Slashdot Mirror
Professional Photographers Using Linux?
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)."
Real pro photographers don't use linux.
I don't know what to tell you, other than my uncle is a professional photographer and he uses a Mac. Says it's a dream.
Until GIMP receives more power (features, interface) under the hood, or Adobe or Jasc start porting their products, professional photographers CAN'T use Linux. Whatever Linuxies may claim, those of us generating 2000+ images per month can't make any sacrifices in our workflow. Die-hard Linux users are well advised to use a little Wine http://www.winehq.com/ with their photo processing...
As for scanning - I agree with the above - Vuescan is great on Macs.
There's a famous quote that gets thrown around quite a bit:
"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 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...
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
May I suggest a new acronym to accompany RTFM? UTFSE - for Use The Fine Search Engine.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
Sadly, you're mistaken about what it means to be a "professional." You are correct in thinking that a "professional" gets paid for their services. You are incorrect in thinking that all professionals are knowledgeable and know what they're doing in return for the pay they are receiving. I have seen wedding photographers who actually arranged and took worse pictures than even I would take - and I would hardly even consider myself an amateur at this point because not all of my pictures turn out well.
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!
Exactly. First rule of professionals; use the right tool. Buying professional class tools will pay for itself quickly, while cobbling together a hack (while cool in itself) wastes a lot of time and sometimes costs more in lost revenues.
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.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
The same reason for which we keep DaVinci's Mona Lisa for example and not a high resolution JPEG instead.
Project your slides onto good screen with an overhead projector
That's either a joke or a typo. Surely you mean "project your slides onto good screen with a _slide_ projector.
I have used the Epson 2400 with transparency adapter and could not even fathom scanning "thousands" of slides with it. From my experience a scan took about 3 minutes. Thats almost 2 days of solid scaning for a thousand slides.My scanner is hooked up to windows and uses the Epson color correction software and gives adequate results (far from the professional results you mention). As such, I would not throw away the slides and use the digital files as replacements though. You will not get away from the blurry, scratched images that this scanner will produce.What you need to do is look into a real slide/negative scanner such as a Minolta Dimage or the like, with digital ice dust and scratch removal built into the scanner itself. For the amount of slides you mention you would also be wise to look into an autofeeder. I am not sure about Linux support for these types of scanners, but you may want to think about investing in a new G5 and Photoshop (you can run Gimp if you dont want to shell out for Photoshop, but Photoshop is superior and well worth the money if you are doing lots of photo manipulation). However, if you are really serious about the professional side of things then you are going to need to shell out some cash, linux and an epson flatbed are not going to cut it for you. Alternatively, find a photo studio with the scanner and pay them to do it for you.
"When Nature Calls We All Shall Drown" Johan Edlund
This leads me to why is the poster only interested in Professionals and talented amatures?
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.
I've worked under Linux with VueScan plenty, and have not had any significant problems (yes, Gimp doesn't do CYMK well, no matter how many plug-ins and kludges you balance on it).
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.
I work for the Michigan Daily, and I have had experience using linux with my photo equipment. I use all digital cameras, a nikon d2h and a nikon d70. The problem with linux is the photo manipulation software. Currently the gimp is only 8 bit color. The color features of the gimp leave a lot to be desired for a photog. A must have is a mac or pc with photoshop. The linux platform is making steps, but currently there are too many problems.
This is exactly the type of answer that should be given to the question "I try to do this hardware related thing in Linux and it sux, so Linux sux"
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."
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
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.
This is not a signature.
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.
11 x 14 at 320dpi is the norm for magazine work (that's what you give them, not necessarily what they print it at). As far as billboards go (this is different than if your doing an exhibition print large), the prints use different offset methods that use pretty low-res images (120 dpi or even 72 dpi in many cases). Building wraps are the same way. The printer asks you questions like "how far away will people be when viewing this image?". Many of these fall apart if you get within five feet of them but look really sharp from 50 feet.
If you are truly a pro photographer than you time is worth a lot more than the purchase price of a decent iMac
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.
I AM where he is and I have a solution to his problem.
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.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
To put this in terms non-photo geeks might understand:
In this message you say:
5 8156
/etc/sysconfig/networks-scripts/ifcfg-eth0.locatio n1 ... locationN, and the same for /etc/resolv.conf, etc. My script relinked the proper links for the proper network, and away I went. I had to waste my time putting this together, whereas someone at Apple just did this for me.
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 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.