Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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.
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
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.