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)."
Where I'm from, only old people use slides.
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.
I took some slides for a yearbook production in town, and try as I may: Windoze, Linux, BeOS, anything, they all came out terrible. Using a flatbed scanner with Slide Adapter just doesnt produce great results. Period.
print 'Hello world!';
http://compbrain.net
Back when I was using a film scanner, I was using VueScan with good results - I think you would be fairly pleased, as it gives you a number of advanced options for scanner control. I am pretty sure that it works with flatbed scanners as well.
They do sell a Linux client in addition to OSX and Windows, and the program has been around a long time.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is there a reason you need to keep/have the slides?
I know many people have said that digital camera is never the same as the conventional one, but if you can't get much out of scanned slides anyway, you might as well cut out the middleman (scanner).
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
... and what we have found works great is slide scanners. You can find a fairly good one for about $1000 but Linux support is unknown.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
http://www.linuxprinting.org/
Electrons are free; it is moving them that becomes expensive.
A 10 second bout of googling and I found The Gimp color manager which lets you use ICC color profiles. You'll find the relevant profiles on your Epson driver disk.
I'm sorry if I haven't offended anyone
I've never gotten good results scanning slides using an adapter on a flat bed scanner. This could be your main problem. There are some lower priced slide scanners these days that produce good results. Canon makes a rather affordable slide scanner. Mid-hundreds, but not thousands. Another suggestion would be trying it under windows and seeing if that produces any better results. I think your hardware is more of a problem than your software though.
I included a link but may have forgot to close it - hoy can find VueScan here. They also have a trial version so you can see if it works with your scanner.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ok, maybe I should've done a bit more reading before posting the parent...scribus is apparently open source. I found a few other links too...
Hope there's something useful in all of that...
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
...is a joke. If you want any kind of decent results, you need a REAL film scanner. Check eBay.
I wound up buying a Nikon LS30 for the several negatives images in my collection.
The specs on a real film scanner as opposed to a flatbed are night and day. When a film scanner says it does X resolution, it's real. When a flatbed says it, it's probably some kind of interpolated crap marketing hype.
The ratio of black to white on the scanned image is also vastly larger with a film scanner - this makes a big difference, particularly with slides. You're going to lose a lot of data if you don't have as wide a bit lattitude as you can get.
In short, you're going to put a lot of time into scanning those slides. Don't sell short the value of your time. It's stupid to spend 500 to 1000 or more hours of your life using a piece of junk. Better off just not doing it until you have access to the proper equipment.
Ask around. There may be people who can lend you a proper scanner. I've lent mine to several friends, since it's not like I use it all the time; I'm now completely digital. My scanner sits in its box for 6 months to a year at a time. It's possible you could find someone similar who might let you borrow it for a few months.
Epson has some scanner software on their site. Makes it loads faster and better quality then the normal drivers anyways Still sucks here
It's not easy for someone to come out with something that rivals PaintShop pro or Adobe Photoshop. As far as I am concern graphics apps still belong on mac and windoze.
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.
Sorry but reality is that Photoshop is not available on Linux (yet) so trying to use GIMP to do this is not the best route to take. Your best bet is to get a Mac and Photoshop and have most of the benefits of LInux (UNIX underpinnings) and the ability to run popular commercial software. P.S. Some Macs are not that expensive. I downgraded to a 20" iMac G5 from a dual CPU G5 and I don't miss the extra speed, saved a bunch as well.
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
Linux doesn't come close to comparing with windows or a mac in photo utilities. It's a shame too.
Gimp is nice, and making progress but it's still lightyears behind photoshop.
As far as hardware, reference photo.net. They will point you in the right direction for scanning in your slides.
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
There is no Photoshop for Linux, so, no. No professional photographers use Linux.
I would say you're going to have a hard time getting a pro-sumer scanner to output professional image quality.
Most pros are either digital, digital+film or use scanning services (who can afford a expensive drum-scanner)
I use VueScan, http://www.hamrick.com, which is available for preview. I actually use the Windows version, but it is available for Linux. I also use the Canon CanoScan FS4000US slidescanner with my transparencies.
VueScan has built-in calibration, which I use with Monaco EZColor 2.5, which is now part of x-rite http://www.xritephoto.com/product/ezcolor/. The color I get from slides is amazing, so I'd highly recommend you check VueScan out. Color management can have a bit of a learning curve, but Monaco EZColor is the easiest (and least expensive) I have found.
I do weddings and freelance PJ.
Without ICM support you can forget about using Linux for any professional work. But..... there is a MacOs...
The parent is not off-topic, but there are problems with processing transparencies this way. It's very difficult to match contrast for a start.
The best thing to do is send your transparencies out to a repro house to scan on a drum scanner. This can be expensive, but it's what professionals do, and they don't do it just so they can put it on their tax return.
Be prepared for some pain in manipulating the scans on Linux; there's a reason so many graphic artists use Macs.
I have NEVER seen the cheesy slide attachments that come with flatbed scanners work well. There is a way to get passable results without spending a ton of money.
Project your slides onto good screen with an overhead projector and take pictures with a digital camera. You'll want to disable the flash for this. Are the results as good as a dedicated slide scanner? No. Will it look better than what comes out of your scanner attachment? Absolutely.
Graphics software does seem to be the one area where the commercial business model (not OS commercial, but big bad greedy corporation commercial) seems to be more capable of producing a superior product.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
The focus and color problems you're having are not related to your choice of operating system or software, but with your scanner. If you can't get the slide adaptor to hold the slide so it's in focus, there's no chance of getting good scans regardless of the software you choose.
s .html. You should be able to find some of the older ones are more affordable used (check eBay) and even though they're not cutting edge will still generate much better results than an adaptor on a flatbed.
Like many folks here have said, you'll have a much better time using a real slide scanner. There's a good number of such devices supported by SANE - see http://www.sane-project.org/sane-supported-device
Failing that, rent or borrow a good slide scanner, or have a service bureau scan your slides on their equipment.
From what I gather from the article the foremost problem at the moment for him is that they won't scan properly. I don't think a shell script will take care of that. Then of course he has to scan each one by hand. Then he can worry about doing a batch job on them. Of course if he fixes the problems with the scanner he may not even need to.
Philosophy.
Whenever you say ANYTHING good about PS here, and suggest that GIMP is not quite ready, boy oh boy, get ready for a flame war. But the truth is the truth. PS is the standard for a reason. And, sooner or later, Adobe will port PS to Linux, and GIMP will die out, except for the extreamists. PS is a fine tool.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
If one was going to buy a scanner to use with linux which is the best choice in terms of driver support.
Moron, The problems the scanner not the controler.
If you are a pro, by definition you are making the bulk of your income taking photos.. pass on the bill for the new scanner to your next few clients :)
All I have is a rusted-out Schwinn bicycle. I'm too cheap to buy one of those newfangled "automobiles" or "motorcycles."
There must be a way to make a shitty bicycle do what I want. I'm willing to put any amount of time into this project but not any real money; that's because my time isn't worth anything. Tell me how to do it!
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!
I use a Nikon Coolscan IV, which is specifically a negative scanner, and I get GREAT results, every time. The Nikon Coolscan V is even better, and reasonably priced, cheap enough for anyone who's an amateur photographer to consider for purchase. Of course, the best alternative in my opinion is to invest in a decent digital SLR that's got a 6.1 megapixel or better resolution.
The first step to seriously using a computer for photography is to calibrate your monitor. Is this possible under linux?
After that we can start worrying about scanner and digital camera drivers...
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
You can probably find a place to do it for around a $1 per slide unless you really need repro quality. You get the images back on a CD and you have none of the hassle and time spent scanning dozens of slides. Of course, if you need to scan hundreds of slides pretty soon it will make sense to invest in a good 35mm film scanner.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Well, unless you can profile your monitor (an box that attaches to the screen and a piece of s/w that reads colour patches and builds the profile) then you are pretty much out of luck. and that is nothing compared to making sure you have a correct printer profile and the software to convert images between the two device dependant colour spaces. heavy maths involved there btw. as for blurry, flatbeds can be a bit blurry straight from the scanner, you'll need to apply some unsharp mask to punch out the detail. there are probably plenty of websites that deal with the exact settings for the scanner you have. other than that id say use Vuescan its a great scanner program.
If you want your entire workflow calibrated for WYSIWYG color output, I don't think you'll find it. About a year ago I bought a Canon 10D and wanted:
1) Linux based RAW to TIFF converter
2) Linux monitor calibration
3) ICC support for printing
I was able to find a free tool to do the RAW conversion, but I was disappointed with the output. Color's were washed out because it didn't understand colorspaces and there were no controls for adjusting exposure (one of the big selling points of using RAW).
I was unable to find any Spyder (hardware to calibrate your monitor) which worked with Linux. If you have *really* good eyes, you might be able to do it via software, but I found the results were completely inconsistant for generating prints.
There was some limited ICC printer support in Gimp, but Gimp is no Photoshop. Don't get me wrong, Gimp is a great tool and is of commerical quality, but PS is *much* more advanced and has a much larger user community around it providing free and commerical plugins as well as help on retouching photos.
Basically, if you're only interested in posting on the web in sRGB @ 72dpi, then Linux is probably good enough for your needs. People who are viewing the images won't have their monitors properly calibrated anyways, so it won't really matter. But once you want photo quality output, your best platform is still a Mac (I ended up getting a G5 1.8 and Cinema HD LCD) with Windows a close second.
I bought a Canon FS4000 and run it over SCSI with Vuescan under linux. So far I'm very pleased with digitizing slides. Vuescan is a dream, except I'd like to optimize his backend code... (Gimp displays the picture in a second, vuescan can take 15-30 seconds). The Infra Red dust removal works well. So far, I've been having more difficultly with negatives: they come out blue, and once you fix that the colours don't look as good as photos.
Any hints about that?
$75 dollar flatbed scanner just ain't ganna cut it.
I would either:
1) For large-scale production work like school or league sports photos I would have gone 100% digital by now and invested the money in as good a digital camera as I could afford, then outsourced the printing or maybe done it myself if volume was sufficient. I would never have sufficient hours to scan in film.
2) For small-scale work like photojournalism maybe still use film, shoot color negative film and send the film to Ofoto or equivalent for $4 per roll processing and low-res index-scanning. Present the Ofoto images to customers, then scan in hi-res from my negative using a good slide/film scanner. Maybe still shoot Kodachrome slide film, keep slides, and scan in hi-res the 1 out of 1000 pictures worth making hi-res scans of.
Like previous posters have said, flatbeds suck for production work. If you are running your photogrpahy as a business, a good slide/film scanner with at least 12 bits per channel is deductable/depreciatable and essential. Now that I am "retired" I get good-enough amateur-quality results with my old cheap-ass Minolta Dual-scan. It's only 8 bits per channel, though, and for some pictures that sucks. No Open source driver yet I know of - I scan with a Mac and transfer the file to Gimp for touching up.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
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 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.
A minolta scan dual III, VUEscan and the gimp. Together I'm quite happy with the results. But check for yourself:= 99248. The first 5 are done with this combination.
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/viewportfolio?id
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
I've got a PrimeFILM scanner from Costco. Looks great. The one I have runs about $280 now (it was on sale at the time, about $150). They have the same one used at the University of Virginia's digial media center for $390.
If you only want to scan a few slides/negs (less than, say, a few hundred) it might be cheaper and faster to just sent them to a good Photo Lab. If you have the scans done at at the same time as development, it's even cheaper.
Some examples: 35mm Negative scans of the protests to George Bush's trip to Ottawa last week done for CAD$5/film at a cheapy 1-hour photo place
Some negative scans with my Nikon Coolscan V ED
Worst BBC News Stories
This is going to be said by a lot of people here...
...but like I said, photoshop pays my mortgage. I'm not unbiased.
There's nothing Linux (or any other OS, for that matter) can do to allow you to get a good-quality image out of a half-assed trans adapter on a flatbed scanner.
I have seen ok images come out of a trans adapter... but those were large-format negatives, and they were still only really good for comps.
Repeat after me:
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
I bought a dimage slide scanner, and I haven't looked back. If you're serious, $250 is not expensive.
I'm sure there are people who consider GIMP to be completely usable, better than photoshop, etc etc. I can't really speak to that. I use photoshop about 5 hours a day, and on those occasions where I have tried GIMP, I was not favorably impressed. It struck me as being a program designed by people who have never actually had to use that sort of software. I'm not denigrating the project, but I won't sacrifice speed, flexibility, quality and my own sanity in order to make some point about open source.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I have an Epson 2450 Photo and I've found that scanning any type of film, positive or negative, is abysmal at best. The problem lies in the focal plane of the scanner. Becuase the scanner does not refocus properly on the image it cannot get a crisp scan. What I did to *improve* my film scanning was to build a little test rig out of thin cardboard like the kind off of the back a notepad. Basically, I stacked overlaping layers ranging from directly on the glass to 3-4 millimeters above the glass so I could figure out where the focal plane was on the scanner. If I remember correctly, the film adapters hold the film about 2mm off the glass, but I discovered I got crisper scans at 3mm. Consequently, I had to build little 1mm shims to hold my film adapter up a little higher.
Aside from that, the *unsharp mask* is your best friend. Any digitally acquired image should have an unsharp mask applied to it to help reduce the digital artifacts. In fact film is often treated the same way to reduce the appearance of the film grain. Don't set it and forget it, different photographs will need different values in the unsharp mask. Experiment and you'll get the hang of it.
I have to point out, if you want to be a professional then you need to invest in a true film scanner. That's the only way you're really going to get crisp scans. You don't need to drop $10,000 on an oil mount drum scanner. Read Epinions or some other review site. Check ebay for some used models. Get the highest DPI you can afford (or the lowest you can tolerate). Also, make sure you buy something with a fast interface. USB v1 sucks, SCSI is ok, USB v2 is better, Firewire (IEEE 1394) is the best.
Hope that helped! If you need more deatils on how to build the cardboard test appaeratus let me know and I will post in more detail.
Although I am a diehard penguin fan, there are just some aps that ought to be ported over, but aren't.
Sigh. I do a lot of medium and large format transparencies and they get scanned in with a Canon DU2400.
For the run of the mill, knock off, transparecies they are adequate without haveing to resort to a 10K$ drum scanner, or a 20K$ digital back for the 4X5. The 2400 dpi in a 4X5 transparency is "good enough" for most interactions with the customer. IF higher definition is required well then I can send it out for a drum scan.
Such as it is, I still keep windoze around for both photoshop and premire. Sigh.
Note that my jpegs run over 100 Mbyte/image with this. And I am NOT doing 35mm images. These are full blown, commercial shots.
I just bought an Epson RX600. It is dirt cheap and can scan/print directly to/from a compact flash... thus I don't even have to have it connected to a computer to be useful. Works fine with linux as long as you can use a CF card.
I haven't done any slide scanning, but it has that capability. I have done some prints from color negatives, and I was blown away that it actually worked, let alone worked well.
They don't "belong" on windows, it just so happens that the best graphics apps live there. I am a linux user (linux on my primary box and server) but I do boot up my windows machine ocassionaly for photoshop. Fortunately I am not involved in any work where I really need those tools, but there is no reason they could not be ported to linux or that tools just as competent could be created. The gimp is quite good an is maturing and gaining features, it is certainly not of photoshop quality but if you are a web designer or editing photos it is nice. Graphics apps is one place were linux is lacking a bit but that does not mean that those apps do not belong on linux, only that they haven't been developed yet.
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
Worst BBC News Stories
I won a used Minolta DiMAGE II slide/film scanner on ebay for $162.50 a month ago.
I downloaded the GIMP for free.
Grokking the GIMP is available online.
HTH
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
While you're at it, please show me how to use the "find" command to find my car keys....
Do not be so cocky. Adobe holds a number of key patents in the field and open source is not going to be anywhere close to Adobe's products until they expire. Same for non-Adobe close source for that matter. So if you want to get a professional job done, get a professional tool: real negative/slide scanner, not a transparency adapter, a reasonable spec Mac and a full Adobe Photoshop. It will put you back by 5K+ but if you are doing it for the money you should be able to pay it back reasonably quick. Alternatively - use a professional digital camera in first place. That is cheaper as you can get away with around 2K.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Also a lot of people dislike the BSD license. There are a lot of folks out there who hate to create open source software only to have some company add one or two important features to an established base then close their source and sell it commercially.
-kaplanfx
Visualize Whirled Peas
Hmmmm. I have an Epson Expression 1680 with slide adapter and get great results scanning slides. Not as good as a slide scanner, but not unacceptable. Not sure about the 2400 except that it is a bigger number :-), but the 1680 has two focusing modes - one for paper which is held against the glass and another for slides which are in holders a few mm above the glass. One time I didn't set the focus correctly and it did come out fairly bad.
As far as colors go, auto correct does a decent job.
A slide/negative scanner is best. Cheap models are available on EBay. Most shooters in my industry -- newspapers -- have moved from negative film and Nikon scanners to digital and card readers today. We would only use a flatbed scanner for negs or chrome in an emergency.
The majority of us use Mac/Photoshop, with a small number of Windows papers and a few dedicated systems (but the shooters probably have Macs).
Hope this helps.
GIMP may not match Photoshop in features, but you can't beat the price! Professionals may consider PS worth it, but it has a rather steep pricetag for us amatures.
For that one reasons, GIMP will not die out anytime soon.
...I had an old SCSI slide scanner sitting around which I wouldn't have minded getting rid of.
I would I guess fall under the Talented Amateur category and had this same problem a couple of years ago. With thousands of slides and 10,000+ negatives I just wasn't getting the quality I required from flatbed adapters. I ended up finding a great Slide/Film scanner used on eBay. I just looked and there are currently at least 4 of the model I purchased, as well as other higher quality models. What I purchased was a Kodak Model 2035 Professional Film Scanner for about $200.00. It's a 6 MegaPixel (35mm only) scanner that works extremely well. I use it with VueScan (mentioned by someone else) under Windows. The downside for some folks is that it has no SANE support and it uses a SCSI interface. Not a problem for me, but possibly for some folks. Windows hasn't been a real problem since it doesn't take a killer machine to scan, and thats about all I use the Windows machine to do.
Some people have pointed out the problems with currently available software on Linux. I tend to agree that while the software is available on Linux to do what the poster needs done, it might be more of a pain in the ass. It *can* be done in Linux. It just might not be available in one package.
The poster needs to byte the bullet and get photoshop. If he hates, Windows for whatever reason, then a Mac should suffice. You get all the GUI/Photoshop goodness along with all of the Unix goodness too... It's a fair compromise.
Quite a while ago I was going to start a scanning project of scanning all my family's photos, slides and negatives in so they could be preserved. I ended up buying the HP PhotoSmart S20 and it's been great. The nice thing is that it adjusts to different negative sizes, slides, and even 5X7 prints. Scanning speed is reasonable, and the results are very good. After about 6 months my brother and I have scanned in almost all the old photos and now they're easily indexed and found on a Gallery Photo Server.
I'm not sure that HP makes this model any more, but maybe something out there will be as useful as it has been. Over 10,000 scans and more to go!
I cant imagine how much extra work you have to do every day dealing with Linux.
Congratulations, thats quite a troll - but why do you think Hollywood special effects companies use Linux?
Think about it.
Hehehe... that's like taking a camcorder into a movie theater and recording the entire movie from a seat far back in the room and then pressing it to DVD because DVD is a high quality medium. In other words, garbage in/garbage out. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I'm not sure what Scribus has to do with the parent's posting. Scribus is a page Layout application for Linux. It's pretty good, but isn't going to help you scan a slide or anything else for that matter.
...::----::...
I am in no way affiliated with this sig.
just out of curiousity, why would you run VueScan under wine when there's a native Linux version?
I'm sorry, but i have to laugh at anyone who dare connect the words "linux" and "professional" in the realms of digital photography, graphic design, DTP, video editing and frankly even CG animation (2d or 3d) Sure, there are production companies that use Linux based render farms for doing CG work, but they aren't using tools written by the general Linux community to do their work, they're using software they've put a HUGE amount of time and money into. In fact they may as well have gone with closed source solutions given the effort it took to get to where they are w/their Linux tools. The only redeeming factor Linux has going for it is that it's free and fairly easily clustered which is rather ideal for CG render farms where each machine is actually performing rather repetative tasks. I don't know of a single graphic design firm that uses Linux for anything of importance in the production pipeline. There is ZERO incentive for Linux support among the hardware manufacturers and software developers that provide tools to "professionals"...because they're all using OSX or Win2K/XP. closed source will always, ALWAYS win in this arena. you want proof...compare GIMP with almost any version of Photoshop and I think you'll immediately see where I get off saying such things.
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.
actually, it isn't. you need to buy a license for it just like the mac & windows versions.
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
But.. but.. Bill Gates says it's the best Open Source license!!!!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I think the problem is that "freelance" is open to interpretation. To me it means an independent writer/photographer (not on the staff of any company or service) who generates some noticable fraction of their income from these activities. If that's the case, then the equipment can be a writeoff, and a 20" iMac costs less than the camera that would be bought to produce marketable output.
--- Ban humanity.
>The Gimp is NOT as good as Photoshop.
Has anyone ever made this claim?
For some applications where the next option is Photoshop, GIMP is a lifesaver. Some types of graphics and editing would not get done if the barrier happened to be a thousand dollars for some software.
I'm not convinced that the usability/featureset needs to end with Photoshop, myself.
>I can't use anything except Windows or Mac OS X
>for the time being. Even with digital
>photography, TheGimp just lacks a lot of things,
>and some other things that it does have, they are
>implemented BADLY.
You're complaining about something you got absolutely free - you realize that don't you?
For amateur photographers, GIMP saves the day. Don't diss it for doing what it does -- well.
I don't think your quarrel is with the GIMP folks, but with every other software company out there for leaving the whole playing field to Adobe, instead of coming up with something better by now.
Just becase PS is better than anything else you've got your hands on, doesn't mean it's the end of all for photo software.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I'm sorry, but when did we become a tech support forum. No offense, but do some friggen' research. (roll eyes)
i would just put on a cracked win xp.. get 500 bucks together.. and get an HT 3.0 800 fsb wit a gig of ram.. adn 128 meg vcard.. wouldnt do u wrong.. its better than linux.. i just dont agree wit linux when it comes to using photoshop and other imaging appz.
You would get the same results with a Mac. He's not running into an OS limitation, but the limitations of using a generic flatbed scanner for slides. You just don't get useful results that way, regardless of the software (I've tried).
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
Er... If you're a professional then the investment in new equipment is tax deductable. I can't imagine a professional photographer sacrificing valuable time to save a few bucks on equipment.
This is why professional photographers are deserting to digital cameras in droves. Apart from a few die-hards (who mostly use MF and LF cameras anyway), people find it's just plain easier to work with digital cameras, especially when most of the time their work needs to be digitized in order to be sent to the printer anyway. A sub-$1000 SLR doesn't have the same absolute resolution as film, but if you add up the cost of the camera body, the slide scanner (and yeah, you're never going to get decent results from that flatbed adapter), and all the time and trouble either having film developed or developing it yourself, it's worthwhile to either get a cheap digicam and deal with the reduced quality or invest in a pro-grade SLR set-up.
My older Nikon Coolpix has a slide copying adapter that works much better than a flatbed scanner or a cheap ($200) slide scanner but not quite as well as a good slide scanner, plus it's not OS dependent.
I would hardly even consider myself an amateur at this point because not all of my pictures turn out well. Most of your pictures shouldn't turn out. I'm happy if 1/3 of the shots I've taken are good, both technically and artistically.
You might be surprised. Be sure to use a good screen though.
He had bought another model of that series (3170). But anyway yours should be similar if not the same setup. I used:
l l ... but make sure to copy all icc profiles into /usr/lib/color (hardcoded in main.c ... I guess you can name some files to: scanner.icm, printer.icm and display.icm (if you have according inputs) ... but I way able to install some scanner icm's under different names and was able to select them anyway .exe .ic_ and rename the result to
:-)
/usr/lib/color so I have some kind of setup.
:-) ) to my dad and he just tossed it into /usr/lib/color (as root) and has not complained yet :-D
...
-SuSE 9.0 (distro does not matter)
-Gimp 1.2
- a matching sane along with xscanimage (though now used)
-iscan package installed and linked as a gimp plugin, from epkowa: http://www.epkowa.co.jp/english/linux_e/index.htm
-littlecms library from:
http://www.littlecms.com/
-gimp color management plugins from:
http://www.freecolormanagement.com/color/gimp.htm
(do not give a damn for the "alpha" status)
- grab some scanner drivers for Windows from the Epson site. The EXE Files are self extracting Zipe-Archives, so you can simple do an unzip
- look for the *.ic_ files
- install msexpand (package mscompress) from your distro (or from here: ftp://ftp.penguin.cz/pub/users/mhi/mscompress
- then do an expand
- alternative
+ if no *.ic_ files found, look for *.cab files
+ install cabextract from your distro (look here http://freshmeat.net/projects/cabextract/
+ look for *.icm file
- the file program should tell you that the icm-file is a:
# file Per317_r.icm
Per317_r.icm: Kodak Color Management System, ICC Profile
First I installed a icm for the scanner for prints mode and a seperate icm file for slides/negatives mode. Per317_r.icm for prints (r=reflective) and
Mine were Per317_t.icm (t=transparent) -- that made the most sense.
If you have access to a Windows Box or do run wine you can grab the following windows program (ran under wine pretty flawlessly):
iccinspect.exe from: http://www.littlecms.com/iphoto/inspect.htm (Open Source !)
This program enables you to closely examine the contents of the icm files. It prints shows all the stuff like vendor and color-space infos and whatnot
Second I scanned a picture with the scanner and applied the input icm to the scan with using the gimp (There is a command line tool for non-gimp users).
Then I adjusted my monitors settings, resulting in my setting the color temperature to 9300K since that resembled the picture the best.
I tossed in the Windows own icm file "sRGB Color Space Profile.icm" that I found under C:\Windows\system\color (Windows 98) as sRGB.icm and monitor.icm into
If you do have a disk with the correct icm file on it, use that file instead. Only use sRGB.icm if you want to exchange files with others.
Third I send a icm file for my dads printer (an epson
I keep on ignoring slight color glitches while working on the pictures since I beleive the correct colors will come out of the printer anyway
---------
There is plenty of more reference out there:
http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Library/Color/index.html
---------
But feel free to ask if nessecary.
Just curious .... why don't you get your stuff digitized at a local lab?
... if you go for negative prints it converts it to digital then goes from digital to silver-halide.
Even walmart will hand you a cd of your images. I'm not sure what the res is but it's very decent. It's because the new fuji instan lab digitizes everything
The Epson Photo series are not as crappy with slides as other flatbeds, thanks to their film holder, lamp built into the lid and ability to focus above the glass. Off course don't expect spectacular results either.
e x.html
Now the big problem is that standard linux tools (XSane and others) will get you really weird color out of film or slides. The solution (since you have an epson) is to use Epson IScan, which Epson actually publishes under the GPL:
http://www.epkowa.co.jp/english/linux_e/ind
The interface is pretty annoying, but at least if features some surprisingly smart auto-color correction for slides that vastly makes up for it.
It's called Macintosh
"What kind of professional uses a scanner made for home user to do professional work."
The kind who is struggling to get work done, despite having a shoe string budget. Might be a more common situation in an artistic field than in your line of work, so you may not recognize the phenomenon.
What's he supposed to do, just give up because he doesn't have the budget you'd like him to have?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
In that case, I would consider them unfit to perform the duties they're getting paid for because I agree that not laying out the money for the right tools is stupid when the job being done is being done for profit.
By the way, I am not a wedding photographer as some other responders in this thread might have thought. And I also meant that most all of my pictures turn out like crap. Then again, because photography is merely a minor hobby of mine at this point and will probably never be professional, I know that my photos turn out like crap in part because I lack the right equipment: external flash equipment, different wider angle lenses, etc.
My father was a hobby photograph when i was a kid, but because prints were expensive back than, he made slides.
Now there are at least 3-4000 slides (im bad at guessing, its a whole shelf), all positive and framed, down in the basement. I want to get them somehow in the computer to prevent them from further degenerating.
Any tips about a cheap scanner than can scan framed slides, possible half-automatic (like a projector)? No super quality needed (the quality isnt there to begin with), just time saving...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
OK, we got it... Macs do Photo shit well. Point made. We don't need 500 of the same 'just get a Mac' posts. If he wanted to get a Mac I think he might've discovered that secret a couple years ago. How about some helpful person actually post their experience with the Linux tools they've used or maybe how to get the damn Epson Perfection line working in Linux (I'm using a 3170 though VMWare).
LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
I love my digital camera as well. One question for you since from judging from your site, you are more advanced and an amatuer photographer then me. Do you use a lot of the cameras "auto" features or play with the settings? Also, do you use the LCD display to frame a shot or the little view finder? I am really in need of an upgrade to my 3.2M camera and I am looking at some new models. However, I was wondering how effective the controls on a digitial can be vs. more advanced SLR's.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Especially for laptops, when you're not going to do much incremental upgrades- and repair is so much more expensive, Apple is competitive in price. Firewire comes standard with Macs- very useful for video. Macs have become much better value for hardware in recent years. Unfortunately they'll probably never shake the reputation of being pricey. Apple is going to hold onto its niche in graphic design, though- and will remain far ahead of linux for graphic/photo/video in the foreseeable future.
Instead of rehashing another holy war, can someone point us to an objective feature by feature comparison of the two apps?
.5 and .62 vs. an older Photoshop.
I did a couple of quick google searches looking for a feature vs. feature breakdown of the GIMP vs. Photoshop, I found only one. A very old one comparing Gimp
If there is a current upto date comparison / review can someone post it? It gets so old hearing PhotoShop is far superior to the GIMP, without any refernces to why. Or if there is a reference, it is usually something generic like: color manageent sucks in the GIMP or something like that.
-MS2k
Someone should mod this up. I use Bibble under Linux and love it. The only thing I really need now is Spyder color calibration support for Linux. For now, I just double check my results elsewhere.
As just about everyone has said - you need new equipment. You could also outsource the scanning. This would be incredibly expensive to do on a drum scanner, but you might look for someone to do Kodak ProPhotoCD scanning. What you need to know is how big a scan is required. If you only need 11x14 output a ProPhotoCD scan runs 4-5 bucks in NYC. If you need big sizes you need a Drum scan or equivalent. If you are doing this for clients you can out source, and save for a better scanner. Under Linux I don't know what to recommend. Under Mac I would say look at Creo flatbeds ( their newest model is $8500.00) of course, you should always, always ask the vendor if they have plans to support Linux, or better yet open source their drivers. I always ask. They always say no.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
You can share images between the boxes with a nice 100Meg (or 1Gig) network.
Linux may not be quite caught up to the Mac in the photo processing world, but with many movie studios going to Linux processing, recent versions of GIMP have gotten a pretty good boost and you're likely to see the really necessary color tools sooner than later. (( chances are that they're already out there, but just not in your average commercial distro like RedHat or SuSe, which cater to the more general user and don't take to distributing beta code)).
I wouldn't worry too much about the fact that much of the code that you'll probably end up working with on the Linux side is likely to be Beta/pre-release code. What the Linux universe calls "Beta" usually passes for second release in the commercial world (or best-of-class if it's coming out of Microsoft).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
get a minolta dimage scan elite 5400. it'll run you about $580, but you won't get better quality from anything else under about $1500 in my experience. wonderful little scanner that even an ameteur can afford.
Can the human eye distinguish betwen 24-bit and 16-bit color depth? For audio and the human ear version of this argument, I take the "yes" argument (depending on numerous factors, especially the high frequency quality of the source material), but I'd like to hear the argument for photo.
The way I understand the "RAW" argument is that it requires a conversion step -- which requires converting colors from one colorspace into another. There is nothing "missing" from the pallette on either side of the conversion, but the parameters involved in the conversion itself are open to interpretation, and the standardized process for converting happens to be encumbered by one or more patents, making this the sole domain of Adobe.
Now, if you want to talk "workflow", I'm sure you will find people who choose PS because that's where their experience lies, you will also find people who choose PS because it has a higher quality user interface. Again, for audio production, this can be a matter of opinion -- I prefer the workflow aspects of Magix to Cubase, for example, and the fact that one is a $100 program and the other is a $900 program doesn't enter into this evaluation. I don't doubt there are people who prefer working with GIMP. On the other hand, a co-worker whose specialty was graphic art, and who worked in a serious production environment, set me straight about just how many of the features of PS he actually used -- things that are supposed to be in that 'esoteric' featureset that 'nobody' uses more than a subset of? WRONG.
Then, I understood this from my years as a legal secretary -- the argument that people don't really use all the features of their wordprocessor, what a load of crap. There are folks out there who do indeed use pretty much every feature it's got.
Anyway, where was I? Oh, right, the argument between PS and everything else -- how much is based on technical arguments and how much is just hype? Which parts are due to intellectual property encumbrances, and which are due to the lack of participation in the development effort?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
We scan about 500 slides a week for our website, and invested 2 years ago in a Nikon Coolscan IV slide/film scanner. It was about $2000 but has been fantastic. We use it under Windows with the Nikon software and Photoshop. The quality is fantastic, thanks greatly to Nikon's ICE technology which removes scratches and dust. We also have the adapter to bulk scan, so we can pop in 50 slides and let it go for an hour.
The hardest thing about being "professional" is having to accept what wastes time and knowing the tools one really needs as opposed to the tools one actually has or can afford. If one is "in business", ie. employed, then there is no problem charging others so that one can eventually purchase the tools one really wants to use. In professional photography and video it means one of two computers: a. an SGI box or b. a G5 based Mac. Most people are going to go for the G5 both for themselves and their work; the interface as everyone knows is what makes the issue very simple. As the SGI and Mac are now both Unix systems, whatever runs on one Unix box pretty much runs on another that is IF one is also familiar with Darwin. The saavy user has effectively tripled the software available to him/her as there is more Unix software than any amount of Windows PCs on the planet. The Pros know this already. What may have been overlooked however was an article comparing 11 scanners in the October 2004 issue of MacAddict. The information there may prove helpful in developing an acceptable strategy.
Mitakuye Oyasin: Translation from Lakota Sioux, "We are all related."
I have the exact same scanner and encountered the same problem. Set the focus to 2.5mm above the glass. In SANE it's in the advanced settings. I corrected color issues by increasing brightness and contrast by the same amount until what I got from the scan matched the original. Good luck.
I use the PrimFilm 3650u Slide Scanner that I bought from Costco for $199. It has digital ICE(dust/scratch removal). I have sucessfully used it with Linux. I use it mostly to archive old negs, because I shoot mostly digital now.
I have a pretty solid workflow going on Linux for my Wedding Photography business, which includes scanning and/or capturing from digital camera, editing with the GIMP and other tools, burning to CD's, and posting to website album. I have most of this automated with scripts. Sure, it might be easier in windows, and frankly, you could probably purchase a high-end editing box with windows with the proceeds from just one or two weddings if that's your thing.
>IMHO Photoshop is much more intuitive to use.
Lots of money has gone into making that so.
Artists appreciate the workflow of Photoshop and that is no accident.
More money has no doubt gone into this one "detail" than all the people involved in the GIMP project, together, have ever seen in their lives.
I think it's important to keep this stuff in perspective. I also get tired of the way people *attack* the GIMP, as if it has done them some sort of harm, simply by existing. (You didn't contribute to that sentiment, but it's all over the place, and rears its head every time the topic comes up.)
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
> I know that my photos turn out like crap in part because I lack the right equipment: external flash equipment, different wider angle lenses, etc.
Bad tools can destroy a good picture. Good tools can enhance a good picture. Makign a good picture however does not depend on that. It depends on a good eye and good understanding of how it will translate onto the medium you are using.
A good photographer with a cheap camera will still make better pictures then a bad one with the best equipment money can buy, given the codnitions are within what the camera can handle.
Your tools must be good enough for what you try to do, but from that point on, your own capabilities are way more important.
I've gotten fairly good results from an Epson 2450.
It sucks for 35mm negatives, but if you are working with a decently large film size then the shortcomings in scanner resolution are much less of an issue.
It's not as sharp as any real film scanner, but unless you work soley in 35mm or APS then film scanners are disgustingly expensive.
"And if you were to make copy of an anlog photo, would you prefer to make a copy from an exising print, or reprint a new one from a negative."
See, I'd damned sure want to print from a negative, and I'd want to use subtractive filters, R-3 process, and I don't even know if this stuff *exists* anymore.
I'm old-school. WAY old-school. If it *matters*, in the fine-art sense, then I want to make my prints in the darkroom the old fashioned way.
If it's not fine-art, then most of the argument goes out the window for me -- good enough means DONE.
I don't believe the notion of "professional photographer" has been defined well enough. Sports, news, wedding, and fine art photographers all have different needs.
I do understand the need for clarifying imperfect images in various domains. I'm more of an audio pro (semi-pro musician), and I got out of photography in the late 1970s. I'm quite sure if I got back into photography, I would use strictly high-contrast black&white film, so maybe I should stay out of discussions like this.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
(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)."
A transparency adapter on an Epson 2400 or most other consumer scanners will not give you acceptable quality, not under Linux and not under Windows. If you want low-cost slide scanning that is of reasonable quality, your best bet is to put a slide adapter on a digital camera. But the only way to get good slide scans it to get a slide scanner.
For color correction, LCMS is a good bet. You can calibrate it using a digital capture of an image with known colors on (the SCARSE package helps you with that). Don't expect hand holding: you actually have to know what you are doing in order to use LCMS. The good news is that it is an excellent and flexible CMS and that batch processing is easy. (You can get a plugin for LCMS for the Gimp, but that is probably not the best way of using it.)
Getting good scans of slides is a lot of work, on any platform. Every slide will take some manual work to post-process. That's why commercial slide scanning costs so much money. One big area is dust and scratch removal, which is why scanners with automatic dust/scratch removal are so popular.
Note that the big strength of Linux is the large number of powerful and high-quality image processing software available for it (in particular, scientific image processing), and the way you can easily combine that software through scripting. A good place to start is to look for image-related packages on your Linux distribution (Debian has pretty good coverage).
>Plenty of people certainly have.
I've never seen that, but okay. What gets me is the air of outright *hostility* that I perceive to be against GIMP.
As if some harm is being done by its very existence. This goes beyond snobbery -- look at the subject of this thread.
Successful professionals shouldn't *need* a free alternative. On the other hand, if they see a shortcoming in a piece of FOSS software that could scratch their itch, they should be more inclined to contribute to the project than to speak in hostile terms against it!
That goes for any industry. DBAs shouldn't complain about the missing features in MySQL, they should fix it. Sysadmins should not bitch about what they don't like in the Linux TCP/IP stack, they should join the project team. And so on.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
...although we have an SE 30 sitting in the lounge that hasn't. OS X doesn't seem prone to bitrot at all. Apple at its worst is far, far wetter than Microsoft's wettest dreams as far as system stability goes.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Being Admin in Graphics Industry, one thing i've learnt, to scan slides you need a.) either a really high quality film scanner(they cost a bit more that average person might imagine) or b.) you need a drum scanner(which still is $$$$) Tranperency adapters just don't cut it. We've used scans from film (using drum scanners) and printed 40x28 Sheets ...without problems. In the end it might not really be a linux related issue...be it OS 9, WinNT4 or OS X or Win XP, Photoshop etc. are still stage 2. Stage 1 is get a high quality scan.
On the plus side, there is colour management available on gimp.
I am at loss with words...
Digital photography can be done very well with Linux. At least since Bibble-Labs has released their "Professional Raw Workflow software" for Linux.
I have been using Bibble 4.0 quite some time now and the results and it's speed are amazing.
Gimp is a nice program, but if it comes to RAW images, Bibble can save you much time.
See http://www.bibblelabs.com/
Bibble 4.1 LE costs 69$ more than the free Raw converter "dcraw", but hey, if you can afford a professional digital camera...;-)
So your claim "Until GIMP receives more power (features, interface) under the hood, or Adobe or Jasc start porting their products, professional photographers CAN'T use Linux" may have been true some months ago - but today Linux is very usable for "professional photographers".
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.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Don't use a scanner! The resolution for slides will just plain suck.
If you're a professional photographer, get a pro grade digital camera with as many megapixels as you can afford. There are some great high-end cameras out there now.
Get one that uses interchangable lenses (pro grade). Buy a MACRO lens and make your own extension for it. Use a tube (flat black on the inside) and mount a slide carrier to one end. Mount the other to the Macro lens. Be sure there are no light leaks!
Now you can photograph your slides with your digital camera. You can alter the light by using the sky and clouds as a back drop or just use any color-temp light you want for slide illumination. Many over/under exposed slides are easily corrected. Also, if you made it right, you can adjust the macro setting and crop your slides.
It's easy to make, cheap and yields great results!
Then use GIMP or whatever. BTW, XV is great at color balance shifting and runs great on Linux. It's an older program but copies still are found in various linux/unix distros.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
To me it sounds like he's an amateur photographer who is just starting to experiment with digital. It's quite possible that the mediocre quality of The GIMP would suffice for him. Perhaps all he knows about colour management is "use Velvia". Further, it seems that his scanner is working with Linux.
It actually sounds like his hardware is the problem. He's got a cheap scanner with a slide adapter, and it gives him blurry results. If the results are blurry, you should try software first. Check that you are scanning at realistic resolution. If the scanner resolution is too high, drop the scanner resolution or downsample. Using that scanner with slides, that won't be a problem. If the scanner resolution is ok and the results are a bit soft, an unsharp mask should fix them. You can do that with The GIMP just as well as you can with Photoshop.
More likely he needs to invest in some decent hardware in order to make the setup work to his satisfaction. Windows or a Mac might be necessary, but solve the first problem first. If he isn't a pro, he might be able to use Linux for this.
Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult;
whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse.
--Proverbs 9:7
In 1999 I bought a Hewlett-Packard PhotoSmart PhotoScanner, which could scan slides and negatives. Results were generally pretty good, especially for landscapes and the like, but contrasty slides gave it trouble. I had a slide of my niece taken in late afternoon in the front garden, and when scanned, it looked like she was spotlit in the middle of the night.
That HP scanner, the best I could afford at the time, had a Dynamic Range (DR) of 3. DR is like contrast; the higher the DR, the more detail the scan will show in highlights AND in shadows. Apparently it's a logarithmic scale, so a DR of 3.2 or 3.3 is much better than 3.0. Some transparency scanners offer a DR of 4.0 or greater, so other things being equal, look for those models.
You should have great results with a good Nikon, or something like the Minolta DImage Scan Dual IV (the latter should be less than US$500).
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
There's no replacement for a slide scanner.
Can I have my karma now?
When a thing has been said, and said well, have no scruple. Take it and copy it. --Anatole France
As I indicated above, I didn't investigate it that closely. However, Scribus does have some kind of color management system, so it might provide the functionality as far as color management goes that the poster is looking for. I dunno...maybe not...it's the only thing I could find that had to do with color management other than the GIMP.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
no, i meant canon RAW files (.crw). this is the data as the camera's sensor recorded it.
each type of digital camera requires different processing on the raw data to form a TIFF or JPEG image. not just between different brands, but even between model's in a manufacturer's lineup.
is there software available on the linux platform that has the capabilities of something like Phase One's Capture One?
without a good RAW converter, pros who have made the jump to digital and who have seen the light of shooting in RAW mode will not use Linux for their workflow.
SIGUSR1
... use Linux, though.
Dog is my co-pilot.
It's the most advanced equipment for this purpose.
you had me at #!
The only reason I don't use Linux for photos is that there is no version of Breeze Browser for Linux (or even macs). Breeze Browser will allow you to do Lossless Auto Rotation on your photos. For those of you not in the know, many digital cameras have orientation sensors so the camera knows if it is being held in portrait or landscape orientation. The camera writes this plus a whole lot of other information to the EXIF header information. Breezebrowser uses this to auto-rotate the photos and save them losslessly. If we could get image magick to do this, I would be able to run linux on my computer and be much happier.
Another interesting thread modded down by the slashdrones. I was able to read your reply because I had Troll multiplyer at +5. Sure it gets alot of the goatse, gnaa's, and first posters, but to me your post is "insightful"
I have been a pro wtiter/photog since 1990, and am now managing editor of a high-quality "slick" magazine. I can tell you from experience (past and current) that:
- You will never get satisfactory scans from a flatbed scanner with tranparency adapter. You *must* have a dedicated slide scanner.
- If you are serious about image processing, you need a Mac. We use Macs exclusively for image processing, layout, mock-up, and final production before uploading to the printer. PCs are okay for amateur photo processing, but at the pro level, Mac is the only way to go.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
They use Linux in the back room to render and do 'heavy muscle' jobs. They certainly don't have their designers sitting at Linux desktops to do the editing and what-not.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Please do nag to the creators of those software packages for a linux-version.
Linux can do it, it just lacks the right software to be ported to it.
I'm looking for a way to make the most of my Epson Perfection 2400 with transparency adapter
Ha. I laugh. This is akin to saying, "I want to play this great new Half-Life 2, and need to know what I need to do to my 233mhz Pentium with 64 megs of ram and a tnt2 to get good frame rates." It's just not going to happen.
Flatbed scanners with transparency adaptors are useless for anything serious. They might work spectacularly for your 640 x 480 powerpoint slide show, but for anything involving printing pictures you need a dedicated high resolution slide scanner. If you have quite a few slides you need scanned, pay someone with the correct equipment to do it. Wal-Mart's a good place for low resolution slide scans, and places like gemega will give more resolution than you'll ever need for a higher price.
Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
I have an Epson Perfection 2400 as well, and for some reason xsane does a really bad job at scanning slides with it. The slide-scanning software I use under Linux is called "iscan", which is distributed by Epson at the following web site: http://www.epkowa.co.jp/english/linux_e/dl_scan.ht ml. The user interface sucks compared to xsane's, but it does a much better job at scanning negatives and slides. By "much better", I mean "not as sucky".
I agree but /. !!!
Antarctic bird.....geesh dude, this is
Here you go...
Raw Digital Photo Decoding in Linux
without a good RAW converter, pros who have made the jump to digital and who have seen the light of shooting in RAW mode will not use Linux for their workflow.
Why not? There are products available for Linux to handle RAW files.
$ exiftran -ai *.jpg
*thwap*
You are used to one particular toolchain: RAW conversion with lots of adjustments, black-box hardware color calibration, lots of features in Photoshop. Linux doesn't provide exactly what you are used to.
But that's not the only way to work, nor are your applications the only digital imaging applications. While the Macintosh is probably a convenient platform for your needs, many of the features that make it convenient for you also make it quite cumbersome for other purposes. Linux imaging is the way it is not because people haven't gotten around to making it like the Macintosh, it's the way it is because it serves its user communities (which includes a lot of scientists and engineers).
And even though the Macintosh gives you more convenience and handholding out of the box, it is not hard to do professional digital imaging on Linux: you basically have all the calibration, processing, and editing tools you need for day-to-day work, at a fraction of the cost and with full source code availability (meaning, you can modify it to suit your needs or improve it), you just need to spend a little more time initially figuring out how to use it all.
Ouch!
Also, my aging Olympus E-10 doesn't have any internal sensor that I'm aware of, so I unfortunately have to manually rotate my photos. With Linux, this is easy to do losslessly:
"jpegtran -rotate 90 *.jpg"
Seriously- I bought a Nikon Coolscan 4000 off ebay for 500$. Slide adapter- comes free. Bulk feeder- 280$ - 390$.
I used to work for Kodak. I know CM (Colour Management). I also know you've got to pony up to get to at least a basic level of hardware that is capable of doing something.
Tell me, honestly, how is an Operating System going to affect how sharp your slide scanner is? Really- THINK ABOUT IT. One has NOTHING to do wit h the other. If you can't get sharp scans off your slide scanner, ebay it, throw it out, and stop wasting your time and buy something worth it.
Trust me, you won't regret it.
I wrote imaging chains for Drum scanners (8000lpi) and custom chains for other scanners, but they all had one thing in common: They were good pieces of equipment to begin with.
Once you have a good, consistent scan, the CM is actually pretty easy- but come on back when you've got a good piece of equipment.
i said they wouldn't use linux "without a good RAW converter". thanks for the pointer ;-).
SIGUSR1
Please leave the Macintosh its market niche so that after Linux crushes Windows there will still be a place for Apple fanbois.
I would agree with your assessment. However, if Linux is to ever become equally viable, there has to be a start to work up to this. Linux certainly is further along today than where Windows and Mac based applications were many years ago; it simply has more catching up to do. That won't happen if everyone avoid Linux. What you'll see, if Linux is to progress to be an equal, is those who really have a big preference for Linux over the others will be the first to go, and provide the feedback to improve it. Later, those with lesser preference will join in. And if all goes well, everyone will have an equal choice. Then there is always the possibility that Linux could pull ahead (it is ahead in some areas, now, which may be important to some photographers).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I know someone who needed to do this same thing. They rented a slide scanner from their local university. This may be your best option, linux or not.
Colin Jaccino
"Prepping images for printing or submition... looking at a recent folder, 1-2 minutes per image, I'd say that's not bad."
That's not bad at all. That's actually quite impressive - I allot 5-15 minutes per image, adjusting levels, color balance, saturation, etc, which is where the GIMP slows me down, considerably. But then - I tend to do more low-level (University) advertising, where the only images that are used have to be absolutely perfect; not just resized/stamped. I also tend to shoot without strobes, meaning noise, color casts and deep shadows are daily friends. That said - you're definately one of the first pros I've seen weigh in fully on the linux side (though many dual-boot).
I'm also pleasantly surprised to see Bibble is Linux-ready...it seems some things have changed since I last upgraded my computer...much to ponder...
In Korea, only old cops are hetrosexual... damn it, I just can't get on this bandwagon thing! Throw me a frickin' bone, people!
fish and pipes
I work in aa photo lab that targets high in pro-sumers and pros. If you are anything like these folks, I can't imagine you're expecting to get a high quality scan off of that scanner. It just isn't physically possibly UNLESS you are scanning medium or large format transparencies. And even then it is hit and miss. What kind of work are you doing? It obviously can't be that "pro" if you are willing to settle for a flatbed scan. I am in the middle of a huge scanning job at the moment, around 20,000 slides, and we are using a Nikon Cool Scan 4000ED with the bulk slide attachment (which is a gigantic piece of shit btw, it jams more often than a public toilet). I find it somewhat amusing that people suggest using Linux with this scanner. Thats like owning a 6 gear Corvette but only driving around in 4th gear. Digital ROC, ICE, and GEM are the main points of owning this scanner. They can take a shitty, damamged negative or slide and make it into a flawless scan if you know how to use it correctly. It doesn't make sense to spend $2,000+ on this scanner and NOT use those options. You are much better off getting a Dimage or other scanner that costs less and doesn't have these bells and whistles.
My trusty old 2 megapixel Nikon Coolpix can scan slides at lightning speed using a slide holder attachment that sits on top of the lens. The close focusing ability of this digicam makes it a great slide scanner.
Then its just a matter of taking the CompactFlash card out of the camera and into your Linux box's card reader.
C'est la guerre!
I think the negative feeling comes from people touting the GIMP as if it is just as good and sometimes better than Photoshop. This usually comes from people who lightly use both in their spare time.
The GIMP is not as good as Photoshop. The interface is difficult and there are many professional features it lacks that Photoshop has. Then again, it's free. So you get what you pay for.
If you're a professional, you probably will have a better experience with Photoshop. And if you're a professional, the high cost of Photoshop is very justified.
I work for a professional photo lab and there are more than a few of our clientelle who would like to acheive top-notch quality at Goodwill prices. Just doesn't work. I would also voice another vote for "Don't use Linux." Of our hundreds of clients, not one uses Linux. I doubt most have even heard of it. There is also a large portion who go out and spend shit loads of cash on new systems and cameras with the full expectation that that will make them a "Professional Photographer," and then blame the lab for poor results. We are not allowed, alas, to tell them if you give us shit, you get shit back.
As linux has it's place, I must ask why you are using it rather then OS X. I'm a commercial Photographer by trade(and choice;)) OSX supports great slide scanners a cheap prices--but slides are out dated too...
It does look like there's not an OSS driver that's known to work with the i9900. That's too bad. However, turboprint may work for you...it's moneyware, but if you're currently using Windows you should be used to that. Anyway, that printer is supposed to be fully functional with that driver, so maybe that removes that last barrier for you.
I hope so. It would be nice to see more people in these desktop intensive industries pick up Linux. I'm not deluded at all about the nubmers; I'd imagine we're lucky to have a tenth of a percent of pro photographers......but if you've got the inclination and a bit of time, there's really not a lot holding you back any more.
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
To be harshly realistic, even the highest resolution scans are lower quality than they would be if I had a $500 dedicated film or slide scanner, and everything requires some color correction, but these are headed for the web, or casual printing, not publication in any sort of consumer magazine. As placeholders and comping they would be useful.
I've done a ton of color management under MacOS for a while now. Apple tends to lead/support some of the best color management technologies. Their "ColorSync" framework makes synchronizing color reproduction possible across multiple devices and applications.
But, considering the massive complexity in getting color right, I'd be somewhat afraid to make the process any more complicated than it already is. (by switching my color critical machines to Linux or Windows.)
I have to give a favorable mention to VueScan. It is a great piece of scanning software that supports a multitude of scanners and is available for linux. http://www.hamrick.com/vsm.html
Scanning may have deficiencies compared to Mac, but AFAIK, Hollywood is quite picky about image quality.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
Lot's of people in this thread are saying that chead flatbed scanner are really bad for scanning slides. I have a pile of a few hundreds 5x7 family pictures I would like to scan eventually. Budget is very limited, and Linux support is a MUST (no Windows here). I don't necessarily need pro-level or prepress quality, but the nicer the better. I thought about either a Canon CanoLide 20 or 30, as they are cheap and well supported in Linux. How well should they fare ? Any other suggestions ?
:wq
Be that as it may, I think the original poster answered his own question with this:
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
So why is this discussion about operating systems?
The way I see it, the os is a tool. Moral and philosophic arguments aside, I think someone should use the operating system that best suits the needs that they have. If Linux isn't able to provide a platform that easily allows you to do your work, then you should probably consider buying a liscense for Windows or buying a Mac. Linux excels on many fronts, but I don't see professional digital photography as one of those. Often, there are some industry standards that clients or customers will expect you to adhere to, whether it be file formats or color management systems. In the end, a computer is simply something that allows you to do work or create something that would not otherwise be easily and/or quickly possible. If you take out the making things easy and quick, then the computer really loses its usefulness.
SIGFAULT
FreeBSD [a la Darwin] with Aqua on top.
A.K.A. "Mac OX X"
How would running color calibration software in WINE work out? Has anyone really worked something out with this (sort of like the drivers for wireless cards)? I have no problem doing graphic work on Linux, especially if I'm using WINE since many 3d software works under WINE with very little problems, and so does Photoshop (though, I don't use it anymore ever since I started getting used to GIMP). Color calibration is the only thing that really bothers me.
since you obviously know way more about this sort of thing than i do, i only have one point. buggy drivers are common in linux and can make any fine piece of hardware perform like a very crappy piece of hardware. i would imagine its a least a possibility in this case. i also think maybe the point was that linux just doesnt have the support in the form of drivers and imaging software. i could be way off, that is just my take.
use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
Where I'm from, professionals use professional equipments - from cameras to lens to light detectors to scanners to color-management gadgets to printers and so on.
That is, if you are a true pro.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Sorry to tell you this but you are not a professional photographer. You have hacked together a really low-end solution for what you want to do using the crappiest hardware and software combinations you could find.
Invest in a slide scanner.
Invest in a monitor calibration device such as a spyder.
Get a mac or windows machine.
Get Photoshop.
Then you'll have the tools. Until then you'll be stuck with sub-par solutions and consequently your work will suffer for it.
I think, therefore I am an Atheist.
I'm guessing you've never used dcraw. It discards most of the information present in the raw file (so forget about white balance, exposure information, using the proper colorspace, etc). And for 16bpc NEF images the output is messed up.
Buggy drivers? Hardly. Incomplete drivers, at times, yes... But hardly "buggy".
And yes. There's only so much that you can get out of a consumer-grade scanner, bo matter how much you' like to blame the OS.
Oh, you mean plugins like script-foo and all that come with GIMP and just work? If it works, it's exactly what the guy needs, why discourage the attempt?
It may very well be worth modification of the software and special hardware to the author, but we can be sure that less effort will be required. He's got thousands of slides, so obviously lots of time and little cash. Those slides just as obviously mean a lot to him. The worst case scenerio is that he has to set up an old distro on a dedicated partion to make this thing work. That's not a big deal. The best case is that this project has not been modified for five years because it works as is.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
They use Linux in the back room to render and do 'heavy muscle' jobs. They certainly don't have their designers sitting at Linux desktops to do the editing and what-not.
That was true in 1997, but where have you been since then? Linux is used on the desktop, for heavy duty graphics workstation applications by a number of special effects firms. These companies basically demanded that the vendors port the apps to Linux, and they did. Feel free to do a google search and check it out.
Let me preface my response by saying that I do not consider myself a professional photographer. Nor am I an expert on Linux. I base the first part on less than half of my income is derived through sales related to photography. My experience with the use of Linux is that of a novice home user interested in select programs.
While I join the many others that recommend your spending money to upgrade equipment and software I understand that this is currently not an option available. The solution I present is a process that I used in the past when I was limited to a flatbed scanner for my slides; and that I continue to use today for 4x5 transparencies and negatives. What I found from my use of the flatbed scanner was the plane of focus for the scanner was the top of the glass. Slides in their mounts would always be out of focus being that the mounted transparency was higher than the plane of focus. To get sharp scans I would take the mount apart and would lay the transparency directly on the glass. This was fine for focus but the color was still jacked. I decided one day that the color of light emitted by the transparency adapter was the wrong kelvin and switched to the light box I use. I would position four caps from film canisters on the scanner glass to act as posts and lay my cabin light box on top of the caps. For the larger transparencies I would also use a piece of optically clear glass that I would place on top of the transparency or negative to flatten the curling media.
Now having said this, I spent an inordinate amount of time and energy cleaning the glass on the scanner and my piece of clear glass to keep the images as dust free as possible. When I could afford to I picked up a used CanonScan FS2710 on ebay for $30.00 and use that with Fedora Core 2, XSane, and Gimp to scan in the 35mm transparencies. The film scanner is not supported under XP so the Linux option was the best available. When I can afford to I will be upgrading the film scanner again to something that will support scanning the larger film media.
Another option you may try is using a slide copy attachment for a digital camera and shooting against a light box.
Good Luck
So try Bibble then. Same professional quality, workflow and Speed as the Mac and Windows versions. Workflow is fully color maanged, preserves Exif, Allows for custom WB among other things. Details at: http://www.bibblelabs.com/ Eric Eric
"People touting the GIMP as if it is just as good and sometimes better than Photoshop."
:-)
This is where my argument begins, though. I see no evidence of people 'touting' this, especially not the GIMP developers.
At the most, I suspect people are recommending GIMP as an alternative to spending a thousand bucks or whatever, just to rotate and crop and blend colors and put titles on images and so forth.
And judging by the professional photographers I've known, that kind of money isn't often seen all at one time
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Can you use linux for digital photography, yes you can. Can you get the best results using linux? No, you can't. The fact is most, if not all, drivers for photographic equipment are written for windows and macs.
I'm sure that a determined amature could push the limits under linux and get acceptable results, but they will not be as good as under windows. My current photographic printers are the Canon i9900 and Epson Phto R300. Both of them us very complex drivers to get their photographic outputs. Both of these printers do professional level prints that would be unavailable without the dedicated drivers.
I don't know of any camera manufacturer that makes linux drivers ether I know there are none available for my Nikon D70 or Sony DSC-828. Without these drivers you can't talk to the camera through the built in USB ports. Of course there really is no reason to do so. Everyone that is serous about photography uses an external card reader instead of hooking up their camera right to the computer. Hell, I've never hooked ether of my camera's up the any computer.
Gimp is a fine tool for what it does. But trying to use it for professional level work woudl be very fustrating. I is an excellent graphics program but it is no where near the level of Photoshop CS. Anyone who says it is simply doesn't know how to use photoshop or has no clue what they are talking about.
Photoshop also supports a wide range of 3rd party plugins too. These plugins are not going to be available under linux. For most among these plugins are ones that let you read and manpulate RAW camara images. Simply put, with out the abliltiy to use RAW images you will be limited to JPEGS, limiting the most powerful features of these cameras. There are some GNU plugins for some cameras but most of those are limited in the scope of what they can do.
In short, you can use linux but true professional level results will not be available to you.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
and how that applies to graphic design, i have no idea.
yes, maybe for special effects, but no, in graphic design its macs everywhere. I dont just google it, I live it.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
A little program called Photoshop. And a larger program called Windows XP.
To put this in terms non-photo geeks might understand:
Under Linux (using xsane), my epson perfection 1240u has a 'Focus Position' option you need to set for slide scanning. The choices are "Focus on Glass" and "Focus 2.5mm above glass" I think you need the later option to scan slides. The settings are under the "advanced options" window.
;)
I have noticed that I get much better high-resolution scans by scanning a photo instead of a negative or slide. I think it's more-or-less a limitation of the scanner. At high resolution, it seems to suffer from a prism effect from the optics (whether or not it is in slide mode). On the other hand, I think my epson is a bit older than yours, so this might not be as much of an issue on your model.
As for color correction, etc (mentioned by other posts), I haven't had any particularly bad problems under Linux. Granted, I'm not a professional photographer, but if I really care about color matching, my printer driver / scanner driver allow for manual calibration. So far, the defaults are "good enough" for me. At any rate, I don't think color correction will fix blurry scans.
Still, you won't hear me complain when it works out of the box under Linux.
Why are most hung up on the "Well if your scanner produces blurry images, it doesn't matter what OS you got" argument?
To me, it's only a potential part of the problem. Switch the argument around. Say you have a $1,000,000 scanner and an OS which cannot cope with proper CM. What then? It's the same thing.
The main issue here, as I see it, is linux. Not the scanner he is using. The issue is that linux isn't adequate enough to handle a professional photo workflow.
Do you think prefessional are just talking out their a*ses when they say Mac and even Windows and Photoshop is superior to solutions on linux? No they aren't.
What we have among certain people is a rabiate "you must use linux" mentality. No matter the cost. Windows and Mac is evil and linux is the salvation that will embrace us all in a warm blanket of free minded spirits.
The heaviest argument for me however is whether things are working or not. Period. Doesn't my digital workflow work on linux? Well, then I use Mac or Windows. Simple as that.
I won't be dictated to what OS to use by someone who blatantly refuses to really understand where I'm coming from and my needs.
Don't get me wrong here. I don't really like Microsoft, I swear over it constantly. I use tons of open source software. I love it. I love to contribute, experiment and whatnot.
Sometimes you have to compromise however, the world isn't just black and white.
If you can't get good results with that, I doubt if any thing else can help you.
Dr. Freud
Technology meets Transportation.
I've found that VueScan (not Free software, but it does work under Linux and there is an edition that costs nothing) gives good results, and the multi-scan feature is especially good. However, there are two problems with using Linux downstream from that point. Firstly, the GIMP doesn't support colour depths greater than 8 bits, while my slide scanner produces 14 bits of colour depth (or 8 if you don't want 14). It's a shame to have to throw away those extra 18 bits of information per pixel.
Having said this, Photoshop Elements has the same limitation, though I'm sure that the premium Photoshop product does not. The Nikon scan tools don't. I use Photoshop Elements but not GIMP. The reaon why is a bit hard to pin down but it comes down to usability. The layering and selection tools in Photoshop Elements are more suited to doing photo manipulation than the ones in GIMP. Also, if you have a complex selection, Photoshop Elements is noticably more responsive on Windows than GIMP is on Linux on the same hardware. GIMP isn't actually sluggish, but PhotoSchop is more responsive and hence certainly easier to use.
I use Linux for exerything else (except a few bits at work) and I wish this wasn't true, but I find that Windows is indeed a better platform for photo work. That's ignoring the whole area of printing, too. Finding a printer that produces high-quality results which works under Linux is easy; finding one that the vendors still sell is much harder. I don't have a lot of time to devote to that search, so I haven't bought a printer yet.
In fact, I wish there were businesses that would sell "Lilnux compatible" hardware. I wouldn't look for support, and I'd pay a premium. I'd just like to be able to buy stuff from someone who can say "I got it to work with Linux".
Lasersoft Imaging AG's Silverfast is probably the most significant player in imaging software for PC's
http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/en.html
All they offer at this point is stuff for Windows and Mac.
I spoke with their N. American people asking about Linux support, and they said there had been few requests for Linux versions.
I asked where one should enquire, and they suggested that email request should be sent to:
info@silverfast.de
Maurice W. Hilarius Voice: (778) 347-9907
If you do heavy number crunching, this isn't much.
If you do 3D rendering, that's about "reasonable".
If you play games, you use Windows anyway.
In most other cases, this setup is overkill. Certainly overkill for scanning images and editing photos.
You can find a Mac that costs as much and does the task of editing photos way better than your Linux box - with less "horsepower" but with better dedicated software.
It's like saying "No way I'm getting a truck to move the furniture, trucks just can't go as fast as my Ferrari" and keep lugging your desk on top of your Testarossa. Using right tools for right tasks, dual P4 running Linux may go faster and be cheaper, but it wasn't made for some tasks.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
All Bibble is good for is a raw converter. I've tried it before; and while it does deal with raw images well I wasn't impressed with anything else it could do (or its stability for that matter). Doesn't change the fact that anything else in the image processing chain will likely trash that data and won't work with 16bpc images.
Uhh, wouldn't taking the pictures with a digital camera instead of making slides in the first place just cut it?
The only reason for using analog camera+slides+slide scanner is its far superior quality over any digital camera available on the market today.
Single-use chemistry of the slide provides much higher resolution, much better color matching at similar or better speed, as any digital medium. The problem is there ARE digital sensors that CAN provide better quality than chemical film. But they are slow. You can't catch a moment, make a still photo of a moving object using such a sensor, before it has the image, the object will be long gone. But you can make a chemical photo and then use the sensor to transfer data from the photo... taking enough time to retain the quality - in a scaner.
Anagram("United States of America") == "Dine out, taste a Mac, fries"
Firstly 99% of people probably don't need photoshop CS, and gimp is much more suited to them than photoshop CS is anyway. Gimp (version 2 and above at least) is easier to use and much cheaper than photoshop CS. This 99% of people is the photoshop elements market, and gimp beats photoshop elements hands down on most things (mainly because it has a `levels tool' [don't know if this has been added to elements 3]). Elements just has too many things missing.
For the other 1% of people, gimp does just not cut it. My main reasons for using photoshop are that it handles 16-bit per channel colour, colour calibration is easier and the workflow from the in-built file browser (which browses raw format files) through editing to printing is much smoother than with gimp. Gimp does do this at a push, but it is a struggle. Also adjustment layers are a dream (I don't know if these have been added to gimp recently). As I said before, most people don't need these features, but most Pros probably do. To finish, one place where gimp wins is on the channel mixer, where it is possible to lock the overall brightness level as you mix to monochrome. Photoshop CS is currently missing this feature. :)
Keep your programs tidy.
Exitzero.
I believe gthumb also does lossless JPEG rotation.
/
Ade_
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
Ack, so many flames... Let me tell you what I use to process photos under Linux (not professionally).
:-) Or stop obsessing over it. A decent scan gets you close anyway.
/
First, either buy a better flatbed or get a film scanner. Even the low end film scanners are decent for 35mm (e.g. Minolta, Benq); try eBay for secondhand.
Second, buy VueScan - it's worth the money.
Third, blast your slides with compressed air and wipe with an antistatic cloth prior to scanning; this should remove most of the dust.
If you're going to scan at 2700dpi or higher, reckon on 512Mb RAM and at least an Athlon XP or equivalent Intel CPU, otherwise doing anything with the output files will take aeons. On a lower spec, try halving the output file resolution in VueScan, which gives a better 1350dpi image than one natively scanned at that res. With some cleaning up, you can get away with 10x8" prints from this.
Colour management problems: this isn't going to help you but - shoot black and white.
The GIMP works fine for the minimal set of manipulations you need, namely cloning out dust, levels adjustment, maybe some minor tweaks in curves and finally some unsharp mask. Read the GIMP Guru tutorials or GIMP FAQ to learn how to use it better (grab John Hall's scripts from the latter site too - the smart sharpening one is excellent).
Where the GIMP falls down is the lack of 16 bit image handling. Without this, extreme curves manipulations tend to produce evident posterisation. If you're desperate, you can try doing the contrast adjustments in CinePaint (flaky and limited but it just about works) and then writing out an 8 bit file to finish off with the GIMP.
Alternatively, forget the GIMP and install the Crossover product to use Windows Photoshop under Linux.
On the printing side, most people talk about Epson but I've had good results out of the box from a recent HP Photosmart (particularly for B/W with their grey ink cartridge).
Summary: you can do this stuff under Linux if you learn to make the best of what's available and stop caring about what it doesn't support (the "don't worry, be happy" approach). Whether the results meet "professional" standards is arguable (but in my experience, most amateurs have no real clue what that requires, myself included).
Cheers,
Ade_
Big Bubbles (no troubles) - what sucks, who sucks and you suck
you can find it here It has native linux support. If you want a free product you can look at CinePaint
Get a free ipod.
Until Gimp actually supports more than 8 bits per color, it's useless to try and do some photo enhancement with it, the final quality will be much lower than with Photoshop.
I've done a lot of photo enhancement with the Gimp and it suited me perfectly at the time, but now that I've got a Nikon LS50, which scans at 14bits per color, I am forced to use Photoshop. I will happily switch back when Gimp solve this problem.
And I'm quite surprised to see someone who calls himself a "pro" wishing to scan his slides with a flatbed scanner... Even I as a pure amateur can understand that there is something very wrong there.
I have a 2400 and I get perfectly fine pictures. The trick is simply to use iscan for linux: get it here Using the standard xsane isn't good enough, unfortunately. But with iscan you'll get the full performance out of your Epson. Just make sure you follow the installation procedure.
My name is Kevin and I'm a professional photog and I use Linux. I shoot slides and digital and every now and then I shoot prints. I also found it difficult to do my workflow in Linux. I scan my slides with a Nikon Coolscan III and had all kinds of problems getting it to work correctly with Gimp. Having moved to Grand Cayman in March and now back to Atlanta since Hurricane Ivan crushed the island in September, most of my computers are somewhere on a boat coming back to the US. In the meantime I bought a PowerMac Dual 2.0 Ghz G5. I think I may start doing most of my workflow on this box. It's fast and well suited for digital photography. So far I haven't found a good package for managing my plethora of photos yet. iPhoto isn't even close. I manage over 15,000 shots. I used ThumbsPlus on the WinTel platform and am trying out iView MediaPro on the Mac. I haven't decided yet if it's going to work.
I run a high end post production house in NYC. I wish--in so many different ways--that there were solutions for high end imaging on Linux. But there just aren't. I've got thirty Macs in my shop. Have you any idea of the $$$ the business would save if we were not dependant on the apple platform? I have one linux box in house. Its a RIP from a company called Dalim that cost us damn near $40K. Its the single most stable piece of software I have ever even heard about. It has not gone down once in two years of 24/7 usage. My macs, on the other hand, have all crapped out at one point or another, for one reason or another. Not that we don't love macs! But I'd rather save the cash. Linux needs two things to be adopted in my industry: 1) an image processor that is either a photoshop port or MIMICS the user environment and fuctionality absolutely. 2) a graphically pleasing and elegant desktop environment. Retouchers are best thought of as creative types. If the work environment is ugly, they will bitch. Oh--windows is not an option for a variety of reasons. Mostly cost of maintenance. We tried. we also found the fastest windows box could not perform certain photoshop processes as fast as the fasted Macs. Plus we've had a couple of virus disasters with windows--even with some extensive network security. Windows seems to be the domain of home users who have a PC and want to get into photoshop without buying a new box.
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.
The only reason for using analog camera+slides+slide scanner is its far superior quality over any digital camera available on the market today.
That may be true for large format (5x4 and above) but digital has all but killed 35mm and medium format film in professional use.
A high resolution (>8MP) DSLR has replaced many medium format workhorses in almost any commercial studio where efficient workflow and fast turnaround is important - without sacrificing much, if any, quality.
Where quality is paramount, there are digital backs for MF cameras that offer staggering resolution (many times better than the best reveral films e.g. Kodachrome 25) - at a price.
Not many studios can afford a 5x4 digital back, let along a 10x8 one, so film is still king in these applications. This will change as sensor technologies become inevitably cheaper.
With respect, your assertion that wet-process photography offers a quality advantage over digital is out-of-date, except for a few (and ever diminishing number of) niche applications.
I have been a keen photographer (amateur and sometimes professional) for 20+ years and would never go back to wet process.
Bibble 4.1 on Linux has produced fantastic results for me.
But as a web professional who does digital, I just find that it's all irrelevant. I'm always blowing down, not up. I still need professional results with regard to lighting, color, composition, etc. But if the picture goes beyond 3 inches at 100dpi, it's BIG. I've come across some pretty cheap-ass cameras that produce images of good enough quality for production work in this area.
And while I'm griping about print photographers and their strange resolution requirements, I had to supply a headshot of myself for reproduction in a print program recently. I went back and forth with the graphics "pros" trying to get them a photo of sufficiently high resolution and quality for their requirements, but they were never satisfied. But when I saw the final program, it was printed on cheap newsprint with a low-quality screen, and the headshots were 1.5cm high! That's worse than the web! For crying out loud, people, know your medium! If you're working with shite, you don't need 8 megapixel images!
I bought it too and it is worth every penny. I still would be interested to know what made Bibblelabs go for a Linux version if Linux was not a promising market.
Wow, 1/3rd? Thats pretty good, I run about 5-10% keepers. But then I take a lot of 'just in case' pictures.
Yes, the scanner being used by the original submitter is junk (at least for getting semi-pro scans of slides).
A great film scanner (in addition to the Fuji mentioned by others) is the Nikon Super CoolScan. A refurbed unit can be had for under $1000. Although, I don't know if there are Linux drivers for it.
As for the workstation, a G5 iMac would work quite well for hobbyists. Mac OS X has the best "integrated" support for working with color - it even allows you to create a reasonably good colorsync profile for the monitor, without the need for extra equipment (colorimeter) or software.
jpegtran will do lossless rotations
I've used a low-end HP Photosmart slide scanner quite extensively. I was able to obtain very good results in the thousands of scans I did. They were not of a professional level, but suitable for what I wanted.
I have a good HP scanner at work, with a tranparancy adaptor. POS.
Moral of the story: Use something designed to do the job, not adapted to function.
e.g. Kodachrome, dedicated slide-scanner, photoshop, Mac.
It is a niche market. Live with it. The tools exist and cost money.
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 /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.
So, basically this is not your father's linux. I can and do deal with symlinks for fun and profit, but there's no need to do so on a modern linux desktop. But yeah, I remember the bad old days, when I had to tweak things by hand - let's see, should I make this symbolic link, or ditch it all and buy an apple? My decision turned out to be different from yours...
I had to waste my time putting this together, whereas someone at Apple just did this for me.
Yep. And now someone at Novell has done it for me. I'm glad you're happy with mac, and I hope you can accept that I'm happy with Linux.
I'm glad you're happy with mac, and I hope you can accept that I'm happy with Linux.
/Applications, and was done. I then downloaded my dotfiles from CVS and had to change one line in the path statement, and my shell (zsh) was working like it does on my Solaris and Linux accounts.
Dude, I've got some kind of masochistic whatever with this tread. Its amusing I guess.
The deal here is that it appears as though we are in some kind of Ford vs Chevy argument, but we are not. Its more like Ford or Chevy vs Porsche or Ferrari.
I mean really. There is not that much functional difference between Macs and Linux. As I have said, I've used Linux for a good while. I'm paid quite well to do it, and the same people bought me my PowerBook. I used Linux for my personal computer exclusively from 1997 until earlier this year. Before that I dual booted windows 95. I hated Macs up to OS X.
Lets compare my last laptop to my current one.
Old laptop. HP something. Came with XP on it, so I had to go and find a Linux CD and put Linux on it. Come to find out that that only a CVS version of X works on it after emailing with people at Intel about the video chipset on my laptop. I get the CVS version of X and compile it. Now I have violated the whole package management system (yes, I could have put this in a package, but whatever). Regardless of what kernel I tried or which ACPI patches I applied, power management and fancy stuff like knowing when my battery was going to die did not work. The modem never worked with Linux. Yeah, it wasn't really a modem, but rather a winmodem, but I guess I don't need a modem that bad in case of an emergency. I already said what I had to do with symlinks to get mobile network connectivity to work. The laptop never had a wireless card, and although its been a year or so since I've played with the CVS wireless stuff that did not work for 802.11a access points, that might be working now, but wireless does not seem to be Linux' forte either. Then I had to do something to get TTF fonts to work so X was bearable. I had to steal the ttf fonts from Windows. Then there was RPM fun, and tweaking, etc.
All that to get to a less than functional level of Windows that came with the laptop.
For my Mac, I basically turned it on, and within minutes I was downloading updates over my wireless access point that I had never used before. I installed fink to get some extra software that I'm used to using, and sudo apt-get installed away. I downloaded cool apps and either went through a simple installer or just DNDed the app into
What have I come to like about OS X? Printing is easy to set up and works nicely. The dialog boxes make sense. Something that Windows developers never got a hold of. For example, dialog boxes in Linux or Windows typically always have OK and Cancel buttons on them. On OS X, the save dialog says Save and Cancel or in some cases, clearly "Don't Save". The network stuff works. The wireless stuff works. Power management works. The terminal application is clearly the best I have every used. I was blown away when text that was wider than the screen would auto adjust when resizing a window -- something that annoyed me for years just went away. Drop shadows look nice and give a sense of depth between applications and windows. Widgets are uniform and nice looking in all apps. Keyboard shortcust are consistant between apps. Cut and paste works. DND works. Transparancy in windows is cool. Dual monitors just worked. The time is always correct. Expose is cool. Quicksilver is cool. I could really go on, and on. Its just a very professional, nice looking, and non annoying OS. Aside from the OS, the laptop itself is nicer than any laptop in the PC world has to offer. The keys are backlit. The battery has a battery level indicator on it. The power button shuts down the system cleanly. It sleeps and wakes up nice when closing the display. The display is nice. It auto adjusts according to ambien
Yeah, OS X can spell check in any text widget. Oh and take this example. You have this in a text box:
this stuff
You double click on stuff, it highlights the word. Now cut the text to the clipboard. You get:
this[ no space here]
Pretty slick.
How can you (or mister Zirinowsky or whatever the hell his name is) quantify the value of freedom?
That poor sod obviously got confussed between freedom of the code and price of the code to the end user.
Freedom is invaluable, a bit of my time devoted to obtain it is a fair price to pay.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Although OS choices are important, whatever gets the job done right is more important (for the moment).
As many others have mentioned, slide adaptors are poor. Nikon ls-2000 slide scanners are cheap on ebay and do a very nice job, especially when opting to take the time for 5-16 passes, and a multi feed adaptor is available for it.
For ultimate pro-grade quality on the cheap(er), consider buying a used drum scanner. They are labor intensive but worth it.
Firefox &
I second this. I've been using Bibble 4.1 on FC2 since shortly after it was released. No stability problems, and it is *way* faster than GIMP for similar edits.
While Bibble can't do layer operations, dodge/burn, and cloning like GIMP can, it can rotate, crop, sharpen, adjust levels, saturation, and EV. If you depend more on your camera for composition than your editor, Bibble will get you quite far in many cases.
The downfall of Bibble on Linux is that there isn't any good way to profile your monitor. Thinkgs like OptiCal (calibration puck) just aren't supported on Linux. So, even though Bibble supports ICC profile transformations, you can't get an accurate profile for your monitor under a Linux video driver. That pretty much ends the game before it begins.
I think usability of the GIMP is an excuse when it's in the context of interfaces, but anyone who thinks adjust levels in an 8bit color space is adequate has never seen an image adjusted in a 16 bit space. No more JPEG jaggies when I use Bibble.
GIMP is a fantastic tool, and I'd love nothing more than to use it exclusively. But until Xorg supports integrated color management, there's no point in GIMP having 16 precision. It's like trying to to precision machining with a tape measure.