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:2007-11-04
<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:2006-12-16
I'll deal with each of your comments one by one.
Yes, I should clarify, by default, jpeg settings "in camera" generally have high a high degree of sharpening by default, and with a lot of digital cameras, it's not possible to reduce that sharpening.
I stand by my comment that PNG is a better file format than JPEG - for the simple reason that any photographer who is really worried about image quality will not sacrifice it due to file size. Of course, old habits die hard...
As to RAW files, I believe it was Nikon that was not really producing real RAW files. As far as I'm aware, a Canon RAW file is RAW data. True, most modern Canon DSLRs have the picture styles, and standard/natural both have sharpening added to the RAW file. Canon allows you to change the picture style to something like neutral, which does not have any adjustments to sharpening or contrast. I shoot neutral on my 1D Mark IIn for this very reason. Hue/saturation is also defaulted to "neutral" as well. Canon isn't exactly super clear on the subtle differences between standard/natural and neutral, but if you bother to do a bit of reading of the online help of DPP, you can easily find the answers. The problem is, most people are lazy and don't like doing research.
Dave
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:
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