[ SECRET POST #5826 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5826 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 39 secrets from Secret Submission Post #834.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[tabaqui]

HRmmmmmmmm.
If you think buying (expensive) and learning to use Photoshop is 'no work' tells me you might not know as much about Photoshop as you think.

[rosehiptea]

Thought this also.

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they're comparing it to the learning curve with GIMP.

Photoshop budgeted in lots of money for their user interface, while (much as I love GIMP) I get the impression that, like lots of open source projects, it tries to make up for its usability shortcomings by just telling users they're supposed to read the effin' manual. And telling non-users that it's just as powerful as the proprietary thing, and actually superior in most ways, and that the idea that PS is easier to use owes its existence to universities and design schools exposing their students to the Adobe product. But the relevant difference is that Photoshop designers put actual emphasis on people being able to look at the menus and ask themselves "which of these options sounds like it will apply the effect I need?" Which maybe seems trivial, but when you consider how many times a user that isn't hyper-familiar with a particular program will have to do that and then either be happy that their guesswork worked or go search for what the program actually called the thing they needed and where it's located, it adds up. Especially when "what this program called the thing" bears no similarity to anything they would have called it and is hard to memorize, so they have to do the exact same thing the next time they want the same effect, or take notes and more notes on what they did before.

I'd agree with you that mastering Photoshop is quite the time commitment, but making art with it at all? Not really.

[tabaqui]

*shrug* I guess that's a matter of opinion? My exSO is a long-time PS user. An artist in every medium, about, since he was a kid, and he was delighted with PS. But it's not super-user friendly, especially with every upgrade seemingly doing it's best to confuse and frustrate users. I've used it, myself; I quit with updates after edition 7 and am happy with that (and know my way around it).

I've watched my exSO make very colorful, detailed art on PS - it wasn't a quick and easy thing, even after having used it for years and knowing exactly what he wanted to do. It still took actual artist talent, and it still took time and patience.

Someone wanting to 'make digital art' and thinking they can breeze in and start turning out awesome art on day one with PS if they've never used it before? Are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

[(Anonymous)]

... You still need to, you know, fucking draw.
Also their updates can be just annoying.