Is there only Photoshop?

[ajohnw]

With a 1.68% market (Jun 2014 data) share of the desktop and laptop market; I think we can ignore Linux, for the most mainstream uses (other than Apache web servers). Is really is a niche OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

I have played around with a couple of distros in the past, but frankly, never really liked what I saw.

As usual people make comments with out any qualification - here is an incomplete list of more unusual users

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_adopters

I wonder how the commercial companies that deal in it manage to continue to exist and in instances like Ubuntu pump rather a lot of money in it. Also why google help it along in a number of ways. Actually even Microsoft has been know to contribute.

Desktops are a tiny aspect of it. Several server manufacturers qualify the servers on Suse and RedHat. Ubuntu has also grown in this areas. Ubuntu's aim is enterprise wide solutions. Apache is actually something that is installed on Linux. I can install probably about 100 plus apache parts and utilities on my desktop. All it would take is rather a lot of selection clicks. These make up the web server aspect but it still runs on Linux.

As I said a Linux desktop isn't for every one. There have been a number of changes in that respect already. You might say some are already more suitable for anybody. The other point is that if the market is examined closely Microsoft are loosing out. More people buy Mac's, more people find an iPad enough, even some a phone. Who knows what will come up next.

Image editing frankly is very much a fringe interest.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

All I know is that if I have a Microsoft server box with 50 people hanging off it go down I can have numerous Microsoft certified engineers here fixing it in 20 minutes. I know of ZERO Linux certified engineers I could get here.

It comes down to total cost of ownership - I've had customers in the past who tried to save money by running a free Linux server - was a total unmitigated disaster for them when the effluent hit the fan and they couldn't get help.

Yes - Microsoft products are expensive - but there is a clearly defined support structure - and that's the only viable option with the multi-million dollar companies that I help to support.

[Mark von Kanel]

YAWN..... thats done it, im off to take some photographs.... and no they wont be of a test target

[Peeshan]

With a 1.68% market (Jun 2014 data) share of the desktop and laptop market; I think we can ignore Linux, for the most mainstream uses (other than Apache web servers). Is really is a niche OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

I have played around with a couple of distros in the past, but frankly, never really liked what I saw.

Please remember that Android (70% of marketshares in tablets) is Linux based - and the popularity of tablets and processing power of smartphones is still going up - actually a user recently posted here about a samsung tablet. So, it can be seen as a technicallity, but maybe not that much of a niche? And it can have repercussions in the long term.

By the way I wonder if Linux-oriented Gimp would run more smoothly than photoshop on Android (did anyone tried?)

Also, @ Colin, very late answer to "In my mind it's a lot like walking 10km into town because they don't want to spend $3 on a bus ticket. Me, I'd rather just spend $3 on a bus ticket."
> Very good example, I think this is were there is a difference between professionals (who mostly care about the goal) and hobyists (who enjoys the journey).

[Mark von Kanel]

Maybe we should all take a step back from this and think about the OP this is only her 3rd post and off we all go (well most of us) on a techie discussion that doesnt really help her with the problem and doesnt make CIC seem a very welcoming place for anyone, let alone a lady!

Maybe we should all just say what we use and why? but ONLY photography related reasons... im sure Nicola isnt going to change he operating system for any reason.

Nicola if you read this and im sure theres a high probability that youve diapared and given up, i use lightroom , cause it catalogs and does all of the editing i need at the moment. Its relatively cheap and lots of advice and tutorial are available. If you decide to use it, let it catalog and move your file to one place, i shoot raw and convert to DNG which means theres no side car file to lose your edits, all editing is non destructive so you can always go back and re edit if you want.

And you lot, i dont want to hear why i shouldnt be doing what im doing, i want to hear what your doing and why, ill make my own mind up which way is best thanks.

[Colin Southern]

Also, @ Colin, very late answer to "In my mind it's a lot like walking 10km into town because they don't want to spend $3 on a bus ticket. Me, I'd rather just spend $3 on a bus ticket."
> Very good example, I think this is were there is a difference between professionals (who mostly care about the goal) and hobyists (who enjoys the journey).

I enjoy both

[Vortex]

With a 1.68% market (Jun 2014 data) share of the desktop and laptop market; I think we can ignore Linux, for the most mainstream uses (other than Apache web servers). Is really is a niche OS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

I wouldn't get too excited about the Wikipedia analysis when comparing linux market share. My guess is it borders on the misleading... (We need a flame icon...)

[ajohnw]

All I know is that if I have a Microsoft server box with 50 people hanging off it go down I can have numerous Microsoft certified engineers here fixing it in 20 minutes. I know of ZERO Linux certified engineers I could get here.

It comes down to total cost of ownership - I've had customers in the past who tried to save money by running a free Linux server - was a total unmitigated disaster for them when the effluent hit the fan and they couldn't get help.

Yes - Microsoft products are expensive - but there is a clearly defined support structure - and that's the only viable option with the multi-million dollar companies that I help to support.

With you trying to maintain it Colin I am not at all surprised - maintaining a Linux server is a specialised job and there are plenty of people about who can do it. The documentation is also extensive - it even comes with an typical install on any type of machine - understanding it is another matter.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

With you trying to maintain it Colin I am not at all surprised

I wouldn't try to maintain it.

maintaining a Linux server is a specialised job and there are plenty of people about who can do it.

That's the problem - their ISN'T "plenty of people who can do it" - certainly not in these parts anyway.

It may be cheaper to buy, but it sure as eggs isn't cheaper to own when you take the cost of downtime for staff into the equation.

[Manfred M]

John - While this thread is getting a bit off topic; I frankly believe Linux is such a minor niche player on the desktop, we should assume that it really is of no interest to the vast majority of users on this forum. At 1.68% market share in June 2014; I think we can safely say that it truly belongs to the ultra-specialists and the geeks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...rating_systems

Now I do count myself amongst them (a geek, rather than a specialist), as I've had at least 4 different Linux distros running on my own home machines over the years (as well as other well known OSes like OS/2 and DR-DOS), but have not really looked at them in the last 4 or 5 years. And yes, I know that Apache Web Servers running on Linux power the internet, runs the worlds supercomputers, runs on my NAS boxes, etc. There are very good technical (and financial) reasons for this, but frankly, why would most people care?

Frankly at 6.64% marktet share, Apple OS X would probably not be worth discussing if it were not for the higher concentration of Photoshop variants running on the Mac family computers than on the 90%+ machines out there running some variant of Windows.

So before we get too heated up, let's get back to (mainstream?) photography.

[ajohnw]

Me heated up Manfred - no. As I often point out i do what I choose to do and don't have any problems at all about some one else choosing to do something or the other differently.

I made a post with an list of very accurate facts earlier. Gone and for some reason restore auto saved didn't come up afterwards. Probably hitting cancel rather than submit as I was in a rush to go out but still no auto restore Perhaps my ISP runs a windows server and it's trained to spot such accurate inflammatory comments about it. Or maybe it's still on it's way.

Wont be typing them again but they all boil down to certain historical facts about Microsoft's products that in a loose sense still exist. I understand they are working on this. This aspect in itself can can cause people to run a Linux based server in particular. It's built on much firmer foundations That is another reason I run it but still isn't the major one.

I also added one final point - image editing is a fringe application. Pity really but it is.

My stance on the subject is an odd one. Software has been a major area of my profession for a long long time. Even servers at times. I'm also heavily into architecture of the software kind. You might say I have a different perspective. I have also been around MS products from very early days and have wondered about a number of things I notice. I know it needn't be like that. As I said I admire their business plan but have no wish to be on the receiving end of it. Maybe what I notice isn't part of it but on the other hand it most definitely helps other application producers go to the wall and most definitely has as well. It could just all go back to lack of ability but I suspect not.

My main reason for running a Linux based system really is that I like rather a lot of it's "aspects" even at a technical level.

John
-

[Nicks Pics]

I have monkeyed with PS elements just a little, but it doesn't work as well as a raw converter suchas LR or similar for basic work in my opinion. It doesn't use as much photographic terminology like "exposure", "white balance" etc, instead using words like "Brightness", which makes it relate to processing images worse than Lightroom, I don't like it's sharpening and noise reduction features much, but maybe you are supposed to start with a RAW converter, and then switch to photoshop type programs for the fancy stuff.

Adobe is trying to sell their PS + LR photography plan. If you ever are on live chat with Adobe, asking about LR or PS elements or something, they start to ask you "what do you plan to use this software for? " Then they proceed to tell you that you should get PS + LR plan for $9.99/month. I figured that would not be a smart financial deal. Over one year, you would pay more than it takes to buy LR outright, and you can get plugins or some other software with it for probably less than you would spend on the plan in just two or three years.

I would suppose many of you would not find it to be advanced enough, but does anyone use Paint. net?

[nterry]

Well I thought I asked a simple question, seems I kicked a hornets nest. Afraid 90% of this thread has gone over my head guys! Still it's been fun reading the posts and one day I may understand some of them. For the moment PSP cleans up my pics, sharpens them, crops them and makes them look better than when I started. I think I have much to learn.

[Donald]

Well I thought I asked a simple question, seems I kicked a hornets nest.

Nicola - There are menu of topics that will guarantee to kick a hornets nest into action. They flare up every now and again and, now and again, we get all the same arguments rehearsed and nobody ever changes the strongly held views they had in the first place. You could try:

• Is Canon or Nikon the better make of camera?
• Is post processing images, cheating?
• Should I always have a protective filter fitted to the front of my lens?
• etc

And then stand back and watch the sparks fly!

[ajohnw]

I have monkeyed with PS elements just a little, but it doesn't work as well as a raw converter suchas LR or similar for basic work in my opinion. It doesn't use as much photographic terminology like "exposure", "white balance" etc, instead using words like "Brightness", which makes it relate to processing images worse than Lightroom, I don't like it's sharpening and noise reduction features much, but maybe you are supposed to start with a RAW converter, and then switch to photoshop type programs for the fancy stuff.

Adobe is trying to sell their PS + LR photography plan. If you ever are on live chat with Adobe, asking about LR or PS elements or something, they start to ask you "what do you plan to use this software for? " Then they proceed to tell you that you should get PS + LR plan for $9.99/month. I figured that would not be a smart financial deal. Over one year, you would pay more than it takes to buy LR outright, and you can get plugins or some other software with it for probably less than you would spend on the plan in just two or three years.

I would suppose many of you would not find it to be advanced enough, but does anyone use Paint. net?

Your should be looking to use ACR for raw conversion Nick. As I understand it from comments it comes with everything they sell. It's difficult to find out what various peoples actual work flow is but in the case of obviously capable people it appears to be acr -> lightroom -> ps but I'd guess that the lightroom ps aspects varies. If some one wanted to substitute elements for PS for say layer and even other work correct use of ACR will be near essential as it's an 8 bit package. This means that the info from the raw file needs to be put in the right place in the output including some allowance for what might be done to it later. Mess that up and even trivial mods may produce banding, I sometimes work on other peoples jpg's and this sometimes happens even when they have come out of either Lightroom or PS.

On the other hand unless some one mentions what they do there may be no way of telling. In some ways I'm glad I started developing raw from Ufraw. It does nothing automatically and can quickly demonstrate how much difference camera profiles can make. Something like Rawtherapee has some automation but again it's better to do the initial parts manually and it has so many sliders of one sort or another that it can become clear that some of them should be used first. Sort gigo - famous software term. Garbage in garbage out what ever you do with ir and in this case garbage can be introduced at any stage even when the shot is taken.

John
-

[Manfred M]

I have monkeyed with PS elements just a little, but it doesn't work as well as a raw converter suchas LR or similar for basic work in my opinion. It doesn't use as much photographic terminology like "exposure", "white balance" etc, instead using words like "Brightness", which makes it relate to processing images worse than Lightroom, I don't like it's sharpening and noise reduction features much, but maybe you are supposed to start with a RAW converter, and then switch to photoshop type programs for the fancy stuff.

Adobe is trying to sell their PS + LR photography plan. If you ever are on live chat with Adobe, asking about LR or PS elements or something, they start to ask you "what do you plan to use this software for? " Then they proceed to tell you that you should get PS + LR plan for $9.99/month. I figured that would not be a smart financial deal. Over one year, you would pay more than it takes to buy LR outright, and you can get plugins or some other software with it for probably less than you would spend on the plan in just two or three years.

I would suppose many of you would not find it to be advanced enough, but does anyone use Paint. net?

Nick - all three products are offered by Adobe and aimed at different users. They are built on the same "platform", but the user interfaces and some of the functionality "under the hood", are different.

Let's start with Photoshop, which is where this whole software family springs from. It is the heavy duty tool that is extrermely powerful. That also means it is expensive, has a long learnng curve and is more than a lot of photographers will ever need. I've been using it for about 12 years now and would be hard pressed to change; as it is the only tool that I've found that has most of the features I want and need.

Elements is a recognition that Photoshop is too much of a tool for the average photographer, so it is a stripped down version. I haven't looked at it in years, so I can't comment on it. My understanding is that it is much more powerful than Lightroon; (it supports layer, for instanance), but if I remember correctly, I hated its "dumbed down" user interface.

Lightroom is very much a repackaged Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) with some additional cataloging and other functionality. Unlike Photoshop and Elements; but identically to ACR is a parametric editor. This is where editing is driven by parameters to equations under the hood. No pixels are touched when using this tool, whch has some advnatages, but some very major shotrcomings.

If you don't like the RAW conveter that Elements hs; you can always try the one that shipped with your camera. There are some excellent third party ones as well' DxO Optics Pro and Phase One's Capture One are two well known ones.

[Polar01]

John I believe that you for some reason hate, Adobe products. So I am going to ask you to please link me to the info that you state in your post #55. "ACR will be near essential as it is a 8 bit package", this is confusing as I can set ACR to either a 8 or 16 bit. Now there is a Raw Converter in Adobe Elements and there is one in Adobe Photoshop so which one are you talking about.
Also found confusing as "in the case of obviously capable people it appears to be acr >lightroom>ps", where did you get that, if from a reference source please state or did you just assume that. Well for us obviously less capable people (of which I would appear to be one of) it is ACR>PS (Photoshop), if using Adobe Elements it is Elements ACR>Photoshop Elements, now if using Lightroon then it would be lightroom>(a plug in/elements/photoshop)>lightroom.
If you need a workflow for Adobe Photoshop, I will give you one mine, camera>Bridge (how I import my images into computer and open files), open Raw Files from Bridge>ACR>Adobe Photoshop (where I do what I need)>save back into bridge as PSD files, if I was opening a PSD files than Bridge>Photoshop.
As you have stated my times you do not use Adobe Products for you photography, this shows through as in your above statements, so please if you do not use a product do not talk like you know what you are saying about it, reading about it or someone tells you something about it, is not the same as knowledge gained from using the product. I myself would never comment on say Rawtherapee or Gump as I have not idea on how to use them.
John you have a great wealth of knowledge and speak on what you know from experience, if you do not use something or have no direct experience, there is no reason to not use the words "not sure", "I understand that", " I assume" before you make your statement.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

John I believe that you for some reason hate, Adobe products. So I am going to ask you to please link me to the info that you state in your post #55. "ACR will be near essential as it is a 8 bit package", this is confusing as I can set ACR to either a 8 or 16 bit. Now there is a Raw Converter in Adobe Elements and there is one in Adobe Photoshop so which one are you talking about.
Also found confusing as "in the case of obviously capable people it appears to be acr >lightroom>ps", where did you get that, if from a reference source please state or did you just assume that. Well for us obviously less capable people (of which I would appear to be one of) it is ACR>PS (Photoshop), if using Adobe Elements it is Elements ACR>Photoshop Elements, now if using Lightroon then it would be lightroom>(a plug in/elements/photoshop)>lightroom.
If you need a workflow for Adobe Photoshop, I will give you one mine, camera>Bridge (how I import my images into computer and open files), open Raw Files from Bridge>ACR>Adobe Photoshop (where I do what I need)>save back into bridge as PSD files, if I was opening a PSD files than Bridge>Photoshop.
As you have stated my times you do not use Adobe Products for you photography, this shows through as in your above statements, so please if you do not use a product do not talk like you know what you are saying about it, reading about it or someone tells you something about it, is not the same as knowledge gained from using the product. I myself would never comment on say Rawtherapee or Gump as I have not idea on how to use them.
John you have a great wealth of knowledge and speak on what you know from experience, if you do not use something or have no direct experience, there is no reason to not use the words "not sure", "I understand that", " I assume" before you make your statement.

Cheers: Allan

After another rather silly comment - that I hate Adobe products. I really can't see any point in answering especially as you don't seem to have really read what I actually posted and have just chosen the bits you want to use. Maybe you didn't notice the comment about the lighttoom PS aspect or just chose to ignore it.

Anyway you appear to use ACR - the whole point of the post.

And actually I spend more time than I should finding out what Adobe products do and how people use them - maybe you can guess why.

Elements - if I see a comment on here that it's 8 bit which I believe it is then yes I accept it.

If some one wanted to substitute elements for PS for say layer and even other work correct use of ACR will be near essential as it's an 8 bit package.

John
-

[Polar01]

Yes John I do use ACR as my raw converter, that said you either have to be using Adobe Photoshop product such as CS5, CS6, or CC to get Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Now Adobe Photoshop Elements also has a version of ACR not as strong and powerful as the one found in Adobe Photoshop. In Lightroom the raw converter is found in the development section of the program however is the same platform as ACR however it is has a different interface.
I read very slowly and then reread to make sure I understand things, so that they make sense. If you are talking about your " acr -> lightroom -> ps but I'd guess that the lightroom ps aspects varies.", it makes little sense. Now your acr I assume to be Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), lightroom is Adobe's Lightroom with ps meaning Adobe Photoshop, now I have no idea of what lightroom ps aspects is, no idea at all.
Now in you post you were talking about workflow and were trying to show how the workflow would go, which was incorrect.
Now I believe but could be wrong that the raw converter in Adobe Elements is 16 bit, however when file is opened in Elements needs it to be converted to 8 bit. Now I had head that Elements is now able to use 16 bit but it has been about 3 years since I actually used it.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

Yes John I do use ACR as my raw converter, that said you either have to be using Adobe Photoshop product such as CS5, CS6, or CC to get Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Now Adobe Photoshop Elements also has a version of ACR not as strong and powerful as the one found in Adobe Photoshop. In Lightroom the raw converter is found in the development section of the program however is the same platform as ACR however it is has a different interface.
I read very slowly and then reread to make sure I understand things, so that they make sense. If you are talking about your " acr -> lightroom -> ps but I'd guess that the lightroom ps aspects varies.", it makes little sense. Now your acr I assume to be Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), lightroom is Adobe's Lightroom with ps meaning Adobe Photoshop, now I have no idea of what lightroom ps aspects is, no idea at all.
Now in you post you were talking about workflow and were trying to show how the workflow would go, which was incorrect.
Now I believe but could be wrong that the raw converter in Adobe Elements is 16 bit, however when file is opened in Elements needs it to be converted to 8 bit. Now I had head that Elements is now able to use 16 bit but it has been about 3 years since I actually used it.

Cheers: Allan

My comment on Elements being 8 bit came from comments on here so it would be worth clearing that up. The ACR with all if I remember correctly came from Colin. I have spent some time seeing what Adobe reckon ACR can do. Not an easy task as the video's are scattered all over the place. If I had it all raw would go through it. I run Linux so that would be a bit of a problem.

One point I thought I had to make is that there aren't really any significant problems working in 8 bit if the raw conversion is done sensibly. I have had to work like that. Also the fact that I feel raw conversion should be done sensibly what ever is going to be done to it later. On the other hand if some ACR's are like Ufraw - the only control really is curves I could well understand why some wouldn't want to use it but I also feel tone curves do need to be mastered at some point even if only achieved with levels.

John
-