Batch export layers individually ?

Chat about the original Pixelmator.
User avatar

2020-12-11 12:21:30

I export a lot of layers, and it takes a lot of time to check and uncheck e.g. 20 layers and save them with a numerically incremented name e.g. "layer1", "layer2" (and not necessarily the name of the layer itself).

Is there a feature in the Pro version that allows batch export of layers, which can be renamed before exporting, or at least the ability to batch export each layer individually ?
User avatar

2020-12-18 16:42:32

You could absolutely use AppleScript to batch export layers in Pixelmator Pro. If you have a sample file and some instructions on how you'd like to batch export the layers, I could help you with a script.
User avatar

2021-01-04 16:55:35

Many thanks for the reply.

I do not have Pro, unfortunately I don't see a need to upgrade with the Pixelart style that I employ.

However, quality of life features like that would be universally welcome, as well as batch renaming layers and files in layers.

There are a number of GitHub repositories that handle batch renaming, as you list that some of your extensions are natively written in Swift the closest I found was a C++ cross-platform effort by Guid75 called "renamah" which is apparently "modular", which would make it easier to implement:

https://github.com/Guid75/renamah
User avatar

2021-01-05 11:13:19

by tiffin Many thanks for the reply.

I do not have Pro, unfortunately I don't see a need to upgrade with the Pixelart style that I employ.
That's totally your call. But if you haven't actually tried the app, you should definitely at least check out the free trial.
by tiffin There are a number of GitHub repositories that handle batch renaming, as you list that some of your extensions are natively written in Swift the closest I found was a C++ cross-platform effort by Guid75 called "renamah" which is apparently "modular", which would make it easier to implement:

https://github.com/Guid75/renamah
If we did decide to create a feature like this, I reckon the code part wouldn't be the problem. But thanks for the suggestion, either way!