A while ago

Pixelmator 1.6.1 is Out

Good news, everyone! Pixelmator 1.6.1 is out. Available as a free update (as always), version 1.6.1 adds improvements to the Photo Browser palette, Aperture support (via the same Photo Browser), a revamped Stroke feature, and, of course, some bug fixes as well as some minor improvements.

Photo Browser

You can use the Photo Browser palette in Pixelmator to quickly access your iPhoto library photos as well as images in your Pictures folder (show or hide Photo Browser by choosing View > Show/Hide Photo Browser).

Here is a list of improvements for the Photo Browser in Pixelmator 1.6.1:

  • Aperture support – access your Aperture library, projects, albums, smart albums, and folders
  • PhotoBooth support – access your PhotoBooth-taken images (not very useful, but fun)
  • Support for custom folders – browse your own folders in Photo Browser
  • List View – this is a feature for those of you who like list views (Control or right mouse button click in an image view to switch between list and icon view)
  • Performance improvements – means loading your iPhoto library images (or images from whatever source) very fast
  • Modern foundation – basically means that the newer your Mac is, the better Photo Browser will work
  • User interface details – looks a bit cleaner and feels better

Stroke

Stroke command is used to outline selections or layers using color. It is located under the Edit > Stroke menu.

We spent a full month refining Stroke (cracking its algorithm). Though Stroke looks easy to create, it is one of the hardest tasks in image editing development. One might think that it is a small feature unworthy of attention, but this is not so. Stroke is used a lot. In fact, it is one of the most basic features in image editing and I am very excited to announce that Stroke has finally been perfected in Pixelmator.

The new Stroke is very fast and bug free. It works flawlessly and, most importantly, delivers the highest quality result possible. Try it for yourself.

Though Pixelmator 1.6.1 is not a revolutionary release, I am as proud of it as any other major update. It shows how much we care about details and the quality of what we do. Such updates are part of the reason that Pixelmator is dearly loved by so many.

If you haven’t downloaded version 1.6.1 yet, go ahead and do it. Any feedback you can provide once you use it would be greatly appreciated. Enjoy!

Comments

  • Cristiano

    Thank you!!!!!!!!!

  • xfodder

    Excellent! i love the aperture inclusion in the photo browser, been waiting for that 😀

  • Guntis

    Photo browser is still too slow! 🙂 I open Aperture project where are 3224 referenced photos (that is, photos are on the (disconnected) external hard drive, only 1600px x 1200px preview images are kept in library). When I click on the scrollbar and slide its slider to the bottom, for about 10-12 seconds I see only image placeholders, only then thumbnails appear. It seems that Pixelmator starts building thumbnails from the top down to the bottom of the list, but maybe you could speed this up by building thumbnails for the portion which is shown in the palette pane?
    2nd request — could you show photos also when I click on the enclosing folder? Now I have to click on each Aperture project separately, because clicking on the enclosing folder shows no images at all…

  • doubleA

    Stoke is perfect, it’s a good preview of what layer styles could be! Finger crossed…

    Too bad that the undo/redo bug after using arrow keys to move object is still here 🙁

  • dravine

    Gah, I was super excited about this release, but doubleA is correct about the Undo / Redo bug breaking after using arrow keys to move something.

    This is a huge hassle, because it’s much more difficult to get precise positioning of design elements with the mouse than with the arrow keys, and losing the entire undo stack every time I use one of my most common work flows in ANY graphics app is maddening.

  • dravine

    Saulius,

    Thanks for the quick response, I’m really looking forward to it being fixed, I’ve just started completely redesigning my companies flag ship web app, which is for the oil and gas industry, and it has a lot of UI elements I need to build. I’m very much hamstrung without Undo / Redo and Move tool.

  • Anon Cowherd

    I’d like to buy Pixelmator (say, instead of DrawIt or Acorn), but as long as you don’t have “Layer Styles” / “Layer Effects”, or whatever you want to call them, I can’t use it.

    Just wanted to mention this again, on the odd chance you might actually be working on the feature, or willing to comment on its destiny.

  • Anon Cowherd

    Actually, it would be great if you could let us know if you’re planning to ever add “Layer Styles” or not.

    Even greater would be giving us some kind of timetable for the feature, if it’s going to be implemented.

    So, a simple “no”, or “yes” with a rough time-estimate would suffice.

  • dravine

    Anon Cowherd,

    I’ve been a web developer for 15 years, and have some how managed to live without layer styles for the entire time.

    “Can’t use it” in this case really translates to “Refuse to learn the tools available”

  • Joey the Squid

    I keep checking in with every new release and while I’m glad to see progress, I can’t use Pixelmator for web design until I get layer styles, vector shapes and some better pallet management. Hopefully at least some of those features are on the table because, if they are, I can finally ditch Photoshop for my web design / interface design work.

  • Joey the Squid

    @dravine While I won’t critique your workflow, as it obviously works well for you, most designers I know rely on tools like layer styles, vector shapes and multiple levels of undo. We use these features because they’re non-destructive. That’s to say, they allow our design elements to evolve and change easily and without repercussion.

    While I most certainly could draw a drop shadow by hand or bevel an edge or even introduce a subtle glow, it seems awfully inefficient to do so when Photoshop does it with a click of a button. It makes even less sense to do it by hand when you consider how tricky it can be to “undo” your work a day or so later.

    That said, there’s nothing wrong with using basic tools and doing everything by hand. Just as there’s nothing wrong with choosing to use more advanced tools to complete your job even more efficiently. It’s just a matter of workflow preference.

  • dravine

    Joey,

    Pixelmator has multiple levels of undo, however there is a bug which breaks them currently still in the latest release.

    I agree that vector shapes would be wonderful to have, and look forward to the day when they make their introduction into Pixelmator.

    I also have nothing against using layer styles. I learned how to use photoshop and several other graphics tools in an era before layer styles were available. Photoshop only introduced Layer Styles and Vector shapes in Photoshop 6, which came out in 2000.

    You point to the inefficiency of doing basic artistic techniques by hand, and I won’t argue that it’s more time consuming. However, given that photoshop costs MORE than 10x as much as Photoshop does, I don’t think this is a fair point to to leverage in arguing that you “simply can’t use it until this feature is added”.

    To me, as a business man and designer / developer, that’s an excuse and a cop out. I won’t hire people who carry that attitude. I feel it demonstrates a sense of entitlement, as well as a defeatist attitude. Especially when the complaint is about something I can do in literally 5 minutes using the tools that are already there. Just comes off to me as lazy.

    I won’t spend $700 on software to equip a demonstrably lazy individual with the best tools available, when I have evidence that they won’t use them to their fullest extent. A person too lazy to learn the 3 step way to drop shadow something, because they know there’s a one click way available, is also too lazy to really dig into a tool like Photoshop and leverage it to it’s full potential. I liken it to giving your child a Bugatti Veyron for their first car, when they’ve not even passed driving class yet.

    – Jesse

  • dravine

    Sorry, have a typo, should have said “Given that photoshop costs MORE than 10x as much as Pixelmator does”

  • Anon Cowherd

    @dravine:

    > I also have nothing against using layer styles.

    Judging by the rest of your message, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

    > I learned how to use photoshop and several other graphics tools in an era before layer styles were available.

    That’s good for you.

    It’s fine if you like doing something in literally 5 minutes with the tools you so admirably know how to use, instead of accomplishing the same by checking a box in layer styles and tweaking a couple of settings in like 10 seconds. But I’d bet that most people would rather just check the box.

    Like you, I’m a web-developer, but unlike you, I just can’t really use Photoshop or any other graphics program. Luckily for me, I don’t really need to either, as long as I can check some boxes to make things look pretty, and leave the real design work to a real graphics designer. As Joey points out, apparently even professional designers like to use layer styles, because it saves them a lot of trouble. That seems quite rational to me.

    > I won’t spend $700 on software to equip a demonstrably lazy individual with the best tools available, when I have evidence that they won’t use them to their fullest extent.

    Wow. To the fullest extent? Demonstrably lazy? Spoken with the arrogance typical of developers in general. Too bad you couldn’t slip in a “patently false” there.

    Do you also think no one should pay lots of money for a Veyron because they can’t use it to its fullest extent outside of a race track? You wouldn’t pay for a powerful dev machine for an employee just because whatever he’s doing wouldn’t use 100% of all 4 cores and the GPU?

    I’m content with not being a graphics designer, because I just don’t have the artistic talent required to (really) pull it off, and I’m happy with working as a _developer_. That’s why I’ll never need to use Photoshop to its fullest extent, and I’ll never need to learn to produce all those effects by hand. That’s alright with me.

    Even if I did learn, how would I _really_ benefit from it if even professionals use layer styles instead?

    Now, when I eventually need to get some graphics done, then I have a choice between buying a tool that lets me check some boxes to make things look nice, and buying one that doesn’t. I’ll go for the boxes even if I have to pay for Photoshop to get them.

    Saulius? You might want to pay attention when even professional designers are asking for layer styles, saying they can’t ditch Photoshop before Pixelmator has them.

    Seriously, I’d imagine graphic designers are exactly the bunch of people you’re making Pixelmator for, and they have spoken, yet again. This is a recurring theme.

    > I won’t hire people who carry that attitude. I feel it demonstrates a sense of entitlement, as well as a defeatist attitude

    I bet you have no clue about the image you’re projecting here (too).

    > A person too lazy to learn the 3 step way to drop shadow something, because they know there’s a one click way available

    Tell me, as a programmer, would you prefer a 1-step way or a 3-step way to accomplish something, assuming the result would be exactly the same?

    > However, given that photoshop costs MORE than 10x as much as Photoshop does, I don’t think this is a fair point to to leverage in arguing that you “simply can’t use it until this feature is added”.

    Were I feeling pretentious, I could make it look like I’d be justified in pointing out how valuable my time is at X dollars per hour, and how it would make business sense for me to just pay for Photoshop instead of “wasting” time learning to produce effects by hand. But really, I waste too much of my time to pull that card.

    I do think that efficiency is a fair point to leverage though.

  • dravine

    Anon,

    Sorry if I’ve hit a nerve, that wasn’t my intent.

    I replied the way I did, because while I agree that the features you requested would be nice, I don’t agree with the sentiment that Pixelmator is “unusable” for lacking them. I’ve seen this complaint, numerous times in the Pixelmator forums, and find it personally to be lacking the gravity that those who complain about it seem to attribute to it.

    I don’t use photoshop unless I have to. I rarely have too. It’s not that it’s a bad program or anything, but I think it’s way over priced, and I’ve got a personal beef with Adobe over Flash 9 and the Actions script 2 to action script 3 pile of crap they dumped on me. I won’t go into detail about that, but I’ve dumped Flash for all my projects and find ANY alternative to Adobe products for anything I have to do when it’s possible to do so.

    I’d also like to point out, that the post you seem to have taken offense too wasn’t directed at you, nor was it in response to your post. I was simply clarifying my opinion for Joey the Squid, and your post happened to serve as an one example, of the many that are out there.

    I can understand how you could take my criticism of your original posts as a personal attack, and apologize if that’s the way you’ve interpreted them. However, the post fit the mold created by the forum trolls, who are more representative of the type of people I’d avoid in hiring. A nickname of Anon Cowheard (like Anonymous Coward on slashdot), didn’t win you any points on the Troll score either.

    – Jesse

  • xfodder

    i love the aperture access … but why does it import a jpg? if their is a higher res tiff or the like available, id prefer the tiff.

  • xfodder

    disregard my previous comment. using the edit in external app from within aperture does export a high res image … the photo browser is great for getting images ready for web 😀 *thumbs up* 1.6.1 = awesomeness. oh and +1 dravine … Who needs layer styles? i don’t 😀 with a few quartz filters installed and smart layer techniques i can do EVERYTHING that i used to do in photoshop … but of course this is based on my own experiences. after all i can only speak for myself. My personal philosophy is you should learn how to do things regardless of the software … because what happens if for some reason you don’t have access to x piece of software?

  • Joey the Squid

    @ dravine I’ve been using Photoshop professionally since 1995 and I’ve also been an Adobe Instructor for the past 8 years. Mindful of that, I most certainly didn’t grow up with layer styles. However, I did make a concerted effort to learn how to use them (if not only for educational purposes) and I eventually integrated them into my own workflow.

    These days, for better or for worse, they’re an integral part of my every day life. I use them to create my own designs and I interact with them when fielding designs from my contemporaries. I’ve worked with a broad range of talent over the years in many different industries and I can safely say that, in my experience, the use of layer styles is quite common.

    All that said, I didn’t mean to indicate that Pixelmator is a useless product. Certainly as an entry level graphics program, there’s a lot to like. I just meant to say that I can’t use it for my purposes as a professional web designer. And while I might have been able to discern that on price alone, I use a lot of “shareware” tools in my every day workflow. Coda and Espresso are my two main development apps and they cost only a fraction of Dreamweaver’s price.

    If anything, my only criticism of Pixelmator is that, at times, I’m not sure what it wants to be. It’s a hodgepodge of entry level and professional features. And while I’d personally like to see it evolve into a professional solution, I certainly agree that there’s nothing wrong with it being a hobbiest tool either. I just wish I could get a better gauge on its direction.

  • RIccardo

    Yeah, another great upgrade for this lovely program.
    For every day use, before the 1.0 I use PS for the 100% of my time. In this 3 years the percentage is about 80% for Pixelmator and 20% for PS.
    I believe next releases let me spend 100% of my work time on Pixelmator and uninstall PS.

    Great job!

  • Rico

    I love Pixelmator, but i’m waiting the liquify filter, also.

  • Alyne

    Layer styles would be great, and also the possibility to draw shapes.

    Great work on 1.6.1!

  • hamsta

    Adobe Instructor = vested interest. Take all comments with a HUGE grain of salt. 🙂

  • Anon Cowherd

    @hamsta

    This one is talking about ditching Photoshop though 🙂

  • Anon Cowherd

    @dravine

    Just a quick reply here.

    > I don’t agree with the sentiment that Pixelmator is “unusable” for lacking them. I’ve seen this complaint, numerous times in the Pixelmator forums, and find it personally to be lacking the gravity that those who complain about it seem to attribute to it.

    I really want to be able to use Pixelmator for my needs and buy it, but unfortunately my needs include layer styles.

    You say you’ve seen this complaint numerous times – don’t you agree it’s time the Pixelmator devs started working on the damn feature? They’ve been ignoring the wishes of a considerable portion of their audience, without really saying a word about the feature. That doesn’t make sense. They’re probably better programmers than any of us here in the comments, so it shouldn’t be _too_ difficult for them to implement.

    I keep checking back if they’ve released a new version, and if it would finally include layer styles. Nope, nope, nope. At some point, I managed to provoke Saulius into responding about layer styles, and IIRC the response amounted to “tough shit, no one’s forcing you to use Pixelmator”. That was somewhat disappointing.

    I agree that Adobe’s stuff is bloated and buggy, and I’d rather not install such a bloaty pile of bloat on my computer if avoidable. But still, I’ll buy Photoshop if I need to.

    > I’d also like to point out, that the post you seem to have taken offense too wasn’t directed at you, nor was it in response to your post.

    Ah, but perhaps you remember the previous comment you made?

    All in all, your comments didn’t really amount to much else than you parading around on your high horse, dishing out contempt at lesser beings, just because you’ve happened to learn how to produce some effects by hand.

    You’re like some foreigners who have learned Japanese, and somehow ended up learning Kanji too. These people often show contempt for others (like me) who are relatively fluent in Japanese but can’t read Kanji. The difference is that you’ve got less of a point.

    How about answering my questions?

    – What would be the benefit of knowing how to produce the effects manually, especially if professionals are using layer styles too?

    – Wouldn’t you rather prefer a 1-step way to do something, over a 3-step way? What about a 10-second way vs a 5-minute way?

    If you’re running a business, wouldn’t it make sense for each of your employees to maximize his productivity by using layer styles?

    > A nickname of Anon Cowheard (like Anonymous Coward on slashdot), didn’t win you any points on the Troll score either.

    My name is Jukka. There, now we’re equally anonymous, Jesse.

    Now that we’ve (hopefully) got all the excuses out of the way, how about addressing what I’m saying, instead of how I’m saying it?

    See, if I can’t use Pixelmator to make things look pretty the easy way, then I’ll just use something else.

    It’s not that it’s _unusable_ per se, it’s just too bothersome/inefficient compared to using layer styles, and I’d stand behind this even if I could actually produce the effects by hand too. It seems that many professional designers agree.

  • Saulius Dailide

    Thanks for the discussion. Layer styles are definitely coming to Pixelmator though nobody knows when exactly.

    The thing is that there are many more important things to do before adding advanced stuff. If we did Layer styles today, but no Stroke, precise selection tools, good painting tools, or bug fixes or improvements to PRIMARY features, using the app would be like driving BMW X6 with wooden wheels or worse.

    Layer styles consists of the recently revamped stroke, gradients (in the works) and stuff like that… If you know a thing about how layer styles work you can clearly see that, in fact, those are being developed…

  • dravine

    Anon or Jukka, whichever you prefer,

    I will address your points in the order in which you posted them:

    1.) Yes, I agree that layer styles would be a fantastic addition. It would certainly save some time, IF there was a wide enough array of possible styles to use. The simple things like drop shadow and emboss, would likely not be too much trouble from a programming perspective. As I have no insight into the size of the team working on pixelmator, nor the size of the codebase, I can’t speculate on how much of a hit to the overall resources available this type of feature would be. I also can’t speak to the abilities of the programmers behind pixelmator, but I can say that I’ve been a software developer for over 15 years, and an engineering level developer for the last five. It’s not as easy as end users think it will be most of the time.

    2.) I stand by my first post, which was in reference to layer styles. Layer styles have never stood in my way in terms of getting things done. I would disagree with your assertion that I am dishing out contempt, but you are entitled to your opinion. When I learned how to create the effects you get from layer styles, it was the late 1990’s. Layer styles DID NOT EXIST. I had no choice, but to learn the methods that underpin layer styles. I NEVER use layer styles, because I do what I am comfortable with and what I know will give me guaranteed results.

    You seem to be projecting your frustrations about other life situations onto me and my posts, which I suppose is also your right, but seems fairly unproductive to me. I’d have been more than happy to show you how to do a drop shadow in 3 very simple very fast steps in pixelmator. Seems that would have been more beneficial but I digress.

    3.) What is the benefit to knowing how to produce these effects manually:

    The benefit is that you understand the underlying principals behind the effect. When you understand HOW something works, you have more insight into what it is doing when it doesn’t give you the result you expected. Can you make production artwork without understanding color theory? Sure. Would you produce better work if you had that understanding? Absolutely!

    4.) 1 step vs 3, 10 second vs 5 minute:

    The problem with “one step” methods, is where do you draw the line? Add a thousand one step methods, and while they save some time, you then have to find them, which is a pain in the butt. Photoshop suffers this already, it does SO much, it’s very hard to learn all of the UI to proficiency.

    As far as employees and productivity, I don’t want the shortcut method to be my employees first option. I don’t let my employees use Ruby on Rails for projects when they first start out. I want them to FULLY understand the platform we work with, because it makes them a smarter and better programmer. Graphic design is a very very small subset of the work we do.

    My intern wanted to use jQuery for a project, and I denied his request. I did so, because he had ZERO javascript skills, which means he could easily code himself into a corner that he wasn’t skilled enough to code himself out of. After a month of doing javascript the hard way, he was skilled enough to where I felt comfortable letting him use jQuery. When he runs into strange bugs, he understands both the jQuery layer, AND the underlying javascript layer. In short, he’s a far better developer for having done it the hard way, and he’s far more appreciative of what jQuery gives him by knowing what it’s hiding from him.

    To be perfectly honest with you, if I have a heavy workload of graphic stuff to be done, I hire a design firm with a few dozen designers to do it for me. They have better tools, more expertise, and I have 100% confidence they can deliver what I want faster and cheaper than I can do it in house.

    Part of the business process is picking the right tool for the right job. Pixelmator for me, does wonderfully for light design work and touch ups. I’m doing a very ambitious design in it right now as a means to better learn it’s tools. If it was a critical design, I’d have already hired it out, but since it’s not, I’m taking my time and having fun with it.

    Hope this clears up some of my positions for you Jukka.

    – Jesse

  • Lionel

    Thanks for this update. Details and quality are the exact reasons why I use and like pixelmator.

  • Anon Cowherd

    @Saulius

    Thanks for finally commenting on it. What exactly are the obstacles left?

    @dravine

    > Yes, I agree that layer styles would be a fantastic addition. It would certainly save some time, IF there was a wide enough array of possible styles to use.

    It would only save time if there were lots of them? 🙂 And somewhere else, you say that there are too many in Photoshop?

    Right now, I feel like I’d be happy with only a few – inner/outer shadows & glows. That’s because I’ll be using a graphics program for mostly just making background graphics for websites.

    > I can say that I’ve been a software developer for over 15 years, and an engineering level developer for the last five.

    I’ve been a developer for 10 years. What’s an “engineering level developer”?

    > It’s not as easy as end users think it will be most of the time.

    No shit? 🙂

    > I would disagree with your assertion that I am dishing out contempt, but you are entitled to your opinion.

    For example when you talked about people who are “demonstrably lazy” and how you wouldn’t hire them, you were feeling superior to others. Practically every time you see someone declare that they wouldn’t hire someone for reasons X, Y or Z, it’s because they assume they’re right, and that everyone else should be imitating their sagely ways.

    You can hire or fire someone for whatever reasons you want, but don’t expect them to be any kind of ultimate truths on how to do hiring right.

    > When I learned how to create the effects you get from layer styles, it was the late 1990’s. Layer styles DID NOT EXIST. I had no choice, but to learn the methods that underpin layer styles.

    That’s just it. You didn’t have layer styles when you needed them, but I do (if I buy Photoshop). If you had actually had them, it’s very likely you wouldn’t have learned to produce those effects by hand, and wouldn’t be talking about people being “demonstrably lazy” now.

    > I NEVER use layer styles, because I do what I am comfortable with and what I know will give me guaranteed results.

    Heh.. Yes, I know it’s a matter of pride to you. Of course, you have the right to insist on doing things less efficiently than you could.

    > You seem to be projecting your frustrations about other life situations onto me and my posts, which I suppose is also your right, but seems fairly unproductive to me.

    Oh? Would you care to tell me how you reached this conclusion? Of course, assuming that were true, dismissing such silly pettiness as unproductive would make you look mighty civilized! :p

    > I’d have been more than happy to show you how to do a drop shadow in 3 very simple very fast steps in pixelmator. Seems that would have been more beneficial but I digress.

    I’m sure I can google it if necessary. But thanks for the generous pseudo-offer.

    > The benefit is that you understand the underlying principals behind the effect. When you understand HOW something works, you have more insight into what it is doing when it doesn’t give you the result you expected.

    1) Check box for “inner glow”. Inner glow appears.
    2) Tweak settings until satisfied.

    There’s not much to understand there, except that I can get the result I want by checking a box and tweaking a couple of settings. Remember, my graphics-needs aren’t particularly demanding, and neither are those of developers in general. But of course, you _might_ be an exception – an “engineering level” developer who just happens to be a great graphic designer too!

    But I’m not convinced you can compare this, say, to knowing the underlying principLES of using SQL vs just using an ORM without knowing SQL.

    > The problem with “one step” methods, is where do you draw the line? Add a thousand one step methods, and while they save some time, you then have to find them, which is a pain in the butt.

    That’s a nice attempt at dodging the issue. I can find Layer Styles easily, and there aren’t thousands of them. And again, assuming the end result is the same – What You Wanted – it just doesn’t make any sense to prefer the long way to the short way.

    > I don’t let my employees use Ruby on Rails for projects when they first start out. I want them to FULLY understand the platform we work with, because it makes them a smarter and better programmer.

    In a way that makes sense, but on the other hand, it means you’re hiring people who are inexperienced. It’s nice if you’re giving them a chance to avoid the chicken/egg problem people have when starting out: you can’t get a job without experience, and you can’t get experience without a job. But it’s not good for your bottom line.

    I suppose the “platform” you work with is.. the web.

    > My intern wanted to use jQuery for a project, and I denied his request.

    Do you really micromanage things like that? It sounds a bit scary.

    > because he had ZERO javascript skills, which means he could easily code himself into a corner that he wasn’t skilled enough to code himself out of.

    Well, this sounds nice, but I’m not convinced it’s quite as “serious” as you suggest. Coding yourself especially into such a hopeless corner by using jQuery to manipulate DOM objects should prove to be quite demanding.

    > if I have a heavy workload of graphic stuff to be done, I hire a design firm with a few dozen designers to do it for me. They have better tools, more expertise..

    .. and no qualms about checking boxes to get things done? 🙂

    > Hope this clears up some of my positions for you Jukka.

    At least you’ve changed your tone from arrogant to civil-but-condescending. It’s an improvement!

    Adding my name to the end there was a nice touch too, Jesse, a mixture of used-car-salesman & “i win!” 🙂

  • T

    first of all: thanks for finally letting me know the pixel size on cropping and selecting… 😉
    second: can you please also show the position where it started and where you are now?
    Start X: 46 px Y: 46
    W: 145 px H: 46 px
    Pos X: 191 px Y: 92 px

    something like that… W/H and Pos X/Y keeps changing while moving the cursor – Start shows where you started the selection/cropping.

    that would be finally the way i need it and i guess many people too who dont want to “guess” by looking at the ruler. talking about the ruler – cant the position in the drawing area be somewhere displayed as X/Y? similar to what it should show for crop/select but static somewhere within the ruler or the details window.

    thanks!

  • dravine

    Jukka,

    I find it a bit ironic that you accuse me of being condescending, when every post you’ve made has been little more than trollish banter.

    Have a lovely day, I’m not going to engage in further discussion with you.

    – Jesse

  • Anon Cowherd

    Jesse,

    I invite you to explain _how_ my posts have been little more than “trollish banter”, but of course you won’t, because you can’t.

    In conclusion:

    1) Making effects by hand is not the superior way of doing things, just because you had to learn how, just because Layer Styles were not available when you could have used them.
    2) It really makes sense to do things as effortlessly/efficiently as possible.

    These were my points all along, and the ones you worked so hard to avoid addressing.

    When there’s not much you can say without looking bad, it’s a classic trick to dismiss the whole conversation as being beneath you, and it suits your personality well.