Got remember that Photoshop was initially a graphic arts tool that could be
used to manipulate digital photo images among other things. Point being it
was not aimed at the photographer. Until recently, in my area, all Photoshop
courses were targeting the graphic artist not the photographer.
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Layers in Photoshop


>
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> > The PhotoShop tutorials are quite adequate. You just have to see them
> > through from start to finish.
> > Paul
>
> All facetiousness aside, I do believe you.
> My single objection to PhotoShop is it's massiveness & complexity,
> similar to latest versions of Microsoft Word (or Office, if that
> pertains...)
> In a word ~ "Bloated!" So very much more than almost any normal person
> would or could ever use! Yet, we, each and everyone of us, have to put
> up with every bit of the overhead, if we want to or are obligated to
> use this program in the course of our businesses.
> I do not dispute the capability of PhotoShop. That it's a wonderful
> application is without doubt.
> The very fact that anyone finds a need for such an organization as the
> NAPP is sufficient indication of it's complexity.
> I don't want to have to finish pre-med at WRU to be able to do
> splinter removals and capable first aid!
>
> It is just WAY too much for most of us, that's all.
>
> keith
>
> > Keith Whaley wrote:
> > >
> > > Butch Black wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Don;
> > > >
> > > > The NAPP sells some wonderful Photoshop training videos including
one on
> > > > layer techniques. They are reasonably priced (3 for $100, $39.99
ea)you can
> > > > order them at; www.photoshopuser.com
> > > >
> > > > BUTCH
> > >
> > > You mean, after paying 7ty-eleven jillion $'s for PhotoShop, I'm going
> > > to spend another hundert or so just learn how to USE it?! "Reasonably
priced?"
> > >
> > > NFW!
> > >
> > > But...thanks for the offer!  <g>
> > >
> > > keith whaley
>
>

Reply via email to