Back to ImageMagick page
ImageMagick free download for Mac

ImageMagick Reviews

7.0.10-2
24 March 2020

Convert, resize, and redraw images via command line.

bb553
10 May 2016

Most helpful

Huge number of sites imperiled by critical image-processing vulnerability [Updated] Attack code exploiting critical ImageMagick vulnerability expected within hours. | Ars Technica May 4, 2016 [ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/easily-exploited-bug-exposes-huge-number-of-sites-to-code-execution-attacks/ ] Exploits gone wild: Hackers target critical image-processing bug Vulnerability in ImageMagick allows attackers to execute malicious code. | Ars Technica May 9, 2016 [ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/exploits-gone-wild-hackers-target-critical-image-processing-bug/ ]
Like (3)
Version 6.9.0-1

Read 37 ImageMagick User Reviews

Rate this app:

bb553
10 May 2016
Huge number of sites imperiled by critical image-processing vulnerability [Updated] Attack code exploiting critical ImageMagick vulnerability expected within hours. | Ars Technica May 4, 2016 [ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/easily-exploited-bug-exposes-huge-number-of-sites-to-code-execution-attacks/ ] Exploits gone wild: Hackers target critical image-processing bug Vulnerability in ImageMagick allows attackers to execute malicious code. | Ars Technica May 9, 2016 [ http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/05/exploits-gone-wild-hackers-target-critical-image-processing-bug/ ]
Like (3)
Version 6.9.0-1
Derekcurrie
02 January 2014
ImageMagick is free, which is great! However, I consider it to be geek-ware. If you visit the developer's page you'll find they recommend installing it via MacPorts, which uses X11, which requires Apple's developer software Xcode to build the plugin from the source code provided. You don't just casually jump into X11 stuff. The learning curve is a bear. To go along with the geek-ware-iness: There are TWO version numbers on this software. One is '13.0.0' which refers to I know not what. The other is '6.8.7', which is what actually is downloading today, NOT '6.8.8' despite that version being available for Linux, etc. Summary: Be prepared to go geek with this software.
Like (6)
Version 6.8.8
mikel111
27 September 2012
Sorry, posted as comment by mistake. Been using this under Lion. Upgrade to Mountain Lion breaks it dyld: Library not loaded: /ImageMagick-6.7.9/lib/liblcms2.2.dylib Referenced from: /Users/mikel/lib/ImageMagick-6.7.9/bin/convert Reason: image not found fresh install does not help
Like
Version 6.7.9
mikel111
27 September 2012
Use this fine under Lion (10.7). Upgraded to Mountain Lion (10.8.2) and now I get dyld: Library not loaded: /ImageMagick-6.7.9/lib/liblcms2.2.dylib Referenced from: /Users/XXX/ImageMagick-6.7.9/bin/convert Reason: image not found tried fresh install - no luck.
Like
Version 6.7.9
1 answer(s)
Laine
Laine
27 October 2012
Yes, I searched for the dylib and found this discussion: http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21987 Then I used this link found on the discussion page: http://www.littlecms.com/download.html Then I expanded the archive and pointed Terminal at the extracted folder, then: ./configure sudo make install Then ImageMagick worked OK in Mountain Lion.
Like (1)
Robert-Vaessen
02 June 2012
Today is the 2nd of June, 2012 - The Mac OS binary distribution of ImageMagick seems to be stuck on release 11.3.0 (tar package contains version 6.7.5 from back in Feb of 2012). MacUpdate is displaying/linking to a 'Version 6.7.7', but the download contains version 6.7.5. I contacted the 'Wizards' at imagemagick.org. If they provide a link to a more recent release, I'll post it here.
Like
Version 6.7.7
Cv186
29 May 2012
30 May and newly posted "version 6.7.7" still provides Release 11.3.0, containing "version 6.7.5".
Like
Version 6.7.7
Cv186
22 May 2012
The link provided on MU for "version 6.7.7" actually provides Release Version 11.3.0, which contains "Version 6.7.5" which, like every second release recently, gives a Library Exception error (at least on Lion). I'm stuck on 6.7.3, which works. The MacPorts updating system is much more reliable, but requires about 4Gig of complex interlinked dependencies to allow the 4Mb of executables to function. My poor little SSD drive can't spare that space.
Like
Version 6.7.7
Aglee
04 August 2011
Haven't tried this on Lion but on Snow Leopard I get "Incompatible library version: convert requires version 10.0.0 or later, but libltdl.7.dylib provides version 9.0.0" when I try to run 'convert'.
Like (2)
Version 6.7.1
Rkamper
28 February 2010
Links to 6.5.9!
Like
Version 6.6.0
Mark-Everitt
06 September 2009
Probably a better way of installing this is Macports. I've never had any problems that way, and it keeps me on top of the frequent updates.
Like (2)
Version 6.5.5
2 answer(s)
Red-Herring
Red-Herring
06 September 2009
I never liked extra /opt or /sw hierarchy in addition to /usr/local and at some moment decided to stay away from all ports. This allows me to stay on the bleeding edge of svn.cvs/git and learn few things :-)
Like (2)
Version 6.5.5
Mark-Everitt
Mark-Everitt
06 September 2009
There's no reason not to install bleeding edge stuff into /opt/local/ or /sw/. It can get complex, but the added niceness is that it's not in a directory hidden from Finder. If the worst comes to the worst, you can always just delete all of /opt/ or /sw/ without worrying too much. Having said that I use the one installed with MacTeX most of the time!
Like (1)
Version 6.5.5
Red-Herring
06 September 2009
I never use precompiled binaries but try to compile them by myself which allows to add different tools. Lately I was able to compile IM 6.5.5-7 with jbig2 and autotrace One definitely should not compare CLI of ImageMagick with click interface of Desktop publishing tools as they are different programs used for different tasks. It does not mean that Photoshop cannot do some batch jobs or one can write a GUI using (some) of the features of IM. There are tasks which simply can have no reasonable GUI except drag-and-drop. Example? autotrace or potrace converting bw bitmap graphics to a vector one. Another? pdfcrop (not part of IM but TeX distribution) which by default crops according to bounding box. There is no controversy CLI vs GUI and depending on the task I use one or another
Like (4)
Version 6.5.5
Mrglsmrc
06 September 2009
current link is not to correct version 6.5.5...instead it links to 6.5.3 apparently the new 6.5.5 is only for windows at present and MU is mis-informed :(
Like
Version 6.5.5
Penguirl
11 March 2009
Is it just me or does it seem odd to use a CL tool to do GRAPHICAL work? Wouldn't a GUI be easier?
Like (2)
Version 6.5
5 answer(s)
Mark-Everitt
Mark-Everitt
07 April 2009
Did you just not bother to read the comment immediately below yours? Imagemagick simply has too many features to wrap in a gui, and many people use it from scripts. Take a look around the internet. Anywhere you see a thumbnail it's probably imagemagick doing it. I use it for that and many more things.
Like (4)
Version 6.5.1
brsma
brsma
08 April 2009
You do not seem to take into account that a) there exist some more types of graphics workflow besides ‘interactively creating and touching up images by hand'. Think of batch processing. Though there might also be e.g. GraphicsConverter, the abilities of ImageMagick surpass it by far. (Not even speaking of Photoshop's comparably extremely lame and pathetic batch jobs.) b) there is no GUI running on servers. That is: besides web apps, mostly. But if these need image processing capabilities, it is done in the backend - i. e. mostly by ImageMagick or something similar. And then, you should not underestimate the power of the command line when it comes to abstraction. The GUI as we know it is quite challenged in that area. Anyway, ImageMagick is by no means software that is intended to be used by the average (i.e. GUI-dependent) end user. Most people, including myself, who actually have use for its features do not seem to mind the least not having a GUI for it. (And putting GUIs on CLI tools mostly fails, anyway - the designs/concepts are actually just too different.) And that's from someone with an MFA in visual communication (aka graphics design) ;-) (Ok, I'm probably also a geek and the majority of my colleagues might think differently in that matter.)
Like (7)
Version 6.5.1
Mark-Everitt
Mark-Everitt
08 April 2009
One other important thing! IF you use a CLI then you're encouraged to think about tasks programmatically. This encourages consistency and thought rather than point and click which sometimes makes ideas too easy to realise. This is going to make me sound a bit mad, but I actually avoid GUI for image creation, opting for PGF/TIKZ (you may have heard of this or use it if you're into LaTeX) because it keeps things consistent and forces me to think; a must for technical drawing and scientific diagrams.
Like (3)
Version 6.5.1
Penguirl
Penguirl
25 April 2009
I can see by your comments that it does have it's strong points, and I myself have run into Photoshops batch processing limitations, but at the same time a CLI graphics app will inherently have shortcomings of it's own. Never having used ImageMagick I have no way of knowing what they might be, but one thing that comes to mind is that it must be difficult if not impossible to clone stamp in a CLI. Or anything else involving working on specific areas of an image. Yes I did read the comment before mine, however I did not open up the replies. My comment wasn't meant to offend, it was a serious question.
Like
Version 6.5.1
Mark-Everitt
Mark-Everitt
25 April 2009
I'm sure that you could coerce Imagemagick into tasks like clone stamping, but you're absolutely right that this is suited to a GUI. I tend to use Imagemagick for all those cases that are repetitive and could be handled in batch, or if what I want is something really simple, like creating a thumbnail. Most of my work is in technical drawing, not with photographs, so a very high proportion I what I do is programmatic anyway and I've never had a need for photoshop. I'll occasionally use gimp to touch up an image. Sorry if my response to your initial post was harsh. I know that it was a legitimate question. There are just easier ways of finding out the answer though. A quick visit to their site would have answered your question and saved you time in the long run. Having said that I really do enjoy conversations like these! I guess, as in most things, the key is compromise. I reckon you should give Imagemagick a go next time you run into batch problems in Photoshop or something similar. It sounds like you're far more advanced than me when it come to real graphical work! I must confess I had to look up clone stamping.
Like (1)
Version 6.5.1
Roro01
26 October 2008
I WISH SOMEONE WOULD CREATE A GUI This software seems extremely useful but, unfortunately, many of us are not familiar with UNIX and Command Line Interface.
Like (1)
Version 6.4.5
2 answer(s)
Mark-Everitt
Mark-Everitt
05 December 2008
Imagemagick is far too full featured for a single GUI! You could happily have multiple programs for various tasks and still not use it to its full potential.
Like (1)
Version 6.4.7
Webchick
Webchick
23 December 2008
Not every program can be written to fulfill everyone's needs and skill sets. This is a venerable set of (mostly) command-line tools that will find the most use by developers, particularly those who work in a multi-platform environment. Its strengths lie primarily in the usefulness of these tools in scripts: whether it be processing one image on-the-fly or batch processing thousands of images. There are plenty of fine freeware GUI image processing applications out there, so if you're not looking for command-line image processing tools geared for developers, move along and no whining.
Like (3)
Version 6.4.8
Anonymous
02 October 2005
I still prefer SIPS from Mac OS X over ImageMagick.
Like
Version 6.2.5
1 answer(s)
Tekl
Tekl
25 September 2008
Can sips sharpen images or it there another way like using Quartz filters?
Like
Version 6.4.3
Anonymous
20 June 2005
The simple reason we need ImageMagick is that other platforms rely on it heavily. Having it on OS X as well makes things easier for a lot of people, and helps improve compatability between platforms.
Like (2)
Version 6.2.3
Anonymous
25 April 2005
Command line tools are good. But I don't see why we need ImageMagick while Mac OS X Panther has SIPS. I am not a developer but I did write a short shell script with SIPS and it works fine. I still don't see what additional functionality ImageMagick brings to a Panther user.
Like
Version 6.2.2
3 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
26 May 2005
read the documentation for sips, and read the documentation for imagemagick. imagemagick does many, many things that sips doesn't
Like
Version 6.2.3
Anonymous
Anonymous
07 June 2005
ImageMagik is cross platform -- which is useful if you've already written something using it that you're moving to a Mac, or if there's a possibility of the software being moved to some other platform in the future.
Like
Version 6.2.3
Greg-Raven
Greg-Raven
06 September 2009
Well for one reason, some of us need ImageMagick because Movable Type virtually requires it.
Like
Version 6.5.5
Anonymous
25 April 2005
Hey Kids, This software package is meant for developers. You know, "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" like the scary ape-man from Microsoft said. People who write software. I write a web-based app that allows its users to upload images, and thanks to ImageMagick, they can resize, crop, and scale the pictures without having to have a desktop program to do this. The techniques involved are very similar to something another guy came up with, that actually uses ImageMagick on its backend: http://codebehind.dk/scale_crop/ I write my program on my iMac, the same machine I also use Photoshop on. Isn't life grand? I, for one, am glad to know a new version of ImageMagick available, even though the only clicking involved is, um, firing up the terminal. And I say that as a 15+ year Mac user.
Like (3)
Version 6.2.2
Anonymous
25 April 2005
We don't need command line, we need clicks! Thats the way that MacOSX schould go! Command line is a step back in the Computer history! The best at this tool is that the tool is free. There are many other tools that works faster and are "easy to use" like Graphic converter, Batchfoto or Sizerox. I don't give this tool stars cause the developer has done his job.
Like
Version 6.2.2
Anonymous
25 April 2005
What is the difference between ImageMagick and SIPS? I don't see any additional functionality in ImageMagick not available in SIPS... Or have I missed anything?
Like
Version 6.2.2
Ancientyger
08 March 2005
graphic converter uses image magic to convert xcf files? hmmm....
Like
Version 6.2.0-6
Anonymous
07 March 2005
sounds great.... funny, i hear some of the users pooh poohing the idea of a gui... but there's a perl interface available from the site........ hmm......i was wondering...image magick + Perl...+ Cocoa? or does it matter when tiger comes? Now, if Seashore's toolset was a little better... or... Teal... or.. well, you know. Image Magick does look promising, though.
Like
Version 6.2.0-6
Anonymous
05 March 2005
There is a .pkg version by Marc Liyanage that works great at http://www.entropy.ch/software/macosx/welcome.html#imagemagick
Like
Version 6.2.0-5
Anonymous
05 March 2005
This is an excellent tool, I used to use it on a couple of websites. But it is marred by a rather unintuitive and messy way of installing (to install on a Mac you have to dig around on their forum and also manually copy it's config files to your home dir otherwise it will refuse to run -yet this isn't in the official docs) ImageMagick is screaming out for a standard Mac .pkg install file. Also the quality of JPEG thumbnails IM produces somehow leaves much to be desired compared to say Photoshop IMHO. Even at highest quality, and with sharpening they seem rather dark and blurry. Missing basic things in the docs too like make a folder of thumbnails from an exist folder of high res images (Sure I know you can mogrify but that erases the originals) Still a very powerful app, just needs better docs and a standard Mac installer.
Like
Version 6.2.0-5
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
14 March 2005
use convert to make thumbnails
Like
Version 6.2.0-7
Anonymous
19 December 2004
This is the power of opensource, it's always got someone working on it.
Like
Version 6.1.7
Anonymous
16 December 2004
Does this ever stop being updated for more than a day ? Every week about 3 new versions are listed
Like
Version 6.1.6-8
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
16 December 2004
ImageMagick is constantly being worked on and is a tool for developers, not really for end users. It has always been this way but now that it is being listed on Macupdate it is being exposed to people who aren't developers and that gets a bit confusing, I think.
Like
Version 6.1.6-8
Anonymous
10 December 2004
I tried to install this on my 533 MHz G4 at work. This app wasted nealy a whole day. The installer configured without error, the make install failed every time,no matter what default directory I chose. I also ran the ./configue and the make install as root, so I could write anywhere. The make install always complained it needed to write in the RSI directory (I have IDL 6.0), but such a directory does not exist (there is /usr/local/rsi/bin), but specifying this directory in the configure phase also failed during the make install. Good thing I kept the ImageMagick 5.3.1 installed by fink. The latest release is not available through fink
Like
Version 6.1.6-1
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
11 December 2004
Try copying the following two files to the ImageMagick source folder before running the configure script: /usr/share/libtool/config.guess /usr/share/libtool/config.sub
Like
Version 6.1.6-3
Anonymous
23 November 2004
Dowload link is broken???
Like
Version 6.1.5-2
Anonymous
17 November 2004
how do you insatall this app ???
Like
Version 6.1.4-4
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
06 January 2005
it's not an app. it's a collection of command line tools.
Like
Version 6.1.7-6
Anonymous
15 November 2004
Just wonder... What is the difference between ImageMagick and the SIPS that came with Panther?
Like
Version 6.1.4-2
1 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
06 January 2005
ImageMagick does a lot more than sips
Like
Version 6.1.7-6
Anonymous
24 October 2004
I am only beginning to tap the potential of this application but so far it appears to be completely amazing and indispensible! I installed using Fink. btw.
Like
Version 6.1.1-5
Anonymous
18 September 2004
A great piece of software, that is necessary for any developer doing image manipulations, especially on a webserver. It's far more powerful and useful than people realize.
Like
Version 6.0.8
Anonymous
06 September 2004
Good to see more and more free tools for the amazing OS X.
Like
Version 6.0.7
Anonymous
10 July 2004
Required for display pictures in aMSN, just for that it scores 5 Stars in my book.
Like
Version 6.0.3
Anonymous
06 June 2004
Sadly, this software falls victim to many uninformed reviews. ImageMagick is developer's software, very powerful software at that. A few people here would bash the Toyota Prius for not being able to tow a 30' sailboat. They are, of course, idiots who don't get the point. For those who bemoan the lack of a GUI, well, they obviously don't know much about ImageMagick. The software has display, an interactive X11-based GUI image editor that has been included as part of the suite for years and years. The ImageMagick suite of *nix/X11-based tools is one of the most powerful collection of image processing utilities around. The command-line utilities are well suited for web serving and other development. For instance, I can use the same shell script I wrote in the mid-Nineties to automatically convert a PhotoCD from PCDs to full-resolution TIFFs, smaller JPGs, and thumbnail PNGs on my iBook. The command-line tools, not having a GUI, have a small memory footprint and great performance to boot.
Like
Version 6.0.2
Anonymous
06 June 2004
This is another one of those joker's software. Don't waste your time. You have to do more work for it than it does for you. That's why it's free. Stay with you Photoshop.
Like
Version 6.0.2
5 answer(s)
Anonymous
Anonymous
06 June 2004
You're missing the point. This won't replace Photoshop, this is for things like web server use. If you want the write a php script that can manipulate images, for example.
Like
Version 6.0.2
Anonymous
Anonymous
08 June 2004
Just had to find out that "Image Events" doesn't work correctly in 10.3.3. ImageMagick is not only a replacement but an enhancement. It's great to be able to use these kinds of software titles on a Mac.
Like
Version 6.0.2
Anonymous
Anonymous
24 June 2004
You';re right it wont replace photoshop ... but it can be used to build a photoshop replacement! You can do things from the command line (as others stated) for usage in scripting, or even within your applications using the API. P.S. Imagemagick has been around a lot longer than photoshop has, and it does a better job on some things IMHO
Like
Version 6.0.2
Anonymous
Anonymous
18 September 2004
Try to compare the price on the two products.
Like
Version 6.0.8
Anonymous
Anonymous
03 October 2004
ImageMagick is to Photoshop what a model kit is to a completed model. The completed model looks great, works great and is easy to make use of. The model kit looks like a jumble of parts that don't do anything until a person with the skill to make use of it comes along and creates something. It is that simple.
Like
Version 6.1
Anonymous
12 April 2004
Essential application for web development. While it says there is no user-friendly UI, that's not the point. Your perl, php, or other scripts are the UI and there are many already written such as Movable Type and many many other web "applications" that make use of ImageMagick.
Like
Version 6.0