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."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-09-21
None of the point and shoot type cameras support RAW, so you really need to be at least a camera geek to own a digital SLR or something that uses a RAW format.
Yeah I sure photograph a lot of models... This is a prime example of something only professional photographers do.
Not something the average camera owner is likely to use.
Member since:2007-10-15
Member since:2008-01-20
I agree with the sharpening thing. In fact, I don't touch the sharpening, because it always makes photos look dodgier somehow..
However, whilst most your point and click cameras don't support raw (canon's at least because they wont to upsell people to a DSLR), the Panasonic Lumix LX2 http://www2.panasonic.com/consumer-electronics/shop/Cameras-Camcord... does.
I have one myself as I see so many dorks with massive DSLR's around their necks at party's, and you know that they aren't really the party type instantly. Its 10.2 megapixels (widescreen) too (so 7mpixel 4:3). It fits in my pocket perfectly, so its for your normal crowd who need to be flexible (even many photographer buffs own both a SLR and a normal camera).
But either way, you are right mostly, but I'm personally hoping the Lumix's take off, because they are a great camera, and whilst the IXUS's are undoubtably the most popular camera at the moment, they only store stuff as jpg, making them mostly useless. And Canon's older models used to support RAW too. But now, they are just using it as an excuse to upsell..
Anyway, where were we? ^_^
Member since:2006-12-16
Wrong - many of Canon and Nikons P&S support RAW format. It is becoming far more popular now. Processing RAW files is not that hard.
As to photographing models, you don't have to be a professional to do that. Even photographing a loved one is good enough reason to use some of the Photoshop CS2 tools to make them even more appealing if you want to.
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.
Your argument is moot though, as most people wanting Photoshop CS2 to work under wine (indeed using any version of Photoshop) will be more than likely using some, or all, of the tools that I've mentioned.
I really like non photographers trying to tell I, and most of my photographer friends use/do etc.
Dave
Member since:2005-07-06
Actuallt there are a fair few that do. The Canon PowerShot S60, PowerShot S70 and their G series of cameras support it. Fuji F700 and F800 cameras shoot Raw. Panasonic and Leica have a few etc.
Most current camera geeks where camare geeks back when cameras used film. Digital SLR does not in any way indicate computer or photoshop geek. Most dSLRs are probably in the hands of amatures and not pros.
Member since:2005-11-21
None of the point and shoot type cameras support RAW, so you really need to be at least a camera geek to own a digital SLR or something that uses a RAW format.
Yeah I sure photograph a lot of models... This is a prime example of something only professional photographers do.
Not something the average camera owner is likely to use. "
In my spare time, I'm the owner of LSG, Hegre and FEMJoy. I'd normally not have time to post here with all the "perks" of ownership, but I'm truly spent and need to recoup. Nothing like downtime to get a man's energy up and ready to blog.
Member since:2006-07-01
Member since:2005-11-12
I'm not saying GIMP is a replacement but for the desktop user it is and does it's work good enough. Why on earth would the average desktop user want Photoshop to do simple photo tasks and spend £400 on that?
Photoshop is more of a pro's app, other same apps can do the same thing for free, so I dont see why non pros even need it(unless you need it for your training at collage). I've used Photoshop/image Ready years ago to do icons in WINE and it was a buggy and somewhat unstable, I doubt a professional would rely on WINE to much, what if updates break it because Adobe dont need to fix WINE so it runs their updates.
Edited 2008-02-20 10:37 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
Your argument falls apart once you accept the simple reality that to most average desktop users Photoshop and gimp cost exatly the same. Once you've accepted this you realize you have to comparing PS to the other apps purely on features and useability. Once you do that you start to understand why so many people chose photoshop over the 'cheaper' apps.
Member since:2006-12-16
Photoshop is not a "pros" application. I see people from beginner to intermediate to advanced to pro using it. That's a broad generalisation that is sadly very wrong.
What about Elements? It's very powerful, cheap as chips, easy to use and suits a lot of people.
Then there's paintshop pro - itself a very good application, that is also quite cheap.
Now if you really want to talk pro applications, then something like Phase One's Capture One Pro is something like you're thinking...few amateurs can justify spending it, unless they are SERIOUS about their photography. A lot of pros use it, although many have migrated to lightroom (overrated imho).
The argument really lacks substance - why do people buy Lightroom, instead of using a free raw editor like RAW therapee? Or dcraw? Performance, features, ease of use, accuracy all come into play as valid reasons.
I don't know why some GIMP users get all up in arms when Photoshop is recommended over the GIMP. Are you that afraid that if Photoshop is made to run reliably on Linux, that people will leave the GIMP in droves and move to Photoshop under wine?
As to bugs with Wine, that's not Adobes fault, so don't bash Photoshop because of that. Bash wine if you must bash someone.
Dave
Member since:2005-06-29
Photoshop elements is $100 maximum. It does most of what you consider everyday users need and is significantly less than the newest Photoshop CS.
The differences on a non professional level are minimal and the cost, while not free
http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/photoshop/f/elementscompare.htm See that for a comparison between Elements and Photoshop.
Member since:
2006-12-16
huh? Photoshop is not the sole province of "pros", I really beg to differ here. That really is serious misinformation.
There are huge differences between CS2 and Photoshop 7, both in terms of RAW file support via ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), liquify filter (great for getting rid of blubber on modelling shots), smart sharpen (more intelligent in sharpening than the traditional USM) and a host of other stuff that just doesn't jump out at me yet.
CS2 has NOT worked for a long time on wine, try having a look at the winehq logs and you'll see what I mean. The last few releases of wine have had Photoshop CS2 working, but there are extra steps required, and it doesn't work out of the box.
And no, as good as the GIMP is, it is no Photoshop replacement, and is quite poor in many areas in comparison imho.
Dave