4 ms·

I know I'm getting downvoted for making a "douchebaggy" statement but not including the cost of a general purpose computer and not including the cost for a prof

I know I'm getting downvoted for making a "douchebaggy" statement but not including the cost of a general purpose computer and not including the cost for a professional photo editing tool is something totally different. I was just kind of upset about reading the "cost" of his photography experiment/hobby and not even thinking about including the cost of the photo editing software. Especially when it comes to photoshop which is probably one of the most pirated pieces of software due to its price. I unfortunately know too many hobby photographers who would not even think of paying for this essential tool they probably have been using for many years.

Tichy 15y ago
Maybe the good photographers don't need Photoshop :)
danso 15y ago
No you're right, as is the previous commenter who speculated that I have a copy from work (no one considered GIMP? :) )...funny enough, I noticed someone in one of the discussion threads about the "This photograph is not free" who was in agreeance with the author but also seemed to imply that it's OK for non-rich photogs to pirate Photoshop. The two things are apples-to-apples in that people who copy photos or Photoshop w/o permission justify it in that the original work is still available for the owner to sell/use. But it's funny how it's hard to see that perspective unless you are actually in the aggrieved group (i.e. photographers and software developers)
- Samuel_Michon 15y ago
  "you're right, as is the previous commenter who speculated that I have a copy from work (no one considered GIMP? :) )" I did consider it, but I saw screenshots of the Photoshop toolbox in one of the chapters of your publication The Bastards Book of Ruby [1]. I could never get used to the GIMP, though. I've worked with Photoshop since 1993, I'm stuck in my ways. I have often wished for a leaner program that would let me do simple tasks that I usually do in PS – GraphicConverter satisfied some of those needs for years. Then, Pixelmator 2 [2] came out, and nowdays I find myself using it about as often as Photoshop. It's lean, has a gorgeous UI, and it works almost the same as Photoshop. For web graphics, it has all I need. For print, I still (have to) use PS. [1] http://ruby.bastardsbook.com/chapters/image-manipulation/ http://ruby.bastardsbook.com/chapters/image-manipulation/ [2] http://www.pixelmator.com/ http://www.pixelmator.com/
justincormack 15y ago
There are many alternatives. I am an amateur photographer and have never used Photoshop. Despite its name, it was not designed as a tool for photographers, but for commercial artworkers, and is overkill for most photographers unless you are doing really odd stuff. Lightroom or Aperture or Gimp are find and much cheaper/free.

Tichy 15y ago

Maybe the good photographers don't need Photoshop :)

danso 15y ago

No you're right, as is the previous commenter who speculated that I have a copy from work (no one considered GIMP? :) )...funny enough, I noticed someone in one of the discussion threads about the "This photograph is not free" who was in agreeance with the author but also seemed to imply that it's OK for non-rich photogs to pirate Photoshop. The two things are apples-to-apples in that people who copy photos or Photoshop w/o permission justify it in that the original work is still available for the owner to sell/use. But it's funny how it's hard to see that perspective unless you are actually in the aggrieved group (i.e. photographers and software developers)

Samuel_Michon 15y ago
"you're right, as is the previous commenter who speculated that I have a copy from work (no one considered GIMP? :) )" I did consider it, but I saw screenshots of the Photoshop toolbox in one of the chapters of your publication The Bastards Book of Ruby [1]. I could never get used to the GIMP, though. I've worked with Photoshop since 1993, I'm stuck in my ways. I have often wished for a leaner program that would let me do simple tasks that I usually do in PS – GraphicConverter satisfied some of those needs for years. Then, Pixelmator 2 [2] came out, and nowdays I find myself using it about as often as Photoshop. It's lean, has a gorgeous UI, and it works almost the same as Photoshop. For web graphics, it has all I need. For print, I still (have to) use PS. [1] http://ruby.bastardsbook.com/chapters/image-manipulation/ http://ruby.bastardsbook.com/chapters/image-manipulation/ [2] http://www.pixelmator.com/ http://www.pixelmator.com/

justincormack 15y ago

There are many alternatives. I am an amateur photographer and have never used Photoshop. Despite its name, it was not designed as a tool for photographers, but for commercial artworkers, and is overkill for most photographers unless you are doing really odd stuff. Lightroom or Aperture or Gimp are find and much cheaper/free.