digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at everlong-design.com

Pixel: Photoshop for Linux!

everlong-design.com — I recently stumbled across a very promising alternative to Adobe Photoshop which runs on many different operating systems (and no, it ’s not The Gimp!). This is especially good news for Linux users who are tired of running the outdated Photoshop 7.0 in WINE (although some have gotten CS2 to work).

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mahenda, on 01/09/2008, -1/+53Oops, I forgot, direct URL is http://www.pixelimageeditor.com
    • RobLiefeld, on 01/09/2008, -16/+2Just stick with Photoshop... Photoshop smacks down on all these clones... 'nuff said!
      • struds, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7true, but only if you can run it
      • shakin, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5Most people who aren't professional graphic designers pirate Photoshop and most of those people don't use nearly all of Photoshop's features. While I don't think Pixel is very good, I do think there is room for a cheap or free alternative that may not be suitable for professionals, but is great for people wanting to touch up their photos, do some web graphics, etc. I think Gimp is good enough, and so would a lot of other people if it had a more Photoshop-like UI, but I also like Paint Shop Pro and I think Krita will be good once it's more mature.
        • tech42er, on 01/10/2008, -1/+2GIMP is nice, but the UI seems to be lacking.
  • niallabrown, on 01/09/2008, -8/+16Yea I've used it. It's quite decent actually and very affordable.
    • Elranzer, on 01/09/2008, -4/+37Pixel is little more than an extremely buggy program developed by one stubborn, irrational developer. The program may LOOK like Photoshop, but in the same way the Chinese Vii looks like the Wii. GIMP runs circles around Pixel in functionality. Pixel is only slightly above TuxPaint in functionality.

      If you want a *real* alternative to Photoshop, that's also an alternative to GIMP, you might want to check out Paint-Mono (paint.net port) or KDE's Krita.
      • Remmy, on 01/09/2008, -4/+16And then you deal with the potential licensing issues that arise from Mono. Looks like you're screwed either way you go.
        • Ademan, on 01/09/2008, -3/+4Unless they're using winforms (which they very well may be considering paint.net undoubtedly uses them) there shouldn't be any licensing issues.
        • bejayel, on 01/09/2008, -3/+10@Ademan
          If a single mono developer looks at any part of the .net code and then uses an idea from it for mono, then it is a copyright infringment and microsoft will shut down the mono project, or at least that part of the development.
      • sishgupta, on 01/09/2008, -1/+12Yes. I have used Pixel and agree with your assessment of the application whole-heartedly.
        The more frustrating part is that this application pops up on digg once a month as some unfound holycrap photoshop replacement.
        • dshPls, on 01/09/2008, -6/+8There's no replacement for Photoshop, only cheap imitations.
          • fyngyrz, on 01/09/2008, -2/+9Nonsense. Photoshop falls behind other apps in various areas. Paintshops brush-handling leaves photoshop in the dust; WinImages does better geometrics, has more layer modes, is tons faster, leaner and cheaper; Ron Scott's QFX has some really neat object oriented editing tools; even the Gimp has advantages, particularly in the area of plug-ins, and the next version, cooking now, looks to be very interesting.

            Photoshop is huge, clunky, slow, and hugely expensive, and it is not the end-all and be-all of all graphics operations the fan-bois think it is. Sure, it is marketed very well, but if you think it is the best in all areas, you've just marked yourself as someone who isn't a top notch professional: someone who actually knows what is out there and when which tool is the best tool to use for any given graphics operation.

            There *is* a replacement for ignorance. But you have to work at it.
          • dshPls, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2@Fyn
            I dugg you up, even if we don't agree. The problem with your post is that I never run into an issue where I need another layer mode, or another plugin. You're damn right about the price and "clunkiness" of Photoshop though. At my work we're on new, fast ass computers with atleast 4 gigs of ram installed on each, and I still get slowdowns.

            Usually some bizarre problem where we need something photoshop doesn't have is fixed by another program in the Creative Suite. Usually Illustrator(which I hate with a passion.) But unless we hit a roadblock that occurs daily, I'd probably never download any of your mentioned programs. I will save their names and short descriptions for future reference though, thanks!
          • fyngyrz, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I guess the question is, if you don't know what the other programs offer, how do you know if what you're doing in PS is ten steps in a massively slow environment where it could be one in a really fast environment?

            For instance, if I want two overlapping drops of water splashing into a previously calm pool, I'll make two geometric layers in WinImages, drop two splashes into them, then move them around with the cursor keys until I like the way the waves interfere and reflect the subject matter. Total time, including starting the application in well under 1s, maybe 30 seconds, and probably 25 seconds of that spent pushing the layers around. In PS.... not so easy.

            If I want to spray an image "hose" of greenery or musical notes, Paintshop (PSP) gives me the tools to do it visually; WinImages is more area-oriented, but then again, it can generate drop shadows, rotate along the brush path as it goes, randomly flip or displace the brush. In PS... not so easy,

            If I want to create a live "light saber" and attach it to someone's waving hand in a stream of images, WinImages will do it in seconds, including splined length and aiming animation.

            If I want to morph, how do I do that in Photoshop? What if I want layer-based color keying, so that it is live and editable? A particle system? What if I need a ray-traced object? Suppose I need to extrude a heightfield and someone asks me to modify the heightfield so that it has been eroded by rain? What if I need the absolute best color reduction, with complete control over what palette entries are used? What if I need polyarc area selections? Suppose I want custom tool caddies that contain just the tools I need for the job at hand, such as photo repair, creating a fire animation, creating duo-, tri-, quad- and etc. tones? What if I need to get in and out of the application quickly so memory is freed up for other tools? How about object stabilization? Depth of field recombination? A rainbow? What about a burning fire, or a lightning strike (animated or not)?

            My workflow contains the applications that I currently understand to address the need I have at that particular moment. If I'm going to print, generally I load Photoshop. If I'm going to really get into the metal of an image, it'll be WinImages. If I'm going to paint, it'll be PSP. If gimp is handy and I'm doing light photo editing, I can be in and out of Gimp in seconds with levels, saturation, noise and cropping all handled, and best of all, I can do it on just about any platform.

            Heck, by the time Photoshop even *starts* I can be halfway done with my edits in WinImages or Gimp.

            Pixel looks interesting, it's new to me and clearly isn't finished yet, but I was delighted to discover it and plan to purchase it when the author declares it ready for prime time.

            The more, the merrier, I say. I hope Pixel is done soon. :-)
          • Karmavs, on 01/09/2008, -1/+1WinImages is not at all a competitor photoshop. They don't even to similar tasks. It's much more comparable to After Effects - in which pretty much all the things you've described are possible.

            (also - image hose = useless)
          • fyngyrz, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Certainly they do. What is the basis for your claim they don't? The fact that WinImages can animate almost everything it can do to a still? That's a *feature* that sets it above Photoshop, not something that limits what it can do to stills. Seriously, what do you think that WinImages can't do that PS can such that it "isn't a competitor"?

            ...and btw, image hose = awesome... IF you know how and when to use it. Which I do. :-)
        • sirhomer, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I'm pretty sure the author of Pixel got banned from Digg for spamming.
      • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -2/+7I'm on Windows, and I use Paint.net all the time.

        I have Photoshop on my machine, but why load it when I can already be mostly done with my image by the time PS loads?

        Paint.net rocks, and if Paint-Mono is as good, well yes, I'd recommend it hands down.
        • dinostabOMG, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5What do you use it for? Nothing too complicated I imagine?
          • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4I do a lot of texture editing for Second Life, photo cropping and touch-ups, and basic web-work.

            When I need 30-40 layers and lots of filter work, I still use Photoshop though. (my largest work was something like 62 layers. It was insane, but really nicely done. It finished up beautifully).
    • cawpin, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2One question I have is if there is a program for Linux that works as well as the photo stitcher in Photoshop. I messed around with a few last night. Hugin worked well except that I can't find how to make it equalize the exposures better. The stitching worked great, though. I also tried a plugin and a script for the Gimp, neither of which worked very well. Is there a way to normalize two photos before merging by clicking on similar colors in each using the Gimp? That would at least allow me to do it.
  • nickdot, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3Phatch (PHoto & bATCH) is a nice application to replace Automate from Photoshop:
    http://photobatch.stani.be
  • schestowitz, on 01/09/2008, -20/+85Why insult Pixel an the GIMP by calling them "Photoshop for Linux"? ;-) Firefox -- the Internet Explorer of Linux?
    • corevette, on 01/09/2008, -2/+47because Firefox is 'more' well known....
      "Hey I use Firefox!" "Hey me too!"
      "Hey I use the GIMP!" "...the what?'
      • schestowitz, on 01/09/2008, -7/+5Yeah. :-) Mind that wink I added to my comment.
        • Jesusridesabike, on 01/09/2008, -8/+2Actually, it was ;-)
          • feshmania, on 01/09/2008, -4/+2i think you need to update your smiley dictionary.
      • Elranzer, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4The GIMP's asleep...
        • sybesis, on 01/10/2008, -3/+1Can't you see it's a DEAD program...he's not resting...he is a ex program.
          • Darkhacker, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1They just had a release in December. That's not dead.
          • sybesis, on 01/11/2008, -2/+1oh lol you guys don't know monty python?

            i was just responding to sirspocksalo1...
            people who downmodded are ignorant and don't have sense of humour...

            http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=2H6DSoqZz_s

            and in fact sirspocksalo1 responded to elranzer thats was a pretty funny joke...
    • nkonstas, on 01/09/2008, -4/+11It's not an insult - it's a complement!
      • ArcOrion, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4My, that's an acute angle you have there.
      • macoafi, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1No, it's an insult. You see, Photoshop has a horrible UI that makes it damn near impossible to find anything. The Gimp has a UI that's fairly straightforward. A much closer equivalent to the Gimp would be Corel Paint Shop Pro. The last time I used it, Jasc owned it (v.8), but from what I recall the UI made some sort of sense (unlike Photoshop's) and aimed to keep it simple.
    • Arramol, on 01/09/2008, -1/+45Because comparing something to Photoshop is a compliment, while comparing it to IE is an insult. That, and there really is a demand for "Photoshop for Linux," whereas nobody misses IE when they make the switch.
  • Philluminati, on 01/09/2008, -6/+51Pixel as an alternative to Photoshop?

    They look so much like the god damn same program I'd say "hey, Pixel, you want an Ice cream?" and both of them would say "Yes"
  • radezlav, on 01/09/2008, -8/+6I have allredy own Pixel. It's very great project.
    • astrosmash, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2You sound like a person whose opinion I would take seriously.
      • andyakadum, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2sounds more like Pixel owned him, rather than the other way around.
  • iRelinquish, on 01/09/2008, -2/+8I have been using the gimp for photo editing on ubuntu.
    Although, i often find my self getting pissed off at the program b/c im so used to photoshop.
    I can't wait to give pixel a try : )
    • ninja0, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1the thing that pisses me off the most about the gimp is not only the UI, but how all the keyboard shortcuts are way different... makes me mad.
      • smek2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+2Yeah but you say it like its the GIMPs vault. So because GIMP is different than Photoshop makes it bad? Listen you whiners, i worked with photoshop for years and it took just couple of weeks for me to get into the GIMP-way of working, i was pissed about Photoshop, for having different HotKeys.
    • geekworking, on 01/10/2008, -0/+0You can re-assign all of Gimp's keyboard shortcuts.
  • Justathought, on 01/09/2008, -0/+18Pixel is much better for working with RAW photographs than the Gimp since you can adjust many things in 16 bit mode. Too bad that it forces you to drop to 8 bits for using the Unsharp Mask. Cinepaint allows you to do it all in 16 bit mode, but it doesn't remember the folder you are working on when doing a "Save As", which makes working with it unnecessarily clunky.
    • Mejogid, on 01/09/2008, -1/+13Dugg for actually having experience with what you're talking about...
  • over900000, on 01/09/2008, -6/+21So what happened to free and open source software? Why can't they make GIMP as good as photoshop?
    • nkonstas, on 01/09/2008, -13/+24I'm sure in 10-20 years Gimp will be as good as Photoshop 7...
    • fotbr, on 01/09/2008, -1/+47Simple, the GIMP community is ***** obsessed with NOT being like photoshop. Suggestions are dismissed with 'you can write a plugin to do that" or "if you like photoshop so much, use it".
      • bejayel, on 01/09/2008, -6/+12The interface is what really bugs the hell out of me in the gimp. Its too hard to find what you want and it doesnt feel like you are working with one program. I hate the multiple windows ***** in gimp
        • yagidem, on 01/09/2008, -8/+3Are you using an OS with no option for "always on top" or shaded windows? I simply maximise the image window and stick the other windows "on top inside", it's just like PS etc.
        • Philluminati, on 01/09/2008, -0/+7It's interfaces like this that make Gnome / KDE's multiple desktop feature completely invaluable.
          • mumblyjoe, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1^What he said! The problem is with Windows *lack* of multiple desktops, not with Gimp's multiple windows.
        • passedoutghost, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0If you love photoshop so much i'd say use Gimpshop. The interface mimics photoshop. [I don't see why you find the interface of gimp so annoying. I can find the things i need easily and i've only been using gimp for about 2/3 weeks.]
        • macoafi, on 01/12/2008, -0/+2"Multiple windows *****"?? Uh, last time I used Photoshop CS, it was the exact same way. Did they scrap the "multiple windows *****" for CS2 or CS3?
      • stoanhart, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1It would seem to me that if there are so many people who want to take the GIMP in a different direction than the core developers, a few talented "separatists" should just branch it.
    • Elranzer, on 01/09/2008, -0/+10Stubborn, conservative developers (i.e. "It's fine the way it is!")... it's sorta in the same boat as XMMS. Luckily there's now a movement for GIMP to get a better interface.
      • thotpoizn, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6What is this movement, and how can I contribute to it while still giving those grouchy, elitist "it's fine the way it is!" bastards the raspberry?
        • Eevee, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6Fork and change the interface?
          • schotty, on 01/10/2008, -0/+4I am dead serious here, I am surprised that this has not occurred already. Why Red Hat or Novell hasn't forked it and sat down and made a PS clone with the existing GIMP code is beyond me.
          • Philluminati, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1I think there are patents involved
      • mossblaser, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2I thought XMMS was basically winamp (classic) but on linux?...
        • Philluminati, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3I think it precedes Winamp. There's only been 1 update to it in years because they screwed the code base. I could be massively wrong but thats what I thought I read sometime
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -10/+1You get what you pay for.

      "Why can't these guys coding from their basements write as functional of software as that company who sunk millions and millions of dollars into it?

      Ron Paul would make them do it! (had to, sorry)
      (No, he'd actually back the company's right to charge you out the ass for it.)

      It's called capitalism.
      • directrix13, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3No you pay for far more than what you get. Thats how capitalism works. Open source is more like social capitalism. You get what everyone pays for. Wanting the source with your program is not a sin.
        • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -3/+2No, I understand your point, but the "Why I can't my free software work as well as that $600 package?" questions crack me up.
          • directrix13, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4It shouldn't though. It should if people expect an all volunteer team to outperform a paid team. But free software is free only in the sense that the code is accessible to everyone. Many OSS projects have paid programmers. People that can bring a project more inline with what a company needs.
            Honestly, I think the fact that people think that these programmers shouldn't be paid is the main problem. If your company has a long running contract with some software company, you are paying for development costs + overhead many times over. If your company makes strategic alliances with other companies and hires a dev team to sponsor an open source project, you will only get more money spent on the actual programmers/program and not as much on the cruft and you will get volunteer devs to take the project in new un-thought of ways. AND you only pay once for a feature. Open source software development is really a gold mine waiting to be tapped IMO. Software should be a tool not a product.
          • hplasm, on 01/10/2008, -0/+3Not always true, else Vista would be good.
    • ninja0, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1pixel cant be free.... ;)
  • bitterbug, on 01/09/2008, -5/+2Doh! I forgot I had a Pixel registration :) Thanks for the reminder!
  • appleseed1234, on 01/09/2008, -21/+0Because what's more better than PC Games or Ron Paul?
  • csulok, on 01/09/2008, -2/+34too bad it's not free :(
  • antiorblkflag9, on 01/09/2008, -6/+31GiMP is free
    • fotbr, on 01/09/2008, -2/+12Doesn't mean its a suitable replacement for photoshop though.
      • Ranvier, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7For a majority of users who crack PS without need, its a perfectly suitable replacement.
        Now, on a professional level, it is not on par.
      • bejayel, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I dont think Pixel is either. Just because it looks the same a little bit doesnt make it a suitable replacement.
      • Eevee, on 01/09/2008, -2/+4If you actually NEED Photoshop, you can probably afford Photoshop.
        • fotbr, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1Well, considering Photoshop isn't even all that expensive, I'd hope thats the case.
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -7/+4GiMP sucks, too.
  • Remmy, on 01/09/2008, -0/+23"Pixel’s price is now $38, the final release in 2007 will cost more ($89). If you purchase now, you can save $51 and all updates until the next major release (not including) are available for free."

    Been waiting for that final release for damn near 2 years now....
    • prosayik, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I bought a license for BeOS when it was beta back in the day when giant dot com saurians roamed the Earth.
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Pixel Nuke'em Forever!
  • coit, on 01/09/2008, -1/+16Looks nice, but it doesn't appear to be very well supported. Hardly any updates since 2006...

    • aladrin, on 01/09/2008, -2/+1There's beta versions available for download.
  • FireSlash, on 01/09/2008, -5/+3Dugg because it's cheap and means I won't be dealing with Wine for a while.
  • ArthurSucks, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I've been sitting on the license for so long I'm now damn good at the GIMP. What the hell?!
  • mikedoth, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3I've had it for 6 months now, it's great. I only dislike the fact that it doesn't have a open layered format like .xcf. It claims to have it but I haven't seen it yet. That and I use GIMP on Linux often and would like to go back and forth.
  • over900000, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2So anyway, just trying out the Pixel demo and one thing bothers me. There is no thumbnail view in open file dialog box!!! You can preview the files but you have to click on them one by one. There is no way to pick out the file you want at a glance. Otherwise it's very slick.
  • modsuperstar, on 01/09/2008, -10/+7Make it OS X native. X11 is balls.
    • Xsecrets, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3If you want a photoshop alternative for OSX I would suggest pixelmator http://pixelmator.com/ it integrates well with OSX and it is much better supported and updated than pixel.
    • enr1x, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Yeah, pixelmator is the best for OSX if you dont want to spend so much money on Photoshop. The interface is very pretty and the main functions are done by the GPU with Quartz, IIRC.
      • antitab, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Core Image*
        Quartz is the display layer of OS X. Core Image is the GPU-accelerated image and video filtering technology that was first introduced in Tiger and is employed by Pixelmator.
    • mahenda, on 01/09/2008, -1/+0Where did you see this is X11?? It's not...
    • andyakadum, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I wish apple had used X11.
  • speedeep, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4If you are interested in RAW photo processing on Linux, check out Bibble Labs' product offerings. Affordable, high-performance, and they produce really nice results. Linux, Mac and Windows versions available. Bibble Lite or Bibble Pro ($70-$130) at http://www.bibblelabs.com/ No affiliation, just a customer.
  • bigtrouble777, on 01/09/2008, -0/+6I purchased a license for pixel last year and tried it out in linux and osx. I even wrote an amd64 howto in ubuntuforums. To be honest, I lost interest in pixel as gimp has gotten considerably better over the past 2 years. Gimp now supports a phenomenal selection tool and healing brush, two things that I have a hard time living with out.

    The only two things that kills me with gimp is the lack of cmyk (if I ever need to do print work), and the lack of layer effects. I strongly prefer gimp to photoshop for web work, but to each his own.
    • TheZorch, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4Yes, GIMP has seriously matured over time to the point where its just as good if not better than Photoshop in some respects.
  • jehnidiah, on 01/09/2008, -1/+7Umm... What about gimpshop? That's the best Photoshop-looking image photo editor out there. http://www.gimpshop.com
    • bjornski, on 01/09/2008, -8/+2It's GiMP with a skin. Big deal.

      It still sucks as badly as GiMP.
      • mossblaser, on 01/09/2008, -1/+5I would guess that the GIMP does more than you even know photoshop does so I'd stfu if i were you. Most digg users who cling to photoshop have pirated it and just use the leveling tools and crop and thats it. GIMP can do that its just different. Get over it.
      • tgoose, on 01/09/2008, -0/+4And you didn't try the CMYK plugin?
        • bjornski, on 01/10/2008, -2/+1Why bother, I have 2 other programs that I like a lot to do the work. Paint.net and Photoshop.

          Why would I want to use a program I hate? I've tried GiMP, many times over the years. It sucks ass.
  • aladrin, on 01/09/2008, -0/+5Seems to have everything except Wacom support... Too bad that's a good portion of why I want Photoshop.
    • mossblaser, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Gimp's wacom support is nice but I don't know how complete it is - I am still using a tablet from years back before they had all the fancy extra buttons and touch pad things...
  • GipMasterFlash, on 01/09/2008, -2/+0OS X 10.5.1 PPC - the program starts to run and then just disappears.

  • MasteRR, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I tried it a while back. It looks very promising but still has a long way to go. If he just worked on the stability a bit and added a few more file formats (PDF/EPS/SVG) then I might actually use it.
  • niviche, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Has anybody tried Pixel in professional, press production work? The fact that Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign do not have any serious competitors for pros is the only thing keeping me away from Linux (and yes, I have tried Scribus, The Gimp, Krita and what not).
  • evil-doer, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3title is pretty inaccurate, its not "for linux". altho there is a version for linux, its for multiple OSes including windows and mac
  • solid12345, on 01/09/2008, -8/+2If there is one thing designers who argue about PC v.s Mac can laugh at together, it is at the Linux users!
    • directrix13, on 01/09/2008, -1/+4That's odd, people usually cry when they are being raped up the ass. So you enjoy it then?
      http://www.inkscape.org
      http://www.blender.org
      http://www.gimp.org
      http://www.imagemagick.org
      http://www.koffice.org/krita/

      ... and if you really like paying for stuff you get Maya as a native Linux binary and much of the Windows software will run quite easily under Wine. If I could tell my sister how to install Photoshop in Wine over the phone without ever having done it myself, I would say support is getting pretty ***** good. And btw, a new framework (GEGL) is being integrated in GIMP for the next release. It supports >8bit depths, CMYK and eventually layer effects and such. It won't take that long to "catch up."
    • macoafi, on 01/12/2008, -0/+1I usually laugh at the people who are too stupid to realize that a Mac is a PC.
  • TheHim, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Last time i tested it, the layer effects didn't update in realtime, so you couldn't properly paint with an effect brush, which kind of kills it for me. For simple stuff and a little photo retouching it might be good, but at the moment nothing comes close to Photoshop. Too bad.
  • 8270369, on 01/09/2008, -5/+0Drowning men grasp at straws.
    • andyakadum, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1Only if they are drowning in something nice to drink.
      If it were a septic tank on the other hand, I'd be grasping my nose and mouth.
  • bundwallah, on 01/09/2008, -0/+3Hey! How do we know that the screenshot isn't Photoshopped? :)
  • TheSexyGeek, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2I thought The GIMP was supposed to be "Photoshop for Linux". Is this the OTHER "Photoshop for linux?" By incessantly comparing these software packages with a top of the line mainstream product does one thing. It makes the shortcomings of the software GLARINGLY OBVIOUS!

    You know why I never really got into using The GiMP? Because all I had ever heard it called was "Photoshop for Linux" Then I tried it and found that it paled in comparison. Had I not had the photoshop comparison in my head going I probably would have evaluated it on it's own merits, rather than being shocked when The Gimp fell short of the lofty title of "Photoshop for Linux"
    • sanotaan, on 01/09/2008, -2/+2let's say we did evaluate it on its own merits, whatever they may be. we likely would have said "that's all well and good, but who cares?" that's largely because in the image-manipulation and design industries, you either bring photoshop or go home. you can appreciate a product on its own merits, but if it falls short of very common and rigid expectations, there's no sense in promoting it until it evolves
    • passedoutghost, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It is the photoshop for linux precisely because there is no photoshop for linux. It is the only image editor that comes even close to photoshop.
  • Matt2k, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1It seems promising. I like that it mimics the Photoshop interface. I just tested it out for a few minutes and these are my observations:

    . Can't convert a PDF to an image. I actually do this a lot. I'm sure there are 3rd party tools that will do that, though
    . The text tool is wonky. I clicked to place some text. I tried highlighting the text to edit it and change fonts and it only put down a new text layer. I tried shift+arrow key to highlight text and it didn't do anything.
    . The font face dropdown fell behind the image I was working on. I couldn't select or see anything, and it wouldn't let me click anything else in the toolbar until I had. I had ESC-key out.

    I'd really love to see this improve, but as it is until Pixel can get a finished 1.0 out the door, if I'm going to move away from my Photoshop 7.0, it'll probably be to Paint Shop Pro
  • rimbaud, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2I tried it on Ubuntu as it would be useful if it could open PSDs properly. Unfortunately it repeatedly crashed and was therefore swiftly removed.
  • trumpetx, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1I bought it, tried it and dislike it.

    I'm using GIMP again.
  • right75, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Photoshop 7.0 is hardly outdated.
  • Hermmunster, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1I believe it is a wine application. Sort of like picasa from google. It isn't a native linux application. You can see from the menu bar and the window controls.
    • mahenda, on 01/09/2008, -0/+1The guy wrote his own UI toolkit to get it so cross-platform, it's not WINE... he calls it eLiquid
  • chrysalis, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Does it properly load and save PSD files, with decent compatibility with Photoshop?

    No. It doesn't. It doesn't support Photoshop's layers effects for instance. A PSD file made with Photoshop looks completely broken when opened with Pixel. When Pixel can open it without crashing.

    So please stop stupid titles like "Photoshop for Linux".
    With that software, it's impossible to work on projects with other people using Photoshop.
    Even if you are a web developper and not a designer, you can't use this to load PSD files made by designers.

    Pixel is a wonderful app, but don't describe it as a Photoshop replacement.

    There's still *NO* alternative to Photoshop in order to load PSD files.
  • weeeezzll, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Well, it's not free, but for a close source application is it surprisingly inexpensive for the amount of features it has.
  • aahpandasrun, on 01/09/2008, -2/+3The only thing Gimp is good for is making a texture seamless, and that's about it. It's simply not a viable program for professional use yet.
  • Ensnared, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Might be good, but if I wanted to pay for beta software, I'd be using Windows anyway.
  • TheKingInYellow, on 01/09/2008, -3/+1speaking of pixel...digg this:
    http://digg.com/arts_culture/Colossal_Roll
  • sirhomer, on 01/09/2008, -0/+2Some guy who spammed this program repeatedly on Digg got banned, I'm surprised this got to the front page.
  • Phlosten, on 01/09/2008, -1/+2Pixel was a useless piece of trash last time i tried it.
    • smek2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Last Beta release for Linux was on 2007-08-28. Pretty active development too, eh?
  • MrViklund, on 01/09/2008, -1/+3http://www.gimp.org/
    There you go. Photoshop for Linux.
  • juliend2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1It's good news for competition. Maybe one day we (designers) will have the possibility to switch to Linux.
  • smek2, on 01/10/2008, -0/+1Wow, it's still Beta and you already can spend money on it. I tried the Beta version btw. and it is in no way ready for production. Just because it looks like Photoshop, doesn't make it better than, let's say GIMP. I'm tired of all those wanna be graphic designers here, whining about GIMPS UI and how it is different than Photoshop in terms of Hotkeys etc. Either you learn how to use a tool and use it or not. I did and despite the fact that i used Photoshop for years, i got used to it pretty fast. Now i'm pissed about Photoshop, with it's increasing size and ways of handling certain things (ie selections for example)
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.