It is likely different elsewhere but I used LA because it is the editing capital of the world.
There is an adage in the research industry, "If you want to hear the answer, ask the question."
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Then you could search INDEED and get more 'worldwide' results.
If you or anyone here is interested, Larry Jordan has a great presentation that not only applies to FC, but how and why we change software (particularly in the first 15 minutes).
Photoshop has earned its reputation. But it's not the sprite it was at no.4 (I really enjoyed that release...and no.7...)
However, of late, it seems to be more about bloat and nickle and diming customers for the odd new feature.
And it seems slow in some areas...and took ages to take on board GPU rendering for filters etc.
And Adobe have become more about the 'sales guy' about it. They're at the top and don't need to try that hard...and are trying to force 'leech my bank account' on PS users. Some may well get off on that treatment or find it works for them.
And that's what happens when you don't have competition.
Fortunately, since the release of the iPad...there's been a boom of image apps. The best of which, for me, is Procreate which is lightning fast and makes PS look like the snail it is. Even on the Mac...you have Painter (which is still ticking along...), Pixelmator and Manga Studio.
I don't like Adobe. They got their trousers pulled down by Jobs over Flash. A program that pretty much sums up Adobe.
Pixelmator is a lovely apps. It's not the finished solution but it's growing at at incredible rate. Pretty small footprint. Very fast app. GPU acceleration. Keeps adding those 'key features' in it's own inimitable way. PS may have refinement and finesse but the new kid is showing some moves...and adding greatly to them over time. I have Pixelmator 3. It has layer styles. I guess Adjustment layers is next? At the rate they're going there are less reasons for me to shell out £650 for PS6.
In fact, I have Pixelmator (and loads of free updates to it...) and it cost me...£20? Astonishing value. *waves at Adobe. (I don't think I need them or MS on my computer. Greedy dinosaurs of a Wintel hegemony age. Now as computing goes 'mobile' and 'desktop class'...they look like the lumbering companies they are.)
I have Manga Studio 5EX. It kicks PS's arse when it comes to creating comics. It specialises in it. Better pencils and brushes. Perspective tools. Page management tools. Mezzotint...and loads more specialist areas that make PS look very 'generalised' indeed. You can blend and colour in it now pretty well too these days. It was this release (if not EX4) that made me think...you know...between Pixelmator and Manga Studio 5EX I don't need PS6 perhaps (which tries to be all things to all men...). Add Procreate (which I have on iPad...) and you have a blisteringly fast and great painting app for 4k res'...(speed that makes Painter blush...) on mobile too.
I do like PS of course. But I don't like Adobe all that much. I remember when PS used to have a realistic price. (and I do have a PS7...but unfortunately, only PPC. But I bought version 4 and 7. But as Adobe's upgrade path has got sharper....I thought, no. Just no.)
Props to the Pixelmator boys on a great release. And it's telling that Apple use them on benching their new machines and not PS.
They deserved their design award a couple of years ago.
They support them Mac (not trying to give us a half baked Windows port...) and embrace the latest Mac tech in OS X Mav'.
Have been using Pixelmator for years now, and love it. Haven't touched (my bootleg copy of) Photoshop in years, and it's definitely time to delete it.
There still seem to be a few issues with the Shape tool though. Sometimes it's hard to select a shape to resize it. There are workarounds, but it's awkward. But that's my only nitpick with Pixelmator 3.0 FX.
Update: Pixelmator 3.0 FX does seem to be a significant energy user on my MacBook Pro. Maybe that's a second nitpick.
... Greedy dinosaurs of a Wintel hegemony age. Now as computing goes 'mobile' and 'desktop class'...they look like the lumbering companies they are. ...
Agree completely. Adobe is all about cross-platform development. Which means, to them, writing a core engine for each of their apps, then porting that to Mac, Windows etc. and using as little of each platforms' native interface API as possible. They think this saves development costs, because they can minimize the number of Mac experts and Windows experts in their engineering team. (Although I suspect they're more Windows-heavy than Mac-heavy in said team.)
The results is that end users on all platforms are forced to deal with a lowest-common-denominator user interface on Adobe products. Generic, lifeless, stale. And it also leads to a rigid, inflexible design. Everything is concentrated in the core engine, which they are loathe to change lest it break anything on one of the supported platforms.
All of which makes Adobe ripe for innovative disruption. Enter Pixelmator.
Agree completely. Adobe is all about cross-platform development. Which means, to them, writing a core engine for each of their apps, then porting that to Mac, Windows etc. and using as little of each platforms' native interface API as possible. They think this saves development costs, because they can minimize the number of Mac experts and Windows experts in their engineering team. (Although I suspect they're more Windows-heavy than Mac-heavy in said team.)
The results is that end users on all platforms are forced to deal with a lowest-common-denominator user interface on Adobe products. Generic, lifeless, stale. And it also leads to a rigid, inflexible design. Everything is concentrated in the core engine, which they are loathe to change lest it break anything on one of the supported platforms.
All of which makes Adobe ripe for innovative disruption. Enter Pixelmator.
It's ironic, considering that Adobe was an innovative disruptor when it first got started. Too much time and complacency on their part has allowed ossification to set in. Aiming for the lowest common denominator, while easier from a development & business standpoint, certainly allows opportunity for younger, hungrier companies to make a go of it.
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Utter Bull Shit. You can't search for just the words "final cut editor" because those words are used in thousands job postings that have absolutely no reference to looking for FCP editors. It is bringing back results for all three words, two words or one word. Ridiculous! Search for the words "final cut pro" and put it in quotes without the word editor in there and see what you get. 345.
Granted that is much better than my original 27 from FCP but again they all want FCP 7 not FCPX. I bought FCPX and I have Adobe Master Collection which obviously contains Premier. I even have an older version of Avid but I always stick with FCP 7 because it just makes more sense to me, but it certainly isn't the preferred editor in Hollywood.
So many clueless remarks concerning what an awful program PS is and how evil Adobe is. I'd be willing to bet that not one of the people bitching about Adobe or Photoshop actually work professionally in the graphics industry. There is no way to work without it and you have to keep it up to date. You would be laughed out the door of a real agency or creative studio if you said you didn't use Photoshop. It is required. When you share files with other creatives it ALWAYS has to be in CS. Every magazine requires either Acrobat or the working file in Mac CS format, no exceptions. I actually make a lot of money using their tools and just like any other complex tool set you need to work with it day in and day out to get the most out of it. If you dabble in it a day or two a few minutes at a time, of course you are not going to be able to do much or find the features that are available. Try to find your way around AutoCad without intensive study and training. Same thing. It is not bloated, it is complicated because it is powerful. It is not a PlayStation game.
There is an adage in the research industry, "If you want to hear the answer, ask the question."
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Then you could search INDEED and get more 'worldwide' results.
If you or anyone here is interested, Larry Jordan has a great presentation that not only applies to FC, but how and why we change software (particularly in the first 15 minutes).
Utter Bull Shit. You can't search for just the words "final cut editor" because those words are used in thousands job postings that have absolutely no reference to looking for FCP editors. It is bringing back results for all three words, two words or one word. Ridiculous! Search for the words "final cut pro" and put it in quotes without the word editor in there and see what you get. 345.
Granted that is much better than my original 27 from FCP but again they all want FCP 7 not FCPX. I bought FCPX and I have Adobe Master Collection which obviously contains Premier. I even have an older version of Avid but I always stick with FCP 7 because it just makes more sense to me, but it certainly isn't the preferred editor in Hollywood.
That was my point. Your search term, i.e., 'Avid Editor', generated similar ? results. And many, for example, the Associate Director of the Parents Program posting, amongst others, had nothing to do with film editing.
As for your last comment, I didn't infer that at all. However, I would like to suggest that Hollywood in not the capital of film editing (FE) today and has become less influential in one's choice of software.
That was my point. Your search term, i.e., 'Avid Editor', generated similar ? results. And many, for example, the Associate Director of the Parents Program posting, amongst others, had nothing to do with film editing.
My mistake. If you do put quotes around all search terms you get significantly different results:
"final cut pro editor" = 7
"FCP editor" = 1
"Final Cut Pro X" = 4
"Avid Editor" = 43
Those number sound a lot more realistic. (Still using LA)
I bought Pixelmator a year ago and at the time it did not have all of the features I need. I just updated to v3.0 and it still does not seem to have Adjustment Layers and a History palette. Is this correct or am I missing something here? Thought it may not have masking, but it does!
Comments
Perhaps not quite thousands. Around Los Angeles there are 27 FCP jobs, all for FCP 7
http://www.simplyhired.com/k-fcp-editor-l-los-angeles-ca-jobs.html ;
For Avid in Los Angeles: 1,685 jobs.
http://www.simplyhired.com/k-avid-editor-l-los-angeles-ca-jobs.html
It is likely different elsewhere but I used LA because it is the editing capital of the world.
There is an adage in the research industry, "If you want to hear the answer, ask the question."
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Then you could search INDEED and get more 'worldwide' results.
If you or anyone here is interested, Larry Jordan has a great presentation that not only applies to FC, but how and why we change software (particularly in the first 15 minutes).
Larry Jordan asks "Is Final Cut Pro X ready for professional use?" at the 2013 SuperMeet
Photoshop has earned its reputation. But it's not the sprite it was at no.4 (I really enjoyed that release...and no.7...)
However, of late, it seems to be more about bloat and nickle and diming customers for the odd new feature.
And it seems slow in some areas...and took ages to take on board GPU rendering for filters etc.
And Adobe have become more about the 'sales guy' about it. They're at the top and don't need to try that hard...and are trying to force 'leech my bank account' on PS users. Some may well get off on that treatment or find it works for them.
And that's what happens when you don't have competition.
Fortunately, since the release of the iPad...there's been a boom of image apps. The best of which, for me, is Procreate which is lightning fast and makes PS look like the snail it is. Even on the Mac...you have Painter (which is still ticking along...), Pixelmator and Manga Studio.
I don't like Adobe. They got their trousers pulled down by Jobs over Flash. A program that pretty much sums up Adobe.
Pixelmator is a lovely apps. It's not the finished solution but it's growing at at incredible rate. Pretty small footprint. Very fast app. GPU acceleration. Keeps adding those 'key features' in it's own inimitable way. PS may have refinement and finesse but the new kid is showing some moves...and adding greatly to them over time. I have Pixelmator 3. It has layer styles. I guess Adjustment layers is next? At the rate they're going there are less reasons for me to shell out £650 for PS6.
In fact, I have Pixelmator (and loads of free updates to it...) and it cost me...£20? Astonishing value. *waves at Adobe. (I don't think I need them or MS on my computer. Greedy dinosaurs of a Wintel hegemony age. Now as computing goes 'mobile' and 'desktop class'...they look like the lumbering companies they are.)
I have Manga Studio 5EX. It kicks PS's arse when it comes to creating comics. It specialises in it. Better pencils and brushes. Perspective tools. Page management tools. Mezzotint...and loads more specialist areas that make PS look very 'generalised' indeed. You can blend and colour in it now pretty well too these days. It was this release (if not EX4) that made me think...you know...between Pixelmator and Manga Studio 5EX I don't need PS6 perhaps (which tries to be all things to all men...). Add Procreate (which I have on iPad...) and you have a blisteringly fast and great painting app for 4k res'...(speed that makes Painter blush...) on mobile too.
I do like PS of course. But I don't like Adobe all that much. I remember when PS used to have a realistic price. (and I do have a PS7...but unfortunately, only PPC. But I bought version 4 and 7. But as Adobe's upgrade path has got sharper....I thought, no. Just no.)
Props to the Pixelmator boys on a great release. And it's telling that Apple use them on benching their new machines and not PS.
They deserved their design award a couple of years ago.
They support them Mac (not trying to give us a half baked Windows port...) and embrace the latest Mac tech in OS X Mav'.
PS? All empires fail in time.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Have been using Pixelmator for years now, and love it. Haven't touched (my bootleg copy of) Photoshop in years, and it's definitely time to delete it.
There still seem to be a few issues with the Shape tool though. Sometimes it's hard to select a shape to resize it. There are workarounds, but it's awkward. But that's my only nitpick with Pixelmator 3.0 FX.
Update: Pixelmator 3.0 FX does seem to be a significant energy user on my MacBook Pro. Maybe that's a second nitpick.
... Greedy dinosaurs of a Wintel hegemony age. Now as computing goes 'mobile' and 'desktop class'...they look like the lumbering companies they are. ...
Agree completely. Adobe is all about cross-platform development. Which means, to them, writing a core engine for each of their apps, then porting that to Mac, Windows etc. and using as little of each platforms' native interface API as possible. They think this saves development costs, because they can minimize the number of Mac experts and Windows experts in their engineering team. (Although I suspect they're more Windows-heavy than Mac-heavy in said team.)
The results is that end users on all platforms are forced to deal with a lowest-common-denominator user interface on Adobe products. Generic, lifeless, stale. And it also leads to a rigid, inflexible design. Everything is concentrated in the core engine, which they are loathe to change lest it break anything on one of the supported platforms.
All of which makes Adobe ripe for innovative disruption. Enter Pixelmator.
Agree completely. Adobe is all about cross-platform development. Which means, to them, writing a core engine for each of their apps, then porting that to Mac, Windows etc. and using as little of each platforms' native interface API as possible. They think this saves development costs, because they can minimize the number of Mac experts and Windows experts in their engineering team. (Although I suspect they're more Windows-heavy than Mac-heavy in said team.)
The results is that end users on all platforms are forced to deal with a lowest-common-denominator user interface on Adobe products. Generic, lifeless, stale. And it also leads to a rigid, inflexible design. Everything is concentrated in the core engine, which they are loathe to change lest it break anything on one of the supported platforms.
All of which makes Adobe ripe for innovative disruption. Enter Pixelmator.
It's ironic, considering that Adobe was an innovative disruptor when it first got started. Too much time and complacency on their part has allowed ossification to set in. Aiming for the lowest common denominator, while easier from a development & business standpoint, certainly allows opportunity for younger, hungrier companies to make a go of it.
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Utter Bull Shit. You can't search for just the words "final cut editor" because those words are used in thousands job postings that have absolutely no reference to looking for FCP editors. It is bringing back results for all three words, two words or one word. Ridiculous! Search for the words "final cut pro" and put it in quotes without the word editor in there and see what you get. 345.
Granted that is much better than my original 27 from FCP but again they all want FCP 7 not FCPX. I bought FCPX and I have Adobe Master Collection which obviously contains Premier. I even have an older version of Avid but I always stick with FCP 7 because it just makes more sense to me, but it certainly isn't the preferred editor in Hollywood.
So many clueless remarks concerning what an awful program PS is and how evil Adobe is. I'd be willing to bet that not one of the people bitching about Adobe or Photoshop actually work professionally in the graphics industry. There is no way to work without it and you have to keep it up to date. You would be laughed out the door of a real agency or creative studio if you said you didn't use Photoshop. It is required. When you share files with other creatives it ALWAYS has to be in CS. Every magazine requires either Acrobat or the working file in Mac CS format, no exceptions. I actually make a lot of money using their tools and just like any other complex tool set you need to work with it day in and day out to get the most out of it. If you dabble in it a day or two a few minutes at a time, of course you are not going to be able to do much or find the features that are available. Try to find your way around AutoCad without intensive study and training. Same thing. It is not bloated, it is complicated because it is powerful. It is not a PlayStation game.
There is an adage in the research industry, "If you want to hear the answer, ask the question."
As you can see here, there are 1,896 Final Cut Editor jobs near LA found on the SimplyHired site.
Then you could search INDEED and get more 'worldwide' results.
If you or anyone here is interested, Larry Jordan has a great presentation that not only applies to FC, but how and why we change software (particularly in the first 15 minutes).
Larry Jordan asks "Is Final Cut Pro X ready for professional use?" at the 2013 SuperMeet
Quote: You
Utter Bull Shit. You can't search for just the words "final cut editor" because those words are used in thousands job postings that have absolutely no reference to looking for FCP editors. It is bringing back results for all three words, two words or one word. Ridiculous! Search for the words "final cut pro" and put it in quotes without the word editor in there and see what you get. 345.
Granted that is much better than my original 27 from FCP but again they all want FCP 7 not FCPX. I bought FCPX and I have Adobe Master Collection which obviously contains Premier. I even have an older version of Avid but I always stick with FCP 7 because it just makes more sense to me, but it certainly isn't the preferred editor in Hollywood.
That was my point. Your search term, i.e., 'Avid Editor', generated similar ? results. And many, for example, the Associate Director of the Parents Program posting, amongst others, had nothing to do with film editing.
As for your last comment, I didn't infer that at all. However, I would like to suggest that Hollywood in not the capital of film editing (FE) today and has become less influential in one's choice of software.
That was my point. Your search term, i.e., 'Avid Editor', generated similar ? results. And many, for example, the Associate Director of the Parents Program posting, amongst others, had nothing to do with film editing.
My mistake. If you do put quotes around all search terms you get significantly different results:
"final cut pro editor" = 7
"FCP editor" = 1
"Final Cut Pro X" = 4
"Avid Editor" = 43
Those number sound a lot more realistic. (Still using LA)
In NYC:
"final cut pro editor" = 14
"FCP editor" = 12
"Final Cut Pro X" = 10
"Avid Editor" = 23
I bought Pixelmator a year ago and at the time it did not have all of the features I need. I just updated to v3.0 and it still does not seem to have Adjustment Layers and a History palette. Is this correct or am I missing something here? Thought it may not have masking, but it does!
true..yeah that is a big negative in my book as well. I'm actually surprised they haven't fixed that floating window issue yet.
It's the reason I've never purchased it.
Pixelmator is definitely a worthy PS alternative for most users. Photos and web graphics are what most people want.
Print/Desktop publishing pros are another matter.
Pixelmator didn't do CMYK for years, and its creators openly said they didn't see it as a priority.
Even now, it's hard to tell if CMYK is truly supported in the way that print publishers need. So I've never bought it.
Thing is, if they had put in the effort, and even charged extra for CMYK support, it would have bought a lot of respect.
Having such a large group of internet pros openly dismissing the capabilities of your product isn't exactly ideal.