[HN Gopher] Photomator for Mac
___________________________________________________________________
Photomator for Mac
Author : eiiot
Score : 81 points
Date : 2023-05-17 06:52 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pixelmator.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pixelmator.com)
| pier25 wrote:
| Anyone knows if they are still working on their vector graphics
| app?
|
| They announced it a couple of years ago but it seems to have been
| abandoned.
| mattkevan wrote:
| They've incorporated a lot of vector functionality into
| Pixelmator itself. It's a pretty decent drawing tool now.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| I didn't immediately understand the positioning of Photomator
| versus Pixelmator Pro, but they have a somewhat helpful page
| here: https://www.pixelmator.com/compare/
|
| It looks like Pixelmator Pro is roughly analogous to Photoshop,
| while Photomator is roughly analogous to Lightroom.
| [deleted]
| jnsie wrote:
| Surprised that I need to give the app access to my photos (on
| macOS) versus being able to File->Open a particular image of
| interest
| hoherd wrote:
| That's because it uses Photos.app's library for its storage.
| markx2 wrote:
| "Exclusive Lifetime Offer PS69.99"
|
| Lifetime could be 6 months, could be 6 years. The latter is
| probably impossible and a rebrand could nullify it.
|
| Be honest about what 'lifetime' actually means, write it into a
| binding contract (yeah, 'binding' is difficult) and I might
| consider it.
| nikolay wrote:
| We've all been burned by "lifetime" licenses.
| waboremo wrote:
| I would love to see "lifetime" purchases be regulated out
| entirely, so that a lifetime purchase of software has very
| specific meaning and can't be weaselled out with a major
| version update, a rebrand, a new listing, etc.
| jorvi wrote:
| Exactly what they did with the Pixelmator > Pixelmator Pro
| switcharoo trick.
|
| I wouldn't have minded as much if they hadn't taken every
| single complaint about Pixelmator and made it a feature on
| the new product instead of a fix in the old one.
|
| Makes me steer people to Affinity every chance I get.
| amelius wrote:
| Just give me a non-SaaS solution. Something that I can keep
| backups of.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| Yup. Too many outs from lifting these days
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| That's easy: they'll create Photomator v2 and voila - you need
| to pay the full price again, because "this version has SO MANY
| innovations..."
| mrzool wrote:
| What's wrong with that? Better than the monthly/yearly
| subscription model as far as I am concerned.
| arrrg wrote:
| That was the model in the past, yeah. Is there something
| wrong with it?
|
| Expecting lifetime updates with your lifetime license seems
| weird to me. That's not a realistic expectation.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Yeah, it's kind of funny, at first I heard about the
| Pixelmator/Pro debacle and thought "Damn, weaseled again"
|
| but really, that's how software all worked back in the 90s,
| and it was fine. I bought Corel 5 in the 90s for $200 or
| whatever, and it worked great. If I wanted new features or
| other substantial changes, I was willing to pay for a new
| version.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yeah, I'm okay with that model -- as long as they give us a
| couple years before the new. Developer's gotta eat.
|
| It's the subscription model that is poison.
| arnvald wrote:
| Which is fine, isn't it?
|
| The way I see it, there are 2 options: either you buy
| software "as is" and can use it forever, but you don't get
| free access to updates (or get them up to certain point of
| time), or you pay for a subscription. People who bought old
| versions of Pixelmator or Photoshop or 1Password can still
| use them (I have 1Password 4 on one of my devices), as long
| as the system updates won't render it useless.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| They've honored their other one-time purchases, Pixelmator for
| about 15 years now.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I have both Pixelmator and Pixelmator Pro.
|
| I've been revisiting old games I wrote 35 year ago (rewriting
| them with modern API) and it is the lowly Pixelmator that I
| have been using near daily. (In fact was just using it this
| morning.)
|
| Besides occasionally foregrounding it's palette windows when
| it is in the background, I find it fully capable for pixel-
| editing.
| dudus wrote:
| They did release pixelmator pro after some time and charged
| again for it.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| It's a different app. Anyone who bought Pixelmator still
| has it. It hasn't had an update for a couple of years, now,
| but updates overlapped with Pro for awhile.
|
| I do remember some people being upset that Pro wasn't just
| a free feature enhancement to Pixelmator when Pro was
| announced, though.
| ftio wrote:
| Pixelmator's continued commitment to making their products and
| brand as "Apple-y" as possible is pretty impressive. Even their
| marketing pages and blog are nearly identical to Apple's -- they
| certainly _feel_ identical even if they aren 't a pixel-for-pixel
| copy.
|
| It must be great for sales, because it feels like you're buying
| the "missing" Pro application in the Final Cut/Logic/?
| triumvirate (I guess Photomator is sort of a spiritual successor
| to Aperture's editing features). But I do wish their UI had more
| labeling, especially in the right-hand menu, which is just a
| giant column of icons.
|
| I wonder if part of the rationale is to set themselves up for a
| tuck-in acquisition by Apple.
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _I wonder if part of the rationale is to set themselves up
| for a tuck-in acquisition by Apple._
|
| I doubt it. I think it's just that Mac fans like the Apple
| aesthetic, so they're copying it for the appeal, no larger
| strategic explanation needed.
|
| But then again, I've never quite understood why Apple doesn't
| spin off Final Cut Pro, except for inertia. Or maybe they keep
| it around to make sure there's at least one internal high-
| performance app team to make sure the macOS team doesn't do
| something dumb performance-wise?
| inconceivable wrote:
| it's probably so nobody ports it to windows.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| Or maybe it's a profitable project and it sells macs?
| foxandmouse wrote:
| In my opinion, their website design has surpassed the
| boundaries of imitation, giving it an uncanny resemblance to
| Apple's official site. This extreme similarity raises
| suspicion, making it appear like a phishing site to me..
| duxup wrote:
| I really like Apple's web design, then I reworked my personal
| site to follow that style and ... I reached the same
| conclusion, it was too close and felt scammy / weird. I
| didn't use it.
|
| I realized I just wanted clean / simple but not too close to
| a company where it started to feel "off".
| roughly wrote:
| I don't think this is what you're saying, but just to be
| super clear for anyone else coming through - Pixelmator is
| extremely _not_ a scam. Their products really are top notch.
| BooneJS wrote:
| I've been a Lightroom user since 2008ish, but after a few years
| of monthly $10.54 credit card charges has had me rethinking that.
| benr wrote:
| I've just made the move from Lightroom to Apple photos +
| Photomator. I was sick of having a Lightroom library for my
| DSLR photos, and an Apple Photos library for my iPhone shots.
| So far I'm happy with the move overall. I did like the control
| over how my files are stored in Lightroom but having all my
| best shots on the devices I view photos the most (iPhone and
| iPad) is worth giving that up.
| marpstar wrote:
| I'm pretty new to photography. I understand a lot of the basics
| (ex-wife shot as a professional hobbyist for a few years) but
| never really paid much attention to her editing workflow. Adobe
| already gets me for $20/mo for Illustrator (because designers)
| and I looked at alternatives. I've been using darktable
| http://darktable.org since I got my camera about a month ago
| and it's nice enough for me.
| rado wrote:
| So many magical AI features, but no basics like chromatic
| aberration removal, which keeps us coming back to Adobe.
| jxi wrote:
| Wow they straight ripped the design for their website from the
| Apple website.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| Looks good, unfortunately can't test because only supports the
| latest Mac OS (13), which Apple doesn't provide for my MacBook
| that still works perfectly fine. I wish developers had a bit more
| tolerance with backwards compatibility as I don't feel like
| throwing away electronics and adding to the garbage problem
| because of software compatibility.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Affinity Photo is an alternative that is available and works
| well for those of us on older systems.
| SuperShibe wrote:
| Look up "Open Core Legacy Patcher", it allows you to install
| new versions of macOS on unsupported Macs.
| klodolph wrote:
| That would have to be from 2016 or earlier. My 2017 MacBook
| is... really not fine at all. It works, but it can only handle
| lighter workloads.
| Rumudiez wrote:
| I use a 2012 Toshiba Satellite daily and it's fine. My wife's
| 2018 MBP is a rocket ship by comparison
| klodolph wrote:
| The MacBook, specifically, is not a rocket ship.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12-inch_MacBook
|
| The Kaby Lake m3 with 8 GB is the version I have. It is
| utterly and completely schooled by my 2013 MBP. The MacBook
| runs the latest version of macOS, unlike the MBP.
|
| I also have some PowerMacs that "run just fine", but it's
| been a while since they've gotten a software update.
| ValentineC wrote:
| If my 2013 MacBook Pro 13's battery wasn't bloated to
| dangerous levels, and if battery replacements weren't
| prohibitively expensive compared to buying a new set when
| discounted, I might still have been using my old one instead
| of upgrading to a M2 MacBook Pro.
|
| I was on Mojave for the longest time before my upgrade forced
| me onto Ventura, and it was rock stable except that plenty of
| software no longer offered updates while on it, since the
| newer versions would be compiled with newer Xcode versions.
| klodolph wrote:
| I have the 2013 MBP and still use it--it's the 2017 MacBook
| which is painful to use.
| hcarvalhoalves wrote:
| I have a late 2015 i7 with 16gb RAM, 512 SSD, brand new
| battery. Works great, despite Apple trying to push me to buy
| new stuff.
| foxandmouse wrote:
| How does Pixelmator compare to Affinity photo? I've been looking
| for an apple aperture replacement; I know adobe lightroom is the
| best option available, but I already have too many subscriptions.
| jkestner wrote:
| I only had the original Pixelmator, but while it was superfast
| and Mac-like, it felt amateur next to Affinity, which feels
| like the Adobe replacement it's angling to be. But each is $70
| flat and I know Affinity has sales that make it a steal, so buy
| both and you're probably still ahead if you cancel your CC sub.
| mattkevan wrote:
| I've got both, but prefer Pixelmator for most things. While I
| like the idea of Affinity, I find it quite clunky to use and
| often find myself looking up the manual.
|
| Pixelmator probably isn't as fully featured, but for making
| quick edits it's excellent. It's become my go-to image editor
| and use it multiple times a day.
|
| Plus the AI tools are a bonus. Upscaling isn't as good as Topaz
| Gigapixel or something like SwinIR, but it's extremely handy to
| have it built in.
| palmer_fox wrote:
| This marketing-driven distinction is disappointing to me. I
| switched to Pixelmator Pro not because it has layers but because
| it was an affordable image editor. I highly doubt anyone would
| use Pixelmator Pro if it didn't have single image editing, which
| is now apparently the defining distinction between Pixelmator Pro
| and Photomator.
|
| Pixelmator Pro was introducing great AI-driven single image
| editing tools for years (e.g. background removal and upscaling),
| so re-positioning it in relation to Photomator is bs.
| throwaway675309 wrote:
| agree, I feel like they're diluting the core of their product
| which should be a solid competitor to Photoshop. I've used
| pixelmator pro for years but photomator feels like a
| distraction that will hamper their development efforts to
| continue to improve it.
|
| They are _STILL_ missing a means to quickly adjust the softness
| and /or size of all of their tools using the scroll wheel.
| EugeneOZ wrote:
| Their button says "Download for free", App Store asks for
| EUR99.99 as the lowest price.
| arnvald wrote:
| I see EUR5.49 as the lowest price (monthly subscription), with
| EUR99.99 being a "lifetime" price
| kashunstva wrote:
| Even after browsing the comparison page, the differences between
| Pixelmator Pro and Photomator are not entirely clear. Possibly
| this is because of where they are in their life cycle.
|
| For casual image editing, including photos, I turn to Pixelmator
| Pro most of the time. I'm not sure at this time how I would use
| Photomator. If it eventually integrates metadata management and
| cataloguing, then I would happily jettison Lightroom Classic.
| hoherd wrote:
| I too was looking for a replacement for Lightroom Classic. I
| was hoping this could be it. I downloaded it and quickly found
| that it is not it.
|
| - Photomater's photo library is the Apple Photos library
|
| - Files are copied into the Apple Photos library when
| importing, even when Photos.app has the preference set not to
|
| - Edits are not saved to the dng. (There is a preference to
| save a sidecar file when editing, but I couldn't find the
| sidecar. Could be a bug.)
|
| I think that if they had just not used the Apple Photos library
| for their library, and had their own library browser, I
| probably would have bought it. The app performed really well
| and the experience was nice for simple photo edits. Their B&W
| editor was nice, and seemed to maintain brightness while
| adjusting individual color channels.
|
| I'm still holding onto my LR6 perpetual license as tight as I
| can, even with all of the broken features, waiting for
| something that isn't a subscription that can function as a
| photo library and editor.
| wizee wrote:
| Capture One? That's what I migrated to after using Apple
| Aperture for many years past its discontinuation. Perpetual
| licenses still exist for it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| My suspicion is that Pixelmator Pro is the odd duck -- perhaps
| an attempt to move Pixelmator from pixel-editor toward more of
| a photo-tool.
|
| Photomator might be an acknowledgment that pixel and photo
| editing are fundamentally different processes (... and never
| the twain shall meet).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-18 23:00 UTC)