16 bit tiff support?

nixcamic

Posts: 2

3 years ago

My googling only showed answers for old version of Pixelmator, so I'm asking here; Does Pixelmator support 16 bit images or are they crushed down to 8 bit? If they're crushed down, will 2.0 (or even some version before then) come with full 16 bit support?

Also, this may not be answerable, but how long is Pixelmator going to be on sale for $29 for?
Sebastiaan

Posts: 3099

3 years ago

Pixelmator supports 16 bit images but downsamples them to 8 bit on opening.

Am not allowed to tell you if version 2.0 will support 16 bit.

The App Sore campaign lasts to the end of this month (february).
nixcamic

Posts: 2

3 years ago

That is... Unfortunate. I was trying to move away from the GIMP because they're taking forever with 16-bit support and the UI was designed by the offspring of a chimpanzee and the devil.

But at least I know they are working towards 16-bit, and it'll be there eventually.
grapegraphics

Posts: 2

3 years ago

NEED 16-BIT SUPPORT!
or else I cannot take Pixelmator seriously, and I do want to take it seriously... really I do.

and PS Plug-in compatibility would be nice
Jb
LAViking

Posts: 1

2 years ago

Read between the lines people.. =)
gerlos

Posts: 5

2 years ago

Please, add 16 bit support to Pixelmator!
It has a wonderful interface, but it is almost useless to me if I can't edit seriously my night shots, that need a wider dynamic range than just 256 tones of gray :-(
gerlos

Posts: 5

1 year ago

Almost one year later, we got Pixelmator 2.1.2, ad still no answer about 16 bit support. Really bad! :-(
Everett

Posts: 52

1 year ago

Pixelmator team,

I realize you have limited resources to improve Pixelmator. At the end of the day, there are only so many people, hours, and dollars (Euros, Pounds, Gazentas). I feel you have made an incredibly good decision not to invest in CMYK. I understand your logic, and see no reason to request you work towards a diminishing return. Your wisdom in focusing on digital media is something I can respect. In that vein I ask that the team work seriously toward 16 bit support. Resolution and color depth on monitors is high enough that 8 bit really doesn't do the job that you have stated Pixelmator should do (based on features you're NOT adding).

I thank you for the hard work you have already done. When there was an issue with the healing tool, you handled it in a timely manner. When we asked for you to provide us with a way of opening a file in its original format, you provided it. I don't see the team as a group of unreachable tyrants (like a competitor of yours). When we come to you and ask, you typically take time to seriously consider what we the customer have to say.

So I humbly ask now, Pixelmator team, please, can we have 16 bit color? Thank you for your consideration.
Jeff K

Posts: 1

1 year ago

I would like to support Everett's request to support 16-bit TIFF files -- a request now six months old. With Adobe now taking photoshop to the cloud, you have a golden opportunity to grab some of Adobe's customers who are fed up with Adobe's contunual financial squeeze. I shoot 14-bit NEF files (Nikon RAW). I do virtually al of my post processing in Adobe Lightroom, which I love. But occassionally, I need more power or special features. I purchased Photoshop Elements 10 for the proofing feature (before Lightroom 4 came out), but I discovered too late that PE only supports 8-bit files. It's useless for me. I'd like to use your product, but it won't happen unless and until you support 16-bit files. I have no doubt that there are many other people like me. You're missing a golden opportunity....
grapegraphics

Posts: 2

1 year ago

I wholeheartedly agree! And wouldn't it be grand if they made VECTORMATER to replace illustrator! ;-)
Jb
dgatwood

Posts: 4

1 year ago

Hear, hear. Photoshop is dead to me as of yesterday. Supporting 16-bit images (including PSD) would be another very large nail in their coffin, and anything you can do to help Photoshop disappear into the dustbin of history will be greatly appreciated. :-)

Kudos on the CMYK support, BTW. I'm a *lot* less worried about de-Adobeizing my workflow now than I would have been a year ago.
bjeast

Posts: 8

1 year ago

Yes, yes, please please add 16 bit support! Please.
kevinmcd

Posts: 2

1 year ago

PLEASE, add 16 bit support. The leap from Photoshop would be soooo much easier.
Michael Redig

Posts: 8

1 year ago

What Everett said times 2.
emanh89

Posts: 5

1 year ago

+1 on 16 bit support
Equinox

Posts: 7

1 year ago

I am a graphic artist making my art in 16-bit greyscale. I am working with Photoshop for many years and I honestly don't know a replacement software package for the heavy duty stuff I do. I hope Pixelmator will add 16-bit support for rgb, cmyk and greyscale.
Taylor Garvin

Posts: 1

1 year ago

Like many others, I'm looking for a photoshop alternative and that may be you. The sooner you add 16bit support the sooner you'll have my money and support. You have a real opportunity to compete with Adobe now. Good luck!
Cbadland

Posts: 3

1 year ago

++++ what Everett says.
5x5

Posts: 1

1 year ago

Yes, yes. I just switched over to Pixelmator and was surprised to see it didn't support 16 bit. We really need that. DPX support is very important for me as well.
ThomasLight

Posts: 1

1 year ago

I am a new user coming from 12 years of Photoshop, but I need 16 bit workflow. It is important enough that I would pay extra for that feature. Given all the changes with Adobe recently and my dissatisfaction with the cost of their programs, I suspect there are a lot of
pros and semi-pro, etc. that would jump to Pixelmator if 16 bit was an option. Again, I would pay extra . Thank you for the good work.
xXHexagonXx

Posts: 4

1 year ago

So now that 2.2 is out... does the current version still down sample to 8bit or does it support 16bit?
nematode

Posts: 2

1 year ago

+1 for 16 bit tiff support .
rdonson

Posts: 3

1 year ago

Yes, please. 16 bit support. I just hate throwing away data. I like Pixelmator a LOT but the lack of support for 16 bit makes it just a tool for web images for me. I won't use it for anything but the last step in my workflow as a result.

Pixelmator is soooo great and refreshing but in dire need of 16 bit support for serious photographers.
ferlevin

Posts: 124

1 year ago

I don't see the need for 16 bit support. If you are a serious photographer you will use Aperture to work with the RAW file and recover any details you want from the extended range. Once you have done that, there is no more need for 16-bits. You can "edit with Pixelmator" the 8-bit tiff file to take advantage of the layers and other good stuff missing in Aperture. The human eye does not recognize more than 10 million colors anyway.
Coen

Posts: 610

1 year ago

I wholeheartedly agree with Ferlevin. Lightroom/Aperture are better suited for processing raw imagery. Once the color and brightness balance are right, that's where Pixelmator kicks in.
Don't panic
PeterThoeny

Posts: 1

1 year ago

Pixelmator was recommended by a friend, and I am considering purchasing it. The only thing holding me back is lack of 16 bit per color support. As is, I can't use Pixelmator for serious photo post-processing.

So, please Please PLEASE add 16 bit support!
senduran

Posts: 4

1 year ago

Ferlevin, 16bit support is still needed in an editor like Pixelmator after export from Lightroom because you still use it to do things where 8bits isn't enough. Why are the histogram, levels, and all the colour-related features in Pixelmator if you're not supposed to use them? Why is there a gradient tool? Why are there blend modes?

http://www.theartofretouching.com/blog/ ... olor-space

Many of the critical things you'd want to do in Pixelmator could be affected by banding due to 8bit.

A work-flow where you say "all of my histogram changes must be done in Lightroom prior to export" doesn't work. What if you only decide that your image needs a histogram tweak after you've spent hours on pixel-level retouching?


Consider this another vote for 16bit.
rdonson

Posts: 3

1 year ago

16 bit support is so that you can make Pixelmator a part of your workflow and not just the last step. There are times from Lightroom that I want to use Pixelmator and then return to my LR/PS/Nik workflow for other operations. I don't want to throw away half of the color data.

Ferlevin and Coen: I send 16 bit TIFF files to print because I use a fine art printer. I let him and his RIP get the most out of my images by supplying all the color data I can. For me that includes editing in 16 bit ProPhoto RGB colorspace. If you're happy manipulating your images in 8 bit and printing in 8 bit that's great. Some of us prefer to have 16 bit from RAW to final TIFF. To each his own.
bvz

Posts: 5

1 year ago

I would love 16 bit support, but would be even more excited for a full 32 bit floating point workflow.

I know that Pixelmator is supposed to compete with consumer level apps and not Photoshop, but now with Adobe's miserable CC licensing scheme, I am looking anywhere and everywhere for an alternative.

The Photoshop team is hamstrung by their 8-bit legacy code. Their histograms and levels tools use archaic concepts like using ranges of 0-255 (instead of a decimal or percent like 0-1). Their filters need to be re-architected for higher bit depths (and for some reason they are going from 8-bits to 16-bits to float instead of directly from 8 to float - which means two complete rounds of updates instead of one). Many of their tools don't understand that anything can ever be brighter than a sheet of paper (a huge no-no when dealing with photographic source material). Adobe would love to snap their fingers and have a proper 32-bit floating point pipeline. But they can't because they coded themselves into a corner over 20 years ago.

Now I am afraid that Pixelmator is doing the same thing. 8-bit images may seem like a perfectly adequate level of color fidelity right now, but that is quite shortsighted. Newer digital cameras are gaining sensors that are able to do higher dynamic ranges. RAW image formats are gaining popularity. Eventually having a high-dynamic range image (in the true sense, not the market-speak from Apple or Samsung) capture on a cell phone is going to be the norm. Pixelmator will be stuck if they cannot handle higher bit depths. 16 bits would be a decent start but the fact that you cannot store or manipulate super whites will eventually be a problem even for casual consumers. I would have hoped that Pixelmator would have used a floating point internal pipeline all along (don't the Apple filters do that?). But if not, now would be the time to start transitioning to a future proof architecture.

Again, I know that this may not be the current target market for this app. But with Adobe hating their own customer base as much as they do, it seems like the inability for Pixelmator to accommodate even some higher end features is already a missed opportunity. As time goes on, if Adobe continues to alienate their customer base, it would be a good idea to have a solid foundation on top of which new, professional level features could be quickly added (instead of legacy code that cannot be stretched to capture new markets).
Zaphodz

Posts: 25

1 year ago

+1 for this feature, 16-bit would give much more latitude for playing with the tonal range of an image.
Bernhard

Posts: 7

1 year ago

–1 for 16-bit

but

+1 for 32-bit float

maximum quality - no compromises ;-)
Manoli

Posts: 5

1 year ago

+1 for BVZ's and the other recent comments. Please add 16 bit and 32 bit float, for all the reasons already given above.
mbrakes

Posts: 2

1 year ago

What Everett, Thomas Light and Senduran said.

As of Photoshop CC I'm seriously looking for alternatives, and as any pro photographer knows, you NEED 16 bit support for serious Photoshopping and compositing, to adjust images from different sources to the same colour, contrast etc.

I have also become a big fan of Smart Objects and the Refine Tool in PS CS6, and would probably need something similar to those features as well.

The reason why I'm looking to switch is that I seriously dislike being sucked into an expensive subscription like Creative Cloud. I will resist CC as long as possible, but would prefer to go for an underdog alternative when the time comes if possible.

I also understand that Pixelmator primarily caters to the amateur crowd, but with CC I think it's time to realise that there's an opportunity for the Pixelmator team to zeise a large portion of the pro market. I would be willing to pay substantially more for a Pro version of Pixelmator with the aforementioned Pro features.
Bernhard

Posts: 7

1 year ago

Another possibility could be a crown-funding campaign
to elevate Pixelmator to 32-bit float.

The Pixelmator-Team could estimate the costs;
the success of the campaignwould test the market demand.
Minimized risk for the developers.
bvz

Posts: 5

1 year ago

I would consider supporting something like that, but only for floating point support like you mentioned (not sixteen bit), and only if the whole floating point workflow/pipeline were outlined in the funding campaign. Floating point done wrong is as bad as not done at all.

Please sign in to post.