Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

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

  1. 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...


    That interface disaster isn't dead yet?


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Nov 28, 2009
    #21
    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.


    Pixelmator may be a very nice program, but its developers spammed me a
    bunch of times, then smeared me over my complaint on the boards. So I'll
    never buy it, and would advise against getting in any kind of business
    relationship with them.

    Of course, Adobe is also evil, but Adobe is the evil of a massive
    corporation. Pixelmator is the personal, targeted kind.


    Steve
     
    Steven Fisher, Nov 28, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9w1m8.1ctt7o91abxw00N%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > 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.


    Yes, I know, was being a touch sarcastic towards your Mac app, not so
    much towards you, so take no offence.

    It does, like most of these programs, a variably dreadful job. How you
    say you trust it, tells me that you are more concerned about how it
    looks to you and other average sighted people like yourself rather than
    the many folk who would find it more comfortable to be a bit bigger
    naturally or when they are tired or when they want to sit back from
    their screens to read - I, for example, am big on preferring to slouch
    back and break all the ergonomic instructions now and then.

    Don't trust the thing too much Andy. These programs are sometimes not
    too bad if you can keep a check on them and alter a few things.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 28, 2009
    #23
  4. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Steven Fisher <> wrote:

    > Of course, Adobe is also evil, but Adobe is the evil of a massive
    > corporation. Pixelmator is the personal, targeted kind.


    I mean, just look at the name itself, it sounds like something that
    could torture... creepy. <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 28, 2009
    #24
  5. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    nospam <> wrote:

    > 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.


    Yes, a shame really, it looks like it should do so much more, but
    there's little that's actually really useful.

    [..]
    > > 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'.


    Yes, me included. I do test them myself, on copy images, but I wouldn't
    use unstable software on my main collection of images.

    > > > > 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.


    I haven't tried the latest versions of ACR (CS3 was the last I used),
    but I would say there's far more options and adjustments in dcraw as it
    is in GIMP - that has curves adjustments, and most of the standard
    adjustments such as white balance, sharpness, exposure, etc. AFAIK, no
    other raw converters have curves adjustment.

    > 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.


    Not sure I agree with that. All the noise reduction solutions I've tried
    have been pretty similar until you do try a dedicated plug-in, or you
    can use Lab mode with Gaussian blur. My preference was for NoiseWare
    Pro.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not particularly standing up for GIMP here, as
    it doesn't work for me either, I just don't see the same reasons as you,
    that's all.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 28, 2009
    #25
  6. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9w1m8.1ctt7o91abxw00N%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme <> wrote:

    [..]
    > > > 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.

    >
    > Yes, I know, was being a touch sarcastic towards your Mac app, not so
    > much towards you, so take no offence.


    Yeah, I kinda had an inkling that was what you were at.

    > It does, like most of these programs, a variably dreadful job. How you
    > say you trust it, tells me that you are more concerned about how it
    > looks to you and other average sighted people like yourself rather than
    > the many folk who would find it more comfortable to be a bit bigger
    > naturally or when they are tired or when they want to sit back from
    > their screens to read - I, for example, am big on preferring to slouch
    > back and break all the ergonomic instructions now and then.
    >
    > Don't trust the thing too much Andy. These programs are sometimes not
    > too bad if you can keep a check on them and alter a few things.


    Don't have much choice really, I could probably knock something up with
    HTML code and an editor, with a manual nearby, but that'd take far too
    long for me, and take away all the convenience of using iWeb.

    If it wasn't iWeb it'd be something else, and like many others I'd have
    to trust it to do the job.

    It's not just that either, I use it with MobileMe, which makes it a
    breeze to update my site, and I use integration with my other iApps too.

    I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to
    the problems it does cause, I'm all ears.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 28, 2009
    #26
  7. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    AES <> wrote:

    > 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?


    iPhoto applies adjustments in a different way to the other editors being
    discussed here. All the others take a standard image, apply the
    adjustments, and then save the resulting file over the original (unless
    you use 'Save as..' of course). That is 'destructive' editing. If it's a
    JPG, then data and detail is lost every time you apply adjustments and
    save.

    iPhoto, along with a few other apps now (Aperture, Lightroom, and one or
    two others), uses 'non-destructive' editing, and never touches the
    original file (actually it never did, but now it works in a more
    efficient way). What it does is apply your adjustments as a set of
    parameters in the database. To speed things up, this is saved as a
    'Preview' image, alongside the original. This means that when you apply
    any adjustments, it never destructs the original, and a fresh Preview is
    created if you change the adjustments, so you don't get degredation of
    the image.

    The adjustment tools in iPhoto, although simple and effective, are also
    a little crude IMHO. They are great for producing a family album, or a
    web page, but if you want really good image quality, then you need to
    look elsewhere. You will probably see that iPhoto produces some very
    stunning images, with really vivid colours etc., but start zooming in
    and comparing detail with other apps, and you'll see its weakness.


    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 28, 2009
    #27
  8. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:12:36 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote (in article
    <1j9wv1m.1x6rwpm128zaltN%>):

    [commenting on iWeb]

    > I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    > that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to the
    > problems it does cause, I'm all ears.


    An option you might consider is Freeway Express, produced by Softpress in
    England. Freeway Express is a WYSIWYG website development application and
    requires absolutely no knowledge of HTML and such on the part of the user.
    Another plus is that Freeway Express generates fully web compliant code.
    Softpress offers a free 30 day trial.



    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 28, 2009
    #28
  9. TaliesinSoft

    TaliesinSoft Guest

    On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:43:40 -0600, Steven Fisher wrote (in article
    <>):

    > Pixelmator may be a very nice program, but its developers spammed me a
    > bunch of times, then smeared me over my complaint on the boards. So I'll
    > never buy it, and would advise against getting in any kind of business
    > relationship with them.


    I'm sorry to hear of your experience with Pixelmator's team. I've had nothing
    but very positive experiences with them and that includes a number of
    helpful email exchanges in regards to some "how to dos" I've had.

    --
    James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas ---
     
    TaliesinSoft, Nov 28, 2009
    #29
  10. TaliesinSoft

    Fred Moore Guest

    In article <>,
    Steven Fisher <> wrote:

    > 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...

    >
    > That interface disaster isn't dead yet?


    Seashore puts a reasonably useful GUI frontend on GIMP for basic editing.

    <http://seashore.sourceforge.net/index.php>
     
    Fred Moore, Nov 28, 2009
    #30
  11. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <1j9wveb.11eacmaixhtsyN%>, Andy Hewitt
    <> wrote:

    > > > 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.

    >
    > I haven't tried the latest versions of ACR (CS3 was the last I used),
    > but I would say there's far more options and adjustments in dcraw as it
    > is in GIMP - that has curves adjustments, and most of the standard
    > adjustments such as white balance, sharpness, exposure, etc. AFAIK, no
    > other raw converters have curves adjustment.


    ufraw/dcraw has the standard controls, but camera raw 4 (which came
    with cs3 and is 2 versions old if you count lightroom 3 beta) has much
    more, including vibrance, clarity, presets and smart objects. it can
    also work on multiple images at the same time and can even be used with
    jpeg files for the same workflow, but obviously it will be a bit more
    limited than had the original image been raw. camera raw also supports
    a few more cameras than dcraw does.
     
    nospam, Nov 28, 2009
    #31
  12. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:12:36 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote (in article
    > <1j9wv1m.1x6rwpm128zaltN%>):
    >
    > [commenting on iWeb]
    >
    > > I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    > > that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to the
    > > problems it does cause, I'm all ears.

    >
    > An option you might consider is Freeway Express, produced by Softpress in
    > England. Freeway Express is a WYSIWYG website development application and
    > requires absolutely no knowledge of HTML and such on the part of the user.
    > Another plus is that Freeway Express generates fully web compliant code.
    > Softpress offers a free 30 day trial.


    Thanks, but...

    One that also integrates with my other software? And wouldn't involve a
    complete rebuild of the entire site? AFAIK converting sites between
    different editors is a right royal PITA, and a lot of work.

    I really meant if there are any *simple* solutions, that maybe a tweak
    or two with the iWeb site might solve it.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #32
  13. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    nospam <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9wveb.11eacmaixhtsyN%>, Andy Hewitt
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > > > > 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.

    > >
    > > I haven't tried the latest versions of ACR (CS3 was the last I used),
    > > but I would say there's far more options and adjustments in dcraw as it
    > > is in GIMP - that has curves adjustments, and most of the standard
    > > adjustments such as white balance, sharpness, exposure, etc. AFAIK, no
    > > other raw converters have curves adjustment.

    >
    > ufraw/dcraw has the standard controls, but camera raw 4 (which came
    > with cs3 and is 2 versions old if you count lightroom 3 beta) has much
    > more, including vibrance, clarity, presets and smart objects. it can
    > also work on multiple images at the same time and can even be used with
    > jpeg files for the same workflow, but obviously it will be a bit more
    > limited than had the original image been raw. camera raw also supports
    > a few more cameras than dcraw does.


    Fair enough, as I said, I hadn't used later ones. I do use Aperture
    myself, and the different between Raw processing and post-processing is
    almost transparent (as it is with Lightroom I would expect).

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #33
  14. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9wv1m.1x6rwpm128zaltN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    > that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to
    > the problems it does cause, I'm all ears.


    I would have to look at iWeb and what you do. There surely *must* be
    controls for stopping some bad things happening. But in general I
    suspect not, because the promise is that you can layout your pages like
    a print page and then, furiously behind the scenes, iWeb will go to work
    to make it happen. Like a medieval magician, it convinces some
    observers! But the whole thing is really a horrible sight behind the
    scenes, they have to kill many pigs and goats and the carnage and blood
    is really not for the squeamish! <g>

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 29, 2009
    #34
  15. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9wv1m.1x6rwpm128zaltN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    > > that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to
    > > the problems it does cause, I'm all ears.

    >
    > I would have to look at iWeb and what you do. There surely *must* be
    > controls for stopping some bad things happening. But in general I
    > suspect not, because the promise is that you can layout your pages like
    > a print page and then, furiously behind the scenes, iWeb will go to work
    > to make it happen. Like a medieval magician, it convinces some
    > observers! But the whole thing is really a horrible sight behind the
    > scenes, they have to kill many pigs and goats and the carnage and blood
    > is really not for the squeamish! <g>


    Righto, I've been and tested this now (I very rarely zoom web pages
    myself, so have never noticed this), and see what you mean. Hmm.

    I ran the page through the W3C checker, and only three errors were found
    relating to the Counter. I'll have a look through the font settings to
    see if I can find anything relating to changing text size.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 29, 2009
    #35
  16. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <1j9x5bl.1bc9yl417sw3qnN%>,
    (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <1j9wv1m.1x6rwpm128zaltN%>,
    > > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    > >
    > > > I do understand that iWeb doesn't produce a perfect web page, but it's
    > > > that, or no site at all. However, if there are any simple solutions to
    > > > the problems it does cause, I'm all ears.

    > >
    > > I would have to look at iWeb and what you do. There surely *must* be
    > > controls for stopping some bad things happening. But in general I
    > > suspect not, because the promise is that you can layout your pages like
    > > a print page and then, furiously behind the scenes, iWeb will go to work
    > > to make it happen. Like a medieval magician, it convinces some
    > > observers! But the whole thing is really a horrible sight behind the
    > > scenes, they have to kill many pigs and goats and the carnage and blood
    > > is really not for the squeamish! <g>

    >
    > Righto, I've been and tested this now (I very rarely zoom web pages
    > myself, so have never noticed this), and see what you mean. Hmm.
    >
    > I ran the page through the W3C checker, and only three errors were found
    > relating to the Counter. I'll have a look through the font settings to
    > see if I can find anything relating to changing text size.


    There is, but be careful. It is:

    body {
    -webkit-text-size-adjust: none;
    }

    Perhaps I should have just shut up. But if I had, my enemies would be
    far too pleased! <g>

    You could ruin the site that works probably well enough for friends and
    so on. The problems are deep and fundamental, the whole thing is
    stitched together like a home-made boat glued and strung with whatever.
    It might make it across if it does not hit *any* stormy seas or
    conditions unexpected. Any real time spent on attempt to fix would be
    better spent on scrapping and rebuilding with first principles in mind
    and a preparedness to sacrifice exact looks for greater functionality
    across the whole internet.

    Whoever made iWeb was either very naughty (font-sizes in pixels,
    line-heights with units, some of the questionable practices guaranteed
    to set the scene for *inflexibility*.) or simply machiavellian.

    TaliesinSoft's recommendation is possibly better if you do not want to
    go all the way and produce with a text editor. (I don't suppose I can
    tempt you? Come over to alt.html, you will get all the help you want.)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 29, 2009
    #36
  17. nospam wrote:
    > 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 usual you don't read what I was saying. I donot compare GIMP with the
    latest versions of Photoshop CS3/4 with GIMP. I compare it - as written
    - with PhS 6.x/7.x. And much has happened to PhS since then!

    > 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.


    Well... I've only been using Photoshop since ver. 2.5 and am now on CS2,
    so I think that I do know quite a lot about using it, though I've never
    claimed to be an expert on the Photoshop...

    >>>> 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.


    Sure I do, and I do not need anyh plug-ins. GIMP works just fine with
    full CMYK. - And it can even work with 'Alfa channels' - this I didn't
    notice yesterday...

    >>>> 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.


    No more strange than it was because it auto-detected my 40bits HP
    scanner. deactivating that one, it switched automatically to 32bits.:)
    - Obviously I have activated the TWAIN plug-in without noticing it...

    >>>> 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.


    You keep comparing with latest versions of whatever you suddenly can
    come up with. - First it was Photoshop 3.x, then 4.x and now Adobe
    Camera RAW, - what'll be the next? - You're simply acting like a fool.:-(!

    Btw. I've made more fun with it today by making colorizing a greyscale
    picture, adding effects, shading and 4 extra layers etc.. - Exporting
    this originally 28kb 128x128pxl now 545,6kb/480x322pxl to .psd was not
    measurable...

    >>> 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?


    You sure don't know GIMP by saying this. Basic settings are always set
    in prefs, and then managing of course is from the color menu - exactly
    like in any other graphics app - Painter, Freehand, Photoshop, Canvas
    etc.etc...

    I don't know why documentations and userguide aren't up-to-date, but it
    isn't unusual. I've just finished translation of another application. -
    Here the documentation and user guide is from the 25th of Febr., while
    the app is from 19th of Nov...

    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 29, 2009
    #37
  18. AES wrote:
    > 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?


    Yes, the latest ver. of Photoshop Elements has a more enhanced
    colormanaging system than before. - Else I'd recommend you to try to
    find a used Adobe CS2 or CS3 and by this gain the full use of the even
    more enhanced features in Photoshop.

    Else maybe you could use the latest ver. 0.47 of Inkscape, but
    unfortunately this app do really lack color management, but it is full
    vectorized in the workflow. Also the export facilities are all too limited.

    And then of course also GrapæhicConverter can do quite much when using
    Photoshop plug-ins. But here you will need a PhS vector plug-in, if GC
    should be able to work in full vector mode. And here I'm not sure
    whether the 'VectorTools' plug-in for Photoshop 7.x (OS X ver.) would
    work with the latest GC versions. The last ver. I used it on was the GC
    ver. 4.8.

    Also the Canvas 8.x and 9.x do have really fine and enhanced color
    management and both versions do also work on SnowLeopard. But you'll
    have to find these two as used packages - maybe on eBay or similar places.

    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 29, 2009
    #38
  19. Steven Fisher wrote:
    > Erik Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >> But why not use Gimp instead? - It's even free and generally compatible
    >> with Photoshop files...

    >
    > That interface disaster isn't dead yet?


    Indeed not.:) - Latest update is from 19th of Aug. this year for Mac OS
    X/X11, and if I remember right the latest Win version is from late
    September... - I sure admit that the appearance 'interface' isnot the
    best. So I do hope that we very soon will have a native OS X beta out...

    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 29, 2009
    #39
  20. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b11e2a3$0$21638$>, 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 usual you don't read what I was saying. I donot compare GIMP with the
    > latest versions of Photoshop CS3/4 with GIMP. I compare it - as written
    > - with PhS 6.x/7.x. And much has happened to PhS since then!


    i'm not comparing the gimp with cs3 or cs4. i'm comparing it with
    photoshop 4 from 1996, which was when adjustment layers were added.

    > > 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.

    >
    > Well... I've only been using Photoshop since ver. 2.5 and am now on CS2,
    > so I think that I do know quite a lot about using it, though I've never
    > claimed to be an expert on the Photoshop...


    you've been using it that long and don't know what an adjustment layer
    is??

    > >>>> 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.

    >
    > You keep comparing with latest versions of whatever you suddenly can
    > come up with. - First it was Photoshop 3.x, then 4.x and now Adobe
    > Camera RAW, - what'll be the next? - You're simply acting like a fool.:-(!


    camera raw has been around since summer 2002 with photoshop 7, hardly
    the latest version.
     
    nospam, Nov 29, 2009
    #40
    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:
    487
    Erik Richard Sørensen
    Jan 4, 2006
  2. Marc Heusser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    237
    Marc Heusser
    Jan 21, 2008
  3. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Apps
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    840
  4. Robert Montgomery
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    770
    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:
    546
    Gerhard Huber
    May 26, 2005
  6. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Misc
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,120
  7. Mark

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator?

    Mark, Apr 15, 2009, in forum: UK Macs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    331
    Amanita
    Apr 16, 2009
  8. D.M. Procida
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,211
    Steve Hodgson
    Jan 24, 2010
Loading...