File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Are any /p/hotographers currently using or have tried UbuntuStudio? How is it from a photographer's standpoint?
>> Anonymous
Same as any other GNU/Linux distro, just with some stuff preinstalled. I don't see a good reason to switch to UbuntuStudio from any other distro.
>> Anonymous
i can't believe there is something like that
>> Anonymous
switching away is a waste, but it should get you up and running starting from windows.

also, it comes with a low-latency kernel by default. it's something I've yet to completely configure under gentoo due to PAM dickery.

but for photography.. yea, same as any
>> Anonymous
>>48936
Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Xubuntu, Ubuntu Server Edition, Elbuntu, Fluxbuntu, Uberyl, Ubuntu Lite, Ubuntu Studio, nUbuntu, gNewSense, LinuxMCE, Scibuntu, xUbuntu
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Fucking fail. There's still no better platform for creative professionals than the Mac.

If you want something nice, you have to spend the money. If you want free and open source, well, you get what you pay for.
>> Anonymous
>>48953
I'm not a creative professional nor am I made out of money. Troll harder.
>> Anonymous
>>48953
You know, there's a reason why I don't drive to work with Ferrari.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
I'm not trying to troll. Why are you installing a speciality distro for "graphic arts" or whatever unless you are yourself a specialist.

If you're a photographer, use a Mac. If you're someone who takes the occasional photograph, then it doesn't matter what you use. Use Windows with irfanview or GIMP or fucking paint shop pro. Use any Linux distro with GIMP.

But if you're serious about photography, it's kind of silly to use anything BUT the industry standard.
>> Anonymous
>>48953
>There's still no better platform for creative professionals than the Mac.

Why?
>> Anonymous
>>48973
Someone who knows what they're doing on their Linux PC can do just as well with a good monitor and a copy of Bibble if they're shooting raw, or Vuescan if they use film, for far less money than the $1K for a properly-equipped Mac.

Gimp, however, is nowhere near the needs of an advanced amateur. They desperately need to add 16 and 32 bit per channel support. 8 bits is totally inadequate for photo editing. I only use it for minor retouching after I've done raw conversion in Bibble Pro.
>> Anonymous
>>48980
Because Jobs said so.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48980
Hold on, let me ask GSD&M, DDB, and every other major Omnicom-owned advertising firm. Or if they're too busy, I'll drop AP and Reuters a line, and see why all of their photojournalists use Macbook Pros in the field, and Mac Pros in the office.
>> Anonymous
>>48973
>>48988
>>I'm not trying to troll.

It is to laugh. You've posted nothing of relevance to the OP's question, and have nothing to back up what you did post other than 'a lot of pro firms use it, so it must be good!'. You are a troll. Kindly GTFO.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48995
My point wasn't that "I use it because it's what pros use." My point was that pros have very good reasons for using it. It's a stable, solid platform that was designed with tight hardware/software integration in mind. Its user-friendliness and superb GUI isn't just eye-candy, but really an expediency and aid to productivity. Bear in mind that the people using Macs by and large are NOT technical people, and don't want to be bogged down with the ridiculous hoops Windows and Linux force you to jump through. I could literally go on all day why the Mac platform is a better choice for photographers, graphic designers, publishing, and really all graphic arts. It's a better platform for me because I prefer it, and because it's got a lot of software that is, to me, irreplaceable and uniquely wonderful. Aperture, Quicksilver, Final Cut Pro, and Soundtrack Pro, just to name a few.

I use a Mac because I don't want to worry about my computer, just about my work. That's why it's the professional choice. For hobbyists, other platforms will suffice, I'm sure.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>48997
"Are any /p/hotographers currently using or have tried UbuntuStudio? How is it from a photographer's standpoint?"
I have used Ubuntu, and I found it worthless for any serious graphic applications, notably PHOTOGRAPHY. From a photographer's standpoint, it's a joke. Don't bother. However, if you're not a photographer, and instead just someone who enjoys taking pictures, sure, why not, but anything will do for this kind of person. Windows, Linux, or a Mac with iPhoto. It doesn't matter.
>> thefamilyman
I believe there is no right nor wrong OS.
Photography is pretty simple work really, you only basically need one (or two) pieces of software, and the main one is crossed platform anyway, i'm sure everyone is familiar with Photoshop lol. It works just as good on a Windows box as it does on an Apple, even under wine in Linux.

I use windows because i like it. On my main computer i use Photoshop and Capture NX, on my laptop, i use GIMP. But i dont really do any post processing on any of my pics, i mainly use them to resize to make them 4chan friendly.
>> Anonymous
>>48998
>It's a stable, solid platform
Linux is stable. Windows 2000 was more stable than any operating system I've ever used; I ran a computer on Windows 2000 for a couple years and it literally did not crash once.

>tight hardware/software integration in mind
Explain.

>Its user-friendliness
I find Macs easier to do simple stuff on, but when it comes down to any sort of advanced computer use, the ase drops off dramatically and other operating systems win. For people who don't know what they're doing, like you mentioned, Macs very well may be better.

>and superb GUI
Flashy does not equal superb. I've got things I like and don't like about all the GUIs I've used, but at least those don't try to be as faux-pretty as an airheaded teenage girl's MySpace profile.
>> ac
In after worthless OS flame war.
>> Anonymous
>>48980

Because one button is better than two.
>> Anonymous
>>49007

"but at least those don't try to be as faux-pretty as an airheaded teenage girl's MySpace profile."

I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>49010
QFT

thread over. save it for /g/
>> Anonymous
>>49007
>I've got things I like and don't like about all the GUIs I've used, but at least those don't try to be as faux-pretty as an airheaded teenage girl's MySpace profile.

People will like what they're used to.

>I find Macs easier to do simple stuff on, but when it comes down to any sort of advanced computer use, the ase drops off dramatically and other operating systems win.

The beauty of mac os is that you have a polished GUI with unix beneath. Please don't tell me unix is not for "advanced users."

Another take on why professionals use mac is this. They've been using apple computers since the start. Why would they stop? It's just part of the industry now. It's a lot like the business world and windows based PCs.

tl;dr: People will always use what they're comfortable with.
>> Anonymous
>>49051
QFT
>tl;dr: People will always use what they're comfortable with.
and then they'll try their hardest to justify it.
>> Anonymous
OP here. I would love to have a Mac (I have an iBook), but they are out of the question. I already have a recent investment in PC hardware, and I don't make money off my images, so I'd rather spend what money I do have on camera equipment and supplies. I was looking into Ubuntu Studio because I would like to get away from Windows and pirated software.

It doesn't look like I'm going to get any replies with first hand experience. Apologies for the shitstorm.
>> ac
Dunno about Ubuntu, but I use Slackware Linux on my PC for most of my photography stuff. I've got a Mac which I use for scanning and printing for reasons of driver compatibility (dammit, Canon, release some hardware specs) but most of my image manipulation is done with GIMP, xv, and ImageMagick.