[ChrisPlatt]

Here's what you really need:

Attached Images

 

[Coeurdechene]

Here's what you really need:

what the heck is that??


And returning to the subject:
...if you ain't got KDE (for Kdenlive) you can use cinelerra...both have received some good reviews..
I know people who actually work with cinelerra...

[boriscleto]

Are you sure?

/Posted from my MBP

My eyes are bleeding. That interface is almost as bad as digiKam.

[Coeurdechene]

nterface is almost as bad as digiKam.

you're exagerating boriscleto...digicam interface isn't so bad....
and then digikam is just a frontend for gphoto2 wich is a fine piece of software...you can try other frontends like gtkam, flphoto,gthumb,fspot...
For video you got cinelerra too this one is a professional level program,nothing to envy to windows or MacOS software, or lives, cinefx, openshot,pitivi...
Linux has tons of software..if you don't like a program just look for another.

[Sparkle]

How about this PC:

~ AMD AM2 Athlon X4 640 3.0 Gig Quad Core CPU
~ Asus M4A785T-M MB, PCIe, SATA, 4DDR3
~ 8 Gigs DDR3 1333 RAM
~ Integrated Sound Chip 10/100 NIC
~ Windows 7 Home Premium 64 Bitl

[normhead]

Are you still talking about an OS or software that uses a editor and a command line?

[boriscleto]

you're exagerating boriscleto...digicam interface isn't so bad....
and then digikam is just a frontend for gphoto2 wich is a fine piece of software...you can try other frontends like gtkam, flphoto,gthumb,fspot...
For video you got cinelerra too this one is a professional level program,nothing to envy to windows or MacOS software, or lives, cinefx, openshot,pitivi...
Linux has tons of software..if you don't like a program just look for another.

I'm not a professional videographer, so I don't want a professional level video editor. If I did I wouldn't use an open source program, I would use Final Cut. I want a program to piece together a few clips, fix the sound levels, add a soundtrack, maybe a few special effects, and then upload the whole thing to Vimeo or You Tube.

For photo organizing I want a program with a consistent interface that doesn't hurt my eyes and was designed for an end user, not a software engineer. Apple spends a lot of time designing interfaces that are usable and have features that people will use. Linux interfaces are an afterthought designed by people who are trying to jam as many features into the program as possible, even if no one is going to use them.

I don't want tons of poorly designed software. I want one well designed app. Time is money, I don't want to waste time learning how to use a poorly designed program.

[Coeurdechene]

Linux interfaces are an afterthought designed by people who are trying to jam as many features into the program as possible, even if no one is going to use them.

I don't want tons of poorly designed software. I want one well designed app. Time is money, I don't want to waste time learning how to use a poorly designed program.

All of this is a generalization and simplification...i talked about cinelerra because i know people who WORK with it...there are good user level apps..Usually linux software is well programmed and thouroughly tested and improved by a large comunity of very able people, lots of programmers and advanced users, some of them using a very effective philosophy in software making like the UNIX philosophy and the KISS principle (wich is contrary to your statement about trying to bundle as many features as possible even if no one use them, and is closer to reality than your view on the subject..).
You just don't like linux..cool, but don't trash other people fine work in utterly simplistic statements.
Mac has some good software, Windows too has some good software (i would love to have reason and ableton live in linux, even if i'm satisfied with audacity, hydrogen and the test version of renoise...). The difference lies in the filosophy behind the software..linux is the only one to empower any user, it works with open source standarts most of the time and has a different way of develloping and testing software.
It's not that linux has hundreds of poorly designed software, is that it has hundreds of DIFFERENT software to satisfy different needs..there is software that is made for technical users and other that's been thought for users.
It's not a coincidence that most servers run linux...that most supercomputers run linux...it has to do with it's design, and today desktop linux has reached the standarts that has made it the dominant platform on servers. For desktop standarts, today, linux has nothing to envy to MacOS, and is way better than windows (performance and security wise.).

[normhead]

Are you still talking about an OS or software that uses an editor and a command line?

Are you ignoring me?

It's not that linux has hundreds of poorly designed software, is that it has hundreds of DIFFERENT software to satisfy different needs..there is software that is made for technical users and other that's been thought for users.

See there's where we differ. It's like saying it would be OK to design a line of cars for a short person.. because you are short, and then recommend them for every one. Now don't get me wrong.. anyone can do what they like. I once wrote a marks ( for computing student grades) program in machine code for my Atari computer. It was lightening fast even on a 2 Mghz 65 - 2 and very useable, for me, not for anyone else. It was a nice piece of hobby code. To claim something like that is a piece of software that could be used by the general public would be lunacy. It was intuitive for me, because I wrote it. Most people want a piece of software where you don't end up playing the game "guess what the programmer was thinking." But with lots linux, unix an PC and even Apple software, that's what you end up doing. And often the solutions to your problem are bizarre. The results of a product suited to the programmers and probably the 5% of the population that think like they do. Don't even get me started on most programmers woeful inability to provide even the most rudimentry documentation for the lay person. They are so steeped in the concepts they use to design code, they can't talk to people who never wrote a line of code in their lives.

The whole move to Apple and Windows was an attempt to escape that world. Don't try and drag us back in to it. We aren't going. I type really poorly and don't spell real words well, forget about the command line crap you have to try and memorize to use a command line. It can take me 3 or 4 minutes to get a single line right, even if it's written on a page in front of me. I copy paste the addresses of my pictures when I post because for me it's faster than trying to type.

Am I getting through here? I don't care what others do. And I consider it an insult to be told to use anything that goes anywhere near a command line. Such a suggestion doesn't respect my strengths and weaknesses. I'm 62 years old and I can still hit a softball 300 feet. I would never come on here and tell people to do that, because I understand, other people have different talents. For some reason. Unix , Linux users continue to tout software systems that most of us can't use. Just because it seems simple and straight forward to you, doesn't mean it's simple and straight forward for everyone else. You really need to get a handle on this.

[Wheatfield]

Which is the better computer to use today for photography, a new PC or a new Mac?

Please "briefly" opine.

It doesn't matter from the POV of the computer or OS both will support full service editing programs and run them with alacrity.

I've been a PC user since I bought my first box. I had the opportunity to fiddle with a Mac a while back and found it different enough to be non intuitive, but familiar enough to realize that once I got past the dancing lights and amusing graphics, that it would also work.
A PC will cost less for similar performance to a Mac. Viruses don't seem to be a problem any more (at least not for me). If you practice unsafe surfing, a Mac might be a better option, though I suspect that as more and more people move to Macs, the virus writers will start targeting the Mac platform with greater freequency.
PC's will support a wider range of software, which is both a good thing and a bad thing, while Mac only lets you load what Steve Jobs thinks you should have on your computer.
This is also has both good points and bad points.

[Coeurdechene]

Most people want a piece of software where you don't end up playing the game "guess what the programmer was thinking." But with lots linux, unix an PC and even Apple software, that's what you end up doing. And often the solutions to your problem are bizarre. The results of a product suited to the programmers and probably the 5% of the population that think like they do. Don't even get me started on most programmers woeful inability to provide even the most rudimentry documentation for the lay person. They are so steeped in the concepts they use to design code, they can't talk to people who never wrote a line of code in their lives.

The whole move to Apple and Windows was an attempt to escape that world. Don't try and drag us back in to it. We aren't going. I type really poorly and don't spell real words well, forget about the command line crap you have to try and memorize to use a command line.

Am I getting through here? I don't care what others do. And I consider it an insult to be told to use anything that goes anywhere near a command line. I'm 62 years old and I can still hit a softball 300 feet. I would never come on here and tell people to do that, because I understand, other people have different talents. For some reason. Unix , Linux users continue to tout software systems that most of us can't use. Just because it seems simple and straight forward to you, doesn't mean it's simple and straight forward for everyone else. You really need to get a handle on this.

Well you have a view of linux that isn't entirely real..Linux has distributions aimed at the average user, where you won't ever ever see the command line (just as in MacOS you may never see it...but it's there too and it's a powerfull tool.). Usually linux software is collaboratively made, big projects are coded by a group of people who have adopted some good documenting practises..since the open source way of doing things lets anyone play with the source, and in fact it is encouraged in lots of software the code is very well explained and the documentation is very complete.
I understand that an average user won't be able to fully use Arch or even Debian (even if i learned with it and i had no programming or computing skills at all..) but it's not the same for those distros that use GUI's to configure and manage the packages...Graphical packet management tools are like any software you need a basic comprehension, but not more than the one you need to play a game or start using photoshop or any other propietary software.
(MacOS IS unix based by the way...)
PClinuxOS is very straightforward, and it's not the only distro..you can look and you'll find lots of them with different needs considered that are userfriendly. So i disgree, deeply, i'm not touting an OS "normal" people can't use...I'm arguing about an efficient OS that is free, that has a collaborative and non competitive devellopment model (wich i find to be very important and deserving praise..).
If you don't like it its fine..use Windows or MacOS but don't ask me to shut up about something that i feel is necessary. There will never be an agreement between people who dislike it and those who feel strongly about it, i just argumented about the OS features since we drifted this way.

And it wasn't ignoring you...Mac and PC have, today the same hardware so the discussion is centered around the OS. Since it's an OS matter that differentiate those two why wouldn't i speak about another OS that on top of all doesn't cost anything at all..
The original question was answered several times by different people..
Mine is if you want MacOS buy a high end PC with the hardware that the PowerMac comes with, then buy MacOS X 10.6 for 29 $ or the 49$ family pack in the apple store and install it..
That way you won't pay the 199$ windows licence and you wont pay the plus that Mac charges you for the design. You'll have a top of the line Mac for less money. (since harware is the same it's cheaper to assemble a clonical desktop or laptop with the OS bought separately..).

[mikemike]

Which is the better computer to use today for photography, a new PC or a new Mac?

Please "briefly" opine.

Which applications do you use for your photography? LR and PS are available for both mac and PC so unless you use something that is specific to one platform I think it is a wash.

Do you use a printer? Is it supported in both windows and OS X if so it is a wash.

How skilled are you with a computer? If you need a lot of help doing basic stuff, the mac might have an edge there.

Do you want internal to the computer data backups via redundant hard drives? If so, an iMac might not be for you.

I build my own computers so it is a lot cheaper to build a whole new windows computer from parts and when I do upgrade I can upgrade an individual part easily and by myself.

A high quality IPS monitor, which I is arguably most important for a photography workstation, will last you a long time so it is a lot better to have it as a standalone piece because it can easily last you for at least 2 computers but if you get one built in either as a laptop or an iMac it will only last you as long as the computer suits your needs. So from a green point of view there is less eWaste if you reduce your purchase of new electronics by reusing and recycling your computer components which is something that cannot be done easily with apple products (their recycling program basically screws you because you turn over working components for piece of mind which they will turn around and resell as refurbs or use as spare parts).

If you don't NEED a mac because of the OS or support or if what your computer looks like isn't an overriding factor in your decision I would say a PC is better because you can save the money and use it for a trip where you can take some great photos or you can use it to buy new photo gear.

[mikemike]

To claim something like that is a piece of software that could be used by the general public would be lunacy. It was intuitive for me, because I wrote it. Most people want a piece of software where you don't end up playing the game "guess what the programmer was thinking." But with lots linux, unix an PC and even Apple software, that's what you end up doing. And often the solutions to your problem are bizarre. The results of a product suited to the programmers and probably the 5% of the population that think like they do. Don't even get me started on most programmers woeful inability to provide even the most rudimentry documentation for the lay person. They are so steeped in the concepts they use to design code, they can't talk to people who never wrote a line of code in their lives.

One of my favorite software development quotes:

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the universe is winning.

[raz-0]

My department runs labs with 800 workstations (used to be more). We mix both windows and os x. Before apple switched to x86 architecture, we were phasing them out. Now, what hardware we run depends on who gives us a good deal. Most years that is not apple. Even when it is, we still run windows on 80% of the machines. We have spent literally millions of dollars hashing out Mac vs pc for the last 10 years. Most of the Mac info in this thread is plain wrong.

Windows is straight up cheaper to administer. It's why we run windows on most of the Mac hardware. Os x exists due to course support. This mostly boils down to iMovie, garage band, and final cut. The former two are actually cheaper, and the latter is due to faculty who refuse to use premier for their courses. Final cut is good, and used to be cross platform until apple bought them out. If iMovie and garage band have your needs covered, they can represent a couple hundred bucks in software savings.

Apple monitors. Apple does NOT own the factory. They haven't even managed to account for 100% of a given panels production in the last 5+ years. They USED to pretty much be a guarantee of a quality monitor, but not anymore. They have shipped 6bit displays in their low end laptops. They have shipped mediocre tn panels in their small iMacs. They have shipped $3000 big cinema displays with color cast problems that couldn't be calibrated and then told the customers to go scratch when they tried to get them replaced. The latest big iMacs had uneven color casts that you couldn't adjust for because they were uneven. They are currently no better than anyone else on displays. Since they mostly sell iMacs and laptops, it is important that you don't blindly accept this based on their old rep.

Security is a push. Most successful attacks these days come via the web, or by phishing. EVERY platform is vulnerable here as pretty much every browser is cross platform, and the browser is where the exploit happens. As for it being unix based? If you can get shell, you can get root. Realistically there have been an increasing number of os x root kits and attacks in the wild. Security through obscurity is on it's way out.

Software... Windows wins. There are things you can get for it you can't get for os x. These things have NOTHING to do with photography. From the photography and videography standpoint, once you get past the free bundled apps, cost is basically the same as well as capability. At the really high end it might swing back to pc with stuff like flint/smoke/inferno/other insanely high priced software. But from hobbyist to small pro businesses, the only difference is more variety on windows.

Hardware. The only thing apple corners the market on anymore is new flash memory offerings. Everything else is essentially commodity stuff, mostly slapped together by foxconn. Base configurations are more price competitive than ever, the main problem is apple will hold onto old processors for a year after pcs have moved on, and old graphic cards for two or more. Then they still charge a premium for both. Unlike monitors, memory, and hard drives, these two things you are pretty much stuck with. The other recurring problem is thermal dissipation. Apple choses style over function here. Especially in laptops. Buy the apple care. You have been warned. (for example, the cube, most of the high end MacBook pros, the early Mac minis, some of the LCD iMacs... almost every generation of their product line has at least one model with serious overheating issues due to design.)

Fixing of problems. Os x really does try and hide stuff. If it succeeds at it, this can look like a smoother user experience. When it fails it can be much more frustrating. When hardware dies, there is something to be said for dropping it off at your local apple store. Both can be appealing or off-putting, only you can judge.

[normhead]

That way you won't pay the 199$ windows licence and you wont pay the plus that Mac charges you for the design. You'll have a top of the line Mac for less money. (since harware is the same it's cheaper to assemble a clonical desktop or laptop with the OS bought separately..).

Honestly, I have never minded paying people for writing the software I use, I have never minded paying Steve Jobs to decide what I can live with, he's way pickier and way more of an AH than I would be. That's his talent. It's not about the hardware. The thing that moved me up to Aperture 3.1.1 wasn't the hardware, it was the inclusion of "brushes". I could finally dodge and burn the way I used to in the dark room. It apparently took a lot of processing power to accomplish that because it really slowed down my machine. Now from your perspective it was the corporate world making my old machine obsolete (bad corporations). For me, it was a combination of more power in the newer meant Apple could give me something I'd wanted for a long time. But you have to understand, somehow, probably partly because I've seen Apple reps take my examples and feedback and forward then to the Aperture development team, Apple did something, I wanted them to do. As for what Seve Jobs approves of, as far as I can tell, Steve Jobs approves of quality, and he'll fight anyone to maintain it. Even those who want to introduce vastly inferior software to Apple computers for their own selfish reasons. For years Graphic Converter came of Macs, pre-installed, even though it was shareware and Apple wasn't going to make a cent from it if people bought the full license, because it was just a really nice piece of software that made Apples a better more functional computer, written by a guy over in Germany who could have been writing for Linux or Unix or any other system. So lets not pretend that everything that goes on an Apple is done by big corporations. Anyone can write for Apple or Windows, and give it away if they want, it's their business. But if you want Apple to sell it from their store, it has to meet their specs. Nothing difficult about that. I have never heard a valid argument with any Apple spec. except from companies who planned to establish their own spec. on Apple systems for their own gain. And to them (are you listening Google) I'd say, go invent your own system and sell it. You can put anything on it you want. If you want to ride Mr. Jobs coat tails, there's a price to pay.