Linux + RAW = BAD mojo
Eric
I'm a hobbiest / advanced amateur shooter with strong computer
background.
Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time it's
not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do very
simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too much time.
Needless to say I did succeed in dumping Windows because I ended up
springing for an Apple. Lightroom is just about the best I have seen
for simple, effective, and powerful RAW workflows.
If anyone has any positive views on Linux + RAW I would love to hear
from you.
http://brontide.blogspot.com/2007/06/linux-and-photography-dont-mix-well.html
-Brontide
http://brontide.blogspot.com
Rob Morley
eri...@gmail.com says...
>
> I'm a hobbiest / advanced amateur shooter with strong computer
> background.
>
> Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
> photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time it's
> not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do very
> simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too much time.
>
Koekje
> Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
> photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time
> it's not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do
> very simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too
> much time.
I completely disagree.
> If anyone has any positive views on Linux + RAW I would love to hear
> from you.
My workflow is 100% Linux. With Digikam I can convert RAW files in a
heartbeat. Opening a RAW is like opening any other file. After editing
I save as JPEG without a fuss. Digikam also has batch conversion
support if that's your thing.
Koekje
ray
>
> I'm a hobbiest / advanced amateur shooter with strong computer
> background.
>
> Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
> photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time it's
> not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do very
> simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too much time.
I've been using Linux for five years. I've been doing raw processing with
ufraw on Linux since I got the capability about five months ago. Besides
ufraw, there are several other possibilities, but I find it works fine for
babaloo
color management.
How do you calibrate your monitor? I have not seen Linux drivers, although
they may be out there home brewed somewhere, from the manufacturers of
calibration devices.
Even Mac support is waning among the major vendors, Windows market share
being the behemoth it is, and graphics are the great utterly fake raison
d'etre for Macs to begin with.
The Linux print drivers I have seen do not have the sophistication of
Windows/Mac counterparts.
I have tried to use Linux, and you can do basic stuff with it (limited word
processing, spread sheets, surf the web), but in my experience it is
delusional to believe that Linux programs and drivers have the
sophistication of their Windows and Mac counterparts in productivity and
imaging applications.
Linux boxes may be great servers but they are fundamentally hobbled for
sophisticated desktop tasks because of the lack of commercial support.
It is an inescapable reality that the fragmented Linux community cannot
compete across the board with commercially driven ventures.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I'm a hobbiest / advanced amateur shooter with strong computer
>background.
>
>Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
>photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time it's
>not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do very
>simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too much time.
And you claim to have a "strong computer background"?
>Needless to say I did succeed in dumping Windows because I ended up
>springing for an Apple. Lightroom is just about the best I have seen
>for simple, effective, and powerful RAW workflows.
>
>If anyone has any positive views on Linux + RAW I would love to hear
>from you.
I use it every day. So do a lot of others.
>http://brontide.blogspot.com/2007/06/linux-and-photography-dont-mix-well.html
Is there any reason a person should bother reading that?
All it indicated to me was that you tried UFRAW, but never did
read the man page for it. Tsck tsck.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Koekje
> How do you calibrate your monitor?
With the KDE monitor calibration, found in the Settings application.
> I have not seen Linux drivers, although they may be out there home
> brewed somewhere, from the manufacturers of calibration devices.
I think my eyesight is good enough to do manual calibration.
> The Linux print drivers I have seen do not have the sophistication
> of Windows/Mac counterparts.
Personally, I hardly print photos.
> I have tried to use Linux, and you can do basic stuff with it
> (limited word processing, spread sheets, surf the web)
You can do so much more with Linux than what you describe just now.
> but in my experience it is delusional to believe that Linux programs
> and drivers have the sophistication of their Windows and Mac
> counterparts in productivity and imaging applications.
Well, perhaps they are just lagging behind a bit. Can you blame them?
It's a completely free system that comes with completely free
software, written by people because they like to create software.
Nobody is claiming that Linux is just as good or better than Windows
or Mac on every single aspect.
> Linux boxes may be great servers but they are fundamentally hobbled
> for sophisticated desktop tasks because of the lack of commercial
> support.
Commercial support has nothing to do with quality software. I've
gotten help from the Open Source community faster and more accurate
than any large company has ever given me.
> It is an inescapable reality that the fragmented Linux community
> cannot compete across the board with commercially driven ventures.
A reality for you maybe. Most people are amazed by how far the Linux
communnity has gotten in a relatively short time. In areas it's also
more advanced and "smarter" than Windows is. For example, the disk I/O
scheduling seems to be a lot better - in other words, with a lot of
disk access going on Linux remains pretty responsive, whereas Windows
XP slows down to a crawl. Another example: window management. Linux
(KDE at least) places a window in such a position that overlap with
other windows is minimal. It also delegates window management to a
separate application, so that if a program is too busy to respond, it
can still be moved around and minimized. I can go on a long time, but
I think you get the point.
Koekje
No One
I have to agree that UFRaw sucks big donkey turds.
No One
You must have an ATI graphics card.
Eric
> My workflow is 100% Linux. With Digikam I can convert RAW files in a
> heartbeat. Opening a RAW is like opening any other file. After editing
> I save as JPEG without a fuss. Digikam also has batch conversion
> support if that's your thing.
>
> Koekje
DigiKam 0.9.0+ added support for RAW. Looking over distrowatch I see
that only the unstable ubuntu 7.05 and derivatives bundle that
version. Maybe in a year or two it wil be more widely available.
Eric
> All it indicated to me was that you tried UFRAW, but never did
> read the man page for it. Tsck tsck.
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
UFRaw does raw conversion, and so does DCRaw but neither offer a
workflow solution.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I would like to know how Linux users who work in RAW can do so with full
>color management.
Use GIMP version 2.3. It can also be done with v2.2,
but it requires significantly more understanding of how
color management works than apparenty most people are
willing to develop.
>How do you calibrate your monitor? I have not seen Linux drivers, although
>they may be out there home brewed somewhere, from the manufacturers of
>calibration devices.
Argyll is a package that runs on Linux (and other
platforms), and supports X-Rite/Monaco Optix XR
colorimeters.
>Even Mac support is waning among the major vendors, Windows market share
>being the behemoth it is, and graphics are the great utterly fake raison
>d'etre for Macs to begin with.
>The Linux print drivers I have seen do not have the sophistication of
>Windows/Mac counterparts.
I'd say that the drivers for CUPS and Epson printers are
*far* more useful than Windows drivers. I'm not
familiar with the others, but wouldn't bet they are
different.
>I have tried to use Linux, and you can do basic stuff with it (limited word
>processing, spread sheets, surf the web), but in my experience it is
Limited word processing? You gotta be kidding!
Unix based systems (Linux included) can literally run
circles around virtually anything else. There are of
course "word processors" that are similar in style to
those on Windows, but like them they are also less able
that using TeX/LaTeX and a good text editor like
(X)Emacs. If you want simplicity and barely acceptable
quality, use a word processor. If you need the highest
possible quality, learn a typesetter. The learning
curve is steep, but once you know how it actually is far
easier.
>delusional to believe that Linux programs and drivers have the
>sophistication of their Windows and Mac counterparts in productivity and
>imaging applications.
Pure ignorance...
>Linux boxes may be great servers but they are fundamentally hobbled for
>sophisticated desktop tasks because of the lack of commercial support.
>It is an inescapable reality that the fragmented Linux community cannot
>compete across the board with commercially driven ventures.
Okay, so you like to troll, and don't have a clue...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Jun 6, 2:50 am, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> All it indicated to me was that you tried UFRAW, but never did
>> read the man page for it. Tsck tsck.
>
>workflow solution.
What is your definition of "a workflow solution"??
I really do suggest that people read the man pages...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
Ignorance on your part...
Koekje
> DigiKam 0.9.0+ added support for RAW. Looking over distrowatch I
> see that only the unstable ubuntu 7.05 and derivatives bundle that
> version.
There is no Ubuntu 7.05. I've been running Ubuntu 7.04 and it's quite
stable.
Koekje
Rob Morley
koe...@example.com says...
ray
It is based on 'Debian Unstable'. That does not mean the distro is
unstable, it means that the versions of particular software is not static.
ray
UFRAW includes at least basic corrections if not a total solution. I use
UFRAW to read the RAW file, make basic corrections (exposure, white
balance, color curves) and then use GIMP if necessary to finish the job.
Eric
> UFRAW includes at least basic corrections if not a total solution. I use
> UFRAW to read the RAW file, make basic corrections (exposure, white
> balance, color curves) and then use GIMP if necessary to finish the job.
Ray,
I'm glad you found a solution that works for you, but UFRaw did not
work for me. I can go back to the system and try and dig up what
version of the software was installed to see if that was a big
difference. As others have pointed out the fragmentation in the
distributions do not help the situation any. Honestly I poured at
least two weeks of evenings and weekends trying to find an acceptable
solution and found nothing that came close to Picasa under windows
( Picasa under linux kept crashing itself or X11 ).
Within an hour of getting an Apple MacBook Pro I was processing and
uploading hundreds of pictures. I have since picked up Lightroom and
have been 100% happy with my choice to spend a few dollars and stop
fighting with it.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Jun 7, 1:52 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>> UFRAW includes at least basic corrections if not a total solution. I use
>> UFRAW to read the RAW file, make basic corrections (exposure, white
>> balance, color curves) and then use GIMP if necessary to finish the job.
>
>Ray,
>
>I'm glad you found a solution that works for you, but UFRaw did not
>work for me.
The question is why not. What did you want it to do
that it cannot?
>I can go back to the system and try and dig up what
>version of the software was installed to see if that was a big
>difference. As others have pointed out the fragmentation in the
>distributions do not help the situation any.
Wrong. The fact that DCRAW comes from one source, UFRAW
from another, and the GIMP from yet another is one of
the major benefits of Open Source Software.
In case you are missing the point of how UFRAW works, it
can be used as a batch processing solution, in a stand
alone GUI mode, or as a frontend to GIMP. That sort of
versatility is available where else?
People who complain about "workflow" simply don't
understand how to develop their own workflow. They
depend on someone else providing one that matches their
limited skills and needs. I can't imagine anyone being
satisfied with that arrangement! (But they are!) In
fact I commonly use UFRAW in all three of the modes
listed above. Which is chosen depends on what my
immediate needs are, and I'm not confined to what some
software package will allow.
>Honestly I poured at
>least two weeks of evenings and weekends trying to find an acceptable
>solution and found nothing that came close to Picasa under windows
>( Picasa under linux kept crashing itself or X11 ).
>
>Within an hour of getting an Apple MacBook Pro I was processing and
>uploading hundreds of pictures. I have since picked up Lightroom and
>have been 100% happy with my choice to spend a few dollars and stop
>fighting with it.
My needs are too varied for such a solution, but I see
nothing at all wrong with that working for you. The
whole point of Apple's methods for decades now has been
to provide easy to learn solutions. For many people
they are the perfect solution.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Eric
> Wrong. The fact that DCRAW comes from one source, UFRAW
> from another, and the GIMP from yet another is one of
> the major benefits of Open Source Software.
Except I don't want to spend all day rebuilding software. I often ran
into situations where the software was perfect ( in theory ) but
distro A didn't support mono, didn't have the needed KDE libraries,
required dependancies that were from unstable sources, or a million
other little things.
And just in case you think I'm ill equipped to do so, my day job is
the sole systems administrator for a research cluster of more than 80
linux system. All are PXE and Kickstarted with my own scripts and
updates. I write my own RPM's for packages the researchers need and I
can't find elsewhere. I have used and maintained linux servers for
more than a decade professionally. My first installation was
slackware with the 0.96 kernel. I have patched kernels that hung on
bad keyboard controllers.
I do that all day and let me tell you I'm not rebuilding GNOME for fun
when I get home.
> In case you are missing the point of how UFRAW works, it
> can be used as a batch processing solution, in a stand
> alone GUI mode, or as a frontend to GIMP. That sort of
> versatility is available where else?
Lightroom. It does all of that, except the GIMP frontend part. You
can open images adjusted in lightroom in any application including
GIMP if you prefer.
> People who complain about "workflow" simply don't
> understand how to develop their own workflow. They
> depend on someone else providing one that matches their
> limited skills and needs. I can't imagine anyone being
> satisfied with that arrangement! (But they are!) In
> fact I commonly use UFRAW in all three of the modes
> listed above. Which is chosen depends on what my
> immediate needs are, and I'm not confined to what some
> software package will allow.
Don't knock it till you have tried it. Lightroom does everything you
describe as well as being easy to use and fully support on the two
major desktops OS X and Windows.
> My needs are too varied for such a solution, but I see
> nothing at all wrong with that working for you. The
> whole point of Apple's methods for decades now has been
> to provide easy to learn solutions. For many people
> they are the perfect solution.
Good for you, you have managed to figure a way to make it all work for
you. I don't personally find it to be an acceptable solution for
myself nor anything I would recommend that anyone even try at this
point. I fully recommend Linux/Ubuntu for generic desktop use, but
this is a specialized use and Linux just wouldn't cut it for me.
No One
I find UFRaw to do very noisy conversions though.
No One
> more than a decade professionally. My first installation was
> slackware with the 0.96 kernel. I have patched kernels that hung on
> bad keyboard controllers.
Ah..slackware...the distro on all those floppies...
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Jun 6, 5:47 pm, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> Wrong. The fact that DCRAW comes from one source, UFRAW
>> from another, and the GIMP from yet another is one of
>> the major benefits of Open Source Software.
>
>Except I don't want to spend all day rebuilding software. I often ran
>into situations where the software was perfect ( in theory ) but
>distro A didn't support mono, didn't have the needed KDE libraries,
>required dependancies that were from unstable sources, or a million
>other little things.
Wonderful, but that's all simply bullshit. DCRAW
compiles on virtually *any* platform, for example.
Neither UFRAW nor GIMP requires KDE, and none of it
would be of any value at all on a mono system.
And if you feel you have to rebuild your software every
day before using it again... there just isn't much to
say...
>And just in case you think I'm ill equipped to do so, my day job is
>the sole systems administrator for a research cluster of more than 80
>linux system.
Then you damned well ought to know better than trying to
blow blue smoke up anyone's ass on this topic.
>All are PXE and Kickstarted with my own scripts and
>updates. I write my own RPM's for packages the researchers need and I
>can't find elsewhere. I have used and maintained linux servers for
>more than a decade professionally. My first installation was
>slackware with the 0.96 kernel. I have patched kernels that hung on
>bad keyboard controllers.
So why are you spouting all of this nonsense then?
There's a bit of paradox between your claims of
experience and you lack of knowledge.
>I do that all day and let me tell you I'm not rebuilding GNOME for fun
>when I get home.
Just as with KDE, GNOME is not required to be running,
or to ever be rebuilt in order to run the programs
discussed.
>> In case you are missing the point of how UFRAW works, it
>> can be used as a batch processing solution, in a stand
>> alone GUI mode, or as a frontend to GIMP. That sort of
>> versatility is available where else?
>
>Lightroom. It does all of that, except the GIMP frontend part. You
>can open images adjusted in lightroom in any application including
>GIMP if you prefer.
So how does that make UFRAW less able?
>> People who complain about "workflow" simply don't
>> understand how to develop their own workflow. They
>> depend on someone else providing one that matches their
>> limited skills and needs. I can't imagine anyone being
>> satisfied with that arrangement! (But they are!) In
>> fact I commonly use UFRAW in all three of the modes
>> listed above. Which is chosen depends on what my
>> immediate needs are, and I'm not confined to what some
>> software package will allow.
>
>Don't knock it till you have tried it. Lightroom does everything you
>describe as well as being easy to use and fully support on the two
>major desktops OS X and Windows.
I've not knocked Lightroom at all. The point is that you
are knocking UFRAW and GIMP with ridiculous statemenst and
illogical suggestions.
>> My needs are too varied for such a solution, but I see
>> nothing at all wrong with that working for you. The
>> whole point of Apple's methods for decades now has been
>> to provide easy to learn solutions. For many people
>> they are the perfect solution.
>
>Good for you, you have managed to figure a way to make it all work for
>you. I don't personally find it to be an acceptable solution for
>myself nor anything I would recommend that anyone even try at this
>point. I fully recommend Linux/Ubuntu for generic desktop use, but
>this is a specialized use and Linux just wouldn't cut it for me.
I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu either! Perhaps if you
switched to something like Slackware, and ditched GNOME,
you wouldn't have so many problems.
Floyd L. Davidson
Actually I'm thinking that Slackware may actually have
had the first "live" CD distribution available.
Plus, Eric is bullshitting. The first Slackware release
ran a Linux 0.99p11 kernel.
Koekje
> Except I don't want to spend all day rebuilding software. I often
> ran into situations where the software was perfect ( in theory ) but
> distro A didn't support mono, didn't have the needed KDE libraries,
Strange. I run Kubuntu 7.04, which has everything I need. No
compilation required.
Koekje
Eric
> Plus, Eric is bullshitting. The first Slackware release
> ran a Linux 0.99p11 kernel.
The 1.0 release had 0.99p11, but I assure you that the 15+ disks
downloaded one at a time in 1992 did not have 0.99p11 since it was not
released yet. Unfortunately it's hard to find accurate information on
those fleeting pre-1.0 slackware installs.
Google: slackware kernel-0.96
I would point to the linux counter project entry, but it appears to be
offline at this time.
Eric
> So how does that make UFRAW less able?
Obviously the concept of USABILITY escapes your understanding.
Floyd Davidson
>On Jun 7, 7:34 am, f...@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>> So how does that make UFRAW less able?
>
>Obviously the concept of USABILITY escapes your understanding.
Your bullshit does not rise to a level that should
escape anyone's understanding.
Eric
> I'm a hobbiest / advanced amateur shooter with strong computer
> background.
>
> Recently I tried to dump Windows for Linux including using it for
> photography work. Unless you plan on shooting .jpg all the time it's
> not there yet. No amount of fidgeting would allow for me to do very
> simple RAW conversion and touchups without spending for too much time.
>
> Needless to say I did succeed in dumping Windows because I ended up
> springing for an Apple. Lightroom is just about the best I have seen
> for simple, effective, and powerful RAW workflows.
>
> If anyone has any positive views on Linux + RAW I would love to hear
> from you.
>
>
> -Brontidehttp://brontide.blogspot.com
Ok, just installed Ubuntu 7.04 and added digikam and ufraw to make
sure that I wasn't missing anything. I copied over a folder full
of .crw files and attempted to do some simple work in both DigiKam and
UFRaw.
Those who claim that either rises to even the level of Picasa under
windows are sorely mistaken.
Digikam: Does not auto-rotate. Colors are poorly corrected.
Interface uses a mish-mosh of single and double click actions. Edit
window is non-intuative. No non-destructive editing. No undo. No
workflow
UFRaw: Just as I remembered. No previews in the open dialog. Limited
correction ability. Inability to zoom past 50%. Inability to pan
around image when zoomed larger than display.
Ubuntu: Does not render thumbnails in nautilus.
I will give it another spin tonight to see if I've missed anything,
but I stand by my conclusions.
Floyd L. Davidson
>> If anyone has any positive views on Linux + RAW I would love to hear
>> from you.
>>
>> http://brontide.blogspot.com/2007/06/linux-and-photography-dont-mix-w...
>>
>> -Brontidehttp://brontide.blogspot.com
>
>Ok, just installed Ubuntu 7.04 and added digikam and ufraw to make
>sure that I wasn't missing anything. I copied over a folder full
>of .crw files and attempted to do some simple work in both DigiKam and
>UFRaw.
>
>Those who claim that either rises to even the level of Picasa under
>windows are sorely mistaken.
>
>Digikam: Does not auto-rotate. Colors are poorly corrected.
>Interface uses a mish-mosh of single and double click actions. Edit
>window is non-intuative. No non-destructive editing. No undo. No
>workflow
>
>UFRaw: Just as I remembered. No previews in the open dialog. Limited
>correction ability. Inability to zoom past 50%. Inability to pan
>around image when zoomed larger than display.
You really are grasping at straws, aren't you! There is
no "open dialog" with UFRAW so there of course are no
previews. Thank goodness too! The last thing I want is
to have an image manipulation program waste time and cpu
on opening/creating a thumbnail of *every* image in a
directory!
Why anyone would want more than 50% zoom or the ability
to pan in a raw conversion tool is beyond me...
(I don't use or know diddly about Digikam, Ubuntu or
nautilus, but I assume you comments there are just as
frivolous. It does sound as if you *deserve* Windows!)
>Ubuntu: Does not render thumbnails in nautilus.
>
>I will give it another spin tonight to see if I've missed anything,
>but I stand by my conclusions.
--
Eric
> You really are grasping at straws, aren't you! There is
> no "open dialog" with UFRAW so there of course are no
So what do you call the dialog that pops up when you click on the
UFRaw program? It's got a list of places on the left and a file/
directory selection area on the right. On every other application
it's called....
The "Open Dialog"
Do you need a friggin screen shot, you click on UFRaw and you when
select the file.
Koekje
> Digikam: Does not auto-rotate.
What camera do you have? Digikam does rotate with my Canon EOS 350D.
> Colors are poorly corrected.
I'm curous about this. Can you post two corrections of the same photo,
one done by a program you like and one done by Digikam? I like to
train my eye to recognise bad corrections. By the way, did you read
http://www.stuvel.eu/archive/53/better-raw-decoding-with-digikam ?
> Interface uses a mish-mosh of single and double click actions.
Weird, I only click once on everything.
> Edit window is non-intuative.
What exactly is non-intuative? What would you improve? It's Open
Source after all, and I like to get suggestions on how to improve
Digikam.
> No non-destructive editing.
You mean working in layers? Yeah, I miss that too. Then again, if I
need more fine-grained editing I move to The Gimp.
> No undo.
Edit -> Undo. What's there not to undo?
> No workflow
What do you mean with this?
> UFRaw: [snipped true things that I'm not that interested in]
> Inability to pan around image when zoomed larger than display.
You can move windows by pressing the ALT key and dragging the window
(anywhere in the window) with the left mouse button.
> Ubuntu: Does not render thumbnails in nautilus.
Doesn't it render thumbnails in general? Or does it only have issues
with certain file types?
Koekje
Koekje
> There is no "open dialog" with UFRAW
Yes there is.
> Thank goodness too! The last thing I want is to have an image
> manipulation program waste time and cpu on opening/creating a
> thumbnail of *every* image in a directory!
I like thumbnails. It gives me a LOT more information than IMG_XYZ.CR2
does. That's why I open image manipulation programs from Digikam,
which does show thumbnails.
Koekje
Floyd L. Davidson
I don't use a click/drag Windows interface. It's just
too slow. Hence I *never* "click on UFRAW".
As a result I had never run UFRAW without specifying a
filename (or list) on the command line. It is of little
value, and if it showed previews that would be even
worse!
Your workflow needs work...
John Burton
> On Jun 5, 6:44 pm, Koekje <koe...@example.com> wrote:
>> My workflow is 100% Linux. With Digikam I can convert RAW files in a
>> heartbeat. Opening a RAW is like opening any other file. After editing
>> I save as JPEG without a fuss. Digikam also has batch conversion
>> support if that's your thing.
>>
>> Koekje
>
> DigiKam 0.9.0+ added support for RAW. Looking over distrowatch I see
> that only the unstable ubuntu 7.05 and derivatives bundle that
>
> -Eric
> http://brontide.blogspot.com
>
As a point of reference - Fedora 7 has dcraw-8.53 and digikam-0.9.1 as
standard packages... comes on the standard (down-loadable) CD/DVD and
updates are handled via yum. Fedora 7 has been available for a couple of
weeks now. Installation from DVD is easy, even for non-linux types.
As for usability for a desktop (non-server) machine... I've been using a
Compaq nx7000 laptop running Fedora Core 6 for the last year or so as my
primary machine. As Principal Associate with my company, communicating
with customers / clients is extremely important. Many use Microsoft
Office as their "standard" office suite and document interchange format.
I seamlessly communicate with them using OpenOffice for Word documents,
Excel spreadsheets, and Powerpoint presentations. I also have MS Visio
and MS Project installed and operating perfectly under CrossOver Office.
I do alot of traveling with my laptop and connecting to various wireless
networks is a snap. So folks who claim "limited word processing" are
simply showing they are not aware of where Linux distributions are today.
John
just passing
I assume you are talking about raw thumbnails? It does if you use the
'gnome-raw-thumbnailer' plug in :)
> Doesn't it render thumbnails in general? Or does it only have issues
> with certain file types?
>
> Koekje
It doesn't show .raw files as thumbnails by default, but if you use the above
mentioned plugin, it's no problem.
--
just passing through