Pixelmator Pro

[Allan Bell]

15 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Here's a link to screenshot on cultofmac.com showing some of the controls.

 

Mark

 

 

Thanks again Mark. I see the important controls seem to be there it is just how effective they are in rendering the image.

 

Photos is on my desktop but as I am constantly using LR6 and PSE 14 in a workflow I am used to and comfortable with I have ignored "Photos" till now.

 

When I get a bit of time I will have a play with Photos to see how it performs and if I can get used to the workflow. Also how it interfaces with other processing software.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

11 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Thanks again Mark. I see the important controls seem to be there it is just how effective they are in rendering the image.

 

Photos is on my desktop but as I am constantly using LR6 and PSE 14 in a workflow I am used to and comfortable with I have ignored "Photos" till now.

 

When I get a bit of time I will have a play with Photos to see how it performs and if I can get used to the workflow. Also how it interfaces with other processing software.

 

Allan

 

 

Hi Allan

 

If you do play with the Photos app, I recommend opening the preferences box before importing any images (yes unfortunately you have to import images before you can edit them ) and for the Importing: option, untick "Importing : Copy items to photo library". If you don't untick this option Photos will "hide/bury" a copy of any imported images inside a "container" called "photos library.photoslibrary" in your Pictures folder and if you have iCloud turned on it may copy them there too...

 

If the box isn't ticked, photos seems quite happy to access and edit* the photos in their original location. *I think edits are non-destructive (I think the edit commands used on the image are stored in the photoslibrary database). It also seems to automatically track changes in the photos location if they are moved in Finder (better than LR in that respect). It's possible to export a copy of the edited image in a variety of formats to "bake in" the changes.

 

I keep toying with updating to High Sierra to have a more serious play, but I'm worried that it may not work with all my other Apps. Maybe I'll take an SD card with some RAWs on it to the Apple Store and have another play there instead. It would be interesting to take in some High ISO images to see how well they are rendered by default and how well the NR and sharpening sliders work.

PS. You may also find this interesting. Luminar 2018 for Mac video and  this shows some more of the capability.

It looks like Adobe's decision to impose a subscription model on their users is causing a flurry of activity amongst competitors tying to get a slice of the action.

Mark 

[Allan Bell]

Hmmm! Thank you for the heads up about "Photos" and the possibility of loosing images in the cloud etc.

 

Having looked at the "Luminar 2018 for Mac" it looks much easier to use but still needs more investigation. For £64 it seems to be a very useful app for the price.

 

Yes "Photos" app is free but after watching a vlog of it being used it appears more complicated than "Luminar" app.

 

Again with "Luminar" app you need to be able to remember where all the tools are as you need to keep opening and closing "Filters" as they call them.

 

Have to go out today but will look at these closer when I have more time.

 

BTW which apps are you worried about? I may be able to help you with that if I am using the same as you.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

 

BTW which apps are you worried about? I may be able to help you with that if I am using the same as you.

 

Allan

 

 

 

I'm currently running the following:- LR 6.14, PSE 8, Parallels 11, Carbon Copy Cloner 4.1.21, GoodSync 5.2.8.5, EnPass 5.6.3, VeraCrypt 1.1.7, iMazing 2.5.

The rest of my stuff is largely Windows based running on Windows 7 inside a parallels virtual machine.

 

I've heard mixed comments about various apps under High Sierra (notably LR and PSE) so have been waiting for the dust to settle. I might try updating my other MacBook Pro that only has a 128GB SSD and fewer apps as it will be much quicker to do (and revert back - if I need to).

 

I had quite a play with Luminar earlier today, I really like the user interface. However, although it seems quick and responsive to start with, it soon slows up as you add in more and more corrections, especially lens distortion, perspective, rotation, noise reduction etc. CA removal is manual too. It also has some daft things such as applying a preset (such as "vivid") wipes out all other adjustments you may have already done (e.g. rotation, perspective, CA removal etc.). I haven't found how to stop this happening.

 

I think I need to rename this thread..... Pixelmator and other low budget Photoshop and LR alternatives...

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

 

Mark,

I am running High Sierra with LR 6.14 no problems.

PSE 8 do not know as I was running PSE 14 when I downloaded HS.

Parallels 11 Not on my system.

Carbon Copy Cloner was on 4 but I updated to CCC 5 after downloading HS although I believe 4 will work with HS as well. 

The rest I do not have on my system.

 

Thanks for further observations on Luminar.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

21 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Mark,

I am running High Sierra with LR 6.14 no problems.

PSE 8 do not know as I was running PSE 14 when I downloaded HS.

Parallels 11 Not on my system.

Carbon Copy Cloner was on 4 but I updated to CCC 5 after downloading HS although I believe 4 will work with HS as well. 

The rest I do not have on my system.

 

Thanks for further observations on Luminar.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Glad to hear you have LR running OK on High Sierra. I've started updating some of my apps to improve chances of compatibility with High Sierra. I tend to update one thing as a time and check everything's OK so it may take a while. I think I can get CCC5 for free.

 

Something else that might be of interest is that DXO have an app called DxO OpticsPro for Photos for £9.99 (in the App store) which provides basic DxO functionality (lens corrections and noise reduction including prime denoise) as a "editing plugin" for Apple Photos, see video here.

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Glad to hear you have LR running OK on High Sierra. I've started updating some of my apps to improve chances of compatibility with High Sierra. I tend to update one thing as a time and check everything's OK so it may take a while. I think I can get CCC5 for free.

 

Something else that might be of interest is that DXO have an app called DxO OpticsPro for Photos for £9.99 (in the App store) which provides basic DxO functionality (lens corrections and noise reduction including prime denoise) as a "editing plugin" for Apple Photos, see video here.

 

Mark

 

Thanks for the information again. You keep coming up with more and more.

 

I'm not sure about DxO Optics Pro for Photos as I only watched the video link once he goes so fast (for me anyway) I need to watch it over and over. Still quite happy with my existing workflow LR 6 and PSE 14. But if I change to the new Sony 7 mk3 (have mk2 now) I don't think LR 6 will support the mk3 so will have to look again at other options.

 

Allan

 

I have just looked Here and you can see all the cameras supported by the various incarnations of Adobe photo editing software. Sony A7 III is NOT there so I will stick with my 7 II for now.

 

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

Thanks for the information again. You keep coming up with more and more.

 

I'm not sure about DxO Optics Pro for Photos as I only watched the video link once he goes so fast (for me anyway) I need to watch it over and over. Still quite happy with my existing workflow LR 6 and PSE 14. But if I change to the new Sony 7 mk3 (have mk2 now) I don't think LR 6 will support the mk3 so will have to look again at other options.

 

Allan

 

I have just looked Here and you can see all the cameras supported by the various incarnations of Adobe photo editing software. Sony A7 III is NOT there so I will stick with my 7 II for now.

 

If you use the free Adobe DNG convertor to convert your Sony Raw files to DNG FORMAT then PSE or LR will open them and allow the usual raw adjustments.

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

20 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

If you use the free Adobe DNG convertor to convert your Sony Raw files to DNG FORMAT then PSE or LR will open them and allow the usual raw adjustments.

 

Mark

 

Thanks for the reminder Mark.

 

I do have the DNG convertor on my system but have not used it yet as there was no need. I have always been hesitant about using DNG as I am not sure if it is possible to retain the original RAW file from the camera or if the conversion alters the original RAW. Also is it necessary to keep updating Adobe DNG convertor to take into account the new RAW's coming along from the new cameras.

 

Last time I looked at the DNG convertor it seemed to take a long time to carry out the conversion.

 

Allan

 

 

[Allan Bell]

On 13/04/2018 at 11:37, M.Chapman said:

 

I think I need to rename this thread..... Pixelmator and other low budget Photoshop and LR alternatives...

 

Mark

 

I think you need to rename this thread......The Mark and Allan thread.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, Allan Bell said:

Also is it necessary to keep updating Adobe DNG convertor to take into account the new RAW's coming along from the new cameras.

 

Last time I looked at the DNG convertor it seemed to take a long time to carry out the conversion.

 

Yes the DNG convertor needs to be updated if you buy a new camera with a RAW format that wasn't supported by the version you had. But Adobe have been very good at keeping the DNG convertor up to date, and it's free. (I think they're keen to make their DNG format more widely utilised). The great thing about it is that it allows older Photoshop or LR software to open RAW files introduced more recently. However, I think it's not a total solution as, so far as I'm aware, DNG convertor doesn't usually include the lens profiles. So although an older version of LR can open the RAW files from newer cameras it may not provide automatic correction for lens distortion, vignetting and CA of newer lenses. It's not always the case though as some cameras (e.g. my Panasonic Lumix) write the correction info from the lens in use into the RAW file and this gets included in the DNG.

 

I just tried the Mac version of the DNG convertor and it took about 2 seconds per file to convert a directory of Panasonic RAW files to DNG on a MacBook Pro 2012. It works on a batch basis so it's not much hassle to use, just point it at the directory and it will create DNGs from all the RAWs it finds in there. NB. The original RAWs are completely unaltered.

 

I know when I used it before I felt that the DNGs it created didn't loose/alter anything significantly. Although their thumbnails may render differently, if I opened the RAW or the DNG in LR or PS they looked identical, but I can't claim to have exhaustively tested this. For my files the DNGs are about 25% smaller, but I believe this is because they use lossless compression. I'd still be wary about throwing away my original RAWs though...

 

"The Mark and Allan thread" I like that  

I suppose in the "old days" we might have moved our discussion to Alamy PMs as nobody else seems to be chipping in.

But Alamy PMs are no more

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

7 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Yes the DNG convertor needs to be updated if you buy a new camera with a RAW format that wasn't supported by the version you had. But Adobe have been very good at keeping the DNG convertor up to date, and it's free. (I think they're keen to make their DNG format more widely utilised). The great thing about it is that it allows older Photoshop or LR software to open RAW files introduced more recently. However, I think it's not a total solution as, so far as I'm aware, DNG convertor doesn't usually include the lens profiles. So although an older version of LR can open the RAW files from newer cameras it may not provide automatic correction for lens distortion, vignetting and CA of newer lenses. It's not always the case though as some cameras (e.g. my Panasonic Lumix) write the correction info from the lens in use into the RAW file and this gets included in the DNG.

 

I just tried the Mac version of the DNG convertor and it took about 2 seconds per file to convert a directory of Panasonic RAW files to DNG on a MacBook Pro 2012. It works on a batch basis so it's not much hassle to use, just point it at the directory and it will create DNGs from all the RAWs it finds in there. NB. The original RAWs are completely unaltered.

 

I know when I used it before I felt that the DNGs it created didn't loose/alter anything significantly. Although their thumbnails may render differently, if I opened the RAW or the DNG in LR or PS they looked identical, but I can't claim to have exhaustively tested this. For my files the DNGs are about 25% smaller, but I believe this is because they use lossless compression. I'd still be wary about throwing away my original RAWs though...

 

"The Mark and Allan thread" I like that  

I suppose in the "old days" we might have moved our discussion to Alamy PMs as nobody else seems to be chipping in.

But Alamy PMs are no more

 

Mark

 

If the original RAWs are unaltered then does the program actually create another image or does create a sidecar file like LR?

 

The old PMs were a good thing but, as in this case, it would effectively close the thread to others who may be interested and still wish to join in.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

15 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

If the original RAWs are unaltered then does the program actually create another image or does create a sidecar file like LR?

 

Allan

 

 

 

It creates a whole new standalone image file with .dng extension. Adobe calling it a DNG convertor is a bit of a misnomer really. It's actually a DNG creator.

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

21 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I just tried the Mac version of the DNG convertor and it took about 2 seconds per file to convert a directory of Panasonic RAW files to DNG on a MacBook Pro 2012. It works on a batch basis so it's not much hassle to use, just point it at the directory and it will create DNGs from all the RAWs it finds in there. NB. The original RAWs are completely unaltered.

 

I know when I used it before I felt that the DNGs it created didn't loose/alter anything significantly. Although their thumbnails may render differently, if I opened the RAW or the DNG in LR or PS they looked identical, but I can't claim to have exhaustively tested this. For my files the DNGs are about 25% smaller, but I believe this is because they use lossless compression. I'd still be wary about throwing away my original RAWs though...

 

Mark

 

The version of DGN that was on my system was 8.6.0.254 so I trashed that and downloaded the most up to date version 10.3.0.933.

In that version I see the DGN will process Sony 7 III raws so I could be set up with that if and when I move to that model from mkII. I would still retain the mkII and take them both out with different lenses to avoid changing too often.

 

Nice to know the original RAWs are unaltered. I did see in the blurb for the new version that you could opt to have the original RAW embedded in the DGN file but I do not think that is wise. I would rather keep them separate.

 

You mention your files are 25% smaller than the original RAWS and was wondering if you had turned lossless compresion turned on. There is a tick box under preferences in the menu which you have to tick to turn it on in my new version of DGNC.

 

During my sojourn around the Adobe site I did see mention of lens profiles and that there might be something downloadable but passed it over and can't find it now.

 

Strange that no one else is joining in here. Maybe we are not flavour of the month.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

You mention your files are 25% smaller than the original RAWS and was wondering if you had turned lossless compresion turned on. There is a tick box under preferences in the menu which you have to tick to turn it on in my new version of DGNC.

 

To be sure we're talking about the same setting, I also downloaded the latest version. The setting I am using is DO NOT use lossy compression. I have also set it to embed a medium size jpg and NOT to include fast load data or the original raw data. The DNGs created from my Panasonic Lumix RAW files are 25% smaller. I believe this is primarily due to DNGs using a lossless compression by default.

 

3 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

Strange that no one else is joining in here. Maybe we are not flavour of the month

 

Maybe I should mention Micro-Stock to get more readers. 

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

17 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

To be sure we're talking about the same setting, I also downloaded the latest version. The setting I am using is DO NOT use lossy compression. I have also set it to embed a medium size jpg and NOT to include fast load data or the original raw data. The DNGs created from my Panasonic Lumix RAW files are 25% smaller. I believe this is primarily due to DNGs using a lossless compression by default.

 

 

Maybe I should mention Micro-Stock to get more readers. 

 

Mark

 

Yes we are talking about the same setting.

 

Mention M-S:-  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

 

Allan

 

 

[Betty LaRue]

On 4/16/2018 at 09:22, Allan Bell said:

 

The version of DGN that was on my system was 8.6.0.254 so I trashed that and downloaded the most up to date version 10.3.0.933.

In that version I see the DGN will process Sony 7 III raws so I could be set up with that if and when I move to that model from mkII. I would still retain the mkII and take them both out with different lenses to avoid changing too often.

 

Nice to know the original RAWs are unaltered. I did see in the blurb for the new version that you could opt to have the original RAW embedded in the DGN file but I do not think that is wise. I would rather keep them separate.

 

You mention your files are 25% smaller than the original RAWS and was wondering if you had turned lossless compresion turned on. There is a tick box under preferences in the menu which you have to tick to turn it on in my new version of DGNC.

 

During my sojourn around the Adobe site I did see mention of lens profiles and that there might be something downloadable but passed it over and can't find it now.

 

Strange that no one else is joining in here. Maybe we are not flavour of the month.

 

Allan

 

 

Maybe because reading all this technical stuff hurts our heads. 

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, Betty LaRue said:

Maybe because reading all this technical stuff hurts our heads. 

 

 

Well hello Betty. It is nice to have you with us even though we hurt your head.

 

It is not that technical really, just a discussion on the possible alternatives going forward.

 

Now there is a bit of business speak.

 

I suppose you are an all paid up monthly contributor to Adobe and do not need to consider these things. I'm sorry but I adamantly refuse to pay monthly fees to Adobe regardless.

 

Allan

 

 

[Betty LaRue]

2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

 

Well hello Betty. It is nice to have you with us even though we hurt your head.

 

It is not that technical really, just a discussion on the possible alternatives going forward.

 

Now there is a bit of business speak.

 

I suppose you are an all paid up monthly contributor to Adobe and do not need to consider these things. I'm sorry but I adamantly refuse to pay monthly fees to Adobe regardless.

 

Allan

 

 

Yes, Adobe charges my credit card every month. And I’m more than happy to pay it since I usually updated my PS st least every other year. Depending on new features, every year. I can’t see paying the subscription is causing me to lose money. Updates were well over the $120 I pay yearly now. Plus I get updates immediately. Win/win in my book.

To each his own, though.

I’m never thrilled to learn new software. Especially if it doesn’t do it as well as Adobe.

Betty

[M.Chapman]

5 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

I suppose you are an all paid up monthly contributor to Adobe and do not need to consider these things. I'm sorry but I adamantly refuse to pay monthly fees to Adobe regardless.

 

I'm the same as you I refuse to subscribe. But I would happily go for a subscription if they included a term like this 

 

After 3 continuous years of paid subscriptions users have the option of continuing to pay their subscription and continuing to receive free updates OR cancelling their subscription, in which case they can continue to use the most recent version they have received whilst paying their subscription.

 

I’d go for that in a heartbeat. What I refuse to do, is to commit to spending £10/month (or whatever Adobe might increase it to) indefinitely so I can use software that I will come to rely on. I have no idea what my future finances might be. But I do know that I'm likely to want to continue using photo editing software which I had made considerable investment in, in terms of time to learn, financial cost, and which hosts my image catalogue. If Adobe had terms like that above, I’d no doubt end up paying for many years subscription, but at least I’d have the comfort of a viable exit strategy and wouldn't feel held to ransom.

 

This is quite topical though.... I just took the plunge and updated to High Sierra and was pleased to find all my software still works. But when I opened a number of packages including my LR 6.14, PSE 8 I got warning messages that this software is no longer optimised for my Mac because some of the components are not 64 bit. The next major version of OS-X will only support 64 bit apps. In the case of LR 6.14 the component Adobe_licutil is only 32 bit, which I assume is the licence utility? So next year sometime I guess it's quite possible that LR6.14 may stop running on the latest OS-X? It's interesting that LR 6.14 is 64bit, but this small (critical?) bit of code has been left at 32 bit. Possibly to "encourage" users to swap to LR CC subscription?

 

Yet another reason why I'm evaluating other raw conversion and image editing options....

 

Now I can take a closer look at the latest Mac Photos app and the DXO plugin.

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

 

Now I can take a closer look at the latest Mac Photos app and the DXO plugin.

 

Mark

 

It would be nice to hear the outcome of your investigations Mark.

 

I would have done it sooner but time in my home life is severely curtailed due to circumstances beyond my control.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

On 4/13/2018 at 11:37, M.Chapman said:

I had quite a play with Luminar earlier today, I really like the user interface. However, although it seems quick and responsive to start with, it soon slows up as you add in more and more corrections, especially lens distortion, perspective, rotation, noise reduction etc. CA removal is manual too. It also has some daft things such as applying a preset (such as "vivid") wipes out all other adjustments you may have already done (e.g. rotation, perspective, CA removal etc.). I haven't found how to stop this happening.

 

Sorry to comment on my own post... But Luminar has just been updated and it runs much, much more quickly on my 2012 MacBook Pro. See news item on DPReview

It now seems to have automatic CA removal and lens distortion correction too.

 

Mark

 

[Allan Bell]

5 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Sorry to comment on my own post... But Luminar has just been updated and it runs much, much more quickly on my 2012 MacBook Pro. See news item on DPReview

It now seems to have automatic CA removal and lens distortion correction too.

 

Mark

 

 

Certainly looks as though they are putting the work into Luminar. I will keep a watch on it for now.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

12 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

It would be nice to hear the outcome of your investigations Mark.

 

Allan

 

 

I started a new thread on Mac Photos + DxO optics plugin here

I tried the plugin with Prime Denoise on that Sony RX100 ISO 3200 image of my bookcase and it did a pretty good job with much less hassle. Although it's not quick.

 

Mark