kanotix.com :: Thema anzeigen - Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?

kanotix.com

Anything goes - Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?

mzilikazi - 05.07.2006, 14:07 Uhr
Titel: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?

I did try Picasa for Linux. It puked in its own shoes and died a horrible death when I fed it my fairly large photo collection. I wasn't impressed and removed it immediately.

Usually I don't recmmend java applications because they are not only ugly but also very resource hungry. Enter Lightzone for Linux.

Certainly Lightzone has some fairly heavy hardware requirements:

Zitat:

LightZone for Linux runs on x86 linux with at least 1GB of RAM. A 2 GHz clock or faster is necessary for usable performance.

I was fairly impressed. Lightzone is certainly capable of handling all of my photo editing needs (but then again so is GIMP). Lightzone seems to be a very nicely behaved application and apparently handles 16bit RAW images from several makes of cameras. I have only recently acquired a Fuji camera capable of RAW format and have not had an opportunity to even use this feature (and Fuji is not yet on the "supported" list) so unfortunately I cannot tell you how well the RAW image handling does or does not work.

There is a $150 price tag for this software (See the Lightzone home page.) yet the Linux version appears to have no cost associated with it.

Zitat:

Light Crafts has said it's OK to give away the Linux version of LightZone in binary form, but they don't sell it, they don't support it, and if you contact them about it they will ignore you.

I have seen only 1 issue w/ Lightzone in that it was unable to view a .tif file created with Hugin which prompted an email to Anton Kast. He' s promised a fix is forthcoming. We'll see if the issue is resolved.

I'd be very interested to know what the Photoshop users think of Lightzone. Personally I've no opinion on Photoshop (since I've never even seen it let alone used it). I do know however that Adobe as a company does not impress me at all and Photoshop is outrageously expensive. If I needed a quality photo editing application I'd certaily not balk at paying $150 for good software that performs as advertised.

slam - 05.07.2006, 15:38 Uhr
Titel: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not?

Just now tried - nice application. When it comes to listing pics and creating thumbnails, it is much faster than others. However, it supports just a few (common) picture formats.
I tried some editing, which for me was actually less intuitive than with more well known applications - but that's probalby my fault, because I am already used to do most with right click menues. I would be interested to hear how others felt when using it.
Using ICC works fine - just create ~/color/icc and put your profiles in there.
Will test more.
Greetings,
Chris

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 17:32 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

I just downloaded this and need instructions on how to install. Thanks meldawson

slam - 05.07.2006, 18:03 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Code:

su

apt-get update && apt-get install sun-java5-jre && exit

wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone-no-java.tar.gz && tar xvfz LightZone-no-java.tar.gz

LightZone/LightZone

Greetings,
Chris

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 18:35 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

ok I got this far...
mel@KanotixBox:~$ su
Password:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get update && apt-get install sun-java5-jre && exit
Reading package lists... Done
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/Light ... ava.tar.gz && gunzip LightZone-no-java.tar.gz
--10:28:53-- http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/Light ... ava.tar.gz
=> `LightZone-no-java.tar.gz'
Resolving sonic.net... 209.204.190.64
Connecting to sonic.net|209.204.190.64|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 8,234,859 (7.9M) [application/x-gzip]

100%[====================================>] 8,234,859 160.11K/s ETA 00:00

10:29:44 (159.34 KB/s) - `LightZone-no-java.tar.gz' saved [8234859/8234859]

root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# cd LightZone && LightZone
bash: cd: LightZone: No such file or directory
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel#

slam - 05.07.2006, 19:00 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

2 Problems:

1) Are you sure youre using Kanotix? Because Sun-Java should install without problems, which it did not with you. You can check yourself:

Code:

apt-cache search sun-java5

sun-java5-bin - Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 5.0

sun-java5-demo - Sun Java(TM) Development Kit (JDK) 5.0 demos and examples

sun-java5-doc - Sun JDK(TM) Documention -- integration installer

sun-java5-fonts - Lucida TrueType fonts (from the Sun JRE)

sun-java5-jdk - Sun Java(TM) Development Kit (JDK) 5.0

sun-java5-jre - Sun Java(TM) Runtime Environment (JRE) 5.0

2) Fix #1, after that do

Code:

wget -Nc http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone-no-java.tar.gz && tar xvfz LightZone-no-java.tar.gz

LightZone/LightZone

That should download, de-pack und start the application.

Greetings,
Chris

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 19:22 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Yes, I am using Kanotix Smilie

.
This is what I get
mel@KanotixBox:~$ su
Password:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-cache search sun-java5
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel#
same for Mel$

on error just nothing?

Gowator - 05.07.2006, 19:35 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Pretty good bearing in mind I have minimum HW required ... 1GIG and 2Ghz

Zitat:

Usually I don't recmmend java applications because they are not only ugly but also very resource hungry.

If you hadn't written that Id probably not have tried Sehr glücklich

On a completely OT ... Java is completely different on Solaris .. seriously it flies.

Zitat:

There is a $150 price tag for this software (See the Lightzone home page.) yet the Linux version appears to have no cost associated with it.

Not sure if its worth $150 yet but heck... its sure nice for free.

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 20:01 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

I am getting this:
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get update
Reading package lists... Done
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get install sun-java5-jre
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel# apt-get install sun-java5-jre
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
E: Couldn't find package sun-java5-jre
root@KanotixBox:/home/mel#
Could I be misssing some Repositories??

h2 - 05.07.2006, 20:11 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

I just tried that, and it looks like you are either missing some repository or other, or you are not connecting to one of them, that happens sometimes.

Using the standard debian testing, unstable, kanotox repository list I found the package.

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 20:23 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Thanks one and all for this help
How do I check/update/ whatever my repository list?

h2 - 05.07.2006, 20:25 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Post the contents of /etc/apt/sources.list

my guess however is that when you did apt-get update you failed to connect to one of the servers, I'd just ry it again from the beginning. You would have had to delete one of the entries to not have the defaults, which I assume you haven't done since you don't know where your list was located.

slam - 05.07.2006, 20:46 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Code:

wget -O/etc/apt/sources.list http://kanotix.com/files/fix/sources.list

apt-get update

That should fix it.
Greetings,
Chris

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 20:46 Uhr
Titel: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or not

Strange things my sources.list was empty 0Bites
I restored a backup that looks like this:
# See sources.list(5) for more information, especialy
# Remember that you can only use http, ftp or file URIs
# CDROMs are managed through the apt-cdrom tool.

# Unstable
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free

# Testing
deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free
deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian testing main contrib non-free

# Experimental
#deb http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free
#deb-src http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian experimental main contrib non-free

# Kanotix
deb http://kanotix.com/files/debian sid main contrib non-free
deb-src http://kanotix.com/files/debian sid main contrib non-free

I wonder how that could happen?

mzilikazi - 05.07.2006, 21:12 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or

meldawson hat folgendes geschrieben::

I just downloaded this and need instructions on how to install. Thanks meldawson

Well you can just get the version that already has java and run it directly from the directory - no need to install.

Code:

$ wget http://sonic.net/~rat/lightcrafts/LightZone.tar.gz

unp LightZone.tar.gz

LightZone/LightZone

If you want java you need this repo (or another mirro) for

Code:

deb http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free

Code:

$ apt-cache policy sun-java5-jdk

sun-java5-jdk:

  Installed: (none)

  Candidate: 1.5.0-06-1

  Version table:

     1.5.0-06-1 0

        990 http://ftp.us.debian.org unstable/non-free Packages

So..........

Code:

apt-get install sun-java5-jdk

mzilikazi - 05.07.2006, 21:17 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or

Gowator hat folgendes geschrieben::

On a completely OT ... Java is completely different on Solaris .. seriously it flies.

I really dislike the fact that so many java apps start too many threads. Azureus is one of the biggest offenders. It's a complete resource hog and subsequently banned from all of my boxes until they can code it better. I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away.

meldawson - 05.07.2006, 21:20 Uhr
Titel: RE: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linu

Thank you all, I have LightZone working due to the great support one gets on this forum. Now,how do I add it to the menu along with the other graphics items?

Cheers, mel

mzilikazi - 05.07.2006, 22:55 Uhr
Titel: RE: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linu

The menu editor?

jackiebrown - 06.07.2006, 02:27 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or

mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::

I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away.

I would probably have a party Sehr glücklich

hubi - 06.07.2006, 03:18 Uhr
Titel: Re: RE: Lightzone for Linux - Photoshop quality for Linux or

mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::

I for one wouldn't shed a single tear if java went away.

Well, there is finetunes.net from Hamburg, an alternative seller of online music of real alternative music, and their client is written in java (works great on Linux). I do not want to miss them, although I spend a huge amount of money there Mr. Green

hubi

Cathbard - 08.07.2006, 06:04 Uhr
Titel:

Well I've had a quick look at Lightzone now. It's neat but it is missing most of the editing tools of photoshop/gimp. It is a nice photo retoucher but not really a tool to combine images to make art. It's more a tool for photographers than graphic designers. There are no layers, no magic wand, no embossing, shadowing etc.
Still it's worth a look at and does have a few cute tools like bezier/polygon regioning. I think I will keep my eye on it and see how it develops.

PS: I tried the update facility just now and it says I have no internet connection. I wonder how I made this post then? lol

**Edit*** oops, I just found the layers facility. I need to do more exploring I think

drb - 08.07.2006, 08:25 Uhr
Titel:

I'm a photographer and don't understand most of the technical stuff above.

My best prints come from processing film (or transparencies) and printing on photographic paper. I used to do a lot of this but got lazy and . . .
. . . went for scanning 35mm negatives / prints with a Nikon scanner. This has been fine but does produce 100MB 16 bit tiff files! These print nicely up to A3+, are more convenient than film processing, don't 'look digital' but are a little short of wet chemistry . . . but I got lazier . .
. . . and started using a Nikon digital SLR. This is convenient, I can have numerous takes of the same scene without significant cost, produces 'nice' prints up to A4 which look fine to me and friends . . but they do 'look digital', whether 8bit or 16 bit. I don't use any in-camera processing and only use Paintshop Pro (Windows) or Gimp (Kanotix) for histogram/levels adjustments. I avoid sharpening of any kind as it isn't necessary.

The bit I am missing is the 8 bit vs 16 bit debate. I can see no difference in screen or print output . . and either way digital camera prints look different (less pleasing) to film technology whether wet chemistry or digital. I know professional libraries set standards which include 16 bit, but I wouldn't think about offering a digital SLR file to a library. Perhaps when they get to 20 Mpixels at a reasonable price I'll change my mind.

Much of this is subjective, but the equipment will never make bad photograph good . . although it can make a good photograph look . . . not quite right.

drb

Gowator - 08.07.2006, 11:52 Uhr
Titel:

drb hat folgendes geschrieben::

On the DSLR Are you using raw images only?
The nikon jpg's are trash and not worth even keeping as a preview and you can't not correct if your using the jpg.
What processing software are you using?

Just as an example....
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... d=DSC_3435
You can see on a full blowup that its digital ... but does that look digital at the default res its posted?

The same here: http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... _1802_nova
however you can tell that the image is processed in 8 bit and the flare characteristic of the CCD....

here is a long (13 sec) exposure
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... d=beatrix2

and perhaps one more
http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... _2689_mono

I have found that increasing exposure time using a ND filter (or 3) can give nice results that look a little less "digital" ...
Some of the pictures are with 3x ND filters each one 3 f stops different so some pics are 2-3 minute exposures

My own little theory is this basically gives time for the CCD to capture and also of course allows us to capture light from other dimensions .. OK that's tongue in cheek but its basically the same as the classic single photon diffraction....

Others such as http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... sc_1510ab2
(not a great photo but taken to try applying an artificial graduated filter)
This picture shows 8 bit processing from GIMP (very clearly, its crap but included for a point) but basically I processed the picture twice one correctly exposed for the sky and the other for the cross.

This is then a composite with a graduated filter to transparency....

To achive this in a conventional lab would have taken a lot, granted you wouldn't see the awful 8bit artifacts but you would have had to hand burn the photo ....

anyway, just interested

drb - 08.07.2006, 12:30 Uhr
Titel:

Thanks Gowater - something to think about.

I always capture as raw NEFs. I convert on the cheap with Rawshooter Essentials (Windows) or a GIMP plugin (Linux - which seems to give me a better colour balance).

Exposure times tends to be short as the D70 starts at ISO 200. I mostly use a digital optimised Nikon lens. This apparently straightens the light hitting the sensor, compared with historical lens technology where light hits the film at an angle. I think I'll go back to my pre-digital lenses and see how they fare. My 25-50 manual zoom used to be my favourite landscape (zoom) lens - I'll give that a try first.

drb

Gowator - 08.07.2006, 14:27 Uhr
Titel:

drb: Can I suggest you try the trial version of bibble.... its not photoshop like windows isn't linux, its completely different and only does the processing and darkroom stages .. no retouching etc. (which I don't do anyway)
It changed my viewof my camera (D70 also) which was initially VERY disspointing. (probably worse in many ways than my point n shoot nikon I use for skiing and stuff)

You can load up your custom curves as well which helps and also I tend to under expose everything -0.3ev
I found a website that had a list of what to do from a factory reset or from the box to get real photo's and followed pretty much blindly at first....

I mostly use it fully manual or there is a program mode that lets you do shutter and aperture control from the dials which accomplishes the same thing from a midpoint... and I also flashed the firmware.... so its now basically a D70s

Lens wise I didn't try any "digital lenses" you loose out the apsect ratio on wider angles so your 25-50 will be like a 35-70 but I still find the results better than a negative scan ....

If you have a problem photo as a NEF I don't mind having a play.... I find that I can do the processing in a minute nowI m used to the workflow.

I have a gallery of processing examples I took with a friend .. we took the same shots with his digital canon just randomly walking round one day. The photo's themself are not anything to write about but I just did a basic 30 secs to a minute processing on each vs the defaults....almost everything looks better with the non nikon defaults ....

http://linuxmigrations.hd.free.fr/galle ... amp;page=1

Bibble just makes a changes file .... which is applied when you make a TIFF or JPG... so each one you can see what you did
also you can copy the processing chain and paste it to a whole batch....

drb - 08.07.2006, 16:25 Uhr
Titel:

What's the difference between the Lite and Full versions? Is the license transferrable between Windows/ Linux?

drb

mzilikazi - 09.07.2006, 02:59 Uhr
Titel:

Does Lightzone handle 16 bit RAW images? AFAIK this is not possible under Linux. If I am not mistaken (and often times that is the case) GIMP can handle only 8 bit RAW images.

JimC - 09.07.2006, 03:18 Uhr
Titel:

drb hat folgendes geschrieben::

What's the difference between the Lite and Full versions? Is the license transferrable between Windows/ Linux?
drb

Eric (Eric Hyman is the developer of Bibble) has a FAQ section that can help with those types of questions on his web site. It looks like you'll probably need the Pro version to use it on more than one operating system:

http://www.bibblelabs.com/learn/support_faq.html#3

http://www.bibblelabs.com/learn/support_faq.html#4

I'd download the trial versions of both and see how you like 'em. I haven't tried any of Eric's software lately (since he's added Noise Ninja and more).

JimC - 09.07.2006, 03:41 Uhr
Titel:

mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::

Does Lightzone handle 16 bit RAW images? AFAIK this is not possible under Linux. If I am not mistaken (and often times that is the case) GIMP can handle only 8 bit RAW images.

Raw files are 16 bit. But, they're not in a format that most image editors understand yet. So, most raw converters can output either an 8 bit or 16 bit file after the demosaic process.

This article may help explain some advantages of shooting in raw:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor ... iles.shtml

The plugins you're seeing are converting the raw file into a file that has red, green and blue values for each pixel that most image editors like Gimp can understand. Gimp can only handle 8 bit editing. Many other other programs can handle 16 bit editing (even Krita, included with KOffice can).

The biggest problem editing in 8 bit mode is posterization. Depending on how much editing you do, it may or may not be a problem. But, working in 16 bit is a better way to go if given a choice to reduce image degradation and unwanted artifacts.

There should be plenty of solutions available for Linux now to meet most needs. I just installed Kanotix again yesterday (it's been a while since I've played with it). So, I'll probably spend some time trying to install and play with some of the image editing solutions around for it now.

mzilikazi - 09.07.2006, 04:53 Uhr
Titel:

JimC hat folgendes geschrieben::

There should be plenty of solutions available for Linux now to meet most needs.

Well that's just it, converting is not the issue, editing is and there aren't any Linux image editors capable of editing in 16 bit mode (except for Krita apparently). That's not even an option for me personally but I have a friend or two that may find that to be good news. So does Lightzone edit 16 bit raw images or no?

JimC - 09.07.2006, 05:41 Uhr
Titel:

mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::

JimC hat folgendes geschrieben::

There should be plenty of solutions available for Linux now to meet most needs.

I haven't even loaded it yet, and I'm not familiar with the product. lol

But, it probably uses a 16 bit workspace (many modern image editors do, Gimp is an exception).

There are some others around for Linux, too {a product called Pixel is one example), and you can use some of the Windows editors around under Wine.

It all depends on the sophistication you need. Some users never do ayything mroe than they can do in some of the raw converters (many have some editing capability built in). Others go much further with an image.

When I was looking at the feasilibty of switcihng to Linux last year, all I did was make sure I had some basic tools available. I made sure Bibble (the version available at the time) ran OK, and got the FastStone Image Viewer running under Wine as a browsing tool with basic editing ability, and figured that I could expand from there with additional tools under Wine if I couldn't find anything I liked available for Linux.

So, it looked like most of the pieces were in place, and I'm not going to insiet on 16 bit editing only for most of my needs.

You can make basic exposure adjustmetns and apply curves in some of the raw converters around.

So, you don't run into much of a problem with the rest anyway. I rarely do a lot other than a bit of USM and cropping after raw conversion.

I'll do some digging around and see what works well under Linux over the next week or so. I don't normally use Linux. So, I'm not very familiar with the tools you can get for it yet (other than well known products like Bibble).

JimC - 09.07.2006, 16:41 Uhr
Titel:

Here's another project that may be worth a look that appears to support a 16 bit workspace:

http://www.cinepaint.org/

JimC - 09.07.2006, 17:18 Uhr
Titel:

mzilikazi hat folgendes geschrieben::

JimC hat folgendes geschrieben::

There should be plenty of solutions available for Linux now to meet most needs.

And yet Linux image tool that supports 16 bit..

Apparently, Digicam went 16 bit in April. Some info:

* All Image Plugins now support 16 bit
* New Black and White converter plugin for Image Editor
* New Noise Reduction plugin for Image Editor
* New GPS info viewer
* New metadata viewer available
* New image plugins control panel dialog zooming features in 0.9.0
* Color Management
* Working on Camera GUI...
* New image Editor color correction tools preview modes in 0.9.0

http://www.digikam.org/

I'm sure there are more around, too.

It looks like there are tools available for 16 bit editing in Linux. It all depends on the sophistication you need and what you want to do.

I'll try some of the Linux tools around in the near future and see what I think of them.

mzilikazi - 10.07.2006, 00:00 Uhr
Titel:

Hmmm the Digikam site also says:

Zitat:

0.8.1
8 bit raw support has been added, you can now view those images in the imageviewer. In digiKam version 0.9.0 there will be 16 bit raw support.

So not sure if it's really there or not just yet since latest release of digikam is 0.8.2-RC1. Good to know that it's being addressed tho.

JimC hat folgendes geschrieben::

It looks like there are tools available for 16 bit editing in Linux. It all depends on the sophistication you need and what you want to do.

Well actually I have only the simplest of editing needs since I'm colorblind anyway, the worst thing I could do is attempt to adjust colors! Some of us just have to take the shot right the first time. Winken

All I ever do is crop, rotate and stitch panoramas. If there's some sort of "auto-adjust" for color (in whatever editor I happen to be using) then I might try that and ask the wife which is better but that's the extent of it. Gqview, Hugin & GIMP are more than adequate for my own needs.

My curiosity about Linux photo editing is because I've had several friends mention that Photoshop is the only reason they even keep a windows partition around and I'd like to do them a favor and help them dump the win partition you see. Call me demeted............

I'm certainly always curious to know what a real user thinks of a specific application (photo editing or otherwise) but it's hard to find someone that really uses the alternative instead of just going back to what they already know and have come to expect. These people don't tell me much of anything other than "it's not just like <insert app here> so I can't use it." Well, that I already know....

Looking forward to your (honest) opinions. Smilie

JimC - 10.07.2006, 00:34 Uhr
Titel:

Photoshop is well liked. I use it, but only because I like ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). lol

A lot of photographers really swear by it (and it's a pretty decent raw converter).

I could live without it though, and I really don't need the power of Photoshop for the kind of editing I typically do.

mzilikazi - 23.07.2006, 04:56 Uhr
Titel:

New LightZone 1.5. Please try!

Still does not read my .tif files created with hugin.

JimC - 13.08.2006, 18:31 Uhr
Titel:

I got around to trying LIghtZone today.

To be frank, I just don't like it, at all. I can hardly find anything nice to say about it. First impressions were very bad.

When browsing the folders on my hard disk (in this case, an NTFS partition), the folders were not sorted by name, and I couldn't find a way to do something even this simple with it (and this is no problem with the Gimp).

Well, after looking through the folders and loading an image, I selected a different view and the very first thing that happend was a crash.

It was a graceful crash (LightZone has encountered an internal error and must shut down, etc.), and it offered to let me save changes (which it did). But, it was still a crash.

That was my only crash (it worked fine after the next load). But, that was a bad start for user perception of a product.

Then, after loading an image and trying different tools, they just seemed to be too primative compared to more refined products. Perhaps a lot of it has to do with how the user interface looks. It's just not pretty.

Heck, I couldn't even figure out how to do something as simple as looking at an image's properties (right clicking on the image didn't do a thing, and I didn't see a menu choice anywhere for it).

I looked through tools for adjusting contrast, sharpness, noise removal, white balance and more. I wasn't impressed with any of them.

I think a lot of it is just it's "look and feel". I find it to be ugly and primative looking.

On the surface, it looks like the raw conversion built in is based on Dave Coffin's dcraw.c code. Looking at images in LightZone and the Gimp using the UFRaw plugin (which is using a lot of Dave's code), I didn't see any difference in the way an image was being handled using the defaults with the camera's white balance.

I didn't spent much time looking at more images to be sure. But, my initial impression is that the raw conversion piece looks OK (at least on the surface with a very quick glance at how it was doing the conversion on a couple of images).

Uwe Steinmueller has a review of it that you may want to read. I respect his opinion and noticed he said this about it:

* Be aware that LightZone works differently than other editors. This will require some time to master. Try to experiment with selective operations in regions because here LZ can make a difference."

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_26/essay.html

But, I just don't want to spend any time trying to "master it". It's just not for me. Even 30 minutes in it tried my patience. I'm not sure I spent even that long in it. There just wasn't much to see from my perspective.

Someone else may find it to be just fine for how they want to use an image editor. Each user is going to have different preferences. So, try it for yourself and see if it's a good fit.

JimC - 13.08.2006, 22:40 Uhr
Titel:

I spent a bit more time in LightZone, and perhaps I was a bit harsh.

First impressions were just not that good.

If you are browsing images, it does have very good information about an image. In fact, I'm impressed at the amount of information it's extracting from the EXIF in .mrw files (raw files from a Konica Minolta DSLR), even to the point of manufacturer specific information on exactly what lens was used (not just the focal length and maximum available aperture, but the actual lens).

Some products can't even pull EXIF info from raw files at all. So, it's rare to see a third party product that supports that level of detail.

My gut feeling from spending more time in it is that it's not a tool that I'd be comfortable with compared to what I'm used to. But, I'll spend a bit more time in it anyway before ruling out using it for anything. Perhaps I'm just a bit too "set in my ways" to appreciate it's approach.

drb - 13.08.2006, 22:42 Uhr
Titel:

I use it for viewing Nikon raw files - it's the fastest NEF file viewer I've found!

I agree with the above as far as image editing - strange and limited workflow capability.

drb

mzilikazi - 20.09.2006, 22:14 Uhr
Titel:

New Lightzone release 1.6
Please test.

A quick test:
It can see my .tif files yay! This did not work in the last version.
I have a directory with some HUGE panoramic images. It loads directories very fast even on my large panoramic images ( 40+ MB ea.)

2 problems:

There were 2 jpg images that caused Lightzone to lockup. No idea why as they are the same as other .jpg images I've got. Sent them to Anton to see if he can find a reason.

Lightzone doesn't yet see my Fuji raw images. Sent those off too.

joecool - 04.09.2007, 12:29 Uhr
Titel:

Hi out there,
I've recently discovered LightZone, and I think it is an amazing product. Don't let yourselves be dissuaded from using it by people who obviously did not even care to watch the 3 simply introductory video tutorials on the website. As a photographer with 40+ years experience, I say this is a tool I really like & which is very very useful.
You may want to convince yourselves by looking at a couple of photos here:
http://altphotos.com/MyALT.aspx?a=Photo ... oid=309348
(check out the whole "Morning Walk" series, I've made some annotations with the 2 examples). These pictures say more than many words, I think. They were not raw files, btw, but jpegs from a low-end 6MP Samsung. I'll have yet to try LightZone with my Nikon D50 in raw mode, but it seems very promising.
You'll find instructions for installation here in the forum, otherwise just go to:
http://www-old.lightcrafts.com/linux/
You find a link to the tutorials in the "learning center" on the right.
Installation is a breeze (from the website):
To install LightZone for Linux, simply copy the tarball contents to a convenient place (your home directory for example), unpack it ("tar xf LightZone-rev.8224.tar.gz") and run the LightZone launch script that comes out.
My machine is a P4 2.4 GHz, 1024 MB ram. I use (and like) "The Gimp", too, and have some experience with older Photoshop versions. But LightZone works a lot more similar than what I would do in the B&W darkroom, without having to sit in the dark for hours.
Hope this helps,

- joecool