radsaq
Leading Member
Just to add my experience, NeatImage runs pretty much perfectly under the standard distribution of WINE out of the box for me.
--
radsaq
http://thesaq.com/pics/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Linux and Post Production
- Thread starter digital ed
- Start date
--
radsaq
http://thesaq.com/pics/
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
but I love MS Exchange Server. As yet there is nothing even close in the Linux world (sigh).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
Ivan Ruskov
Well-known member
...but it depends on what you need. Most of them have Outlook connectors so for the end user they're not much more different than Exchange.
Check out Zimbra (it has a very nice Ajax web interface too):
http://www.zimbra.com/
Compatible with Windows and MacOSX, very nice project. There are others too (opengroupware, kolab, etc.), do a Google search and you'll find many.
Ivan
digital ed
Senior Member
I will also try.
Ed
Ed
Jay Turberville
Forum Pro
The main reason I stopped looking at Linux for our server is that I could find nothing like Vcom's Autosave for Linux. And I looked long and hard. There are things that sorta do it, but all of them seemed rather kludge-like to me.
I really wanted to avoid having to perchase Windows server and licenses. So I'm motivated but can't justify it.
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
Jim Ford
Senior Member
If it wasn't for Photoshop, for me Windows would have ended up in the bit-bucket years ago. It's allways a relief to get back to Linux - it's like going from a clapped out family saloon to a Porsche!
Jim Ford
Jim Ford
Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee
Veteran Member
I thought that I was one of a tiny minority. I use Ubuntu exclusively for the internet. I use Windows for some applications. I HATE Windows as it's been breaking my heart for years but I have to maintain some major programming I've done in DOS in my time.
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
--
Níor bhris focal maith fiacail riamh (Irish Gaelic)
A good word never broke a tooth.
Eugene Morozov
Well-known member
ufraw and gimp-ufraw versions in Ubuntu doesn't support Olympus RAW. I've compiled newer versions myself. This is easy but only for experienced Linux users.
There're other RAW converters though. And there's command-line dcraw that works but harder to use.
There're other RAW converters though. And there's command-line dcraw that works but harder to use.
Lawrence Plug
New member
Digikam supports Olympus RAW (providing a graphical front end to dcraw). It does single image and batch processing. Its in the ubuntu, and other debian, repositories:
aptitude install digikam
aptitude install dcraw
... should set it up.
I haven't compared all the image apps, but Digikam seems to have good organization functions (tags, date organization, etc) and supports uploading to flickr, Gallery 2, and syncronization of directories with Smugmug galleries. The latter is not really for a linux newbie, though, because it requires an external python script and use of the command line. Still, you can always use Smugmug's java uploader!
Digikam's color tools, BW converters, etc. seem decent. And the current beta version supports full 16bit colour! (see http://digikam.org )
I don't usually use KDE apps, but digikam is the exception.
cheers,
LJP
johno135056
Senior Member
Odd. I have the same ufraw version that comes in Ubuntu 6 and it opens my E-300 raw files. The later version may be needed for some of the later cameras though.
Lawrence Plug
New member
gimp-ufraw (also ubuntu 6) works with RAW from my E-1, too.
cheers,
LJP
cheers,
LJP
johno135056
Senior Member
I woudn't have expected quite as many Linux people around on a photography forum. But then maybe there something about Olympus that makes it a more natural camera choice for the type of person that would be into Linux. We could draw some analogies with 4/3 with it being a bit alternative and a ground-up design.
digital ed
Senior Member
I see others have replied. I have just installed the latest available UFRAW Umbuntu plug-in for Gimp and it opened my E-300 ORF with no problem. Haven't tried it on my E-1 and cz-8080 RAWs yet. Documentation says it will.
Ed
Ed
Eugene Morozov
Well-known member
Sorry, I should have mention it. Gimp-ufraw and standalone ufraw doesn't open E-500 RAW files.
Though command-line dcraw and digikam handle them fine. But I prefer Gimp for image manipulations tasks rather than digikam, which I use only for storage.
Though command-line dcraw and digikam handle them fine. But I prefer Gimp for image manipulations tasks rather than digikam, which I use only for storage.
Michael Meissner
Forum Pro
Yes, UFRaw has its own copy of dcraw in the sources, rather than using it as a command line facility, so you won't get new RAW support until the UFRAW author releases a new version, or unless you are used to doing a 3 way merge (there are only a few changes that the UFRAW author makes in dcraw to allow it to be linked in the image, so it is fairly easy).
radsaq
Leading Member
At least in Debian, the ufraw packages have been behind the releases of ufraw for months (so don't blame them
. However, recently a new version was finally packaged and put in Debian unstable, though it seems to have problems with E-330 RAW files, despite using an updated version of dcraw. (A mismerge by the ufraw authors?)--
radsaq
http://thesaq.com/pics/
Michael Meissner
Forum Pro
The Fedora extras version of UFRAW was at UFRAW version 4 (current version is 8.1). I just download the SRPM file and rebuild it for my system. I do have modify the yum.conf file so my yum upgrade doesn't upgrade UFRAW.At least in Debian, the ufraw packages have been behind the
releases of ufraw for months (so don't blame them
recently a new version was finally packaged and put in Debian
unstable, though it seems to have problems with E-330 RAW files,
despite using an updated version of dcraw. (A mismerge by the ufraw
authors?)
Louis_Dobson
Forum Pro
but I can never find anything that pushes. And that's essential for us and our clients.
I'm going to pack it in soon anyway, so it will be someone else's problem
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
I'm going to pack it in soon anyway, so it will be someone else's problem
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/
xandxor
Leading Member
Having used gimp/ufraw on linux as well as PS on windows (and previously on mac), I can say that Bibble pretty much kicks ass in the raw workflow department.
Since I spend 95% of my time adjusting the following: exposure, tonality/curves, colour/white balance, noise, sharpening, 'undistorting' and cropping, I find that Bibble handles this in the most elegant and integrated way. To do the same in gimp I'd need a zoo of scripts, some trial and error, and the interface is not nearly as interactive/instant as with Bibble.
In the few cases that I may need to edit some specific pixels (e.g. red-eye), the gimp has stepped up to the challenge. I do lament the lack of 16bit support, but, to be honest, once you've adjusted an image's exposure/curves and processed the noise, then 8bits are arguably 'enough'.
I also find that Bibble meshes with my mindset: the learning curve is a (tiny) bit steeper than using ufraw on individual files, but once you've mastered the conceptual bump, productivity zooms up.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum