Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: jalcocer on November 04, 2010, 06:08:42 pm
-
Hi, I'm new in photography and in this site, I primarily am a computer specialist (mostly in networks and repair), I've used mac, pc, and recently linux (ubuntu), I can see clearly most of people here are mac users, but the thing is, I've tried linux lately and I really like this OS, I also like mac and windows (virus aside). What I would like to know from any of you with experience using ubuntu or any other linux distro. Is it really worthy for photography? Are linux tools less accurate or powerful?
I've been playing with a software called bibble 5 pro, which i find really nice and a lot like Lr3, but since I'm new at this I cant really tell. Should I be better off with windows, it's slow performance but using lightroom, or should I buy at least a mac mini to be able to use aperture or should I stay with linux and bibble?
regards
-
Linux has good programs for organizing (such as F-Spot on Ubuntu) and editing of photos (such as the GIMP, for complicated stuff, and ImageMagick, for extremely fast command-line performance of simple stuff). I have found them to be more than enough for keeping track of pictures and fixing poorly-taken ones, but perhaps non-Free software is better for certain specialties. If Linux is doing what you want, why switch? If some operations are a little faster on another operating system, consider whether it might be better to put some of the savings into better computer hardware like an SSD or camera stuff (and perhaps donating a little toward improvement of the programs), and whether a little frustration for the time being is worth not having your skills "locked in" to a non-Free system. Apple stores periodically have demonstrations and classes through which you could see if their software, much of which is the same as relevant Windows software, does something you like that you later find is very difficult in Linux before spending a lot.
-
My experience with Linux/Ubuntu is similar to what others are saying, too. I spent a long time working with Ubuntu, including Gimp and Bibble, trying to get results equivalent to what I was getting on the Windows platform with Photoshop. With extra effort, it was possible to get close, just in the development side from raw to finished file, but not as good as with Photoshop under Windows. Some of the awkwardness I'm sure would be reduced by long-term use of Ubuntu, but it just wasn't quite at the same level of quality when all was said and done.
Color profiling the monitor/graphics card was another story. Granted, there is software which works with my OptixXr Pro puck (DTP94), but works only in the general sense. The profiles were not as good as those created using the software which came with OptixXR under windows. The Linux profiling software also has a Windows version, and that under windows did not do as well either, just for comparison.
So, you probably could get by okay with Linux, assuming a good level of expertise, but the operative words there are 'get by'.
Mike Bailey
http://mhbailey.com (http://mhbailey.com)
-
so, linux is not the way to go for photo and video, even though bibble and gimp give some times similar results but with an extra effort.
My pc is practically new, quad core amd running at 2.6, with 4 gigs of ram, 2 more slots available for another 4 gigs. No ssd, or raid 0 config for hard drives.
I am new into photography but not into computers and software, so, based on my actual specs I think the only option would be windows (happen to have a licensed copy of windows 7 64bit), so do you really believe it's gonna be a lot better running windows with photoshop and lightroom, although ubuntu is lighter for the machine?
I'm really low on budget now, but if that wasn't the case i'd purchase a mac with no hesitation. Cause the thing I hate most about windows are viruses, and it doesn't matter how careful you are, you always end up with some minor virus. I've always used to create images of my installation drive and keep all my personal folders in another hard drive, but either way it's really painful to keep restoring images every time you catch a virus.
I like bibble but I know lightroom is way better.
-
I'm really low on budget now, but if that wasn't the case i'd purchase a mac with no hesitation. Cause the thing I hate most about windows are viruses, and it doesn't matter how careful you are, you always end up with some minor virus. I've always used to create images of my installation drive and keep all my personal folders in another hard drive, but either way it's really painful to keep restoring images every time you catch a virus.
If you lock down your Win7 well with proper virus protection program, don't use IE, and install NoScript and ABP on FF, and don't download pirated software you'll be fine. Win7 has a solid built-in firewall as well.
-
just out of curiosity, what's your actual setup? and is Lr3 and photoshop the best combo for windows? or should I include another app? I want to include also sony vegas for the part of video editting I do, or can you recommend a better choice? thanks
-
Are linux tools less accurate or powerful?
The simple answer is: can you run Photoshop on Linux?
No...
Enough said...anything you may be able to run on Linux will be less than optimal...Linux is not an OS that is optimal for digital imaging for a whole host of reasons not the least of which that the main player-Adobe-doesn't think Linux is worth developing for...that's gotta tell you something.
Mac, Windows, yes...Linux, uh, no.
-
Hi,
You can get by on Linux. I was using Linux a long time. Bibble is pretty good. Gimp is OK. What's really bad with Linux that there is little support screen calibration. That essentially means that you don't know what colors you have.
Picture Window Pro ( http://dl-c.com/content/view/47/74/ ) is a good alternative for pixel editing. It used to be possible to run it on Linux using Wine.
As long as you save your raw-files I'd suggest Linux is OK. Would you find that your colors are off you can always rework the original data. With JPEGs and 24 bit TIFFs to much information is lost.
In my Linux days I was often using Bibble on Linux for batch processing, because it was more stable than under Windows. With time we got "Raw Shooters Essentials" which was PC only, and that made me really switch to Windows. Three years ago I decided to take the plunge and go for the Mac.
I never caught any virus in my Windows days, by the way. Did never like Windows a bit.
You could also check out "Hackintosh", google on the net.
Best regards
Erik
so, linux is not the way to go for photo and video, even though bibble and gimp give some times similar results but with an extra effort.
My pc is practically new, quad core amd running at 2.6, with 4 gigs of ram, 2 more slots available for another 4 gigs. No ssd, or raid 0 config for hard drives.
I am new into photography but not into computers and software, so, based on my actual specs I think the only option would be windows (happen to have a licensed copy of windows 7 64bit), so do you really believe it's gonna be a lot better running windows with photoshop and lightroom, although ubuntu is lighter for the machine?
I'm really low on budget now, but if that wasn't the case i'd purchase a mac with no hesitation. Cause the thing I hate most about windows are viruses, and it doesn't matter how careful you are, you always end up with some minor virus. I've always used to create images of my installation drive and keep all my personal folders in another hard drive, but either way it's really painful to keep restoring images every time you catch a virus.
I like bibble but I know lightroom is way better.
-
My pc is practically new, quad core amd running at 2.6, with 4 gigs of ram, 2 more slots available for another 4 gigs. No ssd, or raid 0 config for hard drives.
4Gb of RAM is not a lot. You would probably be very surprised by the improvement you get in speed by loading as much RAM as you can afford.
Jeremy
Bloody hell: I can't believe I just wrote that. "4Gb of RAM is not a lot". I remember the anguished debates when I was an undergraduate over how the University IBM 370 should allocated its newly-acquired fourth megabyte of main memory. Maybe I'm just old.
-
I don't think you are that old instead of technology simply taking very big steps in comparison now than a few years ago. I'm only 33 but I still remember my first machine, a 386 with 8 mb of ram, with hardly a hard disk running windows 3.1
In twenty years technology has been growing like mad. While 4 gigs a couple of years ago would been incredible and expensive, right now it is almost the standard for every machine, at least here in Mexico computers are barely rising with 2gigs of ram.
Any way, 4 gigs of more ram for me are doable, since I have 2 empty slots and my machine fully supports them.
So, win 7 64b, lightroom, photoshop. Nobody has told me if vegas is a good choice for this setup. 8 gigs of ram instead of 4, should I go raid 0 with an external backup? or better of with ssd? I think should be better 2 good drives in raid 0 than one ssd, at least for this purposes, and less expensive.
-
It's settled, I guess though. I'm going with my same quad core at 2.6, an extra 4gigs for 8gigs total, my windows 7 64bit copy, two 1tb raid0 hds and an external drive for backup all my data. I guess it's not necessary to keep OS and data in separated partitions as long as I have my backup.
Going for Lr3 and Photoshop Cs5, I'm still hesitant about vegas or another video editing software.
regards
jorge
-
With Windows you have lots of choices for video editing. A lot depends on how much you want to spend. Good choices are under about $100 include
Movie Edit Pro 17 plus (Always get the plus version of Movie Edit Pro) by Magix
Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum by Sony
Premiere Elements by Adobe
These are all very capable programs
If you want more features the three companies offer "Pro" versions
Magix's pro version is call Video Pro X (VPX)
Sony's is Vegas Pro (new version 10)
and Adobe's is Adobe® Premiere® Pro CS5
There are other video editors but I have personal experience with some version of all the programs listed above.
You can download trial versions of all these programs (even the pro versions) from the Companies' web sites. For lots of discussion of pros and cons you can go to http://www.hv20.com/forum.php (http://www.hv20.com/forum.php) HV20 forum. You can also find some discussion on this site for example http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44986.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=44986.0), and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45764.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45764.0).
Which of the editors is best really depends on your needs. They all capture video from the video camera, can edit it on a time line, burn a DVD or BluRay, add some special effects and audio, and add nice titles. All of them let you use multiple tracks of both video and audio. All let you add stills to your movie. The non-pro versions handle building a DVD with menus and burning the DVD easier than the pro versions. Magix's software and Vegas can smart render that means that if you have a scene that is in the correct output format they will just pass that through to you output file. Premiere (at least previous versions not sure about CS5) always had to recompress scenes even if they were in the correct format to start with. Sort of like if you have a jpg file and want to resave it, a program that does smart rendering saves the file without recompressing; it a program that does not smart render will recompress the file before it saves it. Smart rendering improves quality of the output and reduces the time necessary to output your video.
Be sure that the software supports the type of video files you camera produces and can produce the type of output file you want to distribute or share you video.
I would suggest you download the non-pro trials first to see you any of the programs meet your needs. If you need more features, then try the pro trials.
And don't forget the free Windows Movie Maker (Called Windows Live Movie Maker in Windows 7 http://explore.live.com/windows-live-movie-maker?os=other (http://explore.live.com/windows-live-movie-maker?os=other).
Good luck and have fun.
Les
-
finally, i'm already in the installation of windows 7, i finally decided to go with this:
win 7 x64
8gigs
2 x 1tb raid 0
external drive for backup all my catalog and data
Lr3
Photoshop cs5
and with video going with vegas
is there any other tool for my photography work and learning I should look up for?
thanks again for all the good replies
jorge
-
While I cannot comment on the professional use, I think Linux is a very viable solution for amateurs: I use Linux exclusively at home, and have managed to create a complete workflow using only free tools running on Linux. No, it is not the same as Windows / MacOS, obviously; but, philosophy aside, neither can all of us afford MF cameras, or L-class lenses,... or the licenses.
-
You are completely right about the affording. While I used ubuntu it was a really good experience, once you get the feel of it and understand the commands for some things you really start to feel comfortable with it, specially the speed, the amazing options for arranging and modifying your desktop, the no virus scenario, and all the free software and tools you can use, some maybe don't have the appareance that windows has or mac os has, but really do the job.
I have found a lot of software that despite been free, its really useful.
-
Not sure about pro photographers, but for me I exclusively use Linux (Ubuntu 9.10 to be exact).
I use the following software:
- GIMP - suitable for a wide range of editing; serves my need completely
UFRaw - for RAW files, works fine with Nikon NEFs in my case.
Hugin/ Panorama Tools - a "must-have" software for digital photography
Luminance HDR - has all tonemapping algorithms that are popular. I don't use it much though as I am not too keen on HDR.
gThumb - Image thumbnail and EXIF viewer.
Picasa (only this one runs on Wine; is not actually a Linux software, so performance is a bit slow)
I do agree that installing all these software on light OS like Ubuntu can be a pain (Ubuntu does not even come with C++ compilers by default), unlike extensive distributions like Fedora/ SUSE. But Ubuntu is simpler, and nonetheless, Linux. So its just a matter of time to install them.
Note that all of the above are GUI based software, so quite simple to use. Also, GIMP has extensive online documentation if you are looking for.
I have only 2 gigs of RAM (+ 1 gig video card, though this is not used much unless you are into 3D modeling etc.) and I have used resource-intensive applications like Hugin, to stitch upto 56 MP images. Stitching panoramas from 10-12 sample images in multi-rows takes about 6-7 mins on my machine. (Not to mention this while playing music, surfing the web etc.). Had I used Win 7 etc., I'd probably have needed double the RAM for same performance. I am new to panorama stitching, so as of now don't shoot more sample images. Since I can upgrade RAM up to 8GB on my machine, it should do fine with much more samples.
So I am quite satisfied with the performance as well. As for calibration, I have not faced any issue because I shoot only in sRGB color profile. I wonder maybe Adobe RGB/ others run better on Win/ Mac. I have not tried that.
Update:
For video editing, I have used Avidemux. It works quite well. There is also a professional software called CinePaint, which I have not used
-
Thanks for your comments, I'm still in the verge of going for windows or staying with linux, not decided yet, have been searching the web for pros and cons, and still have no definitive answer. Since I'm only into amateur photography I'm still looking for the best option for me, trying to find out if there are programs that really fit all of my needs without having to use too much apps for my work.
-
Bloody hell: I can't believe I just wrote that. "4Gb of RAM is not a lot". I remember the anguished debates when I was an undergraduate over how the University IBM 370 should allocated its newly-acquired fourth megabyte of main memory. Maybe I'm just old.
I know what you mean. I can remember when 1GB of space was considered a 'mass storage device'. O'course, I also remember 8" floppy disks and no hard drives at all... And then there were the 'flash card' days.
Mike.
-
looking for the best option for me, trying to find out if there are programs that really fit all of my needs without having to use too much apps for my work.
I agree. Too much apps complicates things. I guess GIMP would be fine for you to begin with in Linux. Of course, with time you'll realize what exactly are your specific needs, accordingly you can install new apps and/ or GIMP plugins. One thing about Linux is that in some cases you also get plugins for GIMP along with the standalone version of the apps, (like UFRaw plugin), which let you work within GIMP session only.
-
I agree, there are a lot of choices, a lot of options, between hardware and software. I love the speed linux gives, with a basic quad core and 4 gigs my pc feels like 8 gigs and a high end cpu, I can just imagine what would happen with linux and 8 gigs in my pc. I've been researching for options between open source and other apps, the last one I've been trying is bibble 5 pro, I really like it, it allows you to do a lot of things under the same software, it manages your libraries, using metadata, tags, the speed is amazing, either importing or exporting photos. And the editing is really good, but I'm still on the search, and try to find out if this is the one for me or maybe just go open source.
I install another partition with windows 7 64, and I have to say it feels lot slower in my machine, I wasn't aware of all the resources windows consume until I run it alongside with linux. That's a shame.
-
Right now, trying digikam, with gimp and krita for my amateur work. I know it is not exactly lightroom, but has a lot of features, and it is free, good thing since at the moment I'm really low on cash, and don't want to get into any hacked software. I'm still trying to find out if it is good enough for doing my first steps into digital photography, so if any one here has linux experience about this please let me know. regards
-
Right now, trying digikam, with gimp and krita for my amateur work. I know it is not exactly lightroom, but has a lot of features, and it is free, good thing since at the moment I'm really low on cash, and don't want to get into any hacked software. I'm still trying to find out if it is good enough for doing my first steps into digital photography, so if any one here has linux experience about this please let me know. regards
My complete workflow involves:
- Rapid Photo Downloader to get the photographs out of the card.
- Geeqie to discard the bad ones.
- Raw Therapee for the RAW conversion.
- GIMP for the retouching.
- Hugin for the panoramas.
- PFSTools for the HDRs.
- Picassa for the classification.
- Jalbum for the on-line album.
- And some scripts of my own to make all this work together.
There is a longer (but outdated, unfortunately) explanation at my blog: "Digital Photography and Linux: my Workflow (http://photoblog.edu-perez.com/2009/08/digital-photography-linux-workflow.html)";
hope this helps, feel free to ask if you need more info.
-
Thanks for your post, I'll read it for sure. Right now after a long quest inside linux for the right distro I kept ubuntu, I think is the one with the best hardware and software support. Used digikam with kde, that was my main reason for changing distro (guess I fell in the class of those linux users pure kde or pure gnome), but sincerely I've found digikam (not kde) to be more slow to use than other options, having to open one by one every editing option from the menu bar is not the best thing for me to do, I rather find that annoying. Back to bibble 5 pro, I really liked that one, really easy to use, at least for me the menus and tool bars are better positioned and the editting is amazing.
-
Maybe some of you linux users can answer this question, I tend to think (from my point of view, based on the tools that can be used), that kde is more oriented to photography and video than gnome, please let me know what you think
-
Maybe some of you linux users can answer this question, I tend to think (from my point of view, based on the tools that can be used), that kde is more oriented to photography and video than gnome, please let me know what you think
I think are quite agnostic in this sense; perhaps there is a bit more photo/video software written for KDE, but remember you can always use KDE software on a GNOME desktop.
-
As today, I keep going with linux, after lot of distro search I kept ubuntu 10.10, but I'm still teasing with the idea of going back to win7 x64, besides my interest in amateur photography I also occasionally develop websites, some flash animations, and some video editing. As far for video editing linux has really good tools (maybe not as good as the ones from windows or mac), but I hit a wall when trying to develop some flash animations for a client, there is still no look in finding an app in linux to create flash content, even mac with his hate to flash can use flash pro, so I had to go to another pc and install flash and made the animation.
That made me wonder, should I set a partition and run windows just for my animation content whenever I need?, should I completely go back to windows?
What makes me be this kind of lost, are viruses, resource hugging, cause the last time I tried to go back to windows and installed it, I really felt the system slow, compared to linux, I can double up the ram in my pc, that is not a problem, but I'm still thinking, what to do, what to do.
-
Well, as right now I have dual boot on my pc, 7/64 and ubuntu/64, windows is only running for analog video capture (didn't want to expend on a new capture card) and flash content creation (sadly haven't found one good app for linux yet), and ubuntu for everything else. I went for bibble 5 pro, which I might say has a lot of really good features, at least for me as a beginner, has everything I could ask for (dont know about you in a higher rank, would like to hear from those who had already tried it, even in mac or windows), has good enough library features, all the editing plugins I want to learn how to use and besides everything else, it is fast. Digikam was a good choice also but really didn't like that you have to go all the way to the menu bar, and make the editing one plugin at a time, here it is more friendly and quick to do.
Although, it's the holidays and I'm still not satisfied, not at all, and I know why is that, I want a mac, that's the true.
A few days ago I was looking for a gift for my wife, and ended up in sears (the only credit card I own) and found out they remodeled the store, and something new, they had mac's for sale (I'm from Mexico, guess that explains why Sears just got macs), and they were in offer and in a 15 month payment with your credit card from the store, I couldn't believe it (not many choices though, they didn't have all the line, only one imac model, couple of macbooks pro and the white one).
I was planning on saving some money to purchase a mac mini from one of my suppliers (I sell computers and hardware), cause since I have no credit there, everything needs to be purchased in cash. So I thought with my budget to go for a 2.4 mini, max it up to 8gb, and maybe one 80gb ssd, and an external 1tb fw800 for all my photos, videos and everything else. I heard aperture and final cut express are not so mean on the mini when it comes to moderate video projects and not so big of a library.
But after this, I totally want a new Imac, I know it's only the i3 3ghz and 4gb, also 256 ati, and 21.5 display. But hey, it's 1980x1020 ips panel, in no time I could upgrade that 500gb drive to one of my really good samsung 1tb, and keep couple of externals, add an extra 8gb for a total of 12, use my 24 tn dell as a secondary display (perhaps good to fit all the open windows and video editing) and the core i3 its way more faster than core2duo the mac mini has.
It's only 256 of video, but I'm not a gamer, I dont use 3d animation or editing, only simple video projects and my library at the moment is under 5000 pictures.
So, what do you think? Should I go for it? wait to save some money and go for another model cash? go for the mini? keep my actual setup? Anyway, I hope I can solve this problem during this days, don't think the 15 month offer will last that long.
-
Well, just to comment that I've just purchased my new imac, core i3 3.06 4gb 500gb hd, 21.5" ips screen, sadly I'll get it till tomorrow cause there was no stock in store, so in the mean time I'm planning on the apps I'm going to install and making a backup of everything. Already have on my drive the installation files for aperture 3, final cut express and adobe design suite, hope everything works just fine.
-
just finished setting up my mac, well almost everything still couple of things left, but already with another 4 gigs and on the desk with all cleaned up and organized, had to buy a new hd case for my 1tb 7200 seagate but other than that all good. Have to say 8 gigs seems just a temporal option, took a look at the system monitor and saw at one point, 7 gigs of those 8 used by my system, guess its all because of the 64bit, dont really know how much aperture was using, but only had aperture open and a couple of finder windows backing up some things.
Thanks a lot to all the people who were kind enough to provide a contribution for me. I know it is not a mac pro, but looks pretty nice at the moment and for the price I could afford, besides I'm just beginning, perhaps when the moment is right I could get the mac pro.
regards
-
Hi,
It's the idea that the system would use all memory, so that is no issue for panic.
You may check this: http://macperformanceguide.com/Mac-MonitoringTips.html
That said, having mucho memory is a good idea.
Best regards
Erik
just finished setting up my mac, well almost everything still couple of things left, but already with another 4 gigs and on the desk with all cleaned up and organized, had to buy a new hd case for my 1tb 7200 seagate but other than that all good. Have to say 8 gigs seems just a temporal option, took a look at the system monitor and saw at one point, 7 gigs of those 8 used by my system, guess its all because of the 64bit, dont really know how much aperture was using, but only had aperture open and a couple of finder windows backing up some things.
Thanks a lot to all the people who were kind enough to provide a contribution for me. I know it is not a mac pro, but looks pretty nice at the moment and for the price I could afford, besides I'm just beginning, perhaps when the moment is right I could get the mac pro.
regards
-
thanks a lot that is really helpful, this forum is amazing, lots of people available to help one out.
regards
-
For amateur use linux is very suitable. First its hard to learn, but have used it more than 2 years i see no way back to windows.
For workflow, theres lots of programs. like shotwell http://www.yorba.org/shotwell/ or f-spot
For image/photo editing theres gimp. In 2.8 you have single windows mode, so its similar to photoshop. Theres lots of features (already done) to add to gimp's core but theres not enough developers (as i understand only few 'full time' developers :( ). So if you can write code, then help them out or donate the project :)
http://www.gimp.org/ but remember gimp is only 8bit yet
For raw editing you have ufraw, rawtherapee, rawstudio and ohters. And ofcourse you have darktable http://darktable.sourceforge.net/screenshots.shtml
Havent had any problems with monitor calibration etc in linux.
People who say that photoshop is nr 1 make no sense because every individual have different needs.
Btw theres rumours that adobes creative suit may come to linux platform. So prepare yourself downloading linux mint 10 and using these instructions to make live usb and test it out http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/linux/create-a-bootable-ubuntu-usb-flash-drive-the-easy-way/
-
Have to say, I'm really happy with my mac, although sometimes I miss linux, don't know why, :), but that aside, it's been a really good experience, forgot what it felt to own a mac. Aperture is amazing, really full of features, at least for me as a beginner is really great. Final cut express is still on the go haven't used it that much. I'm really glad I sold my soul for this mac :D.
Regards
-
If you lock down your Win7 well with proper virus protection program, don't use IE, and install NoScript and ABP on FF, and don't download pirated software you'll be fine. Win7 has a solid built-in firewall as well.
.....and (the list continues :o) don't surf under Administrator's rights.
NoScript I can ggogle but what is ABP?
-
.....and (the list continues :o) don't surf under Administrator's rights.
NoScript I can ggogle but what is ABP?
ABP => Add Block Plus
-
I would strongly suggest doing a dual boot setup. It all depends on how you use your post processing tools in the end. GIMP and photoshop are very similar but if you like to use filters and auto tools you'd be better off with photoshop. Of course you could always just use linux only and emulate photoshop with WINE or something.
-
Is it possible to run Lightroom and Photoshop under WINE?
I don't know much about Linux or WINE. I just know that WINE is something that runs under Linux and makes it possible to run Windows programs.
-
Is it possible to run Lightroom and Photoshop under WINE?
I don't know much about Linux or WINE. I just know that WINE is something that runs under Linux and makes it possible to run Windows programs.
You can somewhat run some Windows programs on Linux, using WINE; you can see a list of Adobe apps and how well they work under WINE at http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?bIsQueue=false&bIsRejected=false&sClass=vendor&iId=12&sAction=view&sTitle=View+Vendor (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?bIsQueue=false&bIsRejected=false&sClass=vendor&iId=12&sAction=view&sTitle=View+Vendor).
-
I have not read anyone mention "virtualization". You can have windows running through VMWare while your main OS is ubuntu. That way you get to keep ubuntu and still use photoshop because the gimp is no where near the power of photoshop. I did it before. I got windows running inside a MAC and I was using after effects and photoshop with final cut studio.
-
VMWare would definitely be the best route to go. WINE is a way to run a single program inside linux and I haven't used it in years. With VMWare you could be in linux and have a window opened with a full windows OS inside. Just make sure you have enough RAM and a good processor. If I were you I'd just install grub and dual boot though.
-
When I did photo processing on a Linux machine my favorite editing software was Lightzone (http://www.lightcrafts.com/lightzone/). I had to pay for it but thought it worth it. I think it is still available.
-
The problem with the question is that - do you enjoy doing more of photography or tinkering? If you said Photography - the desktop and operating system should be the least of your issues and challenges. You should use popular ones, that offers you the most choices of software you like/can use as a photographer or artist.
If you said - You like tinkering - Linux is the choice for tinkerers. Nothing works at first, but then you pour in hours of work and sweat - something eventually does. at least - a compromise in most cases. Regardless of what a lot of people say - Gimp is Gimp - no photoshop.
I use a Mac - because I got sick of troubleshooting Windoze - and living with it. I hate to say it but, the new Windows 2007 is pretty good...and if I have to make a decision now - i would not hesitate to live with either a Mac or Windows. Linux is not ready for prime yet...at least not to photographers who want to focus on photography not geekery.
Just my 2 cents.
-
If you said - You like tinkering - Linux is the choice for tinkerers. Nothing works at first, but then you pour in hours of work and sweat - something eventually does. at least - a compromise in most cases. Regardless of what a lot of people say - Gimp is Gimp - no photoshop.
Have you actually used a Linux OS or GIMP? "Nothing works at first" is a pretty ignorant statement. I used Ubuntu for a year, and its installation and use is as easy as Windows. This was ~five years ago, and from what I've seen the experience has improved tremendously since then. There's just as little tinkering necessary with most Linux distros as with a PC - but the possibility is there for those who are so inclined.
I don't want this to turn into another PC vs Mac vs Linux "debate," but such outrageous statements need to be addressed.
-
And following Feppe, I'd like to stress that some the most expensive motion softwares, I'm talking about big prods cine stuff really, really, expensive; only run under linux because of its stability.
The only limitation of Linux is that Adobe is not offering a linux version, if so, much more photographers would run under Linux IMO.
-
I've been using Linux (Ubuntu) alongside my mac for almost a year, and have to say they are getting there, the os interface is really nice, customizable and there are apps that in time have come to be as good (some even equal or better) than the windows and mac counterparts. It is true that there are some limitations when talking about photography software, but there are workarounds, and it is not as much as a tinkering issue anymore like some one said, there are other distributions where you don't even have to install anything at all to start using any kind of media and to install one app is just a matter of looking for it in a software center or a command line on terminal.
About photography and linux, well, there are no lightroom or aperture, or even capture one, you could use lightroom on windows inside a VM, or perhaps try to run it using wine, but that's not the goal, the goal is to use it with linux, but still there are some tools you can use, software like bibble, lightzone, rawtherapee, ufraw, gimp, etc etc etc, maybe not as good as the alternatives in mac and windows, but really really good, I guess maybe for a beginner or an amateur could be plenty enough, it was for me, but since I have a mac and aperture is 80 dls, well. But if I had no mac, it would we a tough choice between windows and linux, and most of all because of the speed linux can give you compared to windows in the same base system.
-
Let's face it. If you are pro in commercial, there is no way you can escape Photoshop. It's just not possible. And very little you can do if Phase or Hassy are not playing in Linux territory.
But if you are pro, there is absolutly no problem you have one (or more) dedicated unit Linux only for certain applications.
If you plan to be a retoucher and working for pros, same, you need serious PS knowledge.
Now, for the people who are not photoshop dependant, Linux has many offers as commented here.
-
I agree, as a beginner and amateur, I found Linux has enough for accomplishing really good results with my pictures, and even with free software you are able (with a bit more time and effort) to accomplish a good output, on the paid apps side, well, you have bibble (won't run on any distro) and lightzone, that give you better results with less effort, but have to say still not as smooth of a workflow as lightroom or aperture.
But bottom line is, you can have a workflow that works in Linux, but I don't think would be good enough for the needs of a pro, although as I said, with a bit more effort you can get pretty good results.
-
I do my photo processing in Linux. I believe I can produce professional results, but there's indeed tinkering, and some things you simply cannot do, you need to adapt your workflows, but I can do what I need for my shooting style (I mostly shoot landscapes). I have myself developed free software and has an interest in image processing and algorithms, so I love being able to access the source code. Also from an artistic standpoint I think it is great with open source, I don't really like those "wow-filter" effects, I want to know exactly what is done so I feel I have total control of the artistic intent. You can choose how much you want to do in post-processing, but it is surely an art too, just as taking the photograph is.
I would not recommend any professional do processing in Linux though, there's too few commercial programs and the workflow in the free programs are not efficient enough, you can produce great results but need to spend more time, and for a professional time is money. If I worked professionally I'd use Lightroom and Photoshop.
Now I use RawTherapee, often directly from the development tree compiled myself, it can produce really great results, I use Hugin for stitching (also great results). The only big thing missing in Linux is 16 bit photo editing (the alternatives that exists are not well suited or efficient at photo editing). Gimp is only 8 bit, which is not feasible in a modern professional workflow. However, I do some tricks with Imagemagick etc to actually produce 16 bit tiff output when I use Gimp for masking and exposure fusion, described here:
http://wiki.panotools.org/16_bit_panorama_blending_using_8_bit_Gimp
(describes a panorama workflow but applies to single images too). In the commercial software world there's however much more competent masking programs than Gimp. You can achieve the same quality with Gimp but may need to put in more time and effort. For retouching (not masking/fusing exposures) I have no 16 bit editing software, however I almost never do any retouching so I have not missed that much. When I have to do it, I do it in a final 8 bit step before print - if no adjustments are made of an 8 bit image it will not visibly differ in quality from 16 bit in print.
-
While on Linux my workflow basically consists of ufraw and gimp, I know ufraw is not as sleek on the interface as rawtherapee or others, but get's the job done, can do most of the processing I need for my raw files, and when needed just jump to gimp for the extra mile, the only downside is that you don't get to preserve the editted version like with lightroom or aperture, and have to send to tiff or jpeg.
What I usually do is make the post on ufraw, the gimp if necessary and then save as jpeg if I don't intend anything else with the picture. Save raw's and jpeg's in separate folder structure and then use shotwell as my organizer for all my editted pictures.
For panoramas I use hugin, and for hdr I use Luminance HDR, not as powerful as photoshop but get's really good results.
For an amateur like me this workflow is more than enough, of course I also have my mac and manage everything in aperture and have to say it's really faster and simpler to accomplish the same results, but I still like it both ways.