive! I don't mean to sound so clear cut on my opinion (It tends to be the way I talk). There are many blogs out there with crops of portraits, landscapes, mixed lighting, etc etc and they all compare default settings, tweaked settings, noise levels, artifacts and pixel peep all day long. Then draw a conclusion which gets observed by many people so I do think a lot of what goes into popular opinion is driven by the techie & gadget mentallity.

That said I'm not saying Bibble is leaps and bounds or by far or has a humongous advantage over or trying to claim that. What I am saying is that after having used Lightroom I found it to be an incredible program with great output & toolset.

I'm happy with the output of B5. I'm also happy that I don't have to dual boot. The plugins available for B5 are still young but help me achieve a look I love (especially for black & white renderings). I'm very happy with the way bibble has handled greys. Like I said before, the UI kinda blows but the toolset is there.

Whatever though. Use what you like. Keep creating and keep doing. That's what these tools are for.

[John Bean]

You've been an amateur photographer for longer than I've been alive!

Just don't catch me in "grumpy old man" mode, you won't like it. Hell, even I don't like it ;-)


I'm also happy that I don't have to dual boot.

Dual boot? Perish the thought! I'm starting to think that VirtualBox's only purpose is to allow me to use Lightroom without rebooting :-)

[Dixon Bainbridge]

What were the issues, differences, and advantages you noticed when doing exposure compensation?

Artifacts and noise basically. Applying exposure compensation to an image after you have captured it always degrades the image to some degree - Capture One Pro 5 did a better job of handling that degradation than Aperture 3. Its very noticeable when you do a conversion and downsample an image.


I don't mean to sound so clear cut on my opinion (It tends to be the way I talk). There are many blogs out there with crops of portraits, landscapes, mixed lighting, etc etc and they all compare default settings, tweaked settings, noise levels, artifacts and pixel peep all day long. Then draw a conclusion which gets observed by many people so I do think a lot of what goes into popular opinion is driven by the techie & gadget mentallity.


Personal first hand experience>opinion.

[ElSlunko]

I'll try not to. I hope you don't take me as a punk kid. I'll just never have that experience 'till I'm the old fogey.

I'm also not trying to sound fandboyish but rather being simplistic about the whole deal. Luckily all these apps have trials so you can always gather a big bunch of photos from a different variety, go through the process on each app and decide what's best for you and your desire. Though Bibble is kinda shooting themselves in the foot in this regard because the application went on sale at the very end of last year, but is finally starting to feel like a solid retail product.

I have actually virtualboxed it the last few days of my trial and found it usable.

[HappinessNow]

It's absolutely nothing to do with gadgets and geeks, it's about having better tools for the job in hand - and Lightroom is currently by far the best - for all sorts of reasons.

Agreed, I have found this to be true. :p