Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Feb 2008 23:57 UTC, submitted by Jeff Moore
Google is funding work to ensure the Windows version of Adobe Systems' Photoshop and other Creative Suite software can run on Linux computers. "We hired CodeWeavers to make Photoshop CS and CS2 work better under Wine," Dan Kegel, of Google's software engineering team and the Wine 1.0 release manager, said on Google's open-source blog. "Photoshop is one of those applications that desktop Linux users are constantly clamoring for, and we're happy to say they work pretty well now... We look forward to further improvements in this area."
Permalink for comment 301625
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-11-04
<snip>
True, most average photographers don't use any software at all, they just simply shoot jpeg in camera and export to the PC and display. Generally speaking, the jpeg format has sharpening, and that's why half the jpeg images look bad. jpeg is not a good format for displaying images, png is far better.
I really like non photographers trying to tell I, and most of my photographer friends use/do etc.
Dave
This last comment about jpeg format having sharpening and png being a better format for displaying images is utter rubbish. First jpeg itself does not have any sharpening, if I shoot RAW and export to jpg using one RAW-converter or the other without sharpening, there will be no sharpening. Now the problem with many P&S cameras who only do jpgs is that they process the images in camera quite significantly, i.e. sharpening, strong saturation and noise reduction (much more a cause for bad looking images from P&S cameras). BTW some of the camera manufactures (i think Canon and Nikon both) started to apply sharpening to the RAW file, so you can't get rid of it. Reason being that strong saturation, sharpened images tend to look better on screen where most people look at it, however prints usually look horrible.
With respect to png being the better format than jpg for displaying, rubbish again. png was never designed to replace jpg, it was designed to replace gif. You can't even compare jpg and png, because jpg is designed to be lossy, i.e. you loose information but get a smaller filesize. Photographers who want a lossless format usually use TIFF.