OpenSuse the best linux for Photographers?

**rm2** · 12-07-2011, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by tuco

In TFA, the author expects Linux will dominate over time for 3rd party developers. Many companies and people consider Linux viral. There is always much heated debate over just how really "free" Linux is. It has the GNU License in several flavors. And it is a long-winded license. Look at a *BSD license and it is so short it is practically a one-liner.

Sure, there is a lot of legalese on the license. It needs to pass the lawyer test after all. But, it is not too hard to understand the basic principles of the license.

What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

You may not agree with the terms. That is fine, you are still able to use the software. But, if you are going to distribute it, you have to abide by the license. That means sharing the code to any modifications made.

Originally posted by tuco

The arguments over "free" by *BSD advocates is that it can't be that free if there are constraints. The Linux advocates argue that it needs constraints to keep it free. But there is no denying that being forced by a license to make your distributed derivative work public and available to anyone does not sit well with many corporations, corporate lawyers and 3rd party developers.

Sure, the goals of the GPL are quite different from the BSD license. I understand why some developers would prefer to use software that they can turn proprietary if they wish. Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system. You can most certainly ship proprietary software that runs on Linux. There are tons of examples of this already. Most desktop level libraries have licenses that allow proprietary programs to be made with them. Do you have a particular example of where a license used in a Linux system becomes limiting for you?

tuco · 12-07-2011, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by rm2

Sure, there is a lot of legalese on the license. It needs to pass the lawyer test after all. But, it is not too hard to understand the basic principles of the license.

What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)

You may not agree with the terms. That is fine, you are still able to use the software. But, if you are going to distribute it, you have to abide by the license. That means sharing the code to any modifications made.

Sure, the goals of the GPL are quite different from the BSD license. I understand why some developers would prefer to use software that they can turn proprietary if they wish. Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system. You can most certainly ship proprietary software that runs on Linux. There are tons of examples of this already. Most desktop level libraries have licenses that allow proprietary programs to be made with them. Do you have a particular example of where a license used in a Linux system becomes limiting for you?

You don't need to link me that license. Like I said, I installed Linux in 1994 and used it for quite a while and work with Linux at work. The corporate Lawyers are always a factor with our work.

You have to distribute binary blobs if you what to keep things to yourself with Linux and now no one can do a code review of that work. And no open source distribution of Linux or *BSD can ship with support for proprietary files or codecs. They get around that legal issue by making you set the repository for updates and downloads to some sort of "restricted" location and pass the burden of being in compliance with legal laws in your country onto you.

I believe today you are still technically watching Hollywood DVD movies on your Linux box with an open source player illegally. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the arguably weak encryption on the DVD in countries that bought into those two treaties.

Having had to administer Linux, I find the *BSD systems are so much cleaner than Linux's jumbled mess and you don't need to be a lawyer to create derivative work from any of that code.

OutOfFocus · 12-07-2011, 12:34 PM

I tried OpenSuse 12.1 in a VM. I didn't enjoy the experience. It's probably just down to familiarity (or the lack of it). I normally use Gentoo on real hardware and Ubuntu on my VMs (because Gentoo is such a pain to keep up to date), but the latest Ubuntu also sounds pretty horrible (yet to try it), so I'm still in the market for another easily managed system for my VMs.

On the other hand, I did install Digikam and Darktable and enjoyed that experience, so thanks for the info.

tuco · 12-07-2011, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by rm2

...
Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system.

Don't take me wrong. I think Linux is a great alternative for people especially folks who do not have a lot of disposable income or people who want to set up servers/desktops and not have the burden of worrying and tracking if they have enough proof-of-purchace seals.

It is the GNU tools that carry most of the GPL code and that is the majority of the core system stuff. Linus Trovalds, the original author of the Linux kernel and Richard Stallman, the man behind the GPL license and GNU tools, really do not see eye-to-eye on things. Trovalds seems to be more pragmatic.

For a humors read, some time ago Richard Stallman posted a thread Real Men Don't Attack Straw Men on the OpenBSD site claiming that OpenBSD is not a "free" operating system and he doesn't approve because OpenBSD provides a link to a repository that allows users to install binary blobs for reading proprietary files, codecs and wireless drivers. OpenBSD developers pointed out many applications where his GNU tools also have links to proprietary stuff and he is so blind he only could counter that is was okay for him because he has an agenda to spread his license.

Wow, that sparked a heated debate and IMHO Stallman really looked like one out of touch nut job. The man doesn't do any research. He has others do if for him and is so paranoid that he won't even use a web browser to surf the web. He has some elaborate scheme where the web pages are downloaded and mailed to him in plain text.

**rm2** · 12-07-2011, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by tuco

You don't need to link me that license. Like I said, I installed Linux in 1994 and used it for quite a while and work with Linux at work. The corporate Lawyers are always a factor with our work.

You have to distribute binary blobs if you what to keep things to yourself with Linux and now no one can do a code review of that work.

The same as you would have to do with any other operating system. Right?

Originally posted by tuco

And no open source distribution of Linux or *BSD can ship with support for proprietary files or codecs. They get around that legal issue by making you set the repository for updates and downloads to some sort of "restricted" location and pass the burden of being in compliance with legal laws in your country onto you.

Yes the situation with DVD playback is murky, to say the least. At the moment people that want to view DVD movies have to install a library called libdvdcss (I know you know, but for the benefit of others who may be interested). This method is authorized in France by a law decision on interoperability.

Détail d'une jurisprudence administrative

in the US the situation is uncertain. While you are right about the DMCA, in practice, no one wants to open the can of worms of litigation. As it is, the copy right office is already reviewing the DVD encryption situation.

U.S. Copyright Office - Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies

It is a fair use issue really.

Originally posted by tuco

Having had to administer Linux, I find the *BSD systems are so much cleaner than Linux's jumbled mess and you don't need to be a lawyer to create derivative work form any of that code.

I am sure BSD systems are nice to administer, but I have no problem administering the Linux systems of the company I work for. In fact, it is downright easy. And as for creating derivative works, I don't see the point of wanting to keep them secret. If I make an enhancement of fix a bug to part of the system, I would want my change to be incorporated in the upstream repository so that I don't have to fix it again when the next version comes. If you want to keep it secret in order to sell it, well, then I guess you are right. But, if I am not mistaken, most BSD distributions contain at least some GPL code too. So, you would still have to take a peak at what the license is.

**rm2** · 12-07-2011, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by OutOfFocus

I tried OpenSuse 12.1 in a VM. I didn't enjoy the experience. It's probably just down to familiarity (or the lack of it). I normally use Gentoo on real hardware and Ubuntu on my VMs (because Gentoo is such a pain to keep up to date), but the latest Ubuntu also sounds pretty horrible (yet to try it), so I'm still in the market for another easily managed system for my VMs.

On the other hand, I did install Digikam and Darktable and enjoyed that experience, so thanks for the info.

Glad you got something good from it. Just curious, did you try the Gnome or the KDE version?

**paulh** · 12-07-2011, 01:45 PM

Just wanna say thanks for the heads-up on DigiKam. I moved away from the KDE desktop awhile back and hadn't used DigiKam in years. I've been using PCLinuxOS for about 5 years, and couldn't quite get my head around KDE4, so I've been using the LXDE desktop for a couple yrs. Anyway, looks like some nice improvements to DigiKam, & I'll be test-driving it for awhile.

**rm2** · 12-07-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by paulh

Just wanna say thanks for the heads-up on DigiKam. I moved away from the KDE desktop awhile back and hadn't used DigiKam in years. I've been using PCLinuxOS for about 5 years, and couldn't quite get my head around KDE4, so I've been using the LXDE desktop for a couple yrs. Anyway, looks like some nice improvements to DigiKam, & I'll be test-driving it for awhile.

You are welcome. PCLinuxOS has not yet upgraded digiKam to the 2.x version. So, you may want to check it out in OpenSuse for now.

OutOfFocus · 12-07-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by rm2

Glad you got something good from it. Just curious, did you try the Gnome or the KDE version?

Version of OpenSuse or DigiKam?

I just downloaded the OpenSuse DVD and went through the standard installation process. I don't have it here to check, but I think it was the KDE version. I use Gnome under Gentoo and Ubuntu.

The DigiKam installation I did under Gentoo was older (version 1.9) and used KDE. Under Gentoo, the latest version of DigiKam requires the latest version of KDE, and that's all still marked unstable, and I try to avoid unstable by default, especially for major libraries and subsystems.

I see DigiKam version 2.4 is out already. Those guys are really pushing stuff out!

reala · 12-07-2011, 02:31 PM

For what it's worth, I'm really trying to get away from Microsoft and switched to Ubuntu with Gnome and the Avant window manager a little while ago (even though I have lightroom and Cs4). I actually quite like it. So now to stay on track here, I've been using RawTherapee with quite some success and must say it's worth a look. I tried Darktable, but it has away to go yet for me.

cbope · 12-08-2011, 05:55 AM

Geez, this is one of the last places I expected to see Stallman, GNU/Linux and GPL vs. BSD license politics mentioned within a single thread!

**newmikey** · 12-08-2011, 06:54 AM

I'd have to side with rm2 on this one: I've been using PCLinuxOS for a long, looooong time and my last OS update that required an actual reinstall was over 3 years ago. From there on in it was all rolling updates. Actually, at one point in time I remastered PCLinuxOS and released it as the DPE (later DPE-II), the PCLinuxOS Digital Photography Edition.

It certainly has all I need for a color managed 16-bit workflow and I do use Gimp sparingly only for touch-ups near the end of the PP. My RAW conversion is all UFRaw based because of the control over the process and the lack of "behind the scenes" quirks. I like my RAW conversion to be just that: raw conversion only. Levels, curves, sharpening, cloning & zoning etc. etc. belong in an image editor or DAM with editing capabilities, not in a raw processor!

In order to keep up though I have learned to update key image editing and processing packages myself so I always download and compile both UFRaw and Digikam development versions to stay ahead of the curve.

One thing rm2 forgot to mention (and I know he uses, and likes it) is the exposure-blending and HDR capabilities in Linux. Exposure-blending with Enblend and Align_image_stack through a DigiKam graphical frontend and HDR+tonemapping through the excellent LuminanceHDR package.

I actually think Linux is way ahead on the curve for the photography enthusiast, as an example I only have to point out PS's "content aware fill" which became available only after a costly update a couple of years after "liquid rescale" and "resynthesizer" plugins had become bog standard in GIMP.

For the professional making a living from photography and forced to live in a Microsoft/Adobe biosphere, Linux seems not to be an option but then again, it does not have to be either.

Even Bibble and NeatImage now released a Linux-native version of its RAW conversion, respectively NR software and I believe that slowly but surely, others will follow. On the flipside, Linux software is crossing over into Windows and OSX as well as software such as GIMP, LuminanceHDR and now also Digikam become truly platform-independent. In a few years from now, the PC will be an appliance you run your software on and don't care what the OS is...

**rm2** · 12-08-2011, 09:56 AM

Hi there NewMikey,

I remember your DPE release. I used it for a while on my home machine. Although, I am certain I didn't use it to the full as far as all the photography related goodies you had on it. You are certainly much more knowledgeable than me on both Linux and Photo processing. If you come out with another DPE release I may be tempted to try it.

OutOfFocus · 12-08-2011, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by OutOfFocus

The DigiKam installation I did under Gentoo was older (version 1.9) and used KDE. Under Gentoo, the latest version of DigiKam requires the latest version of KDE, and that's all still marked unstable, and I try to avoid unstable by default, especially for major libraries and subsystems.

Today I see that Gentoo has marked both DigiKam version 2.3 and the KDE libraries it depends on as stable. Woo hoo. Upgrading now.

**newmikey** · 12-08-2011, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by OutOfFocus

Today I see that Gentoo has marked both DigiKam version 2.3 and the KDE libraries it depends on as stable. Woo hoo. Upgrading now.

Is Gentoo already on KDE4.7? I just have to try that in a VBox. Excellent news by the way although a quick visit to homebase shows:

digiKam Software Collection 2.4.0 is out...
Submitted by cauliergilles on Tue, 2011-12-06 14:45

Mostly bugfixes as far as I can see...may not be worth your while for now.

digiKam in c’t Digital Photography
Submitted by Dmitri Popov on Wed, 2011-11-30 09:22

The latest issue #6 of c't Digital Photography features an in-depth article about digiKam by yours truly.

12-07-2011, 12:26 PM	#17
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by rm2 Sure, there is a lot of legalese on the license. It needs to pass the lawyer test after all. But, it is not too hard to understand the basic principles of the license. What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) You may not agree with the terms. That is fine, you are still able to use the software. But, if you are going to distribute it, you have to abide by the license. That means sharing the code to any modifications made. Sure, the goals of the GPL are quite different from the BSD license. I understand why some developers would prefer to use software that they can turn proprietary if they wish. Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system. You can most certainly ship proprietary software that runs on Linux. There are tons of examples of this already. Most desktop level libraries have licenses that allow proprietary programs to be made with them. Do you have a particular example of where a license used in a Linux system becomes limiting for you? You don't need to link me that license. Like I said, I installed Linux in 1994 and used it for quite a while and work with Linux at work. The corporate Lawyers are always a factor with our work. You have to distribute binary blobs if you what to keep things to yourself with Linux and now no one can do a code review of that work. And no open source distribution of Linux or BSD can ship with support for proprietary files or codecs. They get around that legal issue by making you set the repository for updates and downloads to some sort of "restricted" location and pass the burden of being in compliance with legal laws in your country onto you. I believe today you are still technically watching Hollywood DVD movies on your Linux box with an open source player illegally. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the arguably weak encryption on the DVD in countries that bought into those two treaties. Having had to administer Linux, I find the BSD systems are so much cleaner than Linux's jumbled mess and you don't need to be a lawyer to create derivative work from any of that code. Last edited by tuco; 12-08-2011 at 10:03 AM.

12-07-2011, 01:36 PM	#20
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco You don't need to link me that license. Like I said, I installed Linux in 1994 and used it for quite a while and work with Linux at work. The corporate Lawyers are always a factor with our work. You have to distribute binary blobs if you what to keep things to yourself with Linux and now no one can do a code review of that work. The same as you would have to do with any other operating system. Right? Originally posted by tuco And no open source distribution of Linux or BSD can ship with support for proprietary files or codecs. They get around that legal issue by making you set the repository for updates and downloads to some sort of "restricted" location and pass the burden of being in compliance with legal laws in your country onto you. Yes the situation with DVD playback is murky, to say the least. At the moment people that want to view DVD movies have to install a library called libdvdcss (I know you know, but for the benefit of others who may be interested). This method is authorized in France by a law decision on interoperability. Détail d'une jurisprudence administrative in the US the situation is uncertain. While you are right about the DMCA, in practice, no one wants to open the can of worms of litigation. As it is, the copy right office is already reviewing the DVD encryption situation. U.S. Copyright Office - Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies It is a fair use issue really. Originally posted by tuco Having had to administer Linux, I find the BSD systems are so much cleaner than Linux's jumbled mess and you don't need to be a lawyer to create derivative work form any of that code. I am sure BSD systems are nice to administer, but I have no problem administering the Linux systems of the company I work for. In fact, it is downright easy. And as for creating derivative works, I don't see the point of wanting to keep them secret. If I make an enhancement of fix a bug to part of the system, I would want my change to be incorporated in the upstream repository so that I don't have to fix it again when the next version comes. If you want to keep it secret in order to sell it, well, then I guess you are right. But, if I am not mistaken, most BSD distributions contain at least some GPL code too. So, you would still have to take a peak at what the license is. Last edited by rm2; 12-07-2011 at 01:42 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Raw processing with Linux?	kiwi_jono	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	48	05-17-2011 12:12 PM
Linux Video Compression for K-x	firefly	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-24-2011 08:52 AM
You want Adobe Suit on Linux?	rm2	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	31	01-08-2011 07:09 AM
Linux Post Processing	drndrw	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	16	10-06-2010 01:19 PM
8 of the best photo managers for Linux	ptempel	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	14	06-07-2010 06:09 AM

12-07-2011, 11:51 AM	#16
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco In TFA, the author expects Linux will dominate over time for 3rd party developers. Many companies and people consider Linux viral. There is always much heated debate over just how really "free" Linux is. It has the GNU License in several flavors. And it is a long-winded license. Look at a BSD license and it is so short it is practically a one-liner. Sure, there is a lot of legalese on the license. It needs to pass the lawyer test after all. But, it is not too hard to understand the basic principles of the license. What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) You may not agree with the terms. That is fine, you are still able to use the software. But, if you are going to distribute it, you have to abide by the license. That means sharing the code to any modifications made. Originally posted by tuco The arguments over "free" by BSD advocates is that it can't be that free if there are constraints. The Linux advocates argue that it needs constraints to keep it free. But there is no denying that being forced by a license to make your distributed derivative work public and available to anyone does not sit well with many corporations, corporate lawyers and 3rd party developers. Sure, the goals of the GPL are quite different from the BSD license. I understand why some developers would prefer to use software that they can turn proprietary if they wish. Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system. You can most certainly ship proprietary software that runs on Linux. There are tons of examples of this already. Most desktop level libraries have licenses that allow proprietary programs to be made with them. Do you have a particular example of where a license used in a Linux system becomes limiting for you?

12-07-2011, 12:34 PM	#18
OutOfFocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 140	I tried OpenSuse 12.1 in a VM. I didn't enjoy the experience. It's probably just down to familiarity (or the lack of it). I normally use Gentoo on real hardware and Ubuntu on my VMs (because Gentoo is such a pain to keep up to date), but the latest Ubuntu also sounds pretty horrible (yet to try it), so I'm still in the market for another easily managed system for my VMs. On the other hand, I did install Digikam and Darktable and enjoyed that experience, so thanks for the info.

12-07-2011, 01:20 PM	#19
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Originally posted by rm2 ... Linux uses the GPL for the kernel, and a variety of licenses are used for other parts of the system. Don't take me wrong. I think Linux is a great alternative for people especially folks who do not have a lot of disposable income or people who want to set up servers/desktops and not have the burden of worrying and tracking if they have enough proof-of-purchace seals. It is the GNU tools that carry most of the GPL code and that is the majority of the core system stuff. Linus Trovalds, the original author of the Linux kernel and Richard Stallman, the man behind the GPL license and GNU tools, really do not see eye-to-eye on things. Trovalds seems to be more pragmatic. For a humors read, some time ago Richard Stallman posted a thread Real Men Don't Attack Straw Men on the OpenBSD site claiming that OpenBSD is not a "free" operating system and he doesn't approve because OpenBSD provides a link to a repository that allows users to install binary blobs for reading proprietary files, codecs and wireless drivers. OpenBSD developers pointed out many applications where his GNU tools also have links to proprietary stuff and he is so blind he only could counter that is was okay for him because he has an agenda to spread his license. Wow, that sparked a heated debate and IMHO Stallman really looked like one out of touch nut job. The man doesn't do any research. He has others do if for him and is so paranoid that he won't even use a web browser to surf the web. He has some elaborate scheme where the web pages are downloaded and mailed to him in plain text.

12-07-2011, 01:43 PM	#21
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Originally posted by OutOfFocus I tried OpenSuse 12.1 in a VM. I didn't enjoy the experience. It's probably just down to familiarity (or the lack of it). I normally use Gentoo on real hardware and Ubuntu on my VMs (because Gentoo is such a pain to keep up to date), but the latest Ubuntu also sounds pretty horrible (yet to try it), so I'm still in the market for another easily managed system for my VMs. On the other hand, I did install Digikam and Darktable and enjoyed that experience, so thanks for the info. Glad you got something good from it. Just curious, did you try the Gnome or the KDE version?

12-07-2011, 01:45 PM	#22
paulh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: DFW Texas/Ventura County, CA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 33,262	Just wanna say thanks for the heads-up on DigiKam. I moved away from the KDE desktop awhile back and hadn't used DigiKam in years. I've been using PCLinuxOS for about 5 years, and couldn't quite get my head around KDE4, so I've been using the LXDE desktop for a couple yrs. Anyway, looks like some nice improvements to DigiKam, & I'll be test-driving it for awhile.

12-07-2011, 02:14 PM	#23
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Originally posted by paulh Just wanna say thanks for the heads-up on DigiKam. I moved away from the KDE desktop awhile back and hadn't used DigiKam in years. I've been using PCLinuxOS for about 5 years, and couldn't quite get my head around KDE4, so I've been using the LXDE desktop for a couple yrs. Anyway, looks like some nice improvements to DigiKam, & I'll be test-driving it for awhile. You are welcome. PCLinuxOS has not yet upgraded digiKam to the 2.x version. So, you may want to check it out in OpenSuse for now.

12-07-2011, 02:14 PM	#24
OutOfFocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 140	Originally posted by rm2 Glad you got something good from it. Just curious, did you try the Gnome or the KDE version? Version of OpenSuse or DigiKam? I just downloaded the OpenSuse DVD and went through the standard installation process. I don't have it here to check, but I think it was the KDE version. I use Gnome under Gentoo and Ubuntu. The DigiKam installation I did under Gentoo was older (version 1.9) and used KDE. Under Gentoo, the latest version of DigiKam requires the latest version of KDE, and that's all still marked unstable, and I try to avoid unstable by default, especially for major libraries and subsystems. I see DigiKam version 2.4 is out already. Those guys are really pushing stuff out!

12-07-2011, 02:31 PM	#25
reala Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Midland ON Posts: 48	For what it's worth, I'm really trying to get away from Microsoft and switched to Ubuntu with Gnome and the Avant window manager a little while ago (even though I have lightroom and Cs4). I actually quite like it. So now to stay on track here, I've been using RawTherapee with quite some success and must say it's worth a look. I tried Darktable, but it has away to go yet for me.

12-08-2011, 05:55 AM	#26
cbope Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Helsinki Posts: 664	Geez, this is one of the last places I expected to see Stallman, GNU/Linux and GPL vs. BSD license politics mentioned within a single thread!

12-08-2011, 06:54 AM	#27
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287	I'd have to side with rm2 on this one: I've been using PCLinuxOS for a long, looooong time and my last OS update that required an actual reinstall was over 3 years ago. From there on in it was all rolling updates. Actually, at one point in time I remastered PCLinuxOS and released it as the DPE (later DPE-II), the PCLinuxOS Digital Photography Edition. It certainly has all I need for a color managed 16-bit workflow and I do use Gimp sparingly only for touch-ups near the end of the PP. My RAW conversion is all UFRaw based because of the control over the process and the lack of "behind the scenes" quirks. I like my RAW conversion to be just that: raw conversion only. Levels, curves, sharpening, cloning & zoning etc. etc. belong in an image editor or DAM with editing capabilities, not in a raw processor! In order to keep up though I have learned to update key image editing and processing packages myself so I always download and compile both UFRaw and Digikam development versions to stay ahead of the curve. One thing rm2 forgot to mention (and I know he uses, and likes it) is the exposure-blending and HDR capabilities in Linux. Exposure-blending with Enblend and Align_image_stack through a DigiKam graphical frontend and HDR+tonemapping through the excellent LuminanceHDR package. I actually think Linux is way ahead on the curve for the photography enthusiast, as an example I only have to point out PS's "content aware fill" which became available only after a costly update a couple of years after "liquid rescale" and "resynthesizer" plugins had become bog standard in GIMP. For the professional making a living from photography and forced to live in a Microsoft/Adobe biosphere, Linux seems not to be an option but then again, it does not have to be either. Even Bibble and NeatImage now released a Linux-native version of its RAW conversion, respectively NR software and I believe that slowly but surely, others will follow. On the flipside, Linux software is crossing over into Windows and OSX as well as software such as GIMP, LuminanceHDR and now also Digikam become truly platform-independent. In a few years from now, the PC will be an appliance you run your software on and don't care what the OS is...

12-08-2011, 09:56 AM	#28
rm2 Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Hudson Valley - NY Posts: 778 Original Poster	Hi there NewMikey, I remember your DPE release. I used it for a while on my home machine. Although, I am certain I didn't use it to the full as far as all the photography related goodies you had on it. You are certainly much more knowledgeable than me on both Linux and Photo processing. If you come out with another DPE release I may be tempted to try it.

12-08-2011, 03:27 PM	#29
OutOfFocus Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Houston, TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 140	Originally posted by OutOfFocus The DigiKam installation I did under Gentoo was older (version 1.9) and used KDE. Under Gentoo, the latest version of DigiKam requires the latest version of KDE, and that's all still marked unstable, and I try to avoid unstable by default, especially for major libraries and subsystems. Today I see that Gentoo has marked both DigiKam version 2.3 and the KDE libraries it depends on as stable. Woo hoo. Upgrading now.

12-08-2011, 04:07 PM	#30
newmikey Site Supporter Join Date: May 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,287	Originally posted by OutOfFocus Today I see that Gentoo has marked both DigiKam version 2.3 and the KDE libraries it depends on as stable. Woo hoo. Upgrading now. Is Gentoo already on KDE4.7? I just have to try that in a VBox. Excellent news by the way although a quick visit to homebase shows: digiKam Software Collection 2.4.0 is out... Submitted by cauliergilles on Tue, 2011-12-06 14:45 Mostly bugfixes as far as I can see...may not be worth your while for now. digiKam in c’t Digital Photography Submitted by Dmitri Popov on Wed, 2011-11-30 09:22 The latest issue #6 of c't Digital Photography features an in-depth article about digiKam by yours truly.