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 - Page 2

post #41 of 53
It's the only Photo app on any of my devices, mobile included, without it. That is a FAIL. How it could be so absolutely brilliant at everything else, and lack that tool... It's maddening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcM76 View Post

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 #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

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

 

 

  But that's the whole point of Pixelmator.  If someone needs Photoshop they get Photoshop.  It's just that these days there are a bunch of $60 programs that do 75% of what Photoshop does, which is 85% of what 75% of everyone who needs an image program needs, or 100% of what 65% need.   What Photoshop does that these other programs don't affects groups W and X but doesn't affect Y and Z, and that's the market.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post
 

 

 

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).

 

 

  I'll tell you why that's a non-argument.  I've been having photos published in print for decades and never needed CMYK in my workflow, ever.  Why?  Because, like most photographers, I do my own post work on the images and then give them to whoever is going to use it.  The person laying it out and sending it off to the printer uses CMYK.  So you have one desk that needs it and a hundred photographers giving them images who don't need it.  I didn't/don't need it for my older versions of PS (which I won't be upgrading) and don't need it using Aperture/LR and PSE. The actual people who need the print features does not include the major group of pro photographers, which are those who hand off the images to the layout person.

 

Even the 16 bit discussion is much less meaningful than it used to be.  If you shoot a lot of RAW whatever you use as a first line deals with what 16 bit is needed for, maybe even do it all the way.  If you want to exaggerate a halo or sharpen and oversaturate eyes and hair and smooth skin and take out some zits, there really isn't the advantage of staying 16 bit once LR, Aperture or whatever has put the colors and exposures in place.  There's a lot to be said for staying 16 bit but the fact is that in many contexts it doesn't matter if you export 8 bit from the RAW DAM.

 

All that being said  :  )   I've never been crazy about Pixelmator.   Parts of the UI seem messy to me.  One thing I ran into right away when I tried last year's version was that "actions" or macros needed to be created in Automator, which is a drag, and it doesn't allow you to do the kinds of precise multiple filter sequences onto new layers, for example, that even PSE can playback (though you can't create them in PSE).  I tried using a macro app to do these batch sequencing of multiple filters and changing parameters but couldn't make it happen.  

 

Gimp is just...better, but Gimp's no fun to be in.  Gimp is actually pretty amazing and free.  But I don't get along with it enough to devote time to it.  So many Windows-like procedures.  Maybe Pixelmator is now giving PSE a run for its money but I would rather sit for a day in front of PSE if I have to bang out a few hundred images than Pixelmator, no question on my end.  I think that's one major aspect they haven't tackled yet.  Make it feel like it can be laid out to tackle a big, fast workflow, regardless of what features it may still need or not.

 

 OTOH, I may be too set in my ways.  And I'm used to having layers work a certain way.  Since I'm not in the market for another image app yet I'm probably throwing up my hands earlier than I might otherwise.  But I do think the UI is somewhat of a hindrance.

post #43 of 53
I don't have the time to respond to every point of jlandd's, but I'll simply say that neither Pixelmator nor GIMP are serious production tools capable of handling online and print artwork and that a designer or artist who is serious about controlling every aspect of their work will choose Photoshop and Illustrator. There are cheaper tools available that will do certain things faster or better, but the giant toolset that does everything well is still in the corner with Adobe.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #44 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

I've been having photos published in print for decades and never needed CMYK in my workflow, ever.  Why?  Because, like most photographers, I do my own post work on the images and then give them to whoever is going to use it.  The person laying it out and sending it off to the printer uses CMYK.  So you have one desk that needs it and a hundred photographers giving them images who don't need it.  I didn't/don't need it for my older versions of PS (which I won't be upgrading) and don't need it using Aperture/LR and PSE. The actual people who need the print features does not include the major group of pro photographers, which are those who hand off the images to the layout person.


You may not understand it, but not supplying your photos in CMYK is taking money out of your own pocket. If the publishers you use are of any quality, colour management actually matters to them, which means they need to be working in the proper profile for the press that the book is going to be printed on. The gamut in RGB is much wider than the gamut in CMYK, which means there will always be colour shifting, sometimes drastically so. The publisher (or its contracted colour house, or the printer) will have to convert those RGB files to the appropriate CMYK profile, one at a time, and readjust the colour to make it match as closely as possible to what you supplied. This is time consuming, and costly.

Even worse, the publisher/colour house/printer might start to consider you a GIGO supplier (Garbage In, Garbage Out), and NOT pay people to do manual conversion and adjustment (or even LOOK at your files) -- and just let the RIP do it. That means the colour that gets printed won't match what you supplied. If your publisher/colour house/printer tells you they just let the RIP do the conversion, it means one of two things: they don't know what they're doing either, or they don't think very much of your work.

That said, by all means, please keep supplying all of your work in RGB, you're putting my kids through college.
post #45 of 53
Although I'm an Adobe CC user, the fact Pixelmator doesn't support CMYK is not an argument against using it for print design. You shouldn't be using CMYK colourspace for photo work anyway due to RGBs larger colour gamut - let the repro house or printer convert to press inks using their ColorSync profiles and the target material.

For CMYK work use Illustrator and Indesign or it's rivals.such as QuarkXPress.
post #46 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post

You may not understand it, but not supplying your photos in CMYK is taking money out of your own pocket. If the publishers you use are of any quality, colour management actually matters to them, which means they need to be working in the proper profile for the press that the book is going to be printed on. The gamut in RGB is much wider than the gamut in CMYK, which means there will always be colour shifting, sometimes drastically so. The publisher (or its contracted colour house, or the printer) will have to convert those RGB files to the appropriate CMYK profile, one at a time, and readjust the colour to make it match as closely as possible to what you supplied. This is time consuming, and costly.

Even worse, the publisher/colour house/printer might start to consider you a GIGO supplier (Garbage In, Garbage Out), and NOT pay people to do manual conversion and adjustment (or even LOOK at your files) -- and just let the RIP do it. That means the colour that gets printed won't match what you supplied. If your publisher/colour house/printer tells you they just let the RIP do the conversion, it means one of two things: they don't know what they're doing either, or they don't think very much of your work.

That said, by all means, please keep supplying all of your work in RGB, you're putting my kids through college.

This is bollocks, the repro house/printers will have a RIP which converts all RGB images to CMYK automatically on the fly based on the target ColorSync profile before outputting for press. Have you ever worked in repro?
post #47 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by philwareham View Post

This is bollocks, the repro house/printers will have a RIP which converts all RGB images to CMYK automatically on the fly based on the target ColorSync profile before outputting for press. Have you ever worked in repro?

Please, keep believing that, it's very lucrative for me.
post #48 of 53
I will keep believing it, since the RIP in my office does exactly that. Full ColorSync workflow from design through to paper. It's like one button click to select the profile of the final material and the RIP does the conversion from RGB to CMYK (since ink levels need to be optimised for the substrate being printed onto, depending how porous it is, the whiteness of paper, any coatings, etc.).
post #49 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by philwareham View Post

Although I'm an Adobe CC user, the fact Pixelmator doesn't support CMYK is not an argument against using it for print design. You shouldn't be using CMYK colourspace for photo work anyway due to RGBs larger colour gamut - let the repro house or printer convert to press inks using their ColorSync profiles and the target material.

For CMYK work use Illustrator and Indesign or it's rivals.such as QuarkXPress.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by philwareham View Post


This is bollocks, the repro house/printers will have a RIP which converts all RGB images to CMYK automatically on the fly based on the target ColorSync profile before outputting for press. Have you ever worked in repro?

 

Ideally, yes, this would be the way to go for a complete publication.  But not all printing shops are ideal to work with or properly equipped, and not all jobs involve a complete publication and you may have a shop (or a situation) that simply needs the image in whatever format and being able to barf up whatever old thing they can handle without having to go through several steps with other applications can be handy, especially if for whatever reason it needs to be done on a routine basis.

 

No worries, at the rate development is going with the likes of Pixelmator, Sketch etc., I finally have some hope that Adobe soon will be facing a Quark moment.  Because they surely deserve it.  Sticking people with a price doubling poorly disguised as a mandatory rental scheme and then failing to even have sufficiently reliable ERP to authenticate it some days . . . . . that deserves marketplace punishment.  It will take a while though because of the number of people for whom Adobe is a multi-product company; at least for almost everyone, Quark was just one product.

 

Each new point update of Pixelmator brings a couple of significant features, and hopefully we'll see them emerge as a real competitor not just to PSE but to Photoshop itself.

post #50 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


You may not understand it, but not supplying your photos in CMYK is taking money out of your own pocket. If the publishers you use are of any quality, colour management actually matters to them, which means they need to be working in the proper profile for the press that the book is going to be printed on. The gamut in RGB is much wider than the gamut in CMYK, which means there will always be colour shifting, sometimes drastically so. The publisher (or its contracted colour house, or the printer) will have to convert those RGB files to the appropriate CMYK profile, one at a time, and readjust the colour to make it match as closely as possible to what you supplied. This is time consuming, and costly.

Even worse, the publisher/colour house/printer might start to consider you a GIGO supplier (Garbage In, Garbage Out), and NOT pay people to do manual conversion and adjustment (or even LOOK at your files) -- and just let the RIP do it. That means the colour that gets printed won't match what you supplied. If your publisher/colour house/printer tells you they just let the RIP do the conversion, it means one of two things: they don't know what they're doing either, or they don't think very much of your work.

That said, by all means, please keep supplying all of your work in RGB, you're putting my kids through college.

 

  Maybe I wasn't clear enough, as we're not talking about the same thing, so I apologize if so.  I don't do layout or design, just images.  In my situation, which isn't rare, when I hand off images I'm giving them to the art department or similar at a company.  They have rarely wanted me to give them anything but RGB so that they have the original, wider gamut to do whatever they want with, and have the original RGB version filed away for the future.  Their department creates CMYK and does the layout and deals with the printer.  It's never a careless RIP conversion and they printers don't get GIGO.  And it's never money out of my pocket or wasted elsewhere.

 

  Pro photographers are often not part of that end of the chain.  If one is also designing, illustrating and/or publishing, then sure, they need CMYK.   But pro photographers who don't require CMYK output more than a few times a year yet still need a full featured image editor are a not a small segment of pro photographers.   But the bigger picture is that there are ways other than one's editor to get a good CMYK conversion, so it not being in the feature set of an editing app isn't, at least to me, a dealkiller.

post #51 of 53

If someone added a vector-based ability like FreeHand had to Pixelmator -- that would make me spend less time on Graphics with Adobe.

 

I've been using all their products for years and one major flaw is vector graphics. Their pen tool stinks. I have to switch out and click a different pen tool, copy and past lines to new layers and such to work on them. It's heinous. With FreeHand I could easily work with the points on one line, without worrying about every line that might be close to it, without switching out tools, without a lot of hassle and without vectors suddenly going wonky.

 

And forget anything complex with Illustrator -- it's a logo tool. I have no idea how anyone accomplishes very complex graphics other than layer, layer, layer. But as soon as you mask or imbed -- well, going back and editing that mess is impossible.

 

So I'm thinking about installing an emulator just to run old FreeHand. I've just gotten so annoyed with Adobe. They add more bells and whistles but they need to refine their core product.

post #52 of 53

You make a good point about RGB. I was a color specialist in print for a while, and after a while I quit "cleaning up in CMYK" and stayed more in RGB. There are 6 color printers now, and there are many different printers that have specialized RIPs to convert colors. So why work in CMYK if you are going to get a different Gamut depending on printer?

 

In a lot of cases, you are developing for Web, Print and some other platform all at the same time. You might get a tiny bit more quality specializing on print for print -- but most employers and the audience are not going to appreciate the added steps. There are places that focus on print and quality -- but how many people in Graphics are actually working at a place like that and not just a marketing department at a company that cares about widgets or services first?

 

So most people will be fine working in RGB and let the printer do the color conversion. Yes, I've done a lot of Pantone matching and using color channels to mix tints and spot colors -- and that's when you'd need all the channel capabilities of PhotoShop. That isn't everyone. It makes sense for Pixelmator to stay in RGB and focus on the toolset and the lower hanging fruit. It's going to be hard to beat PhotoShop on their channel capabilities and printer expertise -- so why bother? There's a lot of areas where they SHOULD BE a lot better for designers but aren't.

 

They still don't do natural media and original art as well as old Painter could. While I can use advanced abilities of a lot of their tools -- it isn't easy for new users and they could improve usability quite a bit. They also have a horrible vector tool from Illustrator (I've ranted enough about that). And while collaboration is cool -- having a cloud based app is like trying to convince me to go back to using a Terminal.

 

You know what the next killer app is? Standalone. If you've been around awhile, you've seen this cycle rinse and repeat enough.

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

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

I've looked a few youtube videos of people using it, as I was curious about it. I have no intention of switching. Anyway it seems fine for a basic paint program, but then again so is Gimp.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
 

 

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.

 

I like LittleCMS, but I'm skeptical on the idea that Pixelmator would incorporate the open source pet project of a developer with a day job. It's not necessarily possible to know how whether it will always have stable support. I don't see why they couldn't support cmyk though. It probably already supports multiple channels. They would need to

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsenka View Post


You may not understand it, but not supplying your photos in CMYK is taking money out of your own pocket. If the publishers you use are of any quality, colour management actually matters to them, which means they need to be working in the proper profile for the press that the book is going to be printed on. The gamut in RGB is much wider than the gamut in CMYK, which means there will always be colour shifting, sometimes drastically so. The publisher (or its contracted colour house, or the printer) will have to convert those RGB files to the appropriate CMYK profile, one at a time, and readjust the colour to make it match as closely as possible to what you supplied. This is time consuming, and costly.

Even worse, the publisher/colour house/printer might start to consider you a GIGO supplier (Garbage In, Garbage Out), and NOT pay people to do manual conversion and adjustment (or even LOOK at your files) -- and just let the RIP do it. That means the colour that gets printed won't match what you supplied. If your publisher/colour house/printer tells you they just let the RIP do the conversion, it means one of two things: they don't know what they're doing either, or they don't think very much of your work.

That said, by all means, please keep supplying all of your work in RGB, you're putting my kids through college.


This is one of those subjects where no one completely agrees with anyone else. I would say you need a workflow that is functional. If he's sending files off in RGB, I would hope he's at least checking for potential clipping. Most people use sRGB or Adobe 1998 as default spaces. Converting over saturated primaries are likely to cause problems, and that should be dealt with prior to sending it off. Most of the time the client or pre-press facility won't supply a specific profile. They'll have submission guidelines indicating ink limit, separation type, etc. Most photographers will screw that up in some way. I'll add that just sending it over regardless of rgb or cmyk isn't enough to expect a match of any kind. Presses do change, and it is still normal to send a reference print if they expect certain colors. I wouldn't suggest someone who knows nothing about cmyk pick that up. If he wants to send it off that way, he should contract it out, as otherwise it may be an expensive learning process.

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