| Autor |
Nachricht |
|
|
Titel: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?
 Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 14:07 Uhr
|
|
Team Member
Anmeldung: 17. Dez 2003
Beiträge: 1109
Wohnort: Ganymede
|
|
I did try Picasa for Linux. It puked in its own shoes and died a horrible death when I fed it my fairly large photo collection. I wasn't impressed and removed it immediately.
Usually I don't recmmend java applications because they are not only ugly but also very resource hungry. Enter Lightzone for Linux.
Certainly Lightzone has some fairly heavy hardware requirements:
Zitat:
LightZone for Linux runs on x86 linux with at least 1GB of RAM. A 2 GHz clock or faster is necessary for usable performance.
I was fairly impressed. Lightzone is certainly capable of handling all of my photo editing needs (but then again so is GIMP). Lightzone seems to be a very nicely behaved application and apparently handles 16bit RAW images from several makes of cameras. I have only recently acquired a Fuji camera capable of RAW format and have not had an opportunity to even use this feature (and Fuji is not yet on the "supported" list) so unfortunately I cannot tell you how well the RAW image handling does or does not work.
There is a $150 price tag for this software (See the Lightzone home page.) yet the Linux version appears to have no cost associated with it.
Zitat:
Light Crafts has said it's OK to give away the Linux version of LightZone in binary form, but they don't sell it, they don't support it, and if you contact them about it they will ignore you.
I have seen only 1 issue w/ Lightzone in that it was unable to view a .tif file created with Hugin which prompted an email to Anton Kast. He' s promised a fix is forthcoming. We'll see if the issue is resolved.
I'd be very interested to know what the Photoshop users think of Lightzone. Personally I've no opinion on Photoshop (since I've never even seen it let alone used it). I do know however that Adobe as a company does not impress me at all and Photoshop is outrageously expensive. If I needed a quality photo editing application I'd certaily not balk at paying $150 for good software that performs as advertised. |
_________________
Ubuntu - An ancient African word for "Can't install Debian"
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Titel: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 15:38 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 05. Okt 2004
Beiträge: 2069
Wohnort: w3
|
|
Just now tried - nice application. When it comes to listing pics and creating thumbnails, it is much faster than others. However, it supports just a few (common) picture formats.
I tried some editing, which for me was actually less intuitive than with more well known applications - but that's probalby my fault, because I am already used to do most with right click menues. I would be interested to hear how others felt when using it.
Using ICC works fine - just create ~/color/icc and put your profiles in there.
Will test more.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
"An operating system must operate."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 17:32 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
| I just downloaded this and need instructions on how to install. Thanks meldawson |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 18:03 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 05. Okt 2004
Beiträge: 2069
Wohnort: w3
|
|
|
Code:
su
apt-get update && apt-get install sun-java5-jre && exit
wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone-no-java.tar.gz && tar xvfz LightZone-no-java.tar.gz
LightZone/LightZone
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
"An operating system must operate."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 18:35 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
ok I got this far...
mel@KanotixBox:~$ su
Password:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get update && apt-get install sun-java5-jre && exit
Reading package lists... Done
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/Light ... ava.tar.gz && gunzip LightZone-no-java.tar.gz
--10:28:53-- http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/Light ... ava.tar.gz
=> `LightZone-no-java.tar.gz'
Resolving sonic.net... 209.204.190.64
Connecting to sonic.net|209.204.190.64|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 8,234,859 (7.9M) [application/x-gzip]
100%[====================================>] 8,234,859 160.11K/s ETA 00:00
10:29:44 (159.34 KB/s) - `LightZone-no-java.tar.gz' saved [8234859/8234859]
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# cd LightZone && LightZone
bash: cd: LightZone: No such file or directory
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 19:00 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 05. Okt 2004
Beiträge: 2069
Wohnort: w3
|
|
2 Problems:
1) Are you sure youre using Kanotix? Because Sun-Java should install without problems, which it did not with you. You can check yourself:
Code:
apt-cache search sun-java5
sun-java5-bin - Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 5.0
sun-java5-demo - Sun Java(TM) Development Kit (JDK) 5.0 demos and examples
sun-java5-doc - Sun JDK(TM) Documention -- integration installer
sun-java5-fonts - Lucida TrueType fonts (from the Sun JRE)
sun-java5-jdk - Sun Java(TM) Development Kit (JDK) 5.0
sun-java5-jre - Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 5.0
2) Fix #1, after that do
Code:
wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone-no-java.tar.gz && tar xvfz LightZone-no-java.tar.gz
LightZone/LightZone
That should download, de-pack und start the application.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
"An operating system must operate."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 19:22 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
Yes, I am using Kanotix  .
This is what I get
mel@KanotixBox:~$ su
Password:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-cache search sun-java5
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel#
same for Mel$
on error just nothing? |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 19:35 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2004
Beiträge: 275
Wohnort: Paris-France
|
|
Pretty good bearing in mind I have minimum HW required ... 1GIG and 2Ghz
Zitat:
Usually I don't recmmend java applications because they are not only ugly but also very resource hungry.
If you hadn't written that Id probably not have tried 
On a completely OT ... Java is completely different on Solaris .. seriously it flies.
Zitat:
There is a $150 price tag for this software (See the Lightzone home page.) yet the Linux version appears to have no cost associated with it.
Not sure if its worth $150 yet but heck... its sure nice for free. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:01 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
I am getting this:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get update
Reading package lists... Done
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get install sun-java5-jre
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get install sun-java5-jre
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel#
Could I be misssing some Repositories?? |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:11 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 1005
|
|
I just tried that, and it looks like you are either missing some repository or other, or you are not connecting to one of them, that happens sometimes.
Using the standard debian testing, unstable, kanotox repository list I found the package. |
_________________
Read more on dist-upgrades using du-fixes-h2.sh script.
New: rdiff-backup script
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:23 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
Thanks one and all for this help
How do I check/update/ whatever my repository list? |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:25 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2005
Beiträge: 1005
|
|
Post the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list
my guess however is that when you did apt-get update you failed to connect to one of the servers, I'd just ry it again from the beginning. You would have had to delete one of the entries to not have the defaults, which I assume you haven't done since you don't know where your list was located. |
_________________
Read more on dist-upgrades using du-fixes-h2.sh script.
New: rdiff-backup script
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:46 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 05. Okt 2004
Beiträge: 2069
Wohnort: w3
|
|
|
Code:
wget -O/etc/apt/sources.list http://kanotix.com/files/fix/sources.list
apt-get update
That should fix it.
Greetings,
Chris |
_________________
"An operating system must operate."
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 20:46 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 21:12 Uhr
|
|
Team Member
Anmeldung: 17. Dez 2003
Beiträge: 1109
Wohnort: Ganymede
|
|
|
meldawson hat folgendes geschrieben::
I just downloaded this and need instructions on how to install. Thanks meldawson
Well you can just get the version that already has java and run it directly from the directory - no need to install.
Code:
$ wget http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone.tar.gz
unp LightZone.tar.gz
LightZone/LightZone
If you want java you need this repo (or another mirro) for
Code:
deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
Code:
$ apt-cache policy sun-java5-jdk
sun-java5-jdk:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 1.5.0-06-1
Version table:
1.5.0-06-1 0
990 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/non-free Packages
So..........
Code:
apt-get install sun-java5-jdk
|
_________________
Ubuntu - An ancient African word for "Can't install Debian"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 21:17 Uhr
|
|
Team Member
Anmeldung: 17. Dez 2003
Beiträge: 1109
Wohnort: Ganymede
|
|
|
Gowator hat folgendes geschrieben::
On a completely OT ... Java is completely different on Solaris .. seriously it flies.
I really dislike the fact that so many java apps start too many threads. Azureus is one of the biggest offenders. It's a complete resource hog and subsequently banned from all of my boxes until they can code it better. I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away. |
_________________
Ubuntu - An ancient African word for "Can't install Debian"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linu
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 21:20 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 29. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 44
Wohnort: Powell River BC Canada
|
|
Thank you all, I have LightZone working due to the great support one gets on this forum. Now,how do I add it to the menu along with the other graphics items?
Cheers, mel |
_________________
KDE 3.5.1 2.6.14 - kanotix-9
AMD 64 ASUS A8N-E Geforce 6600GT
1 Gig Ram
Dual boot winxp pro
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: RE: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linu
Verfasst am: 05.07.2006, 22:55 Uhr
|
|
Team Member
Anmeldung: 17. Dez 2003
Beiträge: 1109
Wohnort: Ganymede
|
|
| The menu editor? |
_________________
Ubuntu - An ancient African word for "Can't install Debian"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or
Verfasst am: 06.07.2006, 02:27 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 13. Mai 2005
Beiträge: 732
Wohnort: Texas
|
|
|
mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::
I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away.
I would probably have a party |
_________________
Always acknowledge a fault. This will throw those in authority off their guard and give you an opportunity to commit more.
Mark Twain
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or
Verfasst am: 06.07.2006, 03:18 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 22. Jan 2006
Beiträge: 1296
Wohnort: Budapest
|
|
|
mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::
I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away.
Well, there is finetunes.net from Hamburg, an alternative seller of online music of real alternative music, and their client is written in java (works great on Linux). I do not want to miss them, although I spend a huge amount of money there 
hubi |
_________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 08.07.2006, 06:04 Uhr
|
|
Artist
Anmeldung: 11. Aug 2005
Beiträge: 451
Wohnort: Australia
|
|
Well I've had a quick look at Lightzone now. It's neat but it is missing most of the editing tools of photoshop/gimp. It is a nice photo retoucher but not really a tool to combine images to make art. It's more a tool for photographers than graphic designers. There are no layers, no magic wand, no embossing, shadowing etc.
Still it's worth a look at and does have a few cute tools like bezier/polygon regioning. I think I will keep my eye on it and see how it develops.
PS: I tried the update facility just now and it says I have no internet connection. I wonder how I made this post then? lol
**Edit*** oops, I just found the layers facility. I need to do more exploring I think |
_________________
Cathbard.com
The real pirates by Courtney Love
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 08.07.2006, 08:25 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 03. Jul 2004
Beiträge: 525
|
|
I'm a photographer and don't understand most of the technical stuff above.
My best prints come from processing film (or transparencies) and printing on photographic paper. I used to do a lot of this but got lazy and . . .
. . . went for scanning 35mm negatives / prints with a Nikon scanner. This has been fine but does produce 100MB 16 bit tiff files! These print nicely up to A3+, are more convenient than film processing, don't 'look digital' but are a little short of wet chemistry . . . but I got lazier . .
. . . and started using a Nikon digital SLR. This is convenient, I can have numerous takes of the same scene without significant cost, produces 'nice' prints up to A4 which look fine to me and friends . . but they do 'look digital', whether 8bit or 16 bit. I don't use any in-camera processing and only use Paintshop Pro (Windows) or Gimp (Kanotix) for histogram/levels adjustments. I avoid sharpening of any kind as it isn't necessary.
The bit I am missing is the 8 bit vs 16 bit debate. I can see no difference in screen or print output . . and either way digital camera prints look different (less pleasing) to film technology whether wet chemistry or digital. I know professional libraries set standards which include 16 bit, but I wouldn't think about offering a digital SLR file to a library. Perhaps when they get to 20 Mpixels at a reasonable price I'll change my mind.
Much of this is subjective, but the equipment will never make bad photograph good . . although it can make a good photograph look . . . not quite right.
drb |
_________________
Kernel 2.6.21-slh-up-7
_____________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 08.07.2006, 11:52 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2004
Beiträge: 275
Wohnort: Paris-France
|
|
|
drb hat folgendes geschrieben::
I'm a photographer and don't understand most of the technical stuff above.
My best prints come from processing film (or transparencies) and printing on photographic paper. I used to do a lot of this but got lazy and . . .
. . . went for scanning 35mm negatives / prints with a Nikon scanner. This has been fine but does produce 100MB 16 bit tiff files! These print nicely up to A3+, are more convenient than film processing, don't 'look digital' but are a little short of wet chemistry . . . but I got lazier . .
. . . and started using a Nikon digital SLR. This is convenient, I can have numerous takes of the same scene without significant cost, produces 'nice' prints up to A4 which look fine to me and friends . . but they do 'look digital', whether 8bit or 16 bit. I don't use any in-camera processing and only use Paintshop Pro (Windows) or Gimp (Kanotix) for histogram/levels adjustments. I avoid sharpening of any kind as it isn't necessary.
The bit I am missing is the 8 bit vs 16 bit debate. I can see no difference in screen or print output . . and either way digital camera prints look different (less pleasing) to film technology whether wet chemistry or digital. I know professional libraries set standards which include 16 bit, but I wouldn't think about offering a digital SLR file to a library. Perhaps when they get to 20 Mpixels at a reasonable price I'll change my mind.
Much of this is subjective, but the equipment will never make bad photograph good . . although it can make a good photograph look . . . not quite right.
drb
On the DSLR Are you using raw images only?
The nikon jpg's are trash and not worth even keeping as a preview and you can't not correct if your using the jpg.
What processing software are you using?
Just as an example....
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... d=DSC_3435
You can see on a full blowup that its digital ... but does that look digital at the default res its posted?
The same here: http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... _1802_nova
however you can tell that the image is processed in 8 bit and the flare characteristic of the CCD....
here is a long (13 sec) exposure
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... d=beatrix2
and perhaps one more
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... _2689_mono
I have found that increasing exposure time using a ND filter (or 3) can give nice results that look a little less "digital" ...
Some of the pictures are with 3x ND filters each one 3 f stops different so some pics are 2-3 minute exposures
My own little theory is this basically gives time for the CCD to capture and also of course allows us to capture light from other dimensions .. OK that's tongue in cheek but its basically the same as the classic single photon diffraction....
Others such as http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... sc_1510ab2
(not a great photo but taken to try applying an artificial graduated filter)
This picture shows 8 bit processing from GIMP (very clearly, its crap but included for a point) but basically I processed the picture twice one correctly exposed for the sky and the other for the cross.
This is then a composite with a graduated filter to transparency....
To achive this in a conventional lab would have taken a lot, granted you wouldn't see the awful 8bit artifacts but you would have had to hand burn the photo ....
anyway, just interested |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 08.07.2006, 12:30 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 03. Jul 2004
Beiträge: 525
|
|
Thanks Gowater - something to think about.
I always capture as raw NEFs. I convert on the cheap with Rawshooter Essentials (Windows) or a GIMP plugin (Linux - which seems to give me a better colour balance).
Exposure times tends to be short as the D70 starts at ISO 200. I mostly use a digital optimised Nikon lens. This apparently straightens the light hitting the sensor, compared with historical lens technology where light hits the film at an angle. I think I'll go back to my pre-digital lenses and see how they fare. My 25-50 manual zoom used to be my favourite landscape (zoom) lens - I'll give that a try first.
drb |
_________________
Kernel 2.6.21-slh-up-7
_____________________
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Titel:
Verfasst am: 08.07.2006, 14:27 Uhr
|
|
Anmeldung: 12. Mar 2004
Beiträge: 275
Wohnort: Paris-France
|
|
drb: Can I suggest you try the trial version of bibble.... its not photoshop like windows isn't linux, its completely different and only does the processing and darkroom stages .. no retouching etc. (which I don't do anyway)
It changed my viewof my camera (D70 also) which was initially VERY disspointing. (probably worse in many ways than my point n shoot nikon I use for skiing and stuff)
You can load up your custom curves as well which helps and also I tend to under expose everything -0.3ev
I found a website that had a list of what to do from a factory reset or from the box to get real photo's and followed pretty much blindly at first....
I mostly use it fully manual or there is a program mode that lets you do shutter and aperture control from the dials which accomplishes the same thing from a midpoint... and I also flashed the firmware.... so its now basically a D70s
Lens wise I didn't try any "digital lenses" you loose out the apsect ratio on wider angles so your 25-50 will be like a 35-70 but I still find the results better than a negative scan ....
If you have a problem photo as a NEF I don't mind having a play.... I find that I can do the processing in a minute nowI m used to the workflow.
I have a gallery of processing examples I took with a friend .. we took the same shots with his digital canon just randomly walking round one day. The photo's themself are not anything to write about but I just did a basic 30 secs to a minute processing on each vs the defaults....almost everything looks better with the non nikon defaults ....
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... amp;page=1
Bibble just makes a changes file .... which is applied when you make a TIFF or JPG... so each one you can see what you did
also you can copy the processing chain and paste it to a whole batch.... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
