Macworld Forums: Acorn 2.1 - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Acorn 2.1 here

Buying advice compared to iPhoto or Photoshop Elements might be more applicable than a comparison with Photoshop.

I find this to be a typical superficial "review". Anyone who tries to use Acorn or Pixelmator for serious work is likely to end up very frustrated. Acorn is no less capable than Pixelmator -- but neither is a "full-featured" image editor, and Acorn is not significantly cheaper than Pixelmator. I'd suggest Acorn's strength relative to Pixelmator lies in scriptability and automation, while Pixelmator offers a more conventional user interface. Neither holds a candle to Photoshop Elements or the often overlooked Photoline -- both of which are only slightly more expensive.

Must agree with previous posts. Comparing Pixelmator to Photoshop, even in passing, is just plain silly. And I find it curious that reviewers of software like Acorn or Pixelmator always seem to forget Photoshop Elements, which is clearly the program to beat in this category (image editors costing less than $100).

I understand that many are quick to point to Photoshop Elements as more "complete" - but I use both of these (I got Acorn on one of the MacHeist deals) and I really like Acorn for the many "quick and dirty" graphics needs that come up. I frequently just want a quick crop or text overlay, not a zillion features and a healing brush.

Photoshop is just a hog for resources and when I already have 10 other apps open launching it is just overkill. Acorn is lightning fast and simple, and so it has place at the table.

I really don't see anywhere in my article where I compared Acorn with Photoshop. The buying advice section mentions Photoshop, but clearly states that Acorn is for those who don't need Photoshop's bazillion features and power.

I also don't see where I compared Photoshop to Pixelmator, other than they are both higher end products compared to Acorn.

Nor do I see anywhere that I stated Acorn was "significantly cheaper" than Pixelmator.

As for PS Elements, I don't see that as a competitor to Acorn either, because Elements is far more feature-packed, as well as bulky/cumbersome app, compared to Acorn.

Are we reading the same article, or is it possible that you saw the words Photoshop and Pixelmator and automatically assumed without reading that it was a comparison?

I'm not trying to discount anyone's comments here, but I think perhaps a few of you either mis-interpreted what I wrote, or simply skimmed the article before leaving comments.

I've been using Acorn 1.X.X on and off for a while and still find I would rather use Photoshop or Element. The application has a couple of nice features such as selecting and copying direct to a new document, but once you start using some of the more advanced features (such as layers) it gets really bogged down.

If you open a multilayered photoshop image with Acorn it becomes virtually unusable. I do not understand why this is, but it is bad enough that I keep going back to Adobe.

A writer's purpose is to communicate. If a majority of the people posting on your writing get it wrong, you're the one who failed, not them.

frgough, on 02 November 2009 - 12:13 PM, said:

No, I'm pretty sure it's just that a few people "skimmed" and didn't actually read the article.

Did not see anything about curves tool... is there one in Acorn? That is basic, without it this would be just a toy.

James_Dempsey, on 02 November 2009 - 03:57 PM, said:

James you are correct in your analysis of the above posts and thanks for this review. There is room for more than one photo editor in this world, believe it or not. (Oh the heresy!) I use Photoshop CS4 daily and there are certain complex tasks for which it is well suited. And there are simple tasks for which it is decidedly *not* well suited. While it may be a tad extreme to call PS bloatware, one can not argue that even on a relatively new MacBook Pro it lacks speed, not to mention simple elegance. That is why I also use Acorn. The application loads shockingly fast, opens images immediately and allows me to crop, resize and overlay text or other images in a snap. It really is amazingly faster than both PS and PS Elements. So, both PS and Acorn deserve a place on my MBP.

James_Dempsey, on 02 November 2009 - 03:57 PM, said:

"Acorn 2.1 is a great app for digital photography hobbyists, bloggers, or anyone who needs a decent amount of flexibility in editing images but doesn't require the power of a full image editor such as Photoshop or Pixelmator."

Gosh. That looks an awful lot like a comparison to me. Be "pretty sure" all you want, you're still wrong.

tewha, on 03 November 2009 - 11:27 AM, said:

A comparison generally requires that similarities or dissimilarities be discussed. The author stated an opinion, you inferred a comparison. To state "Acorn 2.1 is great for users who don't require a full image editor such as Photoshop" is not to compare the similarities or differences between the two apps, but to state an opinion that one is better suited to certain users than the other.

Some of the above posts seem quite hostile to the author. I don't understand this, and it makes me wonder if some of the posters might have surreptitious motives or are just contentious in general.

I think you're spot-on. I use Photoshop daily as well, and have been doing so since it's initial release. Because I know the ins and outs of PS so well, I tend to use it for any imaging task. And I still think it's a pretty fast app for all it does. HOWEVER, there are several editors out there that are definitely more suited to simple tasks. Acorn, Pixelmator, and to some extent even ImageWell or Skitch, are much faster, quicker to launch, and easier to learn and use than PS could ever hope to be. For the folks who don't use at least 50% of PS's capabilities, these apps are a real gem!

In my opinion, Acorn shines because it's not trying to be Photoshop. There aren't a ton of color adjustment tools, and selection/cloning tools, etc. No fancy border-adding scripts and all the other doo-dads of Elements, etc. It does simple tasks, quickly and with little fuss. And that's all it needs to do to be successful. I hope the developer doesn't try to extend Acorn to the point where it's no longer the simple, quick editor - which is where Pixelmator is quickly heading.