Open Source Tools for Photographers

[dsphoto]

Hey Folks,

 

It's been a while since I've been around and looks like things are changing nicely.

 

I thought I would start a thread concerning the use of open source tools for

photographers.

 

First off it would be good to meet some other photo.net people that are also

using open source tools. Second, it would be agood opportunity for other people

to learn about open source tools and how they can be used in their workflow.

 

I won't get into a banter about the benifits of open source or start defining

it. So I will start by listing some of the essential tools for photographers to

start with.

 

First, you need a graphics editor. We all know and have probably used Photoshop.

The equivalant open source tool is callend GIMP (http://www.gimp.org/). there

are few limitations in using this software. I have used GIMp for years but only

rcently got a book for it. "GIMP 2 for photographers" -Image Editing with Open

Source Software-. Pretty interesting so far.

 

For those of you using the wonderful RAW formats of the world you'd be

interested to know about UFRAW (http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/index.html). This

utility and program is used for managing and manipulating RAW image formats.

 

If you are using the GIMP there is a plugin that uses UFRAW to import photos

into GIMP.

 

if you are into using 16 bit channel images then UFRAW or DCRAW

(http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/) are a must.

 

so what about general viewing and cataloging? All Operating Systems come with

simple image viewers, but sometimes you might want something a bit more feature

rich.

 

I have just started using imgSEEk (www.imgseek.net) to manage some of my photos.

I'd be intereste dto learn what other people have been using for their cataloging.

 

So for those that are new or old hats learn and share away.

 

Cheers

[mikeshoup]

I'm a huge fan of open source.

 

Before I was into photography, I was a programmer. I run Linux as my primary OS, but have been finding it difficult to keep up with photography in Linux, so I resorted to reinstalling Windows XP on my system.

 

I use GIMP all the time. I think its awesome.

 

I'll have to check out imgseek. Looks pretty slick.

 

Good to know I'm not the only open source photographer out there.

[peter_langfelder]

I use cinepaint (formerly FilmGimp) to edit my photos, converted from RAW to ppm via dcraw and then pre-processed through ImageMagick. The workflow is somewhat clumsy, but good enough for me.

[dsphoto]

Peter,

 

I too looked into using cinepaint / filmgimp a long time ago for satelite imagery I wanted to process (As I work in the field of geomatics). GIMP at the time had no 16 bit capability.

 

With the RAW image formats and UFRAW plugin dealing with 16 bit images what is your motivation to stay with cinegimp?

 

There is always talk in the air about GIMP going 16 bit native but I have not followed that discussion in a while.

 

Cheers

[stephend]

<p>Another one worth considering on the Windows side is <a

href="http://www.getpaint.net/">Paint.net</a>. Probably not as fully featured as GIMP (and

certainly not Photoshop), but is more user friendly and has enough features for "casual"

use.</p>

 

<p>It's also free, under an even more permissive licence than GIMP. I have no affiliation, it's

just software that I like and use.</a>

[lex_photo]

For the little processing I do, I use gimp. I have found it to be frustrating at first, but in the

end has been able to do everything that I ever wanted it to. I've used it on a linux and a mac

with leopard and tiger, all three seemed easy to instal and use. I hope this helps - Lex

[bill_tuthill]

Not being a pro photographer, I was hoping to wait out the RAW fad,

although I suspect it might not be a passing fad. Owning a JPEG-only

digicam, not DSLR, I have no comment on UFRAW.

 

I recently installed GIMP 2.0.x and have been very impressed.

It seems easier to use than PaintShopPro 9, which is easier to use

than Photoshop CS2. I often say on this forum that GIMP is a better

tool than Photoshop for editing JPEG files, and in 2.0.x releases,

GIMP is even better. In the SaveAs JPEG dialog, it now has option

"Use quality settings from original image" which duplicates the

weird asymmetric quality tables that Photoshop SaveAsJPEG produces

(SaveForWeb does not).

 

Currently GIMP lacks adjustment layers (it has layers), 16-bit processing, and

non-RGB colorspaces, of which ProPhotoRGB is probably the only one

that will survive. On the plus side, perhaps because it lacks these

items, it starts up in 2-3 seconds, about 10x faster than Photoshop.

 

ImageMagick is the best way I know to produce massive numbers of thumbnails for a website.

 

My catalog is limited to CDR or DVD+R with "Grand Canyon" and such

written in Sharpie on the disc. There is some thumb organizer that

gets good reviews, but I prefer the old standby "xv" to anything of

that type I've seen on Linux. Irfanview (Windows only) is better

than these, and almost as good as "xv" for editing mass quantities.

[glenbarrington]

I never could get comfortable with Gimp. But I am now at the stage where I really want a good 16 bit editor and It just doesn't have that, so I'm not a good candidate for it anyway.

 

As far as raw being a fad, I don't think so. It's just too darned useful. At least to me anyway. But the proper software IS essential for that. (for me, Lightroom)

[bill_tuthill]

It is GIMP 2.4 that has the JPEG "quality settings from original"

option. I just installed RHEL 5.1, which contains GIMP 2.2. Ubuntu 7.10,

highly recommended, contains version 2.4. GIMP has come a long way!

Icons now have tooltips to reduce confusion.

Unlike Photoshop, GIMP 2.4 (not 2.2) has Lanczos3 scaling algorithm,

usually the best choice for downsampling.

GIMP seems like the ideal package for photographers with a digicam,

although because it is associated with Linux, desktop usage is

rare.

[oscar_davidson]

i use linux all the time, it realy just works without any messing around, ive got ubuntu 7.10 and fedora 8(i hope im not the only one not using ubuntu all the time) i use gimp extensively and ufraw alot, but since gimp is lacking more than 8bit a channel that is a major downside, but oh well, i do have an xp partition, but realy i only use it for games, being a student, i have CS3, i might have got it off, oh say, limewire, but still, i really dont believe in paying for code, anyway with xp and definitely vista i dont believe in paying for unfinished code, anyway enough about OS's, i must say that gimp does everything i need it to do, and way more, its brilliant, simple, and powerful, i do hope gimp has 16bit per channel support in the next realease, i usually print from tiffs strait from ufraw, i would like to hear about people using open source and different linux distros tho

[martin_canning]

I don't know if you want to limit your program usage to true open source or free software, or broaden it to include closed-source and paid-for applications as well.

 

I've been using GIMP for a few years and it meets my very simple needs well. For image management I've been using the Linux version of Picasa which works ok for me, but have been unable to get the Linux version of F-Spot to import many of my files.

 

In terms of workflow Blue Marine (http://bluemarine.tidalwave.it/) shows some promise but is still in a very early stage of development.

 

I also use a number of non-free programs such as Vuescan for scanning, Bibble for RAW conversion and Noise Ninja for noise reduction. Another interesting application is Lightzone - currently there is a Linux beta version available for testing - but it is a commercial application (http://www.lightcrafts.com/).

 

You might also want to check out linuxphoto.org, which provides a good overview of many of the photo applications available for Linux (commercial and non-commercial)

[dsphoto]

WARNING THIS IS A RANT

 

"I don't know if you want to limit your program usage to true open source or free software, or broaden it to include closed-source and paid-for applications as well."

 

Not to sound like an elitist, however, the more time I spend looking at open source the more compelling arguments I come across to stick with it.

 

yes there are many closed-source options that do a fine job and some that are still best of breed. But consider that Linux is less than 15 years old and surpasses the quality of MS Windows which I grew up on as a youngster (Remember when Windows 3.1 on DOS 5.0 was a huge move? ). What I mean to say is that Linux got to where it is because of community.

 

If you need 16 bit support then get involved. When people say there is no cost to open source I'd say that there is, the cost is time and passion. You enjoy GIMP because other people poured energy into it. You may not be a programmer, but as users we need to let them know that 16 bit is wanted and desired and in some cases required.

 

get on those discussion channels and let them know you want it.

 

Want to buy something? buy a book like "GIMP 2 for Photographers", or organize a GIMP course with your local photo club.

 

If the photoshop crowd never wanted 16 bit they'd still be 8 bit.

 

When I got my digital camera I was surprised to learn GIMP was only 8 bit. I was told after a while that no one wanted 16 bit. so where are we now? If you use a closed-source application they know what you want because you buy it. Open source communities know you want something because you ask for it and use the product.

 

Like they say what good is free speech if you don't use it. Free as in free speech, not free beer.

 

Look forward over the horizon and check out item for on the GIMP Development Q and A for high bit implementation http://developer.gimp.org/faq.html

 

Check out the generic graphics library http://www.gegl.org/, the new heart of GIMP?

 

Just a rant, thought I'd share.

 

P.S I Saved a government department $175,000 (CDN) last year, increased productivity by a factor of 12, and kicked our projected production goals out of the water by switching to an open source image processor for Aerial imagery (http://GDAL.ORG). I can tell you that after that, I got a lot of people to look at open source. if you're missing something in your workflow post it here and lets discuss.

[bill_tuthill]

Martin, do you run Vuescan on Linux? I thought there was such a thing

but your mention of NoiseNinja makes me think you also have Windows.

 

With 64-bit Linux, would GIMP automatically be 16-bit? Seems like

you could just double everything. I know 64-bit Linux works, unlike

64-bit Windows, which crashes a lot.

 

I have to admit Linux is really lacking in font support compared to

Windows. OpenType and Clarify work really well, I have to say.

[martin_canning]

Bill,

 

I'm running a Linux only system under Ununtu 7.10 and no longer have windows

 

There is a native Linux version of Vuescan available at http://www.hamrick.com . Its neither open source nor free but works well with my Nikonscan.

 

There is also a native Linux version of NoiseNinja, again its a commercial application but I've had no problems running it under Ubuntu.

 

As regards your question on GIMP, the answer is no. GIMP is currently limited to 8-bit support, irrespective of whether you run it in a 32-bit or 64-bit Linux environment. Therefore all of the limitations of 8 bit remain. My image processing needs are simple and 8 bit GIMP is generally more than good enough, but for many users it just not sufficient and they need the 16 bit support which for instance Cinepaint provides.

 

As regards Dave's rant - I'm not sure what that was all about - if it was a long-winded way of saying "I'd like to keep the thread focused on open source applications and not look at closed source", then I stand corrected and will respect this wish, as there is more than enough to discuss. However, if it was meant as some sort of sermon on how I or anyone else should spend their time/money etc. then I feel it was misplaced.

[chrise_boris]

GIMP will have GEGL implemented in GIMP 2.6, which is due to be released anytime soon. This paves the way for 16-bit support. The prediction is that GIMP 2.8 will have 16 bit support and that it will happen in 2009.

[JohnMWright]

On raw converters:

I was very impressed with UFRAW, which is a front end based on DCRAW. I've not tried any other open source/free converters.

 

On editors:

I was disappointed to learn that GIMP 2.6 didn't really support 16-bit. I suppose I misread the notes, probably out of wishful thinking. I am very excited about having 16-bit support on the way. The ONLY reason I bought Photoshop was for the 16-bit image support, otherwise I'm very happy with GIMP and will go back to it once that support exists.

 

At the time I bought Photoshop I didn't know about Cinepaint. Cinepaint seemed terribly simplistic and after getting used to the features in Photoshop I am waiting for 16-bit in GIMP before I go back to Linux full time.

 

I tried to use Krita (part of the KOffice package for KDE) and couldn't understand it. I admit I installed it on Windows via KDE for Windows but it could not apparently import common files like TIFF or JPG, it seemed to only support its own proprietary format. I assume that was a limitation of the windows implementation (alpha)... or I missed something in the setup?

 

On viewers:

On Windows, my favorite viewer is Irfanview. It isn't open source but it is free. One of the great features is the ability to read raw files (or at least the embedded JPG). I wish there was a native Linux or Mac version.

 

In Linux I use GQview which is good but clunkier in use (my opinion only).

 

Gwenview and Gthumb are open source viewers that work similarly to Irfanview but don't handle auto-resizing as I'd like, at least they didn't last I looked. What I want in a viewer is the option to auto resize a large image to fit the screen.

[bill_tuthill]

Thanks for the update, John.

I like GIMP better than Photoshop,

and could argue that GIMP is a better tool for editing JPEG.

Because I will soon buy a camera with RAW mode,

I'm glad to hear you like UFRAW.

Photo.net is full of Adobeheads who love Lightroom and ACR,

but color accuracy does not seem good judging by Macbeth charts

in dpreview.com tests.