So, why would Adobe leave Linux out? Is it only the numbers (too much effort, too little return)? Or, is there something else going on (concerns over the GPL, no integrated color management in Linux other than via projects like LittleCMS, or do they have an agenda that favours Microsoft for other reasons)?

But, Adobe seems to be shying away from the Linux market, even though some surveys I've read indicate that it's the most requested application for Linux.

From my perspective, it would be an easy port for them (they've already got versions for both Windows and Mac, so how hard could it be to port it to Linux).

I'm actually happy that photoshop isn't being released, that simply drives the products you mentioned to improve faster than they would otherwise have done, which will drive the development of products that can do more or less what people need to be done, for about $600 or so less.

h2, your opinion please:

• Also, how much of the code do you think they'd be forced to release, due to GPL requirements?
  

I have been inpressed with the GIMP raw plug in for NEF files; conversion is much better than Rawshooter (which works under wine).

I would say, Gimp as it is today is a fine solution for them. Krita will be another competitor in this sector shortly. And XaraLX is on the way to storm this sector in a few months. I also guess that Adobe/Macromedia will follow with their products, but probably beeing too late by then.

If you are a photographer your talent is shooting, not manipulation, which is really a separate art and needs other skills. You should also be aware of your hardware limitations - photographers tend to spend all their money for equipment, not for a computer graphics workstation. Most profi photographers I know even stay completely away from that and deliver their material as it is with instructions to others who simply know better, are faster and better equipped for tricky manipulations. That way they get fast and perfect results, and save a lot of time - which is money for a photographer.

You can't even get close with Gimp and dcraw because in the end its thrown into 8 bit which is practically useless even as a preview

So far BibblePro provides the best raw conversion for me .. much better than photoshop most of the time but both are miles ahead of Gimp....
I haven't tried Picassa (well Ive seen it index and display the raw files but not looked at them seriously since I have a brand new monitor my old one blew last week and havn't yet done the color profile)...

none. just because you make / sell a program for linux doesn't make it GPL.

Doom3 comes to mind as well as the ati and nvidia drivers.

Well, I wouldn't call it useless, as depending on the image, you can get some pretty decent results with dcraw.c.

But, for high dynamic range scenes, there are better products around. ACR can recover highlight detail that dcraw.c can't (at least versions of it I've tested, including some relatively recent ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Dave Coffin, and really like his code for some images. We all owe him thanks for his work in raw conversion, since a lot of products use at least some of his code (and he provides it for free for anyone to use).

I haven't tried Eric Hyman's latest versions of Bibble. I've been meaning to get around to it. I saw a few recent comparisons that put it in a bad light compared to another converter. But, some algorithms work better on some images versus others. So, a different image may have had the opposite results.

Eric works hard at trying to improve the product though (and actively partiicpates on some of the more popular digital photography forums, listening to what users have to say). If I had to switch to Linux full time tomorrow, I'd probably be running Eric's product for sure.

Eric has the fastest raw conversion around. But, to get that kind of speed in a raw converter, sometimes compromises are made.

As for Picasa, it's not using the camera's as shot white balance information for raw files. So, it's more useful as a browsing tool versus anything else (but, it's not bad for that purpose).

I definitely don't want my image processing, audio, or video processing, to depend on very expensive proprietary software, that would negate the entire purpose of using free, open source software to escape just that trap.

The problem is that at the end of the day its limited to the dynamic range of 8bit and no matter what else you do on the curves later you have already thrown most of the data away.

In all those threads you've read, how many of those photoshop users have ever shown any interest in helping out on some graphics program or project? I'd guess not very many.

I'm guilty, too. I've never been involved in an OpenSource Project.

Attention! Some parts of this program are restricted under the
terms of the GNU General Public License. Such code is enclosed
in "BEGIN GPL BLOCK" and "END GPL BLOCK" declarations.
Any code not declared GPL is free for all uses.

Starting in Revision 1.237, the code to support Foveon cameras
is under GPL.