Professional Photographers Using Linux? 724
thesun asks: "I'm a freelance writer and photographer and I'm wondering what Pro Photographers have done in regards to color matching and scanning under Linux, especially when going from slides to digital. I just can't get anything close to a good image when I scan a slide. They're blurry and the colors are so off that doing anything with my thousands of slides is proving to be prohibitively time-consuming. Are other Pros (or talented amateurs) having similar problems? Are there solutions out there I haven't found? (Sorry, I can't dump thousands into a piece of hardware---I'm looking for a way to make the most of my Epson Perfection 2400 with transparency adapter)."
Don't use linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro photographer? Using Linux? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for scanning - I agree with the above - Vuescan is great on Macs.
Pro Photographers (Score:4, Insightful)
"Linux is free only if your time has no value" - Jamie Zawinski
If you are truly a pro photographer than you time is worth a lot more than the purchase price of a decent iMac [apple.com] You charge for your time, it's your most valuable resource. Why waste it trying to do things the hard way?
Why use the wrong tool for the job?
Linux (and other free unices) have their time and place, but as a professional photography scanning and retouching system it's just not ready yet.
Does the GIMP even use ICC profiles?
Cheers...
P.S. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bwahahaha (Score:5, Insightful)
The person that wrote this "Ask Slashdot" may just be in the camp of those who get paid for services they're not qualified to perform. Or they may just be getting started. In any case, they did preface the question by mentioning that they were not willing to pay for the high quality stuff that many professional photographers use, so I don't see why you're so up in arms with their lack of desire to use "real" equipment. Just answer the damn question!
Re:Sorry, Your screwed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Professional class tools are expensive, no doubt about it. There's a reason for it, they're usually worth every penny. If you can't afford it, then you better figure out a way to save up the money. If you don't want to spend the money on professional tools, then you'd better rethink your goals.
Re:Digital? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slide scanner alternative (Score:3, Insightful)
That's either a joke or a typo. Surely you mean "project your slides onto good screen with a _slide_ projector.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kinda like a plumber who uses a stick of dynamite to unblock your toilet because he prefers blowing things up to using a plunger. Might be fun for him but not too many people will recommend his services...
You need a real scanner (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Professional? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, do you want the opinion of someone with 30 years experience in their field or someone fresh out of High School who bought their first camera (in this case) a week ago?
There's a reason that professionals are able to be professionals...they're good at what they do and therefore are able to make a living at it.
This is why I don't consider the post I made to be offtopic...a pro would use (as someone else mentioned elsewhere in the thread) the right tool for the job, and as of right now, Photoshop is the right tool. Therefore, you get a Mac, and don't even look at Linux. Linux is awesome for some things, but in the graphics world, Apple has Linux beat as of now.
Re:Sorry, Your screwed. (Score:3, Insightful)
As mentioned elsewhere (parent and others), it's the scanner, especially looking at things like blurry images. Even when I get inconsistant colour out of a slide scanner, it is normally correctable with a little fudging of the colour channels. The crap that a normal scanner w/ attachment puts out either requires a huge amount of work by a photoshop guru and a significant hit on resolution, or the recommended action, a quick press of the delete key.
You say you're a Pro, and yet you're not willing to spend money on equipment? Most of the pros I know carry at least 1 digital body, or the good ones even have Phase One backs for thier cameras.
Long story short, the only way you're getting a good image into the computer is with a proper film scanner, or through your local lab. Once it's in there, the thread on Gimp's shortcomings can start.
linux not there yet (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pro Photographers (Score:3, Insightful)
No offense to Mr Zawinski, but that's kind of a clueless statement in 2004, even though it may have sounded cute and clever, and I'm sure he must have had some reason for saying it at the time. (1994 or so?)
The reason I use linux is that my time DOES have value. I can afford to by whatever tools I need for the job, and I can certainly afford any of the OSes mentioned here, cost is not even remotely an issue. But I buy and use Linux, and it serves me well, for my particular workload (sys admin, part time webmaster, consultant, 3D FPS gamer, part time student...)
So to all the apple fanboys, I think OS X is ok, my daughter uses it and loves it. I'm glad OS X works for you, and I'm really happy for you - but it's sort of irritating that you answer every single computer related question with the stock answer, "why not switch to mac?"
Re:Sorry, Your screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
We should say,
"How does the hardware work in Windows?"
"Are you getting a better result or the same?"
"If it is better, what software are you using in Linux and in Windows?" --> report to developers, test or improve the Linux software (if capable)
"If it is the same, then it could very well be a limitation of the hardware in question and not in fact the software."
Let's bring post 1 ontopic. GIMP killerapp? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Yes, most pros use Photoshop and not the GIMP, and all of us hate the cost of Photoshop. Proof is obvious, anyone hates paying $$$$
2. We use PS because it does what we need, not because we are fenced in to specific Windows formats. Proof is that PS on Macs is used a lot in the graphics industry.
3. Gimp is able to deal with the formats, but does not have the required functionality. Proof is that GIMP does not handle print and printing, CMYK and ICC workflows well.
It seems that if it dealt with point 3, GIMP would instantly garner the support of zillions of photographers out there.
Re:Google is the answer, my brother (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, the use Google answer. Google is great, but after you've waded through all the websites with pre-alpha software and dead projects it is sometimes nice to just ask for someone who has been there, done that, and got the T-shirt.
The website you point to is actually a good illustration. Just take a look at the first few paragraphs:
2-May-2000
Right, that means that the project website has not been updated for over four years. Inspires confidence, that.
The source file color_manager.c contains the code for the Gimp Color Manager plugin. This plugin can be used to color correct images with ICC color profiles.
Which means that you must be familiar with Gimp plugins, and it looks like there is no manual to help you integrate this in Gimp, or to explain its use. And how likely is it that this will work with modern versions of Gimp? Would you trust your color management to a piece of software in this state? Is it worthwile to even read this website any further, unless you want to modify the software?
At this time the functionaliy is very limited, the plugin e.g. accepts only RGB images. There is more to come ...
(Cough.)
Don't get me wrong, it is very nice that someone has posted this software for all to use, but at some point you must be realistic.
And it looks to me you picked the best of a rather sorry bunch of results from this particular google.
Re:Sorry, Your screwed. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pro Photographers (Score:2, Insightful)
jwz's comment is accurate. Linux is not "zero cost" unless your time is worthless. Maybe he meant it as an insult, but I don't take it that way.
Consider this quote: "making your own dinner is free only if your time has no value"
Now, you say you use linux because you can buy whatever tools you nee for the job (sys admin, etc).
Now imagine you're a photographer. You need OS-wide color management. You need to be able to plug a camera, a scanner, color meter, or a high-end printer into your computer and have it work. You need to be able to edit and print photos with end-to-end color workflow. You also want to actually spend your day doing PHOTOGRAPHY, not tinkering with programming and downloading.
You will not find the tools you need on Linux, period. Maybe someday, but *today* you need something else. Since many creative professionals use a Mac, it turns out that the Mac has most of those tools available.
I'm also a sysadmin and I use Linux, but I do some photography as well on the side, including fine art copy (i.e., photographing paintings), which needs serious color management, even special lighting in the room, and I haven't even bothered trying it on Linux. I don't even know how to use my macbeth meter with Linux for instance. So I use a Mac and it all "just works".
So for this particular topic "switch to mac" is pretty good advice!
Re:Pro Photographers (Score:4, Insightful)
Sad to say, but your linux knowledge seems either very dated or severely limited.
Maybe for an embedded app like a mythbox or on my Linksys router, but wake me up when there is a real GUI and real working applications and a packaging system that works.
(shrug) Sleep as long as you like - meanwhile I'm using linux happily, with a "real GUI" (yes, I've seen and used OSX, and I prefer Linux). I've no idea what you mean about the packaging system - apt works a treat, as do the package formats it manages.
I laugh all the time when people suffer with Linux on their desktop.
Gee that's funny, I'm not suffering, and neither are any of the linux users I know. We all CHOSE our OS, and use it because we prefer it. But I suspect that you are suffering. Does it drive you crazy that some many prefer Linux or other OSes over your beloved OS X?
Like I said, I have no axe to grind, and if OS X is what floats your boat, good for you. It would be really cool if you'd consider extending the same courtesy to us.
Re:Don't use linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, as much respect as I have for the accomplishments of "The Gimp", you have to understand that on the Mac (and Windows), there are widely supported and understood color management systems (ColorSync, for example) and image formats that Linux currently doesn't offer analogs for.
As much as you hate to admit it, Linux isn't perfect, and photography may be one of the places that Linux doesn't quite make the grade in.
Yet...
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's foolish of him to lower the quality or pace of his work because of devotion to an operating system. This is true whether the operating system is represented by a piece of fruit, panes of glass, or an arctic bird.
Re:Pro Photographers (Score:2, Insightful)
Using Linux in this case is not a logical professional choice. There's no logical reason for it. The only reasons are political.
Re:Don't use linux (Score:4, Insightful)
myth (Score:3, Insightful)
And how is that going to help him save time? His flatbed scanner is still going to give him lousy quality. He still has to carry out color calibration for whatever capture device he uses. And he still has manually post-processs each slide.
Actually, with the Mac he is going to be worse off. For the price of an iMac, he could get a much more powerful Linux machine. Before he can do anything, he'll have to shell out some money for software. And he has a smaller range of scanners to choose from.
Linux (and other free unices) have their time and place, but as a professional photography scanning and retouching system it's just not ready yet. Does the GIMP even use ICC profiles?
Jeez: you rant and rave for two paragraphs about how supposedly un-ready Linux is for professional photography and then it turns out you don't even know whether Linux or the Gimp has color management. What about doing some background research before you dispense advice? I do have an iMac (and a Powerbook and an iBook).
There's a famous quote that gets thrown around quite a bit: "Linux is free only if your time has no value" - Jamie Zawinski
Zawinski is a UNIX-hating night-club owner who (according to his web site) spends hours wondering whether he has a brain disease because he sees funny colors when he presses on his eyeballs (in case you are wondering the same thing: you, you don't). That's not the kind of person you want to take advice from about what platform to use.
And just because companies promise to make your pain go away when you give them money doesn't mean they actually succeed. And by the time you have turned into a platform-X-expert and don't know much about other platforms (see above), you just assume that your way is the best way and will have turned into a zealous if uninformed advocate for your platform (see above again).
The sad fact is that slide scanning in particular, and image processing in general, is a lot of work on any platform. Doing it on Linux or Macintosh is a different experience. You get a lot more handholding on Macintosh, while on Linux, you have to learn more about what you are doing initially. On the other hand, for someone who actually understands image processingand may even develop image processing software, Linux is probably a more convenient and efficient platform.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't use linux (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, there certainly are photographers who are interested in scratching their own backs, and professional back scratchers who take an interest in photography. The gimp is still a long way from professional tools, but Adobe has the disadvantage of having to discover new technologies while gimp merely appropriates them. There is certainly an argument to be had that the Gimp merely reimplementing a piece of software is not as useful as discovering new, different and useful ways of accomplishing simliar tasks with less work.
The best news for Linux with reguards to the whole slide scanning thing is that you're basically boned no matter what. Scanning in a slide sucks reguardless of platform, so I'd take it to the people who ARE willing to put down the big bucks required to do the job right.
Re:Don't use linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You've got the wrong problem (Score:5, Insightful)
no operating system on the planet is going to fix low end scanning hardware. Hell I even tried a $1200.00 agfa scanner and still had marginal results.
the ONLY solution to scanning slides correctly is the $5200.00 FUJI slide and negative scanner.
I am renting one for $80.00 a day from a local photographer that was willing to rent me his.
I dont care if you have a cluster of Cray supercomputers, a flastbed scanner is going to do a crappy job at scanning slides.
i have no idea why linux is even brought up in this question, it has nothing to do with an operating system and has everything to do with the scanning hardware you are using.
It's like videotaping a wedding, if you use a $500.00 garbage palmcorder you will get a crappy wedding video. use a Canon XL1s or XL2 and you get quality video, shoot in 35mm film at 24fps with $150,000.00 lenses and you get fantastic.
scanning with low end gets you low end images.
Yes, a $1000.00 scanner is LOW END.
Re:Don't use linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but Free Software is not a company so it cannot think at that level. You can't force a linux developer to abandon a project he likes and/or needs for another one he don't care about and/or doesn't need so all you can do is try to persuade enough developers that they want/need to work on what you want/need them to work on.
Because of this lack of a single focus (replaced by a bigger number of smaller foci) it takes more time for a particular area to mature but overall and over time it is a better way to operate. It's like the difference between a governmental project and a free market solution; the government can put more focus and more resources on a project than any company but free market tends to be better over time.
Ignore this idiot. (Score:3, Insightful)
To put this in terms non-photo geeks might understand:
Re:linux? ouch... (Score:3, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=107617&cid=91
I liked fedora core 1, it works pretty well for me and runs my apps, but I was keeping my eye on the market and looking at alternatives as usual. This week I switched my work desktop from redhat/fedora core 1 to Suse 9.1 - I'm impressed by the fact that everything "just works" with suse, and that it comes with absolutely everything but the kitchen sink. I installed the nvidia drivers with one click in the yast menu, and will be installing ut2004 after finals...
OK, a couple of things, I was into Linux when I was in college and when I first got out. Today, I'm not impressed when "everything" "just works", up from "it works pretty well for me and runs my apps". Pretty well is not good enough, and "everything just works" is an expectation for me. I expect it of my car, my diswasher, and my computer. Trust me, getting excited about nvidia drivers when your in your 30s is kinda immature.
From this review [osnews.com] of Suse 9.2, this review seems about as good as my experience with Linux ever got.
This reviewer was happy that this version of Linux came with a working battery level app. I ditched linux before such luxuries came around. I have 36 minutes before my PowerBook battery is at full charge. It also shows me the time to empty too when running on battery.
The reviewer says, "Using SuSE's powerful profile manager SCPM (System configuration profile management), I can swap almost effortlessly between network configurations".
Again, this is new to me for Linux. I like the "almost effortlessly" part. For me, when I go to a different network, I pick the location from the "Location" menu, and within 5 seconds or so I'm on the network. When I used Linux, I had symlinks to files for things like
This review seems candid and summarizes my experiences as well.
Not good enough. Sorry. Got better things to do with my time. I'm happy with Linux in my server rooms. No complaints once it is up and running, but for my day to day use, I prefer something a little more mature and polished.