Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

Discussion in 'Graphics' started by TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009.

  1. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price. I'm assuming that
    there are likely some features in Photoshop not present in Pixelmator, but
    for my own graphics processing I have yet to find a deficiency in Pixelmator.
    I'd be interested in other's experiences with the two packages and how they
    feel they compare in features and value.

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. In article <>,
    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    > graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    > costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price. I'm assuming that
    > there are likely some features in Photoshop not present in Pixelmator, but
    > for my own graphics processing I have yet to find a deficiency in Pixelmator.
    > I'd be interested in other's experiences with the two packages and how they
    > feel they compare in features and value.


    Photoshop used to be all about two things - 1) A streamlined workflow
    for professionals and enthusiasts. 2) Support for high quality brush
    strokes and input devices.

    Adobe appears to be anti-streamlining now, so #1 is gone. #2 used to be
    something that only math wizards could do, but increased processor
    speeds allows for brute-force solutions.
    --
    I won't see Goolge Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Nov 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <>,
    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    > graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    > costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price.


    photoshop elements is a *much* closer match to pixelmator. it is
    normally $99, but there is an adobe promo for $59 right now and it's
    sometimes bundled free with hardware. it's bogus to compare the full
    photoshop with free or inexpensive apps.

    <http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelmac/explore/>
     
    nospam, Nov 27, 2009
    #3
  4. TaliesinSoft

    Biagio Guest

    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    > graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    > costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price. I'm assuming that
    > there are likely some features in Photoshop not present in Pixelmator, but
    > for my own graphics processing I have yet to find a deficiency in Pixelmator.
    > I'd be interested in other's experiences with the two packages and how they
    > feel they compare in features and value.


    I love Pixelmator from the early beta. Almost every update is gift with
    new features.
    Photoshop is more then ok but only for "pro's" :)
    --
    Greets Biagio
     
    Biagio, Nov 27, 2009
    #4
  5. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    > graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    > costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price. I'm assuming that
    > there are likely some features in Photoshop not present in Pixelmator, but
    > for my own graphics processing I have yet to find a deficiency in Pixelmator.
    > I'd be interested in other's experiences with the two packages and how they
    > feel they compare in features and value.


    What's the chance of a person having enough extensive experience in
    both? If you find no deficiencies, then you are good to go! I know I use
    Fireworks to export images for the web because I find the PS ways to do
    this cumbersome and not *clearly* as good but I would not use my old FW
    to retouch picture (especially extensively) because the tools are simply
    more cumbersome, not as easy to use as in PS (It is not called
    *Photo*shop for nothing!). The point I am making here is that while
    there are probably many quite objective differences, much depends on how
    you work and what you do. Most people only need fairly simple features
    (a bit of colour balance, brightness/contrast, export to jpg, gif, png,
    change pixel size).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 27, 2009
    #5
  6. TaliesinSoft wrote:
    > Photoshop and Pixelmator are both applications for creating and modifying
    > graphic images. Both are rich in features. Photoshop costs $699. Pixelmator
    > costs $59. Thats an almost twelvefold difference in price. I'm assumingthat
    > there are likely some features in Photoshop not present in Pixelmator, but
    > for my own graphics processing I have yet to find a deficiency in Pixelmator.
    > I'd be interested in other's experiences with the two packages and how they
    > feel they compare in features and value.


    I don't have any experiences with Pixelmator, but heard about others'
    experiences. The summarise for these are, - if you're common and very
    familiar with Photoshop, you won't be satisfied with Pixelmator, and if
    you're not familiar with any, Pixelmator will be quite good for a
    beginner and semi-experienced person...

    But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    with Photoshop files...

    GIMP 2.6.7 (freeware, req. X11)
    Scriptable image app: create, alter & manipulate photos.
    http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/10322178

    cheers, Erik Richard

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <>
    NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
    OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Nov 28, 2009
    #6
  7. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b1068bc$0$21654$>, Erik
    Richard Sørensen <> wrote:

    > But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    > with Photoshop files...


    although it's free, it doesn't do anywhere near as much as photoshop.
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #7
  8. nospam wrote:
    > Erik Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >> But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    >> with Photoshop files...

    >
    > although it's free, it doesn't do anywhere near as much as photoshop.


    It certainly depends on which version of Photoshop you compare with. The
    latest version of GIMP I'd compare to be quite near to Photosop 7.x. -
    And if I recall the features in Pixelmator it's nearer to a Photoshop
    5.0-5.5.

    Cheers, Erik Richard

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <>
    NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
    OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Nov 28, 2009
    #8
  9. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b10739e$0$21639$>, Erik
    Richard Sørensen <> wrote:

    > >> But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    > >> with Photoshop files...

    > >
    > > although it's free, it doesn't do anywhere near as much as photoshop.

    >
    > It certainly depends on which version of Photoshop you compare with. The
    > latest version of GIMP I'd compare to be quite near to Photosop 7.x. -
    > And if I recall the features in Pixelmator it's nearer to a Photoshop
    > 5.0-5.5.


    clearly, someone who does not use photoshop very much. the gimp is
    comparable to photoshop 3 or 4. it doesn't even have adjustment layers!
    the gimp also lacks high bit and is much slower than photoshop.
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #9
  10. nospam wrote:
    > In article <4b10739e$0$21639$>, Erik
    > Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >
    >>>> But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    >>>> with Photoshop files...
    >>> although it's free, it doesn't do anywhere near as much as photoshop.

    >> It certainly depends on which version of Photoshop you compare with. The
    >> latest version of GIMP I'd compare to be quite near to Photosop 7.x. -
    >> And if I recall the features in Pixelmator it's nearer to a Photoshop
    >> 5.0-5.5.

    >
    > clearly, someone who does not use photoshop very much. the gimp is
    > comparable to photoshop 3 or 4. it doesn't even have adjustment layers!
    > the gimp also lacks high bit and is much slower than photoshop.


    It's obviously that you know nothing about GIMP and especially the
    newest version 2.6.7.... And your comparison to PhS 3/4 is totally out
    of order.:-( - In fact I've just the last hour or so been working with
    it to be able to verify what I already have said.

    GIMP 2.6.7 can work with multi-layer, add layer, full CMYK, full sRGB +
    6 other color management systems, work with up to 40bits color depth,
    work with RAW files, up to 4800x4800ppi/in non-interlaced, work with up
    to 6 color channels at a time + much, much more - including full image
    adjustment like in PhS 7. Apprx. 35 built-in plug-ins (color management
    plug-ins not included).

    Just for fun I used a RAW file and added 7 more layers and adjusted some
    of the color spacing, color room, brightness + contrast. This gave a
    remarkable good result.

    So why not go and learn what GIMP is and what CIMP can do before you
    comment with such useless nonsense....

    Cheers, Erik Richard

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <>
    NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
    OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Nov 28, 2009
    #10
  11. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b109513$0$8546$>, Erik Richard
    Sørensen <> wrote:

    > >> It certainly depends on which version of Photoshop you compare with. The
    > >> latest version of GIMP I'd compare to be quite near to Photosop 7.x. -
    > >> And if I recall the features in Pixelmator it's nearer to a Photoshop
    > >> 5.0-5.5.

    > >
    > > clearly, someone who does not use photoshop very much. the gimp is
    > > comparable to photoshop 3 or 4. it doesn't even have adjustment layers!
    > > the gimp also lacks high bit and is much slower than photoshop.

    >
    > It's obviously that you know nothing about GIMP and especially the
    > newest version 2.6.7.... And your comparison to PhS 3/4 is totally out
    > of order.:-( - In fact I've just the last hour or so been working with
    > it to be able to verify what I already have said.
    >
    > GIMP 2.6.7 can work with multi-layer, add layer,


    but no adjustment layers, a glaring shortcoming.

    > full CMYK,


    not according to the documentation. just rgb, greyscale and indexed:

    <http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-image-mode.html>

    > full sRGB +


    it's amusing that they suggest using srgb as a working space. it's
    smaller than adobe rgb and much smaller than pro photo rgb (what
    lightroom uses).

    > 6 other color management systems,


    you only need one that works.

    > work with up to 40bits color depth,


    40 bit color depth?

    > work with RAW files,


    which is very slow and very primitive, since it's based on dcraw.

    > up to 4800x4800ppi/in non-interlaced, work with up
    > to 6 color channels at a time


    6 color channels in what mode? there's no multichannel, nor is there
    lab for that matter. see above link.

    > + much, much more - including full image
    > adjustment like in PhS 7. Apprx. 35 built-in plug-ins (color management
    > plug-ins not included).


    only 35?
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #11
  12. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    nospam <> wrote:

    > In article <4b109513$0$8546$>, Erik Richard
    > Sørensen <> wrote:


    > > It's obviously that you know nothing about GIMP and especially the
    > > newest version 2.6.7.... And your comparison to PhS 3/4 is totally out
    > > of order.:-( - In fact I've just the last hour or so been working with
    > > it to be able to verify what I already have said.
    > >
    > > GIMP 2.6.7 can work with multi-layer, add layer,

    >
    > but no adjustment layers, a glaring shortcoming.


    I must admit, I thought it did.

    > > full CMYK,

    >
    > not according to the documentation. just rgb, greyscale and indexed:
    >
    > <http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-image-mode.html>
    >
    > > full sRGB +

    >
    > it's amusing that they suggest using srgb as a working space. it's
    > smaller than adobe rgb and much smaller than pro photo rgb (what
    > lightroom uses).


    Yes, I tend to work with AdobeRGB myself, sRGB as a default is not the
    best option - although it probably does alright for basic needs (web
    imaging etc).

    > > 6 other color management systems,

    >
    > you only need one that works.
    >
    > > work with up to 40bits color depth,

    >
    > 40 bit color depth?


    Yeah, what?

    If you're working in Raw format, GIMP does the pre-processing, then
    passes on an 8-bit image for post-processing. You can force GIMP to work
    in 16-bit mode using GEGL, but it's still very experimental, and just
    crashed when I tried it.

    There is Cinepaint, but that seems to have come to a stop with
    development.

    > > work with RAW files,

    >
    > which is very slow and very primitive, since it's based on dcraw.


    And it also strips EXIF data. However, dcraw is a pretty good Raw
    processor, and it's far from primitive. Not many other Raw processors
    can apply a dark frame at the Raw-processing stage.

    > > up to 4800x4800ppi/in non-interlaced, work with up
    > > to 6 color channels at a time

    >
    > 6 color channels in what mode? there's no multichannel, nor is there
    > lab for that matter. see above link.
    >
    > > + much, much more - including full image
    > > adjustment like in PhS 7. Apprx. 35 built-in plug-ins (color management
    > > plug-ins not included).

    >
    > only 35?


    And you can't easily add more on the Mac version.

    I like Gimp, for free it's hard to beat, and if you just need to clean
    up a few pics for web viewing, or passing around the family by Email,
    then it's OK. Indeed their own FAQ states this.

    I tried Pixelmator a little while ago, but didn't see any point of it
    over PS Elements. It's about the same price, and doesn't seem to offer
    anything better.

    I actually find Graphic Converter a useful spare tool for quick image
    editing. It is a little clunky and dated looking now, but it works well
    and can open and save in more file formats than you can shake a stick
    at. It can do things like curves, layers, and use some PS plug-ins
    (Noiseware Pro doesn't work, but Noise Ninja does, for example).

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 28, 2009
    #12
  13. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9vtnr.1vqmqy113at78aN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > Andy Hewitt
    > <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>


    > I’ve been building this site up over a few years, and now manage it using
    > Apple iWeb. It will need modern browsers to function fully.


    Pardon me for this catching my eye.

    Surely Safari 3.1.2 and iCab latest count as modern enough to carry out
    even elementary functions like increasing text size? But not on this
    page.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 28, 2009
    #13
  14. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9vtnr.1vqmqy113at78aN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > Andy Hewitt
    > > <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

    >
    > > I’ve been building this site up over a few years, and now manage it using
    > > Apple iWeb. It will need modern browsers to function fully.

    >
    > Pardon me for this catching my eye.
    >
    > Surely Safari 3.1.2 and iCab latest count as modern enough to carry out
    > even elementary functions like increasing text size? But not on this
    > page.


    Ah, I see! It is sort of (?) deliberately done in your CSS (perhaps in
    order to hold your design together as if it is a printed page). But
    these things come back to bite, *latest* stable Mac FF sensibly takes no
    notice of the no-adjust instruction and all hell breaks loose then.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 28, 2009
    #14
  15. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <1j9vtnr.1vqmqy113at78aN%>,
    > > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    > >
    > > > Andy Hewitt
    > > > <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>

    > >
    > > > I've been building this site up over a few years, and now manage it using
    > > > Apple iWeb. It will need modern browsers to function fully.

    > >
    > > Pardon me for this catching my eye.
    > >
    > > Surely Safari 3.1.2 and iCab latest count as modern enough to carry out
    > > even elementary functions like increasing text size? But not on this
    > > page.

    >
    > Ah, I see! It is sort of (?) deliberately done in your CSS (perhaps in
    > order to hold your design together as if it is a printed page). But
    > these things come back to bite, *latest* stable Mac FF sensibly takes no
    > notice of the no-adjust instruction and all hell breaks loose then.


    Nothing of the sort. It's knocked up in iWeb, it appears however iWeb
    does it. I'm not a HTML freak, and can only trust in what iWeb does. For
    most things it seems to do the job just fine.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 28, 2009
    #15
  16. nospam wrote:
    > Erik Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >>>> It certainly depends on which version of Photoshop you compare with.The
    >>>> latest version of GIMP I'd compare to be quite near to Photosop 7.x.-
    >>>> And if I recall the features in Pixelmator it's nearer to a Photoshop
    >>>> 5.0-5.5.
    >>> clearly, someone who does not use photoshop very much. the gimp is
    >>> comparable to photoshop 3 or 4. it doesn't even have adjustment layers!
    >>> the gimp also lacks high bit and is much slower than photoshop.

    >> It's obviously that you know nothing about GIMP and especially the
    >> newest version 2.6.7.... And your comparison to PhS 3/4 is totally out
    >> of order.:-( - In fact I've just the last hour or so been working with
    >> it to be able to verify what I already have said.
    >>
    >> GIMP 2.6.7 can work with multi-layer, add layer,

    >
    > but no adjustment layers, a glaring shortcoming.


    Of course layers are adjustable...

    >> full CMYK,

    >
    > not according to the documentation. just rgb, greyscale and indexed:
    >
    > <http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-image-mode.html>


    Yes, I altos noticed the differences between the homepage and the
    reality in the app.:) Look in the prefs settings. Default is sRGB, but
    you can choose CMYK if you want to.

    >> full sRGB +

    >
    > it's amusing that they suggest using srgb as a working space. it's
    > smaller than adobe rgb and much smaller than pro photo rgb (what
    > lightroom uses).


    It depends on which color profile (ICC) you choose. I use - and GIMP
    uses it as default - the Adobe ICC from CS2, which I also have.

    You can also choose to only use sRGB as 'screen flow' and then still
    work in CMYK

    >> 6 other color management systems,

    >
    > you only need one that works.


    Right, but you can choose the one you best like - or is best for the
    apropriate work.

    >> work with up to 40bits color depth,

    >
    > 40 bit color depth?


    Yes, fx. with some of Adobes ICC profiles. The default standard in GIMP
    is 24bits if you don't change anything in the settings.

    >> work with RAW files,

    >
    > which is very slow and very primitive, since it's based on dcraw.


    Not on a MacPro with all 4 kernels enabled in GIMP. Btw. you can select
    how many kernels GIMP should use from one to eight...

    >> up to 4800x4800ppi/in non-interlaced, work with up
    >> to 6 color channels at a time

    >
    > 6 color channels in what mode? there's no multichannel, nor is there
    > lab for that matter. see above link.


    Right, there are still differences between the homepage and the app. You
    have 6 sliders in the prefs settings for working with up to 6 individual
    color channels.

    >> + much, much more - including full image
    >> adjustment like in PhS 7. Apprx. 35 built-in plug-ins (color management
    >> plug-ins not included).

    >
    > only 35?


    That's the default amount.:) - My next 'excercise' will be to test and
    try how many of the many freeware and shareware plugins I have for other
    graphics apps that also will work with GIMP.

    As a comparison I have also tried the newest version of Cenon. Here is
    an app that you can compare with Photoshop 4.x.:) Cenon isnot near as
    enhanced as GIMP - only std. colormanagement RGB + CMYK + Greyscale, no
    layer adjustment, no layer adding, no color channel adjustment
    etc.etc.... Cenon has one advantage towards GIMP - it is a lot easier
    for a real newbie in graphics to use because of it's simplicity...

    Cheers, Erik Richard

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Member of ADC, <>
    NisusWriter - The Future In Multilingual Text Processing - www.nisus.com
    OpenOffice.org - The Modern Productivity Solution - www.openoffice.org
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     
    Erik Richard Sørensen, Nov 28, 2009
    #16
  17. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <1j9vtnr.1vqmqy113at78aN%>, Andy Hewitt
    <> wrote:

    > > > full sRGB +

    > >
    > > it's amusing that they suggest using srgb as a working space. it's
    > > smaller than adobe rgb and much smaller than pro photo rgb (what
    > > lightroom uses).

    >
    > Yes, I tend to work with AdobeRGB myself, sRGB as a default is not the
    > best option - although it probably does alright for basic needs (web
    > imaging etc).


    that's basically all the gimp is good for - basic stuff.

    > > > work with up to 40bits color depth,

    > >
    > > 40 bit color depth?

    >
    > Yeah, what?
    >
    > If you're working in Raw format, GIMP does the pre-processing, then
    > passes on an 8-bit image for post-processing. You can force GIMP to work
    > in 16-bit mode using GEGL, but it's still very experimental, and just
    > crashed when I tried it.
    >
    > There is Cinepaint, but that seems to have come to a stop with
    > development.


    right. like i said initially, it doesn't support high bit. most people
    aren't going to want to fuss with 'experimental'.

    > > > work with RAW files,

    > >
    > > which is very slow and very primitive, since it's based on dcraw.

    >
    > And it also strips EXIF data. However, dcraw is a pretty good Raw
    > processor, and it's far from primitive. Not many other Raw processors
    > can apply a dark frame at the Raw-processing stage.


    actually dcraw isn't that great. it's matrices are not as big as some
    other raw processors which can cause artifacts, it's slow and it
    doesn't offer anywhere near as many options as something like adobe
    camera raw.

    dark frames are optionally done in the camera and other raw processors
    do a much better job of noise reduction, especially adobe camera raw in
    the lightroom 3 beta. there are also noise reduction plugins, but those
    don't work in the gimp.
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #17
  18. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b112fcc$0$8556$>, Erik Richard
    Sørensen <> wrote:

    > >> GIMP 2.6.7 can work with multi-layer, add layer,

    > >
    > > but no adjustment layers, a glaring shortcoming.

    >
    > Of course layers are adjustable...


    which isn't what an adjustment layer is. photoshop now has smart
    objects which is even more powerful.

    as i said before, you don't use photoshop enough to realize what it can
    do and that the gimp is nowhere near as capable.

    > >> full CMYK,

    > >
    > > not according to the documentation. just rgb, greyscale and indexed:
    > >
    > > <http://docs.gimp.org/2.6/en/gimp-image-mode.html>

    >
    > Yes, I altos noticed the differences between the homepage and the
    > reality in the app.:) Look in the prefs settings. Default is sRGB, but
    > you can choose CMYK if you want to.


    so you don't understand what that is either. it doesn't support cmyk or
    lab and that has little to do with srgb.

    <http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP>
    The GIMP still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to
    separate and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down
    the list of features to be added (if on the list at all). However,
    there is a plugin called Separate that offers a partial solution to the
    problem.

    > >> work with up to 40bits color depth,

    > >
    > > 40 bit color depth?

    >
    > Yes, fx. with some of Adobes ICC profiles. The default standard in GIMP
    > is 24bits if you don't change anything in the settings.


    what are you talking about? images are 8 or 16 bits per component, or
    24 or 48 bits total (assuming 3 channels), not 40 bit. that would be
    13.3 bits per component, a very strange amount.

    > >> work with RAW files,

    > >
    > > which is very slow and very primitive, since it's based on dcraw.

    >
    > Not on a MacPro with all 4 kernels enabled in GIMP. Btw. you can select
    > how many kernels GIMP should use from one to eight...


    it is much slower than adobe camera raw on the same hardware, and
    substantially so. it also doesn't offer anywhere near the feature set.

    > > 6 color channels in what mode? there's no multichannel, nor is there
    > > lab for that matter. see above link.

    >
    > Right, there are still differences between the homepage and the app. You
    > have 6 sliders in the prefs settings for working with up to 6 individual
    > color channels.


    why would that be in the preferences, and why doesn't the documentation
    match the app?
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #18
  19. TaliesinSoft

    AES Guest

    This discussion has been very informative and helpful -- but one
    additional question: Which (if any) of the multiple apps mentioned here
    offers something comparable to the "Adjust" palette in iPhoto?

    Most of my image processing tasks are performed on vector-format
    technical graphics using Illustrator, with an old copy of Photoshop
    Elements 3 kept around to do trivial things like cropping or rescaling
    or modifying colors in jpeg images that are going to be imported into
    PDF-format Illustrator/Acrobat files.

    But occasionally I want to do some amateur touch up of digital camera
    derived family or travel photos, and for doing that I haven't found
    anything to match just messing with the sliders in the iPhoto Adjust
    palette. Just fiddle with these in WYSIWYG fashion until the screen
    display looks good, and you're done.

    Do any of the other apps discussed here -- including more recent
    versions of Photoshop Elements -- have anything comparably simple but
    powerful?

    Thanks in advance...
     
    AES, Nov 28, 2009
    #19
  20. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:29:05 -0600, AES wrote (in article
    <>):

    > This discussion has been very informative and helpful -- but one
    > additional question: Which (if any) of the multiple apps mentioned here
    > offers something comparable to the "Adjust" palette in iPhoto?


    Perhaps not quite as comprehensive as the "Adjust" tools in iPhoto, with
    Preview, which is included with the Mac OS, one can adjust seven
    characteristics of a photo, exposure, contrast, saturation, temperature,
    tint, sepia, and sharpness. These are all available by selecting "Adjust
    Color" from the "Tools" menu in Preview.

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 28, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
  1. nosredna
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    450
    Erik Richard Sørensen
    Jan 4, 2006
  2. Marc Heusser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    213
    Marc Heusser
    Jan 21, 2008
  3. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Apps
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    770
  4. Robert Montgomery
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    723
    Robert Montgomery
    Dec 14, 2011
  5. Michael Redman

    Can't open Photoshop 6 files in Photoshop CS

    Michael Redman, May 25, 2005, in forum: Graphics
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    510
    Gerhard Huber
    May 26, 2005
  6. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Misc
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,047
  7. Mark

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator?

    Mark, Apr 15, 2009, in forum: UK Macs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    314
    Amanita
    Apr 16, 2009
  8. D.M. Procida
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,190
    Steve Hodgson
    Jan 24, 2010
Loading...