or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Pixelmator releases version 3.2 'Sandstone' with 16-bit support and new Repair Tool
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Pixelmator releases version 3.2 'Sandstone' with 16-bit support and new Repair Tool

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
The Pixelmator Team on Thursday revealed the newest version of their popular Photoshop alternative for Mac, bringing a number of enhancements that now allow users to work with 16 bits of color per channel, easily remove unwanted objects from images, and lock specific layers.




The update's landmark feature is the new Repair Tool, which the company says has been "redeveloped from the inside out." The tool allows users to simply paint over an object that they would like to remove from an image with broad stokes -- the software will then remove that portion and automatically stitch together a replacement background.

Users have three options with the new repair tool: quick, standard, and advanced repairs. Thanks to algorithmic enhancements, the Pixelmator Team says that the new tool uses four times less memory than its predecessor.

The group has also added support for working with 16 bits of color per channel, a feature now available on every Mac. In addition, layers can now be locked individually, and users have access to a new Convert Selection into Shape option. The company also promises "a number of improvements, user interface enhancements, and fixes related to stability and reliability."



"Packed with incredible features, Pixelmator 3.2 Sandstone delivers the most empowering image editing experience Pixelmator fans have ever had," Pixelmator cofounder Saulius Dailide said in a release. "Redeveloped from the ground up Repair Tool, 16-bits per channel support and Lock Layers feature make Pixelmator an excellent image editor that is just as fun and easy-to-use as it is powerful."

Pixelmator version 3.2 is available now as a $29.99, 35.7-megabyte download from the Mac App Store.
post #2 of 53
Still no vignette tool.
post #3 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmoofo View Post

Still no vignette tool.

Granted it's not as convenient as a 1 click tool but it's not a massively difficult effect to achieve manually... Pixelmator even have a tutorial - http://www.pixelmator.com/tutorials/effects/vignette-effect/
post #4 of 53
Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #5 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

 

Care to elaborate? I personally know a number of professional designers who have replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator recently and have only glowing praise.

post #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

 

Who ever said it was?

 

It is a welcomed inexpensive alternative for those of us who do not need all the professional features of Photoshop.

Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #7 of 53

I bought this and keep an eye on its development, very happy to see some kind of competition to Adobe. Unfortunately, at least for a photographer, this is a long way from being anywhere near the capabilities of Photoshop. 

 

The biggest missing things for me are non-destructive layer effects and compatibility with third party plug-in filters as I make extensive use of Alien Skin's Exposure and occasionally some others. 

 

I use Photomerge for joining multiple shots into larger files. This has become a specific workflow I now use all the time because Photomerge makes it so easy.

 

The filters and Photomerge are two very specific things to my workflow, but the non-destructive layer effects is a very generic one for photographers. 

 

On the positive side, maybe this should not really be seen as a Photoshop competitor, but something a bit different. I see it as more comparable with Photoshop Elements at its current level of sophistication.  

 

The shift to support 16 bits suggests the developers hope for professional users and I guess some very hard up photographer might struggle to use this, but when Photoshop is only a few bucks a month... why struggle. 

post #8 of 53

I bet one day Adobe buy the company and ruin like they did with Macromedia and anything else they have touched.

I wish Adobe would just drop dead.

post #9 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post

Care to elaborate? I personally know a number of professional designers who have replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator recently and have only glowing praise.

Designers maybe but not many full-time, professional graphics folks would give up Photoshop IMHO.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

Sorry, but this is indeed a credible alternative for some Photoshop users, as evidenced by BobJohnson's comment above.

post #11 of 53
There is a reason Photoshop is the #1 photo editing app, but the new Pixelmator repair tool looks pretty sweet. Pixelmator is ideal for people with commerce websites. Take pictures of your products, clip out the background, adjust the brightness and contrast, do a little retouching and upload them to the site.
A friend mine started her own site just like that. She did hundreds of products in just a couple days. She didn't have any previous experience either. She just went with my recommendations. Started an LLC, bought a MBP and Pixelmator.  I helped her get a version of OpenCart running on her hosting account and gave her $100 coupon for Google ad words and off she went. The site is doing really well. She got everything up and running in about a week. I was surprised how fast she picked up working in Pixelmator.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #12 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post
 

I bet one day Adobe buy the company and ruin like they did with Macromedia and anything else they have touched.

I wish Adobe would just drop dead.

So by ruin you mean Adobe put their name on the former Macromedia products?

 

I previously owned the entire Macromedia suite including Coldfusion, and personally, I think Adobe has made significant improvements to the entire product line, of course with the exception of Freehand, for obvious reasons.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #13 of 53
For what this application cost there should be none of this "Photoshop" talk. You cant even buy Photoshop anymore. Adobe went full blown money grab in recent times. I own this application, and I bought it to ween me off of my pirate Photoshop version. For the record, I have bought one suite to the tune of 1500.00 as well as used the $30.00/mo version for a year. Quite a lot just to edit graphics for fun.
post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post
 

 

Care to elaborate? I personally know a number of professional designers who have replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator recently and have only glowing praise.

 

 

Sure:

 

When you compare the two programs, it’s clear that Pixelmator is not the best choice for fully employed illustrators and graphic designers who must interact with others in the Photoshop-driven community of creative professionals. Instead, it is well positioned to meet the needs of users who Adobe’s new strategy has largely abandoned: hobbyists, people doing occasional photo touch-ups, and students and starving artists who can’t afford the overall cost of the Creative Cloud and who don’t need all of Photoshop’s professional (and sometimes arcane) features. If you’re trying to get your head out of the cloud, the combination of Pixelmator’s low cost and rich feature set may be just what you need to brighten your day.
 

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyJ View Post

For what this application cost there should be none of this "Photoshop" talk. You cant even buy Photoshop anymore. Adobe went full blown money grab in recent times. I own this application, and I bought it to ween me off of my pirate Photoshop version. For the record, I have bought one suite to the tune of 1500.00 as well as used the $30.00/mo version for a year. Quite a lot just to edit graphics for fun.

 

I'm all for alternatives. Pixlemator is just nowhere near the functionality of Photoshop.

 

Another simple comparison:

http://photo-graphics-software.findthebest.com/compare/4-5/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-vs-Pixelmator

 

Also, despite the prevalence of web-only design work, print is still a very large industry. Pixelmator is useless for printed things (no CMYK, no Pantone Matching System).


Edited by SpamSandwich - 5/22/14 at 12:13pm

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 53

At least Pixelmator has a better icon than PS.  I absolutely hate the Adobe app icons of late.  For a product suite centered on image and creative content production, they can't come up with better icon designs than a square with letters for the initials of the name of the app in it? They're almost as bad as the icons for Microsoft's Office apps. "W", "X", "P".  Gee, thanks.  Remember when Photoshop had an eyeball floating over a beach? That was cool! Even the feather wasn't bad.  The current ones are pathetic.

post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobJohnson View Post

Care to elaborate? I personally know a number of professional designers who have replaced Photoshop with Pixelmator recently and have only glowing praise.
I would agree it is a fantastic slick application I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years and now a web designer, traditionally using the adobe suite. I hated illustrator and currently looking at sketch. Pixelmator is without doubt a credible alternative and at the price it's an absolute no brainier!
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregnacu View Post
 

At least Pixelmator has a better icon than PS.  I absolutely hate the Adobe app icons of late.  For a product suite centered on image and creative content production, they can't come up with better icon designs than a square with letters for the initials of the name of the app in it? They're almost as bad as the icons for Microsoft's Office apps. "W", "X", "P".  Gee, thanks.  Remember when Photoshop had an eyeball floating over a beach? That was cool! Even the feather wasn't bad.  The current ones are pathetic.

Couldn't disagree more. The reason they got rid of those fancy icons is because most professionals are using multiple apps from the suite and could not remember which feather, butterfly or flower represented which app hence were forever clicking the wrong one and have to wait for it to launch only to quit. The letter icons came from Macromedia and Adobe was smart to adopt that style.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by zaba View Post


I would agree it is a fantastic slick application I've been a graphic designer for over 20 years and now a web designer, traditionally using the adobe suite. I hated illustrator and currently looking at sketch. Pixelmator is without doubt a credible alternative and at the price it's an absolute no brainier!

 

It is in no way a credible replacement for the range available with Illustrator or Photoshop. Yes, it has some fun effects, but it would need another ten years of development before it could be considered a threat to Adobe.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

 

The hell it isn't.

post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

I'm all for alternatives. Pixlemator is just nowhere near the functionality of Photoshop.

 

Another simple comparison:

http://photo-graphics-software.findthebest.com/compare/4-5/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-vs-Pixelmator

 

Also, despite the prevalence of web-only design work, print is still a very large industry. Pixelmator is useless for printed things (no CMYK, no Pantone Matching System).

 

CMYK will fall more quickly out of your To Do List. Incorporating LittleCMS 2.6.x into Pixelmator, if not already done, will be a synch in the future.

post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

I'm all for alternatives. Pixlemator is just nowhere near the functionality of Photoshop.

 

Another simple comparison:

http://photo-graphics-software.findthebest.com/compare/4-5/Adobe-Photoshop-CC-vs-Pixelmator

 

Also, despite the prevalence of web-only design work, print is still a very large industry. Pixelmator is useless for printed things (no CMYK, no Pantone Matching System).

 

 

You do realize that comparison chart will now have to be updated, right?

 

By the way, those lack of RAW Editing features is a feature. There are tools to do this that can build as part of your workflow, commercial or free.

 

Ditto for HDR Editing.

 

Photoshop's draw is waning.

post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

 

Not for print, but I think that's deliberate.

 

Adding CMYK and Pantone-matching would make it easy for Pixelmator to charge $99. for a Pro version.

 

The fact that they haven't done this, knowing fully well that it's always a top request, means they've either cut a deal with Adobe not to directly take on Photoshop or they are worried that directly competing with Photoshop will bring ugly consequences for them.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 
Photoshop's draw is waning.

Perhaps at the mid-range home based business that needs some photo editing abilities in addition to all the other things they do. One day they need a flyer the next an edit to a web page, but for the full time pro graphic designer the CC suite is really on the increase. The one thing that keeps Adobe in the front for pros is the suite. I have usually 4-5 suite apps open all day long. They all work in harmony and offer a huge increase in productivity.

 

For example you drop a native psd file in inDesign, you can even turn on and off layers. No need to export and save duplicate copies. Same for Illustrator. You can drop one into Photoshop and manipulate it but it is still linked to the original file so when you update it in Illustrator it automatically updates in Photoshop. Think of it sort of how Apple's ecosystem works. That is a very compelling solution for pros. Plus as someone else mentioned the compatibility among all the different graphic houses, ad agencies and printers around the world.


Edited by mstone - 5/22/14 at 3:11pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #25 of 53

I'm a professional photographer. I own an older version of Photoshop (I refuse to buy newer versions as Adobe sucks at RAW plugin support), Apple's Aperture, GIMP and Pixelmator. I do photo editing daily.

 

I thought Pixelmator could be the answer to a PS replacement but the lack of IPTC caption support is a glaring dealbreaker that many have noted in online forums and in the App Store.

 

Yes, I've used PhotoMechanic (an excellent app) in conjunction with Pixelmator but it's a pain when you just want to work quickly. Plus the lack of the 'old-fashioned' Save & Save As is also a pain. There should be a preference for choice.

 

So instead of I use Aperture and GIMP. At least with GIMP I can keyboard map so all the keystrokes are the same as Photoshop.

 

Give us IPTC support, visual peaking for DMin/DMax when adjusting levels and a proper save dialog box along with customizable keystrokes I'll make the switch. Until then Pixelmator will continue to gather virtual dust in my App folder. And yes, I along with others have made these suggestions to Pixelmator for over a year without resolve.

post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkKnot View Post
 

I'm a professional photographer. I own an older version of Photoshop (I refuse to buy newer versions as Adobe sucks at RAW plugin support),

Could it be because the new RAW plugins are not supported in the old version of Photoshop? I never have any issues with RAW in Photoshop.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

So by ruin you mean Adobe put their name on the former Macromedia products?

 

I previously owned the entire Macromedia suite including Coldfusion, and personally, I think Adobe has made significant improvements to the entire product line, of course with the exception of Freehand, for obvious reasons.

Seriously?! You are one of the few that think that. Macromedia was a forward thinking company with great concepts and UI design. Adobe turned all their products into pigs, or killed them off completely. All software from Adobe is buggy as sin, there is little compatibility between their products.  The company is a total joke that survives purely through it's monopoly on the design world. 

And that's the reason why they bought macromedia, because they were a threat to their monopoly.

post #28 of 53

Yes. Adobe refuses to update the RAW import plugins for Photoshop versions that aren't the latest. So even if you don't need the bells & whistles of the latest/greatest PS you'll have to pay if you buy a new camera. So if you buy a Canon 5D Mark IV (or whatever comes out) you could be screwed if you don't own the latest PS or a PS subscription.

 

Adobe's excuse is that you can convert all your newer RAW camera images to DNG to open in your older version of PS. They used to update the RAW import plugin when new cameras came out but stopped that years ago and have been forcing users to buy new versions of PS since then for bridge imports directly from RAW files.

 

Apple has always made the RAW import core files free for Aperture and iPhoto users and updates them as needed when new cameras come out. It's possible that Adobe updates Lightroom RAW import plugin but I don't know as I don't own LR. Even GIMP imports my RAW files directly. The cost, bloat and RAW imports were dealbreakers for me with PS.

 

An example. Let's say you use a company issued computer with Photoshop installed on it. You go out and buy your own personal latest/greatest camera b/c the company's broke-ass POS camera sucks. You can't open your RAW files on the company computer due to old Adobe software. You have to convince IT to install the latest Adobe RAW DNG application or shoot in jpeg.

post #29 of 53
To all those comparing pixelmator to photoshop claiming photoshop superior, it's a matter of what you use it for. Pixelmator is very tightly packaged with the most needed toolsets. If you're not using the deeper toolsets of photoshop, pixelmator quite simply just makes more sense with it's cleaner UI, lack of bloat and amazing price. I'm not saying photoshop isn't better, just not enough to warrant the price difference to most people.

Anyway, the only thing really holding pixelmator back for most is the lack of non-destructive editing. If it ever gets that, adobe better look out.
post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post
 
Seriously?! You are one of the few that think that. Macromedia was a forward thinking company with great concepts and UI design. Adobe turned all their products into pigs, or killed them off completely. All software from Adobe is buggy as sin, there is little compatibility between their products.  The company is a total joke that survives purely through it's monopoly on the design world. 

And that's the reason why they bought macromedia, because they were a threat to their monopoly.

I obviously disagree. With your attitude I suspect you don't use Adobe software at all so you are not as likely to know as much about the suite as someone who uses it extensively on a daily basis. I never met a professional graphics artist who doesn't appreciate the powerful features offered by Adobe's applications. You'd have to be crazy to say there is no compatibility between their titles, which is why I discredit your remarks as being completely illogical, misinformed and just an anti-Adobe rant. I've had every version of Photoshop and Illustrator since day one and they are still the best graphics apps money can buy. Same with inDesign. And I went through every version of Pagemaker and Quark as well before switching to inDesign.

 

Adobe bought Macromedia not because they were a threat, but because Adobe wanted to replace two of their less popular apps in some increasingly significant market areas, web design and Flash. Adobe wanted Dreamweaver and Flash, and those were the only two apps that were making any money for Macromedia, and they didn't even develop Flash themselves. Everything else that Macromedia had was second rate, except Coldfusion. Adobe has also made good use of the Coldfusion JSP server, but Macromedia didn't develop that either, they bought it from Allaire. Macromedia didn't really develop much of their titles. They were mostly purchased from other third parties. Freehand was the only significant casualty of the merger and it was obsolete anyway, oh, and Director which was also obsolete. 


Edited by mstone - 5/22/14 at 4:15pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #31 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I obviously disagree. With your attitude I suspect you don't use Adobe software at all so you are not as likely to know as much about the suite as someone who uses it extensively on a daily basis. I never met a professional graphics artist who doesn't appreciate the powerful features offered by Adobe's applications. You'd have to be crazy to say there is no compatibility between their titles, which is why I discredit your remarks as being completely illogical, misinformed and just an anti-Adobe rant. I've had every version of Photoshop and Illustrator since day one and they are still the best graphics apps money can buy. Same with inDesign. And I went through every version of Pagemaker and Quark as well before switching to inDesign.

 

Adobe bought Macromedia not because they were a threat, but because Adobe wanted to replace two of their less popular apps in some increasingly significant market areas, web design and Flash. Adobe wanted Dreamweaver and Flash, and those were the only two apps that were making any money for Macromedia, and they didn't even develop Flash themselves. Everything else that Macromedia had was second rate, except Coldfusion. Adobe has also made good use of the Coldfusion JSP server, but Macromedia didn't develop that either, they bought it from Allaire. Macromedia didn't really develop much of their titles. They were mostly purchased from other third parties. Freehand was the only significant casualty of the merger and it was obsolete anyway, oh, and Director which was also obsolete. 

 

Freehand was the best vector graphics app ever made IMO (I have a long history of using their products by the way) I invested a lot of time mastering that app, and I was major pissed when it got killed. Fireworks was an incredible app for creating fast mockups for web/app graphics and they killed that. Flash (I was also a Flash & Director developer from the early nineties) was groundbreaking in it's day, but Adobe tried to make it into a platform and made a lot of enemies in the process. Dreamweaver, well it's always been pretty shit, but it was better in the olden days when it was a fairly plain WYSIWYG editor with less of the junk code it loves to insert.

As for Illustrator and Photoshop, you can't compete on features, but someone needs to teach them a lesson in UI. It breaks so many Apple guidelines I feel like I'm using a PC. It's truly hideous.

 

Each to their own, but I can't stand the company. Slowly, just like Microsoft they will lose their monopoly and die, and that day could not come soon enough for me. Apps like Pixelmator will slowly eat into Adobes lunch, and become more feature rich over time. There's some great apps on the horizon, built by forward thinking individuals, using modern technologies and UI principles that will (or already do) show Adobe up for the dinosaur it is. 

post #32 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post
 
Freehand was the best vector graphics app ever made IMO (I have a long history of using their products by the way) I invested a lot of time mastering that app, and I was major pissed when it got killed. Fireworks was an incredible app for creating fast mockups for web/app graphics and they killed that. Flash (I was also a Flash & Director developer from the early nineties) was groundbreaking in it's day, but Adobe tried to make it into a platform and made a lot of enemies in the process. Dreamweaver, well it's always been pretty shit, but it was better in the olden days when it was a fairly plain WYSIWYG editor with less of the junk code it loves to insert.

Fair enough. There were always those who preferred Freehand. I didn't care for it, I was always an Illustrator guy. Freehand had a couple unique features like 'paste inside' and had more page layout features, but the anchor points were too big which made it clumsy to do really accurate work and it created terrible eps files that wouldn't rip. I was never a big fan of Fireworks either but it was probably better than Imageready at the time, of course I was never a big fan of animated gifs either so no biggie. I also did a lot of Director, Authorware and Flash stuff too. I find it ironical that some people think Macromedia Flash was fine, while Adobe Flash is shit. It is the same damn program. Hilarious. Dreamweaver put crap code in when it was under Macromedia's watch just as much as it does now, but that stuff is optional. It always had pretty good code view for formatting and site synchronization. I still use it quite often since I have so many sites set up with paths and passwords.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

I obviously disagree. With your attitude I suspect you don't use Adobe software at all so you are not as likely to know as much about the suite as someone who uses it extensively on a daily basis.

...by the way, with your attitude you sound like someone who feels threatened by this new wave of graphics apps. You have invested a lot of time into Adobe products and fear that you may have to one day retrain. You will defend Adobe to the grave, as it is the devil you know.

post #34 of 53

BTW you can still get Freehand MX 11, it might even be free. I know I got for free a while back. It is EOL but if you like it it still works as well as ever.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post
 

...by the way, with your attitude you sound like someone who feels threatened by this new wave of graphics apps. You have invested a lot of time into Adobe products and fear that you may have to one day retrain. You will defend Adobe to the grave, as it is the devil you know.

Not threatened at all. I love to learn new things continually. I just think Adobe products are best in class but if something else came along that I thought was good enough I would switch. For example I was a diehard Quark guy but eventually inDesign just became a much better program and I switched. The things that convinced me were that you could just drag file onto the page, beautiful drop shadows and you could use psd files. Also in Quark you had to have a special third party extension to break the links in the collected folder because it would try to find the old links in the local path. That was a major hassle. Quark eventually got all those features but it was too little too late. So I'm not married to Adobe, I just think they are the best right now and so does everyone I work with so there is the compatibility issue as well.

 

BTW, I even recommend Pixelator to non graphics professionals. I think it has a nice set of features for their target market. 


Edited by mstone - 5/22/14 at 5:53pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

BTW you can still get Freehand MX 11, it might even be free. I know I got for free a while back. It is EOL but if you like it it still works as well as ever.
No. It does not because it needs Rosetta and the last OS version that allows you to install Rosetta is Snow Leopard. You can run SL Server or with some unofficial and unsupported hacks SL client in Parallels though to keep FreeHand running on modern Macs.

IMHO if you stuck with using Illustrator instead of FreeHand up until around 2010, you were a masochist and NOT a professional due to the inefficiencies and time-sink worakrounds that were far easier and faster to achieve in FH. Adobe still has a few versions to go before they can equal the usability and easy tools and GUI of FH. As evidense, if Illustrator and Adobe was so great, why are the best tools and advancement of features being provided by the third party plugins from Astute Graphics?

Adobe has only since CS6 started to build a consistent GUI across their main print graphics titles, and dialogs and assorted panels with inconsistent sub features are still a mess. They have a long way to go AFAIC before they're a cohesive suite that you so faithfully think they are.

You're not the only graphics pro in these parts and I'm sure I've been installing, using, training and beta-testing graphic software for the Mac AND PC for just as long if not longer than you have, across worldwide printing industries and agencies. You probably have something on your desk at this moment, and almost certainly something in your kitchen cupboards that have come from my "wee little efforts". Just sayin'... 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #37 of 53
@mstone - BTW it's 3:30am here, replying to your Holy Adobe Creed and uninformed FH post, installing across 3 new iMacs what I just stated above for delivery in a few hours. i'm tired and probably the only reason your post irked me into grand standing. My apologies.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Adobe has only since CS6 started to build a consistent GUI across their main print graphics titles, and dialogs and assorted panels with inconsistent sub features are still a mess. They have a long way to go AFAIC before they're a cohesive suite that you so faithfully think they are.
 

As I said, I think Adobe is the the best right now. Please let me know which competitive suite does it better as far as compatibility across the titles with better features and better tools. If your suggestion turns out to be superior to Adobe I'll be happy to give it an open mind and try it out. If I can verify that it would be a better fit for my purposes in the long run such as compatibility with peers on both Windows and Mac, I'm open to change.

 

But seriously Freehand sucked if for only one reason. It made terrible eps files which would crash the Linotype rip all the time.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

It is in no way a credible replacement for the range available with Illustrator or Photoshop. Yes, it has some fun effects, but it would need another ten years of development before it could be considered a threat to Adobe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


"When you compare the two programs, it’s clear that Pixelmator is not the best choice for fully employed illustrators and graphic designers who must interact with others in the Photoshop-driven community of creative professionals. Instead, it is well positioned to meet the needs of users who Adobe’s new strategy has largely abandoned: hobbyists, people doing occasional photo touch-ups, and students and starving artists who can’t afford the overall cost of the Creative Cloud and who don’t need all of Photoshop’s professional (and sometimes arcane) features. If you’re trying to get your head out of the cloud, the combination of Pixelmator’s low cost and rich feature set may be just what you need to brighten your day.

http://tidbits.com/article/13775"




Pixelmator has never been aimed at powering a full time graphics, design and illustration gig for many reasons. That's like giving a diner a bad rating because it has a limited wine list. It means one is in the wrong place for what they want.
Edited by jlandd - 5/22/14 at 7:34pm
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Sorry, but this is simply not a credible alternative to Photoshop.

That is absolutely true. Pixelmator is nowhere near ready for that. This thing is still a toy. Wake me up when they get CMYK support, then it'll at least be worth a real professional's time to try using it to see what it really can and can't do. It's still nice to seen them constantly improving the application to the point that people who never really needed the full power of Photoshop do have an affordable alternative.

It makes me laugh when I read of people saying that they know a professional designer who switched to Pixelmator. No you don't. You know a hobbyist who doesn't know enough to know what he doesn't know who is blissfully unaware of what he's limiting himself to.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Pixelmator releases version 3.2 'Sandstone' with 16-bit support and new Repair Tool