I don’t like being negative. But, I’m sorry, if you’re making a Photoshop clone, make it right.
Okay, fine, do make all windows HUDs. It’s nice and trendy. It’s different and perhaps gimmicky, but I’m okay with that as long as it’s well implemented. However…
…Do not make all the tools have really dark icons! The Type tool, the Crop tool and the Cursor/Move tool all have generally black icons. When the icons are unselected, they’re black, put against a black background, which actually is semi-transparent and may overlay a black backdrop; add that I’m clicking it with a black cursor carrying a black shadow. It’s like Hotblack’s fucking stunt ship. When the icons are selected, they are slightly bigger and put against a semi-transparent grey background. This is not helping very much.
Speaking of tools, where is my customizable toolbar? It is my one serious Photoshop complaint aside from its price. I don’t use half of those tools – let me strip it down.
Speaking of the type tool. I bring that up and I expect to be able to choose a font. I can choose a font. I just use the Fonts panel. The Fonts panel offers preview, but it has to be big to do that. Photoshop’s UI is about as subtle as one of these things, and they still have the sense to provide you with a bar-shaped palette for choosing the fonts there instead.
No drop shadows. I can apply drop shadows to text using the Fonts panel’s crappy support for the awesome underlying Cocoa text foundation. That’s it. You can also make a duplicate layer, turn everything black, gaussian blur it and offset the bugger. And redo that every time you change anything. Compare and contrast to and with Photoshop’s layer effects with instant non-destructive application and live preview.
Let’s try applying a perspective transform. Okay, nice. I can’t see the degrees or edit them, but I’ll live. My test object was up against the frame, so I’ve got to move it, let me switch to the move tool. I’m moving it, it’s showing right there in the layer’s thumbnail, but no, the prespective object is not moving. I cancel out of the transforming and the object is indeed moved.
Yes, bully on you for getting 1.0 out. It does look promising. And I will revisit later on. But I can’t personally commit to trying to use Pixelmator because it seems like I’d be more likely to hit up against the edge of what Pixelmator can do today than not.
Also, calling Photoshop “Big Brother” on that company weblog while aping its awful non-customizable toolbar and not aping some of its useful UI? Not cool. Right: it ain’t bragging if you can back it up. From what I’ve seen this far, it’s bragging; you don’t even offer a fresh new perspective like Acorn did with a 16th of the pretense. Get back to me when I can see the god damn tool I’m clicking on.
Update: This is not a review. And contrary to what Scott Stevenson thinks, written pieces don’t automatically turn into reviews because he thinks they look like reviews.
Update 2: Macworld’s “Creative Notes” weblog links here, saying “(Not everyone thinks Pixelmator’s interface is beautiful, however; see here for an alternative opinion.)”. I do think Pixelmator’s interface is beautiful. I don’t take offense in the beauty of the interface (other than note that using HUDs everywhere is giving off a gimmicky ting); I take offense in the interface being beautiful in precisely such a way that obscures what’s actually in the interface.
OK, think you’re being a little bit mellow dramatic? While you may find fault with implementation, you have to give the guys props. I think PM hits about 80% of what you need in a entry level image editor.
And while I appreciate the approach Acorn took in their UI, I find that PixelMator feels a bit more familiar. Of course, I’m a 16 year veteran of Photoshop, so the app that more closely mimics PS will feel more familiar to me.
UI aside, I had better luck w/ PM than Acorn. Acorn couldn’t handle any serious compositing (5 layers or more) without crashing on me.
I beta tested PM, and look forward to future versions fleshing out a more useful featureset. I’m not buying just yet, but I’m still in awe that two guys can crank out what is essentially the feature set of Photoshop 3/4 all by themselves.
By http://openid.aol.com/serpicolugnut · 2007.09.25 23:44
I may be “mellow dramatic” (did you mean melodramatic?), but that doesn’t mean that beyond the writing showmanship I’m not legitimately concerned, or legitimately unable to do the relatively easy stuff I do do in Photoshop.
That two guys have been able to do that since this spring is impressive, there’s no doubt about it. It speaks well both of Cocoa (the application framework), ImageMagick (some of the image processing guts) and of the guys themselves. And I really want to like the core of the application.
But I feel I’ll be doing them a bigger disservice by smiling, saying “reasonable 1.0, please keep going” than by being upfront. I did look forward to the app, and it did look promising, and it was indeed a letdown that it didn’t have some of the features I was looking forward to, even when taking into the equation that I didn’t possibly expect to have everything I used from the get-go.
And as for Acorn, I don’t feel settled into that either enough to use it. But Gus Mueller acted a lot less cocky about hawking a Photoshop killer, and he actually brought a new approach to his application.
By Jesper · 2007.09.26 00:12
I just downloaded this Pixelmator 1.0 software. And I have to agree with your complaints. I noticed straight-away that I couldn’t replace Photoshop with it, which is wildly unfortunate because of that price tag. Dang! Oh well. I’d much rather support the small guys than the big corporation, but I must wait this one out.
By Ricky · 2007.09.26 02:35
Acorn has tablet support. When I realized that Pixelmator’s brush wasn’t pressure sensitive (yet), I laughed and threw the app in the trash.
I, too, am being melodramatic. But in all seriousness, there has been a paucity of affordable pressure-sensitive painting programs for too long.
Anyway, I am pleased to see some new contestants in this arena. I do hope they succeed, as Photoshop is certainly the “Kleenex” of image editors, at least to those who’ve ever uttered something like “I want to crop and tint some images; clearly, I need Photoshop!” It’s no cliché that Photoshop is overkill for many uses – presumably including Jesper’s: “I don’t use half of those tools – let me strip it down.”
Plus, a fellow could buy Acorn and Pixelmator for the price of Photoshop Elements. And a copy of each for everyone you know for the asking price of the “real” Photoshop.
By Jim DeVona · 2007.09.26 02:51
The interesting thing to note, Jim, is while Photoshop may be tremendous overkill now, actually, it’s also simultaneously not. It may contain lots of stuff I don’t need, but I use features there that aren’t available in other apps. At all.
I would like for this to change, which is the reason I’m offering this criticism to begin with.
By Jesper · 2007.09.26 08:15
Jim said:
These are photo/image editors, not painting programs (not that many painters don’t use them, but that’s not their primary application). If you want an affordable, ridiculously excellent painting program that has pressure-sensitive (both real and simulated, for mouse users) brushes, you want the $25 ArtRage.
Back on topic, I agree 100% with your evaluation, Jesper. A great big “good on ya” to Pixelmator’s developers, but the fact that its price is 10% of Photoshop’s doesn’t in itself make it an application worth buying. As eager as I am to support indie Mac developers, I don’t feel that this application yet delivers on its promise. I’ll be keeping an eye on it, though, and hope that it becomes more robust as it matures.
By justG · 2007.09.26 10:11
Perhaps the most frustrating thing isn’t that it’s not worth, to me, the $59 it costs today. It’s that, if it fixed even half my concerns, it would probably be worth double that.
It’s never easy to make an app that so closely appears to replace a big and well-known app. In a way, Photoshop isn’t bloated because everyone uses 30% of it; everyone just needs a different 30%. I fully accept that the 1.0 of any such app isn’t going to appeal to all those people (or that it will, but not without being very expensive and very late).
I just wanted to clarify that not all of my concerns are about not getting my favorite features: The black-on-black tools is a case of bad UI design, the perspective object thing is a plain bug and the duality of calling Photoshop “Big Brother” while copying its UI (but only mostly the bad parts) is just a bit much.
By Jesper · 2007.09.26 10:38
I totally have to agree with you. The app has potential, but that’s it for now. Something that probably annoyed me the most with it is that you can’t even draw a straight line … You have to use the transformation tools to get that.
By zerok · 2007.09.26 12:29
JustG: True, ArtRage is a neat program (I’m a registered user). I suppose what I meant by “painting program” was an image editor with layers and a pressure sensitive brush, not a natural media simulator. It’s a selfish definition based on my particular interests.
Jesper: Your point that Photoshop is full of exclusive features is valid. My “overkill” assessment is based in part on price. Even with must-have features, it can be hard for many individuals to justify – or afford – a purchase. CS3 costs $649. As a result, I think many exercise creative interpretation of the licenses provided by their schools or employers (although some legitimate arrangements exist).
By Jim DeVona · 2007.09.26 14:37
[…] there is currently no way to preview the quality when exporting to JPEG or PNG. Jesper has some good criticisms, but the sticking point for me is the transparent HUD-style palettes and windows, all overloaded […]
By Michael Tsai - Blog - Pixelmator 1.0 · 2007.09.27 16:53
Jesper, I think you make some pretty fair points here and make them well. I think there’s going to be a lot of flux and change and words about the new apps and their relative merits, flaws etc.
Which means… FUN!
By http://jon.whipple.myopenid.com/ · 2007.09.27 23:32
Have you looked at DrawIt? It certainly does not try to copy Photoshop, and it has most of the features you mentioned as downsides to Pixelmator. getdrawit A new version will be released in a few days, hope you like it better than Pixelmator :-P
By http://openid.aol.com/mromvlee · 2007.09.28 06:56
The developers NEVER called it a Photoshop killer. That name was given by other bloggers. Everyone got excited about it and that in turn made the Pixelmator Team excited – kind of like a snowball effect.
I’ve tried Artrage. It’s a great value, but there are many annoyances with that program. The interface takes up the whole screen and the tools TRY to copy real media (but fall short). AR seems to be trying to copy the interface of Sketchbook pro and the functionality of Painter X. Sketchbook Pro was much better IMHO but now that Autodesk purchased it from Alias, it hasn’t been upgraded to a universal binary and they likely won’t get around to it till X-mas.
There are a few things that Pixlemator does better than Photoshop. The effective apex of the filters can be moved around. The startup time is blazing fast. You can drag/drop layers directly to the desktop. Right now it would be a great companion to Photoshop with its nice set of filters. It was never made to replace Photoshop. The developers clearly stated that.
Acorn is too confusing by including color correction tools in their filters menu. I do like how Acorn copies the PS shortcuts more closely, though. However, It doesn’t even have a clone tool yet and seems to be just as unstable as PM at the moment.
Pixelmator may soon surprise people. I’ve heard that there are a few special features they held back because they weren’t ready yet. That being said, I still don’t think it’ll ever replace Photoshop for the professionals that grew up using it. Furthermore, since PS decided to get into the 3d realm, it’ll be indispensable for the people who use programs like Zbrush and Poser to illustrate.
I tried DrawIt on my macbook core duo (2 gigs ram) and it simply crashed upon opening……I desparately tried a bunch of times to get it to work to no avail. I gave up and deleted it. It was version 2.x so I’ll try again later.
By http://primitivehuman.myopenid.com/ · 2007.09.30 05:44