Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

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

  1. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    TaliesinSoft <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:44:50 -0600, Andy Hewitt wrote
    > (in article <1j9yr7a.1505ymr3kh6rnN%>):
    >
    > > That's fair enough. But without knowing my circumstances, it's a bit
    > > unfair to keep suggesting I should spend (to me) quite a lot of money to
    > > fix errors which don't really affect me.

    >
    > But the fact remains that those errors do affect a great many of those who
    > would view your site, and they are the ones that count!


    I'm not a business you know!

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. TaliesinSoft

    Andy Hewitt Guest

    Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9zjae.rbfjdx7u916bN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >. . .
    > >
    > > Yes, I do know all that. Before iWeb could handle external FTP sites
    > > directly, I had to publish the site to local disk and upload it manually
    > > - I used CyberDuck for that.
    > >
    > > However, dumping iWeb is unlikely to happen any time soon. I have three
    > > sites I manage, one of which is much larger than my personal site, I
    > > just do not have the time to rebuild all of these, and manage them
    > > manually.
    > >
    > > Right now, if I want to add photos to a page, I simply drag them over
    > > from my Aperture library, and click on 'Upload changes'. Job done.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > iWeb is very definitely NOT professional quality. But it offers a quick
    > way of putting together some fairly nice-looking web pages. Several
    > times I have used the sequence:


    I don't need professional quality.

    --
    Andy Hewitt
    <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
     
    Andy Hewitt, Nov 30, 2009
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. TaliesinSoft

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Matthew Lybanon <> wrote:

    > In article <1j9zjae.rbfjdx7u916bN%>,
    > (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
    >
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >. . .
    > >
    > > Yes, I do know all that. Before iWeb could handle external FTP sites
    > > directly, I had to publish the site to local disk and upload it manually
    > > - I used CyberDuck for that.
    > >
    > > However, dumping iWeb is unlikely to happen any time soon. I have three
    > > sites I manage, one of which is much larger than my personal site, I
    > > just do not have the time to rebuild all of these, and manage them
    > > manually.
    > >
    > > Right now, if I want to add photos to a page, I simply drag them over
    > > from my Aperture library, and click on 'Upload changes'. Job done.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > iWeb is very definitely NOT professional quality. But it offers a quick
    > way of putting together some fairly nice-looking web pages. Several
    > times I have used the sequence:
    >
    > 1) Create a site in iWeb.
    >
    > 2) "Publish" the site to a local folder and use something like
    > PageSpinner (or even a plain text editor) to make relatively minor edits.
    >
    > 3) Use an ftp utility such as CyberDuck to upload the files to a server.
    >
    > (This is a version of a very old programming paradigm: Use some tool
    > that generates code rapidly, then edit the result manually to
    > optimize--or at least improve it in some way--the code.) It is a
    > reasonably efficient way to produce fairly good results. It's a
    > compromise. If you are a pro, or an amateur who doesn't mind working
    > harder, you have more options.


    I doubt it is an efficient way with iWeb because it generates too much
    crap and from a fundamentally flawed model. But I would be interested to
    see myself wrong on this by seeing any attempts by folk to do what you
    have done, namely generate and clean up and ftp... any URLs of your
    attempts?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Nov 30, 2009
    #63
  4. TaliesinSoft

    AV3 Guest

    Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
    >
    > nospam wrote:
    >> Erik Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >>>>> ...

    >
    >
    > 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...



    It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    superiority over much less expensive applications. How does the GIMP
    compare with Photoshop Elements? Pixelmator?


    >
    > ...
    >




    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <> ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <> ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poÅta adreso por Äusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
     
    AV3, Dec 1, 2009
    #64
  5. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <hf257e$g0c$>, AV3
    <> wrote:

    > It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,


    yet people keep doing it.

    > however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    > superiority over much less expensive applications. How does the GIMP
    > compare with Photoshop Elements? Pixelmator?


    i don't know about pixelmator, but photoshop elements does a lot more
    than the gimp does, and faster too. in fact, some of what elements
    omits versus the full photoshop are things that the gimp doesn't have
    anyway, such as cmyk.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2009
    #65
  6. AV3 wrote:
    > Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
    >> 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...

    >
    > It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    > however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    > superiority over much less expensive applications.


    Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget that when working with opensource, many,
    many people can and do contribute with their code and experience. - Just
    think of OpenOffice. It's exact same situation - M$ Office cost a lot,
    OpenOffice is free and in my opinion far much better and more compatible
    than most parts in MSO...

    And as written many times now, I donot compare GIMP with the latest
    versions of Photoshop, but something near the ver. 6.x-7.x. Much has
    happened to Photoshop in CS2 to CS4...

    > How does the GIMP compare with
    > Photoshop Elements? Pixelmator?


    The latest version of Photoshop Elements I've used is the ver. 4.0 and I
    wasn't impressed of that one, if you're used to use keyboard commands
    with Photoshop. Shortcuts aren't always the same as you expect.

    But one thing that I do know is that GIMP 2.6.7 works fine also in
    connection with Photoshop CS2, which is the latest version that I have.
    I have also now tried something that I never have tried before. I have
    inserted some of the GIMP files saved as .psd into some wordprocessors
    that absolutely donot like non-legacy formats like AppleWorks,
    NisusWriter Pro, Word 2008(Mac) and 2003(Win). The GIMP files are shown
    100% correct both in color and sizes in these wordprocessors.

    I could have understood the hazzling, if I had taken the Cenon and
    compared this one with the Photoshop versions that I compared GIMP with.
    Though Cenon also is built on the same engine as GIMP.app, there are so
    many differences between these two apps. Where GIMP is real fine, Cenon
    is somewhat poor - especially in the color management system as well as
    handling layers. Also resizing in Cenon can be somewhat painful towards
    GIMP. And where I compare GIMP with Photoshop 6.x-7.x, I'd put Cenon
    down near Photoshop 3.0-3.5...

    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, Dec 1, 2009
    #66
  7. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b156855$0$8548$>, Erik Richard
    Sørensen <> wrote:

    > > It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    > > however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    > > superiority over much less expensive applications.

    >
    > Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget that when working with opensource, many,
    > many people can and do contribute with their code and experience.


    most people just want to edit photos, not write code.

    > - Just
    > think of OpenOffice. It's exact same situation - M$ Office cost a lot,
    > OpenOffice is free and in my opinion far much better and more compatible
    > than most parts in MSO...


    that's a neat trick, more compatible than the original. how does that
    work? the original, by definition, is 100% compatible.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2009
    #67
  8. nospam wrote:
    > AV3 <> wrote:
    >> It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,

    >
    > yet people keep doing it.
    >
    >> however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    >> superiority over much less expensive applications. How does the GIMP
    >> compare with Photoshop Elements? Pixelmator?

    >
    > i don't know about pixelmator, but photoshop elements does a lot more
    > than the gimp does, and faster too. in fact, some of what elements
    > omits versus the full photoshop are things that the gimp doesn't have
    > anyway, such as cmyk.


    You keep saying that, but still this isnot true. GIMP does have CMYK! -
    How on earth can a GIMP CMYK file saved as a .psd and then opened in
    Photoshop turn up as a full editable CMYK file with CMYK profile active,
    though I've set my PhS CS2 to use RGB as screen workflow and the ICC to
    be RGB as well?

    And regarding the speed of GIMP. I wouldn't call it 'slow' to open a 2gb
    file in less than 2 secs. from scratch ready to use! - i.e. X11 and GIMP
    are both quit. Having both X11 and GIMP open in the background an apprx.
    5-6gb file will open in apprx. 1 sec.. Photoshop CS/CS2 are far much
    slower opening from scratch, but near same time if in background.

    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, Dec 1, 2009
    #68
  9. TaliesinSoft

    nospam Guest

    In article <4b156e98$0$8554$>, Erik Richard
    Sørensen <> wrote:

    > And regarding the speed of GIMP. I wouldn't call it 'slow' to open a 2gb
    > file in less than 2 secs. from scratch ready to use! - i.e. X11 and GIMP
    > are both quit. Having both X11 and GIMP open in the background an apprx.
    > 5-6gb file will open in apprx. 1 sec.. Photoshop CS/CS2 are far much
    > slower opening from scratch, but near same time if in background.


    who said anything about opening a file? i'm talking about various
    actions, such as setting the white/black point in levels, or just
    levels itself. last time i tried white/black point, it was about 10
    seconds in the gimp versus a fraction of a second in photoshop with a 3
    megapixel image on the exact same hardware. also, adjusting levels,
    curves, etc. is not real time in the gimp and there's also a lot of
    flicker when scrolling.
     
    nospam, Dec 1, 2009
    #69
  10. nospam wrote:
    > Erik Richard Sørensen <> wrote:
    >>> It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    >>> however old. Six hundred odd dollars ought to buy considerable
    >>> superiority over much less expensive applications.

    >> Maybe, maybe not. Don't forget that when working with opensource, many,
    >> many people can and do contribute with their code and experience.

    >
    > most people just want to edit photos, not write code.


    Precisely! The more contributers, the better application and the more
    people want to use it. And the better the contributer's code is, the
    better the app will be, and then even more people want to use it...

    >> - Just think of OpenOffice. It's exact same situation - M$ Office cost
    >> a lot, OpenOffice is free and in my opinion far much better and more
    >> compatible than most parts in MSO...

    >
    > that's a neat trick, more compatible than the original. how does that
    > work? the original, by definition, is 100% compatible.


    Well... How and when has the MSO been able to read, write or convert to
    and from an ODF/ODT file? - NEVER! - And it won't be either with that
    piece of crab called 'Open XML Converter'.:-(! - And don't forget that
    the ODF format now is an ISO standard, which none of the MS formats are.

    - And btw. the MSO isn't even capable of reading/converting it's own
    files between the Mac and Windows versions.
    - Try to open a RTFD file made on a Mac in MSO2003/2007? - CRASH!
    - Try to open a XML file made with MSO2007 in MSO2004/2008 on a Mac? -
    CRASH!
    - Try to open a simple and common RTF file made on a Mac MSO2004/2008,
    opened in MSO2007(Win), saved, and again opened in MSO2004(Mac)? - CRASH!
    - Try to open a common and simple .doc file made on MSO2000-2007(Win) on
    a Mac with MSO X, 2004, 2008, or a .doc file made with MSO X, 2004 or
    2008 on a Mac and open it in MSO2000-2007(Win)? - where the hack are the
    formattings and fonts? GONE!

    Do you call this 'compatibility'?

    Now try to open any ODF file made with NeoOffice Mac, OpenOffice Mac,
    Win or Linux or the StarOffice Mac/Win/Linux on any other OpenOffice or
    StarOffice or NeoOffice and you will see that the files are 100%
    identical in any version and system, no loss of formatting, fonts,
    sizes, setups etc. - That's what I call 'compatibility!

    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, Dec 1, 2009
    #70
  11. TaliesinSoft

    Calum Guest

    On 01/12/09 04:14, AV3 wrote:

    > It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    > however old.


    I don't think it is, really, when you consider the amount of development
    hours that have gone into GIMP. That number may still fall short of
    Photoshop's (especially as PS had a 6 year head start), but it's
    probably comparable to plenty of other software you'd pay hundreds of
    dollars for.
     
    Calum, Dec 1, 2009
    #71
  12. TaliesinSoft

    Calum Guest

    On 01/12/09 19:29, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:

    > And regarding the speed of GIMP. I wouldn't call it 'slow' to open a 2gb
    > file in less than 2 secs. from scratch ready to use! - i.e. X11 and GIMP
    > are both quit.


    Neither would I, but I've never seen X11 and GIMP start up in less than
    30 seconds on my Macbook Pro. What's the secret?
     
    Calum, Dec 1, 2009
    #72
  13. Calum wrote:
    > On 01/12/09 19:29, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
    >> And regarding the speed of GIMP. I wouldn't call it 'slow' to open a 2gb
    >> file in less than 2 secs. from scratch ready to use! - i.e. X11 and GIMP
    >> are both quit.

    >
    > Neither would I, but I've never seen X11 and GIMP start up in less than
    > 30 seconds on my Macbook Pro. What's the secret?


    Maybe a MacPro QuadCore 2,66ghz with 9gb physical RAM, but 'only'
    running 10.5.8 with latest updates. - All 4 kernels enabled in GIMP...

    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, Dec 1, 2009
    #73
  14. Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
    >
    > Calum wrote:
    >> On 01/12/09 19:29, Erik Richard Sørensen wrote:
    >>> And regarding the speed of GIMP. I wouldn't call it 'slow' to open a 2gb
    >>> file in less than 2 secs. from scratch ready to use! - i.e. X11 and GIMP
    >>> are both quit.

    >>
    >> Neither would I, but I've never seen X11 and GIMP start up in less
    >> than 30 seconds on my Macbook Pro. What's the secret?

    >
    > Maybe a MacPro QuadCore 2,66ghz with 9gb physical RAM, but 'only'
    > running 10.5.8 with latest updates. - All 4 kernels enabled in GIMP...


    One speaks of launching the app; the other, opening a file.....

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 2, 2009
    #74
  15. TaliesinSoft

    AV3 Guest

    Calum wrote:
    > On 01/12/09 04:14, AV3 wrote:
    >
    >> It seems unfair to compare the GIMP with the full versions of Photoshop,
    >> however old.

    >
    > I don't think it is, really, when you consider the amount of development
    > hours that have gone into GIMP. That number may still fall short of
    > Photoshop's (especially as PS had a 6 year head start), but it's
    > probably comparable to plenty of other software you'd pay hundreds of
    > dollars for.
    >



    All the better for the GIMP if it can withstand such comparison; I only
    meant to imply that expectations are for comparison with Photoshop
    Elements or Pixelmator, given that the high price of Photoshop buys a
    lot of professional development. I also didn't mean to imply backward
    comparison with earlier versions of Photoshop, only with contemporary
    versions. Of course that leaves the GIMP out of the comparison running
    for Photoshop's first six years.


    I am a great admirer of much open source software and run Ubuntu-for-Mac
    in its own partition, to say nothing of Open Office, NeoOffice, and
    Porticus. I first got interested when I noticed vi and emacs in the
    kernel of an early version of Mac OS X and installed Debian in X11. I do
    find that open source software generally has rough edges.


    --
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
    ||Arnold VICTOR, New York City, i. e., <> ||
    ||Arnoldo VIKTORO, Nov-jorkurbo, t. e., <> ||
    ||Remove capital letters from e-mail address for correct address/ ||
    || Forigu majusklajn literojn el e-poÅta adreso por Äusta adreso ||
    ++====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====+====+=====+=====+=====+=====+====++
     
    AV3, Dec 2, 2009
    #75
    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:
    480
    Erik Richard Sørensen
    Jan 4, 2006
  2. Marc Heusser
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    231
    Marc Heusser
    Jan 21, 2008
  3. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Apps
    Replies:
    74
    Views:
    815
  4. Robert Montgomery
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    757
    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:
    538
    Gerhard Huber
    May 26, 2005
  6. TaliesinSoft

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator

    TaliesinSoft, Nov 27, 2009, in forum: Misc
    Replies:
    83
    Views:
    1,099
  7. Mark

    Photoshop vs. Pixelmator?

    Mark, Apr 15, 2009, in forum: UK Macs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    327
    Amanita
    Apr 16, 2009
  8. D.M. Procida
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,203
    Steve Hodgson
    Jan 24, 2010
Loading...