Customizing for a photographer

[The Coffee Pot]

Hello.

I would like some opinions on how to build a great workspace for a photographer on Ubuntu.

What I need:

A piece of software that lets me organize and edit basics in my photos (red eyes, exposure, cropping and so on)

A slightly more advanced image editor. (I might use photoshop through wine but I would like some suggestions on alternatives other than gimp)

a Dropbox like system which allows me to back up a specific folder only with more than 2 GB space.

I gladly take suggestions on other great software for making a workspace for a photographer.


If it matters It's for my laptop


I haven't used Ubuntu since 8.04 so excuse me if some of these were already added :)

[Jahid65]

1 You can use f-spot, picasa, digikam(kde) for organizing photos and basic editing. Pinta (A clone for paint.net)
2 There are Bible Pro, Rawstudio, Lightzone also. they may be for raw file. Krita(kde), Cinepaint etc.
3 Dropbox has linux version.

[The Coffee Pot]

I know linux has dropbox but the standard 2 GB is too little for storing my images. :)

I'll take a look at the software though.

[lukeiamyourfather]

A piece of software that lets me organize and edit basics in my photos (red eyes, exposure, cropping and so on)


Bibble (with two B's) is good if you have a budget, otherwise there's decent open source and/or freeware ones like Shotwell, Picasa, digiKam, etc. See the repositories for a full listing.



A slightly more advanced image editor. (I might use photoshop through wine but I would like some suggestions on alternatives other than gimp)


As far as I know GIMP is the closest to Photoshop in terms of functionality. If you don't like GIMP then Photoshop through Wine might be your best option.



a Dropbox like system which allows me to back up a specific folder only with more than 2 GB space.


Ubuntu One allows cloud storage space and additional space can be purchased for an annual fee. If you need something more flexible then you might consider an FTP server. Hosts like Go Daddy have virtual dedicated servers which can function as file repositories for things like backup. There are also commercial backup services but most have only Windows clients (and some with Mac).



I gladly take suggestions on other great software for making a workspace for a photographer.


I'm a big fan of Linux and use Ubuntu on several machines, though photography is one of the areas in which Linux falls short to match the capabilities and friendliness of Windows and Mac (in my opinion). The tools that Adobe has for Windows and Mac are hard to beat. For that reason I still use Photoshop and Bridge in Windows and do just about everything else in Ubuntu. If you find that Ubuntu doesn't cut it for your photography needs, consider dual booting. If it works then it works.

[The Coffee Pot]

I might just dual boot. I just always end up annoyed at grub and decide to full time either windows or linux. xD I like my system to stand ready once I press the power button.

[psoulocybe]

linuxphoto sub-reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/linuxphoto/)

Big list of links to different photography specific applications in linux.

I love RawTherapee and Bibble. Bibble is a more capable editor, but is not FOSS. RawTherapee does great editing, just doesn't support layers.

I run Photoshop in wine and get decent performance, but it's CS2. Not sure how compatibility is with newer versions.

[Crazedpsyc]

A great program I just found recently is Desktop Drapes. It changes the photo on your desktop every so often from a specfic collection, so you can admire your best work all day long! +1 for fspot unless you are ok with a more graphically pleasing organizer and viewer that doesn't have any editing skills, and then shotwell is my favorite.
The gimp is great! if you are missing any features there is most likely an addon that will make you happier. The only thing i don't like is the whole seperate windows thing.

[The Coffee Pot]

Well the thing I dislike about Gimp is that I can't find anything. I've used Photoshop since I was about 8 so I know my way around.

Gimp has about the same features but a different layout and i kill innocent stuff every time I try to figure out where they put the feature I'm looking for.

Also I dislike the interface. So if I could change the interface of Gimp to look like photoshop and rearrange the items and menus then I would probably not hate it.

I'll start looking into the different software with a test install. :)

[lukeiamyourfather]

So if I could change the interface of Gimp to look like photoshop and rearrange the items and menus then I would probably not hate it.


At one point there was GIMPshop which was a spin of GIMP that looked and felt more like Photoshop. Though it has been defunct for a while now.

[The Coffee Pot]

I know. I tried it once but it was so flawed and slow that I removed it again.

[jcolyn]

I'm a big fan of Linux and use Ubuntu on several machines, though photography is one of the areas in which Linux falls short to match the capabilities and friendliness of Windows and Mac (in my opinion). The tools that Adobe has for Windows and Mac are hard to beat. For that reason I still use Photoshop and Bridge in Windows and do just about everything else in Ubuntu. If you find that Ubuntu doesn't cut it for your photography needs, consider dual booting. If it works then it works.

As a long time user of Linux and a photographer with well over 40 years experience I have to strongly disagree here.

Linux handles graphics far better than Windows or Mac in part because it is much easier to calibrate monitor profiles without expensive spyders etc.. I use a 26 scale grayscale .gif image to check my monitor calibration..

Windows and Windows software are too loaded with bloatware that slows the computer to a crawl especially when working with several open image files in PhotoShop. Gimp on the other hand handles these multiple files with ease.. Some people will point out the 16 bit color in PhotoShop. 16 bit is a waste since digital files will be converted to 8 bit sRGB by the printer you send your files to for printing. If you want to print from your ink jet printer you need to convert to 8 bit RGB for optimum results. But then if you do feel you need 16 bit you can use CinePaint.

I use the KDE desktop with Gimp (with UFRaw for my raw camera files) and DigiKam and sometimes Rawtherapee and find these three programs better than any Adobe product.

[Rodney9]

Gimp Help

http://www.allgraphicdesign.com/graphicsblog/2008/10/22/gimp-resources-ultimate-list-of-gimp-sites-plugins-tutorials-oh-my/

http://gimp-savvy.com/BOOK/index.html

[lukeiamyourfather]

As a long time user of Linux and a photographer with well over 40 years experience I have to strongly disagree here.


Can we agree to disagree then?



Linux handles graphics far better than Windows or Mac in part because it is much easier to calibrate monitor profiles without expensive spyders etc.. I use a 26 scale grayscale .gif image to check my monitor calibration..


I agree that Linux is better for "graphics" though for different reasons than you like Linux for graphics. A monitor on any system can be calibrated with a 26 step gradient, that has nothing to do with Linux.



Windows and Windows software are too loaded with bloatware that slows the computer to a crawl especially when working with several open image files in PhotoShop. Gimp on the other hand handles these multiple files with ease..


No personal bias there? I've found it quite the opposite since there wasn't a 64-bit version of GIMP until very recently. The GIMP is an excellent piece of FOSS but flat out dismissing Photoshop like that is ignorant.



Some people will point out the 16 bit color in PhotoShop. 16 bit is a waste since digital files will be converted to 8 bit sRGB by the printer you send your files to for printing. If you want to print from your ink jet printer you need to convert to 8 bit RGB for optimum results. But then if you do feel you need 16 bit you can use CinePaint.


Processing images with 16-bits per channel is not a waste. That's like saying the CliffsNotes are the same as reading Shakespeare, so much is lost.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/page-2.php)

Just because you end up with an 8-bits per channel image in the end doesn't meant the extra data is useless. It allows for much greater manipulation of the image and color without getting banding and other artifacts. Frankly, you don't know what you're missing if you think 16-bits per channel color is a waste. As for CinePaint, that thing is a mess and not intended to be used for photography anyway. By the way, even the GIMP developers know that 16-bits per channel color is important for photography.

http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#16bit



I use the KDE desktop with Gimp (with UFRaw for my raw camera files) and DigiKam and sometimes Rawtherapee and find these three programs better than any Adobe product.

Again, I guess we can agree to disagree. Like I said in my last post I'm a big fan of Linux (and FOSS in general). Though when it comes to photography and graphics in general the commercial tools are far superior in all regards (well, except for cost). Commercial tools include products other than Adobe products (i.e. Bibble, Aperture, etc.). What it comes down to is priorities, is it more important to use FOSS or is it more important to have more developed and intuitive tools? Clearly you've chosen FOSS as a higher priority which is fine, but please don't go bashing on legitimate tools because they aren't FOSS.

[jcolyn]

The GIMP is an excellent piece of FOSS but flat out dismissing Photoshop like that is ignorant.

Do you always call people ignorant when you disagree with them??


Processing images with 16-bits per channel is not a waste. That's like saying the CliffsNotes are the same as reading Shakespeare, so much is lost.

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/page-2.php)

I work in the photo imaging business. Whenever we get 16 bit images uploaded to the server they cost us extra time to fix before sending them to the printer and then we are lucky to get a decent image out of it. We request that our customers upload only 8 bit sRGB images for maximum quality..

16 bit is OK if you are printing to an ink jet printer but printing to chemical processed photo paper in most cases prints out images with badly pixelated shadow detail and washed out highlights in part because they are adding too much data which then clumps or pixelates during printing. 8 bit sRGB is ideal for this kind of printing.

If you do gain any quality it is not visible to the naked eye and never makes a better image at large enlargements.. Out two largest print sizes are 20x30 and 40x60 or longer if needed. Most customers don't order anything larger than 20x30 so 16 bit is as I have stated before a waste of time.. My 8 bit sRGB images straight out of my D90 with no manipulation make excellent quality 40x60 enlargements..


Just because you end up with an 8-bits per channel image in the end doesn't meant the extra data is useless. It allows for much greater manipulation of the image and color without getting banding and other artifacts. Frankly, you don't know what you're missing if you think 16-bits per channel color is a waste. As for CinePaint, that thing is a mess and not intended to be used for photography anyway. By the way, even the GIMP developers know that 16-bits per channel color is important for photography.

http://www.gimp.org/docs/userfaq.html#16bit

If you need to manipulate your images you get better quality by shooting raw mode and processing with a good raw plugin or standalone program. If you still need to do more correction save as a .dng and correct it.. Once done you can save a copy to .jpg for upload to a printers server for printing..

Most people who use 16 bit print their images to ink jet printer which tend to cover up flaws. That covers most home users who output their images to their own printer.

Gimp like PhotoShop is simply bending to the wants of the wannabe photographer.

I do agree with you where CinePaint is concerned..even the developer makes it clear it is useless for serious work except for certain motion picture image formats..

[lukeiamyourfather]

Do you always call people ignorant when you disagree with them??


No. Do you always dismiss legitimate tools because you don't use them? :neutral:



I work in the photo imaging business. Whenever we get 16 bit images uploaded to the server they cost us extra time to fix before sending them to the printer and then we are lucky to get a decent image out of it. We request that our customers upload only 8 bit sRGB images for maximum quality..


Sounds like the motivation is compatibility, not quality. Also I'm talking about the workflow not the end product. Try tweaking the color balance of an 8-bits per channel image, and then try it in a 16-bits per channel image. The results are totally different.



If you need to manipulate your images you get better quality by shooting raw mode and processing with a good raw plugin or standalone program. If you still need to do more correction save as a .dng and correct it.. Once done you can save a copy to .jpg for upload to a printers server for printing..


Yes, saving it as an 8-bits per channel image when going to a printer makes sense. Though that has nothing to do with the rest of the workflow.



Gimp like PhotoShop is simply bending to the wants of the wannabe photographer.


Clearly you've not worked with a 16-bits per channel workflow to understand the benefits. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying that. I feel like a broken record here. See the banding in the clouds when comparing 8-bits to 16-bits per channel.

http://articles.j-roumagnac.net/english/digital-photography-postprocessing/basics-opening-the-raw-file-in-photoshop-why-16-bits/

If you can do all of your manipulations in the raw processing stage, then yeah, 8-bits per channel is fine. Though if you do anything to the image after that then it will benefit from 16-bits per channel. Especially in grayscale images (256 values versus 4096)! I don't know about you, but I take almost every single image worth processing into Photoshop for more tweaking (localized burning and dodging, color tweaks, localized blurring and sharpening, etc.). Some of those operations aren't possible in the raw stage.

[jaqian]

Just be aware that f-spot had some problem with exif data and used to mess it up. Not sure if the bug has been fixed but one of the reasons I use digikam instead.

One other suggestion not mentioned here: Rapid Photo Downloader (http://www.damonlynch.net/rapid/) IMO the best program around for importing photos, check out the site.

This is what I use...
import: Rapid Photo Downloader
view/organise: Digikam
edit: GIMP & UFraw/Rawtherapee

[Neobuntu]

Photography recommendatory:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1669349

[regeya]

I know. I tried it once but it was so flawed and slow that I removed it again.

You might want to invest in Crossover Office and a license for the Windows version of Photoshop, then.