Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Alternatives To Apple's Aperture

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the linux-users-deserve-pretty-pictures-too dept.

Graphics 271

somethingkindawierd writes "An experiment focusing on open source tools for Ubuntu Linux to compete with Aperture on the Mac. The author didn't think he would find a worthwhile open source solution, but to his surprise he found some formidable raw processing tools. A good read for any Linux fan or photographer looking for capable and inexpensive tools"

cancel ×

271 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What a tool (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136287)

By which I am referring to the author.

Linux alternative to aperture: (4, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136317)

Hi, I'm GlaDoS, how may I help with your photo proooooocess-ss-ing needs?

Re:Linux alternative to aperture: (0, Flamebait)

CkB_Cowboy (731756) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137353)

OMG another GlaDoS reference, +1000 Funny

It's too bad Adobe got their hands on RawShooter (4, Interesting)

DanWS6 (1248650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136361)

So far it's the best tool I've found. It's lightweight and very fast. I love how easy it is to adjust the exposure and color temps. It's easy to find blown highlights and get rid of them. The downside is getting it to work with my new XSi was a pain. I had to use a hex editor on the executable and convert my CR2 files into DNG files. The extra steps are annoying. I tried out Lightroom, but there's no way I'd pay $300 for that bloated crap. I'm definitely going to check out rawtherapee.

Here's a Summary! (5, Informative)

Kamineko (851857) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136427)

F-Spot, The default photo editor that comes with Ubuntu 8.04, was quickly discarded. [FOSS]

Picasa, Really liked the application overall. I crop all my photos to the golden ratio of 1.62:1, so this limitation is unacceptable. [NOT FOSS]

LightZone, very similar to both Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom. Costs $200 and is not open source. No online support forum.
Bibble, very fast and it only costs $130. It does not however have any photo-management capabilities. No tagging, project management, or meta data editing. [NOT FOSS]

Raw Therapee, raw photo processor, free. It does not, however, run on Mac OS X. Does not manage projects. And it does not work with anything but raw photos, so it will not allow for processing jpegs or tiffs

Qtpfsgui, another useful application. HDR tool for Ubuntu Linux, Macintosh, and Windows.

The result:

There isn't an all-in-one package that will do the trick, but by combining Ubuntu's file manager Nautilus for project management, Raw Therapee for raw processing, and the Gimp for non-raw processing, just about everything I do in Aperture can be done on Ubuntu Linux using free and open source solutions.

Re:Here's a Summary! (0, Offtopic)

voltel (1323287) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136543)

What about GIMP? Its a rather large suite, packed with lots of various photo-editing features you may or may never use. I use it in conjunction with imagemagick for all my photo-editing needs. Not a bad combination, but I find GIMP's interface to be a bit weird, its like it was designed by monkeys.

Re:Here's a Summary! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136685)

I use it in conjunction with imagemagick for all my photo-editing needs.

And that right there says that your photo-editing needs aren't very high. Yes, the combo does the basics, but nothing particularly advanced.

Re:Here's a Summary! (3, Informative)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136779)

The discussion is not about specific photo editing tools, its about managing workflow (organizing, tagging, editing raw as well as compressed pictures). Author did mention GIMP, and intends to use it as part of his workflow.

As far as GIMP interface is concerned, let's just say its different than, er, Photoshop. It has been discussed and beaten to death already anyways, and offtopic here.

Re:Here's a Summary! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136851)

What about it? RTFA and you will see that it is mentioned in the conclusion.

Re:Here's a Summary! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136901)

The GIMP is disqualified for not being like Aperture at all, but like Photoshop.

Aperture and its Adobe competition, Lightroom, are metadata-based editors with very powerful RAW processing engines. They draw upon the power of metadata for everything from nondestructive editing (pixels are not touched until export) to project organization (through EXIF data and IPTC keywords).

They also both use a streamlined, task oriented interface, instead of the random collection of tools that is GIMP or Photoshop. Some "power user tips" that take a long sequence of steps in GIMP or Photoshop have been intelligently condensed into single sliders in Aperture and Lightroom, for easier use by everyone.

GIMP is still basically a destructive pixel pusher, like Photoshop. I don't think it has any RAW capability unless you tie it to dcraw. Therefore GIMP does not play in this sandbox.

Someone once said that the failure of Open Source office suites was their slavish imitation of Microsoft Office, and that what was really needed was a fresh new approach. The same could be said of why GIMP fails against Photoshop. The fresh new approach is being provided by Adobe and Apple's metadata-based image editors.

Re:Here's a Summary! (3, Informative)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136943)

I didn't realize GIMP handled RAW (NEF and suchlike) formats and allowed adjusting of whitepoints, etc. I thought it was purely a raster image editor/tweaker.

This is the whole reason Aperture exists and people don't just use Photoshop (which incidentally does all of that too) for RAW processing.

Re:Here's a Summary! (4, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137373)

I didn't realize GIMP handled RAW (NEF and suchlike) formats and allowed adjusting of whitepoints, etc. I thought it was purely a raster image editor/tweaker.

Glad we could set you straight on that. I love the RAW tools in GIMP, they simplify my workflow significantly.

Re:Here's a Summary! (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137801)

Well, GIMP doesn't actually support RAW formats, and for good reason. They are both unnecessarily manifold and proprietary.

Even the most basic cameras generally offer support for uncompressed images (usually in some sort of TIFF encapsulation), and if this is what you need, then use it.

I have read so many posts on Slashdot dinging the GIMP for its interface, which I (as a latecomer to Photoshop) find perfectly intuitive and comfortable. The presence (or absence in the GIMP's case) of CMYK support is of no moment unless you are into hard copy publishing or have a printer that supports it.

Re:Here's a Summary! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136823)

How about Digikam? I like it for basic photo management and then I open in Gimp for more advanced editing. Seems to work pretty smoothly for my needs.

Re:Here's a Summary! (4, Insightful)

beh (4759) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137155)

But that's part of the shortfall...

Lightroom and Aperture are so good BECAUSE they are integrated.

There is nothing really in Lightroom that you can't do with Photoshop - but the way it's integrated and how it's able to work with / organise large collections of photos makes Lightroom one of the most run Apps on my Mac.

As long as Linux doesn't offer a good competitor to Lightroom / Aperture, I will keep doing my photography stuff on the Mac...

Re:Here's a Summary! (1)

UNIX_Meister (461634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137329)

One nice feature of f-spot is the ability to open up a picture with gimp, and have your changes be versioned inside f-spot. I realize that there is more that the proprietary apps do with the integration, but it can be this simple too.

Open, but perhaps not Free (2, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137367)

F-Spot, The default photo editor that comes with Ubuntu 8.04, was quickly discarded. [FOSS]

Maybe change that to [fOSS].

It's open source, for sure, but since F-Spot is built on mono, a port of Microsoft .NET, it probably contains Microsoft intellectual property, the licensing of which may be dependent on which distro (e.g. SUSE) you're running, so 'Free' is debatable.

It could be a patent trap ... or not. That uncertainty is certainly disconcerting.

Re:Here's a Summary! (3, Informative)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137651)

There's also digikam [digikam.org] which does a *lot* of things including management, basic editing and raw processing (although I do that last bit in Bibble). It's Qt but will run fine on a Gnome desktop.

Re:Here's a Summary! (3, Funny)

harry666t (1062422) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137663)

> Qtpfsgui

Holy crap, how does one spell that? o_0

How did the author come up with this name? Did he smashed the keyboard with an enraged basement cat or what? Or is it "Cthulhu" reversed and triple-ROT13'd?...

Re:Here's a Summary! (5, Informative)

Draek (916851) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137741)

Raw Therapee, raw photo processor, free. It does not, however, run on Mac OS X. Does not manage projects. And it does not work with anything but raw photos, so it will not allow for processing jpegs or tiffs

Huh? out-of-the-box it can't, but you just click on Preferences > File Browser, uncheck Show only RAW files, and there ya go. Can't understand why "doesn't run on MacOSX" would be a con in an article about *Linux* alternatives to Aperture either, but oh well.

Ohh, and about Lightroom, the older (v2.x) versions used to be free (as in $0) on Linux, plus they ran on non-SSE2 CPUs, so Linux users strapped for cash may want to search the 'net for them instead.

Linux needs system-wide color management (4, Interesting)

ehack (115197) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136449)

Color management means an image is shown the same on every screen, and as close as possible on paper. You cannot do serious photo work without integrated color management, but unfortunately even Winsh*t still leads Linux by ten years here. It's time the Linux guys moved their efforts to desktop app integration - the server is done - you hear me, guys ? the server is done, move to improving the desktop !

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (2, Interesting)

serviscope_minor (664417) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136539)

the server is done - you hear me, guys ? the server is done, move to improving the desktop !

So far, I have not been impressed with the efforts to "improve" the desktop. With every new iteration of the various popular distributions, it seems like more and more functionality is tied to GNOME and/or KDE with fewer and fewer features available through the command line.

I think it would be better if people kept their hands off the desktop.

Oh, and I can't do serious photo work, because I'm not any good at photography, so I'm not missing anything :)

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (4, Interesting)

iamwhoiamtoday (1177507) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136849)

I LIKE IT that less and less features are tied into the command line. It's a lot easier for me to use a computer via GUI then via obscure command line commands. I run Ubuntu on two different computers at home, 3D acceleration, COMPIZ, WINE, all work extremely well. And I didn't have to use the command line to set any of them up. The average person who uses a computer (Example: My Mother) can now use Ubuntu, because the average person depends on a GUI instead of memorization of a bunch of command line commands. Most people don't CARE what Operating System they are using, as long as it is simple, as long as the UI is friendly. Look at OS X. It's rather user friendly. Linux is heading the same way, while Vista.... well, it's Vista. ;)

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (3, Insightful)

fork_daemon (1122915) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137183)

A line needs to be drawn somewhere..

Us geeks like the CLI even today because we know that the CLI is much more efficint for the kind of task that we do. It is quicker to do many tasks from the CLI than the click>wait app to launch> Click the Tab> Select The Option> Apply> Close. But we need to remember that the population of average user outruns the population of us geeks.

The developers need to continue designing better GUI apps without compromising on the CLI bundle that we still use.

By the way I havent seen any distro that has been dumping any CLI feature in favour of GUI.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (3, Insightful)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137507)

Speak for yourself, and don't try to speak for "us geeks". There are a lot of geeks who use the GUI for almost everything. Yes, I like to have tcsh available on my MacOS Terminal (I know some prefer bash), but the idea that preferring a GUI costs me geek cred (finally!) died over a decade ago.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136893)

the server is done - you hear me, guys ? the server is done, move to improving the desktop !

So far, I have not been impressed with the efforts to "improve" the desktop. With every new iteration of the various popular distributions, it seems like more and more functionality is tied to GNOME and/or KDE with fewer and fewer features available through the command line.

When last I checked commands were not "either-or".

Additionally, That's kinda the point...

I don't want to have to drop to a shell every time I want to do file management because every graphical manager lacks a "sudo" dialogue.

2 other important things on my wishlist besides this and color management, an OSS version of "column view" from finder, and I want gnome to integrate true next style navigation. In an era where vertical real estate is at a premium, slapping a menubar into each window is a huge waste. Additionally, many websites use the browser "pallet" as DRM to keep you from accessing certain addresses or viewing source. True mac menubars allow quick, easy access to those functions.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136945)

and more and more shit is linked to gnome libs and x11 stuff. want to install some of the system-config- stuff for text use- gotta have x11, gnome, etc.. people making these packages are like "oh, cool, there's a --with-obscurelib and look, it's in yum!" and so they make it a requirement. yeesh. I like CentOS/RHEL, but it's getting more and more rediculous for a headless server. Do I really need wireless_tools and bluez on my server? Even if I customize the installation 100% and go through the very vague limited lists and uncheck everything, it still installs crap because of hidden dependencies. I miss SGI's inst tool.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (2, Interesting)

Eli Gottlieb (917758) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137019)

Ummmm... DBus? You can open up a text editor and write a program that scripts your desktop (ie: GUI-based) applications in C++, Python, C, Java, or basically any other language. Then you can run that script from the command line.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137009)

GNUStep's is ahead of the pack here, since OpenStep included color management. Obviously, it needs work to get up to Apple quality, and some of that depends on X.org, but the foundation is there today, whereas gnome color support will be an attrocious hack if it's ever added.

Re:Linux needs system-wide color management (2)

kwalker (1383) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137143)

Seeing as how most of that color-management some want so badly is patented by various for-profit companies, and considering that patent lifetime is (currently) 17 years, and finally if Windows is "ten years" more advanced than Linux, then it's as much as 7 more years (Barring a patent lifetime extension being rammed through Congress) before those patents expire and Linux distros can finally start integrating those technologies legally.

For the time being, there are ways to get color management in Linux [wikipedia.org] depending on how much effort the user is willing to put in. I have always used high-quality displays (A Hitachi CRT previously and now a Samsung LCD) which haven't required much tweaking to get the displays I want for my own photo management.

Mod Parent Wrong (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137205)

1. Gimp 2.4 color manages very nicely thank you.
2. The KDE desktop has monitor profile and gamma adjustment support. GNOME? Dunno.

Applications worth noting:
xcalib

liblcms (excellent)
argyle (for you color geeks)
scribus
digikam

You will find most commercial profile generators place restrictive covenants on the icc profiles created by their software. I don't know if it is legal to redistribute sRGB or AdobeRGB profiles, but I doubt it.

It's also worth noting that Aperture's sole purpose is rapid acquisition and cataloging. Do not concatenate acquisition/cataloging with editing.

Lastly, Digikam works very nicely for me.

Aperture: what we've learned (1, Funny)

minginqunt (225413) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136463)

Please note that we have added a consequence for using proprietary software. Any contact with proprietary software will result in an 'unsatisfactory' mark on your official testing record followed by death. Good luck!

Aperature not as good Lightroom (1, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136471)

My wife is a pro-photographer and takes like, 500+ images per job, and, we had the $3000 dual G5 Mac and Aperature and Aperature yakked and we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...

Since then, she's switched to a WinPC and Lightroom, and Lightroom is both stable for her, and reliable and does more and she will never touch a Mac again. The moral of the story is that Adobe Lightroom is the real target, not Aperature... even the feature sets of Lightroom have her not missing her Mac...

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (4, Insightful)

Selfbain (624722) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136655)

You didn't run a backup for an entire year?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (2, Insightful)

Penguin Follower (576525) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137315)

All the more reason to use time machine it seems. ;)

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (3, Insightful)

remmelt (837671) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137727)

Not only that, he also blames the OS for it.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (5, Informative)

An anonymous Frank (559486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136693)

Aperture's "library" is just a folder; Use "Show Package contents" from "Get Info" and copy all the originals wherever you want.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (3, Insightful)

carou (88501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136721)

we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...

Why didn't she just restore from the backups you've been helping her keep?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136723)

Since then, she's switched to a WinPC and Lightroom, and Lightroom is both stable for her, and reliable and does more and she will never touch a Mac again. The moral of the story is that Adobe Lightroom is the real target, not Aperature... even the feature sets of Lightroom have her not missing her Mac...

Why did she get a new computer?

There's a MacOS X version of Lightroom, and it seems to work just fine - I specifically chose it over Aperture after evaluating the trial versions of both last year...

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137255)

Why did she get a new computer?

The biggest reason, really, was that there are a lot more plugins available for Photoshop on PC than there are for Mac. When she does digital "art", as opposed to weddings and events, she likes to push the envelope in manipulation as much as she can and there's just more out there for Windows. Plus, of all things, she actually prefers the stupid XP Start bar to the Mac OS/X dock. Incidentally, we both actually like the Gnome bars on Linux best of all, and she'll use my Linux box to surf and chat with... but she's not jumping into Linux just yet for her work because the applications aren't quite up to scratch on it yet.

I looked into it actually and it turns out a big problem with it is Canon, whose when I checked last, only made their SDK available for Windows and it was a closed source product. I tried plugging her camera into the trusty Linux box last with OpenSuse 10, and it was like flying into total darkness. Now that you've jogged my memory a bit, I'll have to try it now that I'm onto Ubuntu.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

UNIX_Meister (461634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137375)

I looked into it actually and it turns out a big problem with it is Canon, whose when I checked last, only made their SDK available for Windows and it was a closed source product. I tried plugging her camera into the trusty Linux box last with OpenSuse 10, and it was like flying into total darkness. Now that you've jogged my memory a bit, I'll have to try it now that I'm onto Ubuntu.

Interesting - I've plugged two different Canon models into both gthumb and f-spot and had them work (the second was a Rebel XTi) perfectly.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

jintxo (698154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137581)

Yeah my recent experience with Canons is the same, I've seen them "just work" most of the time.

But I am sure it wasn't that way a while back, so that's probably why the parent had a bad experience.

Cedric

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137849)

I tried plugging her camera into the trusty Linux box last with OpenSuse 10, and it was like flying into total darkness. Now that you've jogged my memory a bit, I'll have to try it now that I'm onto Ubuntu.

You do know that you'd get much higher transfer speeds with a card reader (which incidentally always works on anything) ?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136821)

Time Machine ftw.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136833)

My wife is a pro-photographer and takes like, 500+ images per job, and, we had the $3000 dual G5 Mac and Aperature and Aperature yakked and we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...

I agree that's a terrible bug, and Apple should be chided for it.

But you didn't back up the files for an entire year? WTF! That's some weapons-grade FAIL right there.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137073)

But you didn't back up the files for an entire year? WTF! That's some weapons-grade FAIL right there.

She used the firewire drive that had her backup to copy the contents of the folder over, thinking, that, she was, in effect, making a backup. Then we put a copy onto my linux box from the firewire drive. She checked the results of the folder and saw the names were the same, the file counts were same, and a spot check of the images showed that there some there, then, she blew away the Mac drive.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137761)

If it was over-writing files, how could the file-count possibly have been the same as the original?

Or are you saying that Aperture had already over-written the files when it imported in the first place? But then how didn't she notice the missing images during daily use?

I know, it's off-topic, I'm just curious to find out what happened here.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136937)

Clearly just flamebait given the incorrect spelling of Aperture, and mentioning buying a whole new PC for the next application that also runs on the Mac.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

mcgeeb (884504) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137087)

You are aware that lightroom is available for OSX as well?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137645)

mac fanboi?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

mcgeeb (884504) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137767)

Oh, please. He's blaming the OS for the failures of the app. I fully admit Aperture isn't the greatest. I just don't see the point in purchasing an entirely new system to run an app that you could run on your existing machine. So, come again?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

rootphreak (1320921) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137089)

Since then, she's switched to a WinPC and Lightroom, and Lightroom is both stable for her, and reliable and does more and she will never touch a Mac again.

Hah. The real trouble won't be with Lightroom, but with numerous other things on that PC.. *wink wink* AFAIK Lightroom is also for OS X. I hope she didn't forget to install an antivirus suite, firewall program, antispyware program, registry monitor, backup utility, and a professional drive defragger (Diskeeper) so she can keep that PC going.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

dosun88888 (265953) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137301)

Nah, she didn't, and she only took 374 photos for her last job.

Nice use of reflection near the nightstand, by the way.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137109)

Right, blame Aperture puking on the mac itself. Lightroom runs on OS X, by the way. Seems kinda silly to invest so much in a powermac, only to switch platforms in order to use an app that's already availible for the mac, doesn't it?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137119)

I have never had such a problem with aperture with 600+ images per job (even some 2000+ jobs). My complain with it is that it is too slow.

OTOH, Lightroom + Photoshop work pretty fine on my G4 machine.

As for Open Source, my main complain is that it is not as productive as the Lightroom + Photoshop setup. I do like RAW Studio. I love The Gimp. But they do stand in my way of setting up lots of images.

In a simple math, RAW Studio + Gimp is a work day more than Lightroom + Photoshop. And I'm more used to GIMP's interface than Photoshop's one, as GIMP was one of the first image manipulation programs I ever used (circa 1998).

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137449)

we had the $3000 dual G5 Mac and Aperature and Aperature yakked

Your software was trampled by Himalayan oxen [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137491)

Huh?

You do know that Lightroom runs on both Windows and Mac, right?

Actually, though, one of my favorite things about Lightroom is that it automatically makes backups of your database.

One of my least favorite things about it is that I've had to use these backups on several occasions, because the 'working' database became corrupted. Aperture apparently isn't much better in this regard.

In any event, shame on you for not making backups! If your livelihood depends on your data, there's absolutely no excuse not to.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

admactanium (670209) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137619)

You do realize that Lightroom is also available for Macs? In fact, it was available first on Macs. I use it on my MacPro. Not sure why she switched to a completely different computer and OS just to change one app that is available on both.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

_Swank (118097) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137637)

Any reason she didn't just stay with a Mac and switch from Aperture to Lightroom?

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

tmtm (847069) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137799)

For other Aperture users, you can "Export" your master or versions. They are various settings for this (like including the date, some other metadata, etc). You can also 'relocate' the master also to move your files. These ways you can avoid 'over-writting'.

Aperture has also Vaults to help on the backup. It has its faults, but for the specific issue you faced, it offers some options.

Re:Aperature not as good Lightroom (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137903)

My wife is a pro-photographer and takes like, 500+ images per job, and, we had the $3000 dual G5 Mac and Aperature and Aperature yakked and we lost a year of work because Aperature's doesn't generate unique filenames for its images across subdirectories and when you export it overlays them...

Is this Aperture or the camera ? Most cameras can be set to number their files sequentially or to renumber them from 0 on every new card.

Golden ratio? (2, Insightful)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136479)

I have to admit, even though Picasa could probably use more crop aspect ratios, I immediately subconsciously discredited the author when he stated that the golden ratio was a requirement.

Re:Golden ratio? (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136609)

While the Memoir class manual [ctan.org] is mainly of interest to LaTeX users, its opening chapters have an enlightening introduction to the history of book publishing, including the long use of the golden section. The concept is certainly relevant to DTP.

Re:Golden ratio? (5, Funny)

dsginter (104154) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136719)

I immediately subconsciously discredited the author when he stated that the golden ratio was a requirement.

Apparently, your subconscious also posted this to slashdot.

Re:Golden ratio? (1)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136745)

It bubbles up here and there :)

Re:Golden ratio? (3, Interesting)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136725)

The golden ratio is certainly important, but no, automatically cropping everything to it is a bad idea.

Re:Golden ratio? (1)

5pp000 (873881) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136741)

I don't understand. Why shouldn't I be able to crop to any arbitrary aspect ratio? Even archaic `xv' does that. Okay, the use of the golden ratio specifically is a bit unusual, but so what??

Re:Golden ratio? (0, Offtopic)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136899)

Well, I too do not really care about Golden ratio, but everybody has his/her own preferences.
His point is partially valid too - while Picasa does let you crop pictures manually, there is no way to specify a ratio you want - Golden or any other.

What a tool (4, Insightful)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136565)

I stopped caring when the author said that he crops "all" his photos to the same (non-standard) ratio.

Closed, done. Sorry.

Definition of the Golden Ratio from Wikipedia (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136883)

At least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratioâ"especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratioâ"believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing.

Now, aside from disliking an Apple product, how is he a tool?

"non-standard" ahhhh, that's funny. We're talking about digital photography here; not analog. And even then, the masters, such as Adams, would trim their photos to look the way he wanted them: sometimes trimmed them to "non-standard" sizes - gasp!

Re:Definition of the Golden Ratio from Wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137545)

You don't hear about Ansel refusing to publish anything not conforming to the particularly bullshit-laden Golden Ratio, do you? The problem I see is that this tool relies on a magic number to make his pictures aesthetically pleasing. I prefer the old fashioned way, SHOOT SOMETHING NICE.

Re:What a tool (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137169)

I stopped caring when the author said that he crops "all" his photos to the same (non-standard) ratio.

Oh, I gave him that one - artistic expression and all that. What killed me was the smilies.

Real reviews don't use smilies. Ever.

Re:What a tool (2, Funny)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137765)

But it's the golden ratio: the most perfect of ratios!

huh? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136755)

Sorry, I'm an idiot. I shoot the occasional digital photo and edit it up in the GIMP, that's the extent of my photography knowledge. Can someone explain to me what Aperture is, what a "raw photo editor" is, and how a "photo manager" differs from a "file manager"? Thanks.

Re:huh? (4, Informative)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 6 years ago | (#24136953)

The RAW image is the one straight from the camera (basically a RAW dump of the CCD output).

Photo Management includes more than just folders (a good example is tagging -- I want to find all images tagged "Outdoors" or tagged "Porn" or tagged both "Outdoor" and "Porn"). Of course, like folders, tags are only as good as you make them.

Layne

Re:huh? (4, Insightful)

blankaBrew (1000609) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137049)

It also allows you to rate your photos which is immensely important when you come back from a shoot with lots of photos. It also allows you to group and stack photos...their thumbnails are literally stacked and you can unstack them and restack them, along with promoting photos within a stack. A file manager is no substitute for a photo manager when you are a photographer.

Re:huh? (4, Informative)

blankaBrew (1000609) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137117)

I forgot to mention that the biggest feature of Aperture or Lightroom is the ability to make non-destructive edits. The original RAW file is left untouched and it is accompanied by a "recipe" that contains all of the changes to your image. You can cycle through your changes or revert back. Plus, it saves HD space by never duplicating the image.

Re:huh? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137523)

The RAW image is the one straight from the camera (basically a RAW dump of the CCD output).

Photo Management includes more than just folders (a good example is tagging -- I want to find all images tagged "Outdoors" or tagged "Porn" or tagged both "Outdoor" and "Porn"). Of course, like folders, tags are only as good as you make them.

You missed the Big Picture. Aperture is everything. It's Ansel Adams incarnate. It's the second coming. It's cool and whizzy. It takes twenty podcasts, three books and two keynote presentations to Grok. It's the photographic kitchen sink, darkroom, living room, outhouse and solarium. Not to mention the battery powered Hummer in the six car garage.

I've played with Aperture a couple of times and I still can't figure out why people like it. To make it short and inaccurate: Professional digital photographers and persons of similar persuasion tend to shoot lots and lots of images. All of the time. That's all good fun, but the problem comes to roost when you have to figure out which 5 images of the 10,000 you shot over the weekend you are going to show to your editor.

You have to offload them from your flash cards, organize them in some sort of reasonable fashion. The 250 pictures of the midget having sex with a horse on a fire hydrant might get the keyword tags "midget", "sex", "horse", "hydrant" and perhaps a couple of others that I will leave to your depraved imagination. It might get tagged with the GPS coordinates of the shoot (in this particular instance for really unclear reasons). You might want to arrange the pictures in some sort of order best-worst (??).

Then you'll want to save them somewhere (your neighbor's hard drive for instance). You might want to polish up a couple by adjusting contrast, white balance, color and artistically crop the image. You will then want to put the carefully groomed photos (not the horse) in a contact sheet or web page to give to your editor.

Aperture does this things, and of course, many many more. Which is why you need the keynote files and podcasts.

It puts Photoshop to shame for complexity. So there it is, Aperture in a nutshell.

Anybody who actually uses and likes the program should feel free to chime in. I'm afraid I'm a bit jaundiced.

Re:huh? (1)

bestinshow (985111) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137145)

A photo manager is to digital images what iTunes is to media files.

It manages them, including the files on disc.

This is desirable for many because the application takes the photos from the camera, and the user never needs to worry about what's going on on the file system.

It's not so good when you have to use that application to email a file because you don't know the filesystem location of said file. Having to go through export to file wizards is a hassle. Some photo managers will at least have a sensible folder layout once you find it, in the same way that iTunes' folder layout is actually quite sane.

Re:huh? (1)

UNIX_Meister (461634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137197)

There is a lot of metadata associated with photos, such as date/time, shutter specifics, camera model, etc. that are stored in the EXIF (and other) sections of the file (jpeg, raw, tiff, etc.).

Keeping track of this, plus adding your own custom metadata (captions, tags, etc.) is the job of the photo management software. If you have thousands of photos (like my professional photographer wife does) it becomes essential to use some sort of manager, and Aperture is Apple's version.

One feature that typically has been missing from linux programs is the ability to handle raw format files, though there has been progress on this front.

Re:huh? (2, Informative)

Ford Prefect (8777) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137319)

Can someone explain to me what Aperture is, what a "raw photo editor" is, and how a "photo manager" differs from a "file manager"? Thanks.

Screenshots might help - basically it's a file manager with additional sorting, filtering and whatnot designed for organising photos. Here's Lightroom's library view [hylobatidae.org] as an example - I've filtered to show only photos I've given three stars or more, and selected one so you can see all the keywords and other metadata assigned to that photo. All searchable, sortable, filterable and so on!

With regard to editing, here's a screenshot from the develop view [hylobatidae.org] . All the edits are non-destructive - you can see a history on the left. 'RAW' refers to the image from the camera being in an unprocessed, raw-data-from-image-sensor format, which gives you a bit more latitude in tweaking white balance, contrast, exposure and the like.

(I don't normally shoot 'RAW', but my once-in-a-lifetime shipyard visit [flickr.com] coincided with some utterly horrendous weather - getting just the right exposure in unlit, semi-derelict Eastern European industrial buildings at 7am on a cold, dark, wintry morning proved a little tricky at times... ;-] )

Re:huh? (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137333)

Aperture and whatever Adobe calls theirs, are acquisition and cataloging tools for digital photos. Do not confuse those tasks with editing.

Check out digikam. It was omitted from the review for unknown reasons. It's excellent! It'll give you a good idea of why one would want to separate acquisition from editing.

Re:huh? (5, Informative)

brassman (112558) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137395)

"RAW" photos are a lossless capture, which means they are larger files (bad) but with few of the artifacts produced by JPEG compression, and thus your editing options are greatly increased (good).

The exact details of the format depend on the make and even the model of camera you're using; a low-end "point and shoot" camera seldom provides RAW output (see recent Slashdot article on FOSS firmware that adds RAW support to higher-end Canon P&S cameras, however).

A modern digital camera will also add a nice chunk of metadata to each image, giving the details of its exposure. The main difference between a FILL manager and a PHOTO manager is the latter's awareness of, and ability to use, this metadata in a "workflow."

By "workflow" we mean the situation where a professional photographer will routinely generate thousands of images at a wedding, and will want to pick through them to find images worth further refinement, apply a set of transforms (crop, tweak the exposure, sharpen 0.02%, yada yada) to them in large batches, but SELECTIVELY, to produce a finished body of quality work.

Managing those images only with a file manager would be nightmarish; being able to select just the images that were shot with Lens A to apply a certain transform means you can automate the process, go have pizza while the mass of bits gets twiddled, then come back and get creative with the results.

Re:huh? (1)

brassman (112558) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137477)

FILE manager, not FILL manager. Duh.

Re:huh? (4, Funny)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137867)

Aperture Laboratories is a computer-aided enrichment center to test the Aperture Science Hand-held Portal [half-life2.com] device.

More information is available in a video [half-life2.com] .

digiKam? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24136785)

What, has no-one mentioned digiKam [digikam.org] yet?
What a terrible omission from the review.

Take a look, it's really good.

Re:digiKam? (1)

UNIX_Meister (461634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137125)

Maybe I'm missing something, but one thing I like about some of the other programs (even F-Spot) was the ability to version files, and it seems that digiKam doesn't do it. Or is there a kipi plugin for that?

Re:digiKam? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137479)

installing KDE software is beyond the wit of most gnome users (and if the author has been using nautilus, he's presumably a gnome user). Desktop Darwinism at its finest.

Re:digiKam? (4, Informative)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137589)

Totally agree.

I prefer Digikam to iPhoto for many reasons. The most important to me is that I can keep a folder organization that makes logical sense on disc and have it reflected in digikam.

One thing it gets right that other photo managers get wrong: Selecting photos and moving them to another photo will bring up a small dialog asking if you want to copy or move the files. Stupid and irrelevant for /.'ers, but great for those that forget that holding down the shift or control keys are how this is generally done in other applications (like my dad, who constantly screws up his iPhoto folders by copying when he thinks he is moving, or vice versa).

One slight gripe: It follows the KDE standard of a single click opening a photo instead of selecting it (easily changed by installing kcontrol in ubuntu and changing the mouse property).

Re:digiKam? (1)

TruthfulLiar (927336) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137781)

I actually installed digiKam last night to take a look at it, but it looks like you have to import your stuff into their album management. I'd rather keep my files organized by the filesystem, not organized by some program that I may or may not be using five years from now. Is it possible to open up a raw file and just edit it? Can I at least say "here's the root directory of the pictures, let me look at them but don't put any special databases anyway, just treat them like files"?

A happy LightZone user (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24137105)

I have purchased LightZone for Linux after using a free beta version for 2 months. For early adopters there was a $50 discount :-)

There _are_ support forums http://www.lightcrafts.com/support/forums/index.html

I find LightZone an excellent product. It is quite adequate for making your photos look good quickly. A choice of tools is somewhat limited, but they all have built-in feathered selection/regions. The ZoneMapper and Relight tools are unique. There are very nice learning videos, see http://www.lightcrafts.com/learning/index.html

There were discussions on LightZone forums of how this product compares to Bibble, and most users prefer LightZone. Bibble 5 might change that, but then again there will be probably a new version of LightZone released soon.

I am a very happy LightZone user and can highly recommend it.

Extensis Portfolio (1)

UNIX_Meister (461634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137225)

Has anyone tried to run this under wine? The wine app db only has old entries for this media management package.

Yeah, but try explaining it to your someone! (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137515)

I used to have these awesome perl scripts that selected some random FLAC files that hadn't been selected lately, decompressed them and converted them to mp3 on the fly, and copied them to my sandisk player. "It does everything itunes can do!" Then I tried showing it to somebody (a chick) - got all flustered, and f*cked it up. "Just use iTunes" I said in defeat :-)

These are the tools I use on Ubuntu : (2, Interesting)

flar2 (938689) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137517)

I do all my photoprocessing on Ubuntu.

-I use gthumb for organization and importing from the camera (way better than f-spot, which I've never liked)
-I use ufraw with the GIMP plugin to process raw files
-I use GIMP for further processing
-I use Hugin and its associated tools for panoramas

That's all I need, and I sell photos every week, however, I'll be looking into some of the tools mentioned in the article.

Raw Therapee can handle JPEG/TIFF (5, Informative)

smably (992308) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137541)

I don't know why the author thinks that Raw Therapee can't process JPEGs or TIFFs. Just go into the preferences screen, uncheck "Show only RAW files", and you're set.

Also missing from the comparison: Rawstudio [rawstudio.org] and UFRaw [sourceforge.net] .

If you're interested in RAW processing on Linux, there's an excellent blog called Linux Photography [wordpress.com] about this very subject.

Wrong about LightZone (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137575)

From TFA:

I am a bit disappointed that there is no online support forum.

Then what's this [lightcrafts.com] ?

Square peg, round hole (4, Informative)

kwalker (1383) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137815)

Since the author of the blog post is asking for an Aperture clone for Linux, the answer will pretty much always be "no". If the author were to ask "Can I do my photo processing, from importing RAW files to storing the finished picture and printing?" the answer is yes.

Here's how I do it:

  1. gthumb-import (Which uses gphoto) to talk to the camera and bring in the RAW files. It even imports the .mov or .avi files for videos shot from the camera.
  2. gthumb for photo organization. You can do some basic photo manips (Rotation) right from here, as well as tagging, categorization, and creating collections.
  3. gimp (with ufraw-gimp to decode the RAW structure and doing some initial tricks like exposure-compensation and white balance) for more advanced photo manipulation, cropping, rotation (For anything other than 90-degree-increment rotations), perspective correction, red-eye removal, HDR, de-noising (Using GREYCstoration-gimp), workflow-automation (It's scriptable in Perl, Python, and others) and finishing after running through other programs like...
  4. hugin for panoramic creation. Photo-stitching is pretty easy. It helps with reference-point creation, FOV calculation, and final panorama "projection" (rectliniar, square, wrap-around, etc).

Just save all projects in .xcf or .xcf.bz2 and export finished product to .png.

One last thing, for all the haters who whine about ONLY having 16.8 million colors to work with, even without your help GIMP is integrating GEGL which will bring 16bit integer and 32bit floating point per component.

Cinelerra, the heroinewarrior.com version (1)

heroine (1220) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137875)

Cinelerra does raw .cr2 decompression & all the processing in floating point. Useful for stacking hundreds of astrophotography images. Only for build system masters of course.

Digikam works great for a JPEG workflow (3, Informative)

BigJim.fr (40893) | more than 6 years ago | (#24137883)

I have used many Linux image browsers and editors along with a stable of home grown bash scripts. Even though I still use my scripts out of habit, I must say that Digikam can replace most of them and provide a seamless JPEG workflow in a state of the art environment. There are still some small things I would appreciate, such as a better curves dialog, but overall I have been a very happy user. Some tools such as the crop tool with framing aids are the best I have ever seen, and overall I have seen my photo editing time almost halved by using Digikam. It is not a general graphics editor - for retouching you still need something else, but for the basic editing (everything that touches the whole image) it fills the need perfectly. And it is the best IPTC tagger I have used so far.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?