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:2007-10-15
Member since:2006-12-16
JPEG sharpening is the cause of many issues (as is the compression tool used), at least "in camera". There is far more control over sharpening, contrast, exposure in software, than in camera.
As to sharpening not looking right, that's because you're probably doing it right. Oversharpening is one of the largest causes of an image looking bad, and it's because people don't take the time to learn how to effectively use the sharpening tool.
Photoshop is like anything - you have to *take* the time to learn how to use it. If you do, it'll give you the results. I'm speaking from personal experience here, since I used to HATE Photoshop with a passion, and couldn't understand how to use it. When I went digital, I made myself learn the basics, and I'm so glad that I did.
Dave
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:2006-11-28
Parties are one of the places where DSLRs are most useful. Mostly because they can shoot in low-light : a typical party is indoor, with relatively low light, so the capability of DSLRs to produce noise free pictures are up to ISO800 or even ISO1600 is paramount. Also DSLRs can be fitted with wide-angle, low minimum aperture ratio primes. You like wide-angle because in a party you're among the people you shoot and you don't want to have to backup too much to get your frame. You like the low minimum aperture ratio for the same low light reason.
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: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.
Member since:2005-09-21
Haha. You are going to get in trouble when your girlfriend finds out you felt the need to remove some of the "blubber" from her with photoshop. "Here honey, I'll take your picture, but I'll just spend a couple hours photoshopping it to make you look better".
Right, and that's what you were talking about. Only pros and camera geeks need highly complex image editing software. Normal people are fine with no software or whatever basic stuff came with their camera.
Complete BS of course as others have already pointed out. Perhaps you mean that some cameras perform automatic sharpening. That has nothing to do with JPG.
Depends what the purpose is.
Sure, and they are probably pros (or people that just want the latest and greatest for no good reason).
np
Edited 2008-02-20 22:46 UTC
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:
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.