I came across Xee while following a link on Reddit (“PSD is not my favorite file format“). It’s an open source replacement for Apple’s Preview app. Also linked to this page is The Unarchiver, a replacement for OS X’s built-in unarchiving software. It’s not that either of these programs is especially deficient, but Xee and The Unarchiver are simply brilliant. Xee not only runs fast and light, it opens almost any image format you can think of, while The Unarchiver does the same for archives.
The only thing I don’t much care for are their icons.
Edit: actually Xee has two major annoyances.
It won’t let you disassociate file types. Once you assign it a file type, you’re stuck with it.
It’s missing a lot of the newer features of Preview (notably editing features).
As you know, the Mac software market is enjoying something of a deluge of wannabe Photoshop alternatives, generally aimed at the casual user. Adobe has left this market wide open by (a) not lowering its prices, (b) not catering for non-professional image originators (i.e. the “lite” version of Photoshop is aimed squarely at photographers rather than artists), and (c) treating Mac pros as second-class citizens — something they don’t like and aren’t used to in the world of graphics.
Pixelmator has the highest profile, Photoline probably has the lowest, and Acorn got in early and received a lot of recognition (awards, etc.). There’s always The GIMP and Adobe’s Photoshop Elements (if you really enjoy being treated like a second-class citizen by Adobe), of course. There’s also Pixel. And then there’s the lamentable Iris (which seems to be going nowhere — it’s still at “1.0” and Nolobe’s forums are still MIA: nothing says crap like an indie developer with no forums, except perhaps an indie developer who used to have forums and then took them down when they filled up with posts about how bad his software sucks).
I reviewed Photoline for MacApper more than a year ago (when it was at version 14.10 or so — it’s since received a major free upgrade (to 14.5x) and a major paid for upgrade (to 15.x). Since then the other major changes are that Pixelmator has received numerous significant (free) updates and become a pretty serious contendor for basic image editing and Photoshop CS4 has been released with little new functionality and no 64-bit support for Mac OS X. Oh, and Pixel 1.0 is — we are told — rapidly approaching its supposed 1.0 release (don’t hold your breath, the last 1.0 beta was in 2006 and was PowerPC only).
A Simple Head-to-Head Comparison
Here’s a simple example of using a single feature in Pixelmator, Photoline, and Acorn which — I think — pretty much underscores everything that I like and dislike about each program in a nutshell. The “zoom blur” function simulates the motion blur effect you see when staring straight ahead at high speed or zooming in really fast. It’s a neat looking effect that brings the centre of the blur effect to fore (since it’s the only thing in focus) and makes even a pretty boring image look quite spiffy. It’s also a feature Photoshop has had (unchanged!) since forever.
In Acorn you get a really neat mechanism for compositing filters (which is of no use at all) but no method of actually setting the center of the blur effect except numerically entering coordinates (which is actually worse than Photoshop’s early 90’s dialog box).Correction: Acorn allows you to disclose a pane which lets you (somewhat clumsily, and in low resolution) drag the effect center graphically. It’s still clearly inferior to Photoline or Pixelmator in this respect, but it’s actually better than Photoshop. (End Correction.) Also since Acorn’s way of previewing the effect is to render the whole image (and zoom blur is not much accelerated by using CoreImage) it’s really painful to fine-tune. (This is still true.)
In Pixelmator you get a really cute method for picking the centre of the effect, but the slider for controlling “how much” of the effect is insanely biased to the “too much” end of things (basically about 15% of the way to the right is more than you’d ever need to use) and there’s no way to type in exactly how much you want. Cleverly, Pixelmator generates its preview by using Core Image, but only at screen resolution so it’s more responsive than Acorn. Unfortunately, when you actually apply the effect you get a beach ball because Pixelmator’s UI isn’t designed to handle slower filters gracefully.
In Photoline you get a big ugly dialog box which lets you preview with a small but scrollable and zoomable window with a draggable “before/after splitter”. You can also preview on the whole screen, click where you want the centre of the effect (in the preview pane or the view behind it). And you can set the intensity with a slider or type it in.
So in summary, Acorn has a really elegant UI for stuff you probably don’t need and a lousy one for stuff you do need, almost as if it’s never really been used all that much by anyone except to dick around, Pixelmator has a pretty UI that works well if you’re not editing a high resolution image and/or using filters that don’t benefit much from CoreImage acceleration, and Photoline has a butt-ugly UI that does the job really well and has obviously been thought out and tested.
A More Detailed Comparison
Simple Painting Tools
Basic but servicable
You name it, it’s there
Cocoa text with nice drop shadows
Cocoa text with nice drop shadows
Fully styled and formatted text with both character and paragraph stylesheets and layer effects like emboss and drop shadow
Blend Mode and Opacity, Text Layers
Blend Mode and Opacity, Text Layers, Simple Vector Layers
Blend Mode, Opacity, Layer Effects, Filter Layers, Vector Layers, Text Layers, Layers can be different modes (e.g. you can have 16-bit color, 8-bit color, Layer Masks, and monochome layers in a single document)
Excellent Core Image support
Uneven Core Image support (really nice compositing features but marred by lack of weaker (see correction, above) interactivity for things like setting points)
Comprehensive set of filters (including some marked improvements over Photoshop) but no Core Image support. Stuff that Core Image doesn’t give you like comprehensive noise reduction tools, and fractal clouds. Oh and you can create and reuse named presets for almost everything.
Full vector support with strong bezier tools and SVG import/export
You can composite filters interactively in interesting (non-destructive) ways, but ultimately the operation is destructive
Non-destructive effects layers for most image adjustments (e.g. curves, levels, hue/saturation)
Image Format Support
8-bits per channel RGBA
8-bits per channel RGBA
16-bits per channel support, Greyscale, Monochrome, Lab color, CMYK
Digital Photography Support
You can import photos in 24-bit color
You can import photos in 24-bit color
Direct RAW import to 24-bit or 48-bit (16 bits per channel)
Some clever optimizations (e.g. filter previews appear to be at screen resolution) but chokes on large files.
Chokes on large images and slower filters.
Clever and flexible preview system allows you to keep the program responsive when working with huge files, 64-bit support, heterogeneous layer support
Workflow and Automation
Some Automator actions (but no AppleScript dictionary)
Python script support
Recordable macros and batch conversion, Save named presets for almost anything, enter expressions for numerical inputs
You can probably build your own using the Quartz Compositor tools from Apple.
You can probably build your own using the Quartz Compositor tools from Apple, and there’s extensive support for creating extensions using Python.
Supports Photoshop plugins.
File Format Support
Pixelmator, Photoshop, PNG, GIF, JPEG, JPEG2000, TIFF, BMP, SGI, TGA, PICT, PDF, and a dizzying number of export options
Acorn, PNG, GIF, JPEG, JPEG2000, TIFF, BMP
Pixelmator, Photoshop, PNG, TIFF, JPEG, JPEG2000, BMP, PCX, TGA, Mac Icon, Windows Icon, Windows Cursor, and a bunch more, and can import and export to an even larger number of options, notably including export to SWF and import RAW
Live gradients, the “dangling rope” that joins position widgets to filter control floaters
Amazing gradient tool, full-featured yet it still launches amazingly fast, 64-bit support
Beach ball for slower filters
Filter position controls require you to type in coordinates, (see correction, above) Minimalist Functionality (for a $50 app) and half-assed features (like vector layers with rectangles, ovals, and lines (only).
OMG the icon … it burns! (Sadly, Pixelmator 15 introduced a new icon that’s just as ugly as the old one), half-assed web export and page layout features clutter UI without being useful
If I could add one thing from Photoshop
Pretty much everything
Layer management functions such as organizing layers into folders (and set folder compositing properties) and being able to use one layer as a mask for layers adjacent to it.
As you can see, Photoline also wins, hands down, on the functionality front, offering much of the functionality of Photoshop* and then some, along with live editable gradients (not quite as “cute” as Pixelmator’s live preview, but more useful), formula support (type arithmetic expressions pretty much anywhere), variable blur (a gaussian blur where radius is controlled by masking — allowing you to simulate depth of field properly), an image browser that doesn’t suck, 64-bit support, and cross-platform licensing (oddly enough, it’s actually more attractive on the Mac than Windows though). And it still launches in less than a second — as do Acorn and Pixelmator.
Pixelmator has come a long way in the year-or-so since it entered with a big splash. Acorn has languished since it won a bunch of awards and rave reviews, and Photoline has lengthened its considerable lead in robustness and functionality over pretty much everything except the gold standard.
Unfortunately for Photoline it has to compete with Paintshop Pro on Windows, and its lack of Mac-hip-allure on the Mac. Pixelmator is great for people who really aren’t doing anything very challenging — it looks cool and hey, you’re supporting indie Mac-only developers. On the other side of the equation Photoline is good but unglamorous — the question remains whether its few notable deficiencies (e.g. rudimentary layer management) outweigh its technical strongpoints (64-bit support, general snappiness, heterogeneous layer support). There’s no question that for actual professional users, Photoshop is unbeatable (except on 64-bit support — but who really needs that yet?) and well worth the money.
And finally, Acorn has become something of a joke. Its biggest new feature since I last compared these programs has been a new icon. I mean, really.
So… what is Photoline missing?
OK. Photoline sounds pretty great… so why use Photoshop at all? Photoshop has amazingly strong layer management tools (folders — which can have their own compositing settings and can be moved and scaled as one, and the amazingly useful layer-as-mask feature) which are vital to many users (if you’re prototyping UIs with Photoshop and have 500 layers in a document, then Photoline is going to be useless for you).
Photoshop also has pretty strong features for 3D texture painting and compositing (especially as of CS4) which none of these programs even attempt.
Edit: perhaps most important of all, Photoline takes some ugly shortcuts in bezier rendering that will definitely matter to professional designers. If you stroke an arbitrary object in Photoshop, the program infers a border path and then strokes it with a uniform width path. Photoline in essence uses a simple matrix transformation to build the outline leading to the stroke varying in width as it changes angle. Since this algorithm is used in many, many places (e.g. many layer effects), a lot of graphic design work, especially text layout, will look wrong and unprofessonal if executed in Photoline.
And finally, Photoshop has some “rocket science math” features such as the bleeding edge “selective scaling” function (which creates or throws out irrelevant content rather than stretching or squashing everything), panorama stitching (which is very hard to get right), a very good — some consider it the best — RAW importer, supports both scripting and a huge number of plugins — but even here I should note (thanks to an alert reader) that Photoline supports third-party Photoshop plugins and has better built-in noise reduction tools than Photoshop.
If none of this matters to you, then get Photoline and save a ton of money (and probably quite a bit of time). It’s not like Photoshop has that great a UI either. (Edit: and CS4’s UI is remarkably horrible.)
One of the most baffling gaps in Mac third-party software is programming-oriented text editors with autocomplete. Now, obviously there’s XCode, vim, and emacs (which, being free, are all something of a problem for would-be competitors), and a bunch of cross-platform tools like Eclipse and Komodo, but XCode is really oriented towards Cocoa development and is kind of like using Microsoft Word to edit a shopping list, while the others are all non-Mac-like (and kind of suck anyway).
The Mac heavyweight text-editing champs — BBEdit and TextMate — have many great features, but don’t do autocompletion very well or at all, respectively. (There’s some kind of third-party hack add on for TextMate, but you need to compile it yourself and few seem to be able to get it working.) A lot of Unity developers were using PCs or Virtual Windows boxes to run Visual Studio just because it has an autocompleting text editor that doesn’t suck — that’s how bad it was. (Now that Unity runs on Windows their lives have gotten much easier, which is a pretty sad statement.)
Before you scream at me about how, say, Subethaedit has some kind of autocomplete support, or mention Coda (which has OK autocomplete support) or Espresso (which may one day have halfway decent extensible autocomplete support but right now is a work-in-progress), go and try Visual Studio or, if you’re allergic to Windows how about Realbasic. Realbasic‘s built-in text editor has autocomplete that doesn’t suck, e.g. it recognizes context, knows about intrinsic language constructs as well as library functions and the stuff you’ve declared, and doesn’t incorrectly complete stuff you need to fix constantly or fail to offer “function” when I type in “fun” in a .js file.
I will say this: TextMate’s macro facility is truly awesome (you can type swi->TAB and get a switch statement template, and then tab through the bits you need to change, almost like a context-sensitive-in-place-dialog-box), if this were paired with a proper autocomplete system (like RealBasic’s) it would be the best I’ve seen and then some — maybe 2.0 will have this — but right now the situation on the Mac remains pretty dismal.
iTunes. Well, Apple didn’t announce a new Mac Mini with a 9400M GPU, and it didn’t announce a new bigger or cheaper or somehow more compelling AppleTV. And it didn’t announce any new iPods or iPhones. But the iTunes announcement is probably going to turn out to be more significant than anything else — see the second item:
New pricing model. $0.69, $0.99, or $1.29 per song. This is not “pay more for 256 kbps”, but allowing Music labels to charge more for new shiny stuff and less for back catalogue.
Everything is going to be DRM free. (8M songs now; 10M soon.) In other words, the recording industry idiots have finally gotten a clue.
iPhone can now download music over cellular networks (not just Wi-Fi).
It doesn’t say whether our existing purchases will be stripped of their DRM though. I hope that devil is in the details.
The 17″ Macbook Pro looks great. I won’t buy one. When I get a notebook I’ve learned that its single most compelling feature is being small. (As small as possible without becoming dysfunctional.) There’s a perfect MacBook for me already, and it’s the new MacBook Air (which Apple quietly upgraded to the nVidia 9400M sometime in the last couple of months). Oh, and the new 17″ MacBook Pro has a non-removable battery which, apparently, gives you 8h (if you don’t use the faster GPU), and has a 5y lifespan — 1000 charge cycles — but, as already mentioned, isn’t removable.
iWork ’09 looks very compelling. The key missing features appear to have all been added (except for automatic indexing in Pages and perhaps pivot options in Numbers). It would be nice if Apple released a Tables database component but I guess that would make Filemaker’s Bento look silly. Wait, it already looks silly.
I wonder why Apple didn’t try to integrate Google documents into iWork rather than or instead of doing iWork.com. Do they really expect iWork.com to become a major profit center? If not, why not simply leverage something very good that does much the same thing that happens to be something Google is doing as a loss leader. iWork.com could be great, but how much better than Google docs will it have to be to make up for not being free?
iLife ’09 looks equally compelling. I’m one of the people who happens to like iMovie ’08 (I think we’re the silent majority). If you want to create an actual movie, iMovie ’08 is hopeless (mainly owing to poor audio functionality), but then so is iMovie ’06 (for much the same reasons). For cutting together a bunch of footage into something halfway decent in nothing flat, iMovie ’09 looks like it will let us have our cake and eat it. If the face recognition stuff in iPhoto ’09 is halfway decent it will be a huge, huge feature. Music lessons in GarageBand seem like a killer feature, but it really depends on how well it’s done.