Pixelmator purchased by Apple

[CharlesH]

- Photoshop, LR look decent, but Premiere Pro is subpar in comparison with DaVinci Resolve.

I started out in video with Premier Pro; that was lots of years ago. And then I was very early to adopt ProRes RAW, and then HDR video, and Adobe did not have a clue about any of this. So I moved over to Apple's Final Cut Pro, which handled this very well - it was a breath of fresh air compared to Adobe. Ultimately, like you I've moved to DaVinci Resolve, which I think is the best thing out there. I still use FCP now and then if I want to run native ProRes RAW, but I usually just convert it to ProRes 4444 and run it in Resolve.

But I do use Lightyear for photography. I actually used Photoshop for photography before Lightroom existed, and then grudgingly moved to Lightroom as it became more capable. I do now and then look at other photo-editing software, but so far have not switched to anything else. I use DxO PureRAW as a Lightroom plug-in, mostly with micro four thirds to extend the dynamic range a little, so I appreciate what DxO is doing for photographers. All-in-all I find Lightyear Classic is a good product, well supported, and pretty constantly bringing on new good features.

And by the way, I don't use Lightroom non-classic very much. I have it installed on my Mac and my iPad and my phone. I don't find the interface very intuitive, and the filing system is confusing. I use it now and then in the field with my iPad, but with very few pictures. Maybe it's designed for millennials or younger, but they can have it. I did use it when Adobe first came out with HDR for photography because Lightroom Classic would not display HDR in full screen and non-classic could. But that has been fixed, so I don't have much need for non-classic.

The reason I'm interested in Pixelmator is that it is devoted to just Apple, I use Apple for photography, and with Apple buying them they may get more integrated into Apple's ecosystem, and hence more capable and easier to use. That could be a good thing for me. If you aren't an Apple user I'm sure this is not very interesting. For example if I download Lumix pictures with Lumix Lab into Photos on my phone they will show up in Photos on my Mac and iPad, and I can edit them with Pixelmator with any of these devices. I haven't tried all this, don't know how well it will work, but that is the concept that has me interested.

 

[Oíche]

Black Friday 84% offLuminar Neo lifetime subscription is 1999 Turkish Lira or £44.70 so I'm considering this, it looks better than Photomator except for AI masking but that's something I rarely ever use. It has focus stacking and HDR blending from brackets, I'm currently finding out more about it.

 

[Oíche]

I've a further 10% discount code for the above if anyone wants it.

 

[Oíche]

Luminar supports Lumix cameras:

 

[CharlesH]

It has focus stacking and HDR blending from brackets

Keep in mind HDR blending is different than HDR for a high dynamic range monitor. Blending is the old technique of taking a range of exposures and picking the shadows from the higher exposures and the highlights from the lower exposures to give a photo you can display on an 8 bit SD monitor.

 

[Oíche]

Keep in mind HDR blending is different than HDR for a high dynamic range monitor. Blending is the old technique of taking a range of exposures and picking the shadows from the higher exposures and the highlights from the lower exposures to give a photo you can display on an 8 bit SD monitor.

Yeah I knew that, not sure it can do the HDR files with meta data to display on a HDR monitor. 'Not sure' is key here, I spent most of the day trying to research Luminar Neo and it looks like a pricing trap where the base software is cheap but HDR merge, Upscale AI, panoramic merge and others seem to be optional extras costing more each than the base software and I'm not sure if these too are a time limited subscription.

I downloaded the trial, had a brief look and it's trying to sell LUTs starting at $19 each

So I'm not impressed already, even the full screen view does not display in full. It seems like a stealthy attempt to pretend to be non subscription but the functionality it markets upon is... Just yet more of the same attempt at extortion which we are seemingly bombarded with nowadays.

It also seems to be heavily supposed AI orientated with erase, image expansion and emulating colours and more from other photos. I don't like any of this nonsense, it's not photography or creative and the same as phones doing similar.

I'll might another look at it but I doubt it and just uninstall. Also beware as always of YouTubers shilling it with their 'why I ditched Adobe for it', one of them was even so daft that he stated Luminar asked him to make it.

$59 for HDR merge, $59 for panoramic stitching, $59 for DeNoiseAI... Yeah right

 

[Nevyn72]

And then I was very early to adopt ProRes RAW, and then HDR video, and Adobe did not have a clue about any of this.

Cool. It was probably 'special like magic' doing this, but also still on unsettled ground...

And as how I understand it, Adobe does now some of it, but it is still by far not so comprehensive as Davinci Resolve.

 

[Oíche]

Cool. It was probably 'special like magic' doing this, but also still on unsettled ground...

And as how I understand it, Adobe does now some of it, but it is still by far not so comprehensive as Davinci Resolve.

For now I'll stick to iMovies, only used it once with basic stitching. Not sure I'll move beyond this with my basic needs but I'll keep Davinci in mind if otherwise. I haven't looked at it but I absolutely do not want a "learn Photoshop" scenario for myself for the simple videos I do... I.e. putting short clips together.

If I progress further using LUTs etc I'd rather just use the S5ii for that. I'm sure iMovies can even do B&W but you got to understand that you guys saying DaVinci Resolve brings fear to my noob vodeo heart as I literally can't be bothered with learning new software as it bores and detracts me. But I'm at that stage with iMovies regardless but I'm thinking this is easier considering I'm unlikely to become a video pro. l

 

[CharlesH]

The reason I'm interested in Pixelmator is that it is devoted to just Apple, I use Apple for photography, and with Apple buying them they may get more integrated into Apple's ecosystem, and hence more capable and easier to use. That could be a good thing for me. If you aren't an Apple user I'm sure this is not very interesting. For example if I download Lumix pictures with Lumix Lab into Photos on my phone they will show up in Photos on my Mac and iPad, and I can edit them with Pixelmator with any of these devices. I haven't tried all this, don't know how well it will work, but that is the concept that has me interested.

I worked a little with Lumix Lab transferring S9 and S5II images to Photos. I generally looked at them after they showed up on my Mac, which was a fairly quick process. First, S9 RAW images don't display (Apple doesn't support S9 RAW yet; you can see the file come over, but it displays a blank image). However if you export the image from Photos to a Mac folder you can view and edit it with Lightroom. But you can't view and edit it with Pixelmator Pro (even though if you just copy the image over from the SD you can view and edit with both Lightroom and Pixelmator Pro). But S5II images that are imported by Lumix Lab and exported to a Mac folder can be viewed and edited okay with both Lightroom and Pixelmator Pro.

So a first thing Apple can fix is to get Pixelmator Pro on par with Lightroom for Lumix Lab S9 RAW images.

A thing that would be very useful is to have editing available directly from Photos, instead of having to export images to a Mac folder. (The interface to call another editor from Photos is in place, it just doesn't work.) This could be a Pixelmator Pro feature that would enable a very useful RAW workflow. Of course if this also worked with Lightroom it would be a big plus.

 

[Oíche]

After all my research into alternative software I feel sick. I can't be bothered with it, it detracts from photography. All this stuff is horrible BS

 

[Oíche]

Yip

 

[Oíche]

There is too much emphasis on software but where is the photography?

 

[pdk42]

There is too much emphasis on software but where is the photography?

After all my research into alternative software I feel sick. I can't be bothered with it, it detracts from photography. All this stuff is horrible BS

Shoot jpeg if it bothers you that much. Or use one of the free packages like Darktable.

 

[PJD]

I currently use my S5iiX to shoot RAW for stills and ProRes HQ 6K & 4K video.

I edit stills on my _M1_ MacBook Pro 13" using a combination of Affinity Photo 2, Pixelmator Pro 3.6, and Apple Preview (included with MacOS 15.1). I often use all 3 apps to process most of my photos. I use 16-bit PNG files as a non-compressed interchange format to move an image from one app to another. The reason I use 3 apps is because I'm not an expert in AF2 & PPro, so I use the features I'm familiar with in each. Plus I've found I prefer certain features in one of the apps more than the similar feature in the other apps.

I edit video using my M1 MacBook Pro 13" running Davinci Resolve Studio. I acquired a DRS license & dongle (both) years ago when I purchased a Blackmagic Design "Production Camera 4K" and a "Pocket Camera 4K". I used those cameras to record both RAW and ProRes HQ 4K video, and occasionally to shoot RAW "stills" (short bursts of images). My S5iiX replaced both my now-sold BMD cameras.

Whatever works. Cheers.

 

[PJD]

Also: I especially like that Apple Preview can export images in _10-bit_ HEIC/HEIF compressed format. AF2 can't export to HEIC/HEIF at all, and PPro can export _8-bit_ HEIC/HEIF. I use lightly-compressed 10-bit HEIC/HEIF files to archive non-critical edited images which consume less storage than 16-bit PNGs, but the 10-bit HEIC/HEIFs look very good. Hopefully all these apps will soon add "JPEG-XL" support. We'll see.

 

[Travis Butler]

I gave them a try, kept freezing and shutting down on my computer, losing all the editing work up to that point. E-mailed them, sent in logs, error reports etc, they couldn't resolve the issues.
Similar story with Adobe, with their purple haze issue when lifting exposure with the G9. Ignored and swept under the carpet, giving the G9 a bad rep for IQ for a long time, right when it hurt it most, near release.

I currently use On1, as it was the least bad option of the ones I tested when Adobe took Lightroom sub-only. I’m still using it because I haven’t found an option I like better - and because there are some features I really like, such as the noise reduction tools.

That said, I agree that the programming team has always had a problem with polish; every version has had its share of glitches, although any significant functional ones I’ve run into have been fixed.

To bring things back to the topic - I have used Pixelmator and like it a lot, but it’s more of a Photoshop substitute (designed more for pixel-level painting and manipulation than the kind of global adjustments in typical photo editors, and no catalog function.) I may try Photomator at some point, though.

 

[Travis Butler]

It also seems to be heavily supposed AI orientated with erase, image expansion and emulating colours and more from other photos. I don't like any of this nonsense, it's not photography or creative and the same as phones doing similar.

That’s the main reason I didn’t like Luminar, aside from the very limited catalog/photo management tools. Their editing suite is heavily focused on AI “we know how to edit this photo better than you do” tools, and I much prefer my own adjustments.

 

[PJD]

... I have used Pixelmator and like it a lot, but it’s more of a Photoshop substitute (designed more for pixel-level painting and manipulation than the kind of global adjustments in typical photo editors, and no catalog function.) I may try Photomator at some point, though.

I use the MacOS Finder as my photo & video catalog.

Over the decades I've established a carefully-constructed directory hierarchy for storing everything on my Mac(s). By doing so, all my applications have 100% equal access to all my files. No conversion between proprietary catalog formats is ever required. My directory/folder names include dates and keywords, and individual photo filenames include keywords. The MacOS Finder "Find" search feature is lightning fast; it finds any file instantaneously before you finish typing a keyword. I use "Find" instead of MacOS "Spotlight" because Find allows multi-keyword complex searches.

I rarely save photos in an application's proprietary format; instead I either save the original RAW or JPEG, and edited photos as uncompressed 16-bit PNG or lightly-compress full-res 10-bit HEIC/HEIF.

Of course, there are many other ways to "catalog" photos. Whatever works for you. It's all good.

 

[Travis Butler]

I use the MacOS Finder as my photo & video catalog.

...perhaps I should define what I mean by "catalog function".

I expect a good photo editor to:

• Make it easy to visually browse through and cull photos from a shoot. This includes things like:
  • Sorting on multiple criteria
  • Fast browsing in both thumbnail and full-screen view
    • Thumbnail view should have a lot of customization options
  • A photo compare feature
  • Flexible marking options
  • Filtering based on marking, to make it easy to delete unwanted photos or batch-generate JPEGs for posting
  • Last but absolutely not least, fast switching between browse and edit modes to see if a quick edit is enough to save an iffy picture.
• Make it easy to filter/search by EXIF attributes in the original image files - such as camera, lens, focal length, etc.
• Make it easy to visually browse your collection, when you don't remember enough of the EXIF to filter that way
• Some kind of custom tagging function to organize in ways not supported by date or EXIF.

I did use the Finder as my cataloging tool... 20 years ago. Preview lets you do some very basic browsing by opening a batch of files and using the sidebar, but it has nothing in the way of marking or organizing tools. Today I expect a lot more.

Over the decades I've established a carefully-constructed directory hierarchy for storing everything on my Mac(s). By doing so, all my applications have 100% equal access to all my files. No conversion between proprietary catalog formats is ever required.

One reason I like On1 is that it's perfectly happy letting you use your own directory hierarchy. You can simply browse by jumping to the root of your photo directory and shift between folders with a sidebar; or browse in thumbnail mode, with folders showing as thumbnails using a sample image; or have On1 index folders you select for fast searches and filtering. Nothing interferes with any other access to those folders.

My directory/folder names include dates and keywords, and individual photo filenames include keywords. The MacOS Finder "Find" search feature is lightning fast; it finds any file instantaneously before you finish typing a keyword. I use "Find" instead of MacOS "Spotlight" because Find allows multi-keyword complex searches.

Unfortunately, Finder search is too limited. You can't search by focal length, or aperture, or many other EXIF attributes.

I rarely save photos in an application's proprietary format; instead I either save the original RAW or JPEG, and edited photos as uncompressed 16-bit PNG or lightly-compress full-res 10-bit HEIC/HEIF.

Which is mostly what I do. One thing I like a lot about On1 (not unique to it, Lightroom also let you do this when I used it) is that when you edit, it doesn't change the original file; it stores all the edits in a 2-3kb sidecar file, and uses that to generate the in-app display and the final export file (in JPEG, TIFF, PNG, or DNG). No chance of messing up your original file, and no need to take up disk space with an edited version unless you want to share a final version or create an archival copy.

 

[PJD]

...perhaps I should define what I mean by "catalog function".

I expect a good photo editor to:

• Make it easy to visually browse through and cull photos from a shoot. This includes things like:
  • Sorting on multiple criteria
  • Fast browsing in both thumbnail and full-screen view
    • Thumbnail view should have a lot of customization options
  • A photo compare feature
  • Flexible marking options
  • Filtering based on marking, to make it easy to delete unwanted photos or batch-generate JPEGs for posting
  • Last but absolutely not least, fast switching between browse and edit modes to see if a quick edit is enough to save an iffy picture.
• Make it easy to filter/search by EXIF attributes in the original image files - such as camera, lens, focal length, etc.
• Make it easy to visually browse your collection, when you don't remember enough of the EXIF to filter that way
• Some kind of custom tagging function to organize in ways not supported by date or EXIF.

I did use the Finder as my cataloging tool... 20 years ago. Preview lets you do some very basic browsing by opening a batch of files and using the sidebar, but it has nothing in the way of marking or organizing tools. Today I expect a lot more.

One reason I like On1 is that it's perfectly happy letting you use your own directory hierarchy. You can simply browse by jumping to the root of your photo directory and shift between folders with a sidebar; or browse in thumbnail mode, with folders showing as thumbnails using a sample image; or have On1 index folders you select for fast searches and filtering. Nothing interferes with any other access to those folders.

Unfortunately, Finder search is too limited. You can't search by focal length, or aperture, or many other EXIF attributes.

Which is mostly what I do. One thing I like a lot about On1 (not unique to it, Lightroom also let you do this when I used it) is that when you edit, it doesn't change the original file; it stores all the edits in a 2-3kb sidecar file, and uses that to generate the in-app display and the final export file (in JPEG, TIFF, PNG, or DNG). No chance of messing up your original file, and no need to take up disk space with an edited version unless you want to share a final version or create an archival copy.

Thanks for your detailed reply. Definitely if one needs features such as you describe, then using something like On1 makes perfect sense. However, most of the features you list aren't must-haves for me. Whatever works. Cheers.