4 ms·

I am glad that I never decided to become a photoshop pro. I always contemplated about it, seemed attractive for a while, but glad that I decided against it. RIP

I am glad that I never decided to become a photoshop pro. I always contemplated about it, seemed attractive for a while, but glad that I decided against it. RIP r/photoshopbattles. It was in the endless list of new shiny 'skills' that feels good to have. Now I can use nano-banana instead. Other models will soon follow, I am sure.

echelon 1y ago
Programming and everything else will eventually fall to automation, too. It's just a matter of time. Engineering probably takes a while (5 years? 10 years?) because errors multiply and technical debt stacks up. In images, that's not so much of a big deal. You can re-roll. The context and consequences are small. In programs, bad code leads to an unmaintainable mess and you're stuck with it. But eventually this will catch up with us too.
- quantumHazer 1y ago
  Both of you are wrong and this is not good discussion level for HN
  - echelon 1y ago
    I'm unclear as to which side of the argument you're taking. If you think that these tools don't automate most existing graphics design work, you're gravely mistaken. The question is whether this increases the amount of work to be done because more people suddenly need these skills. I'm of the opinion that this does in fact increase demand. Suddenly your mom and pop plumbing business will want Hollywood level VFX for their ads, and that's just the start.
  - casey2 1y ago
    If being wrong isn't good discussion for HN then they should delete the site
esafak 1y ago
Retouching is an art. To the pro, this is just another tool to increase efficiency. You pay them not just for knowing how to use Photoshop, but for exercising good judgement. That said, I imagine this will shrink the field, since fewer retouchers will be able to do the same work, unless the amount of work goes up commensurately. Will people get more retouching done if the price goes down? Not sure.
- __rito__ 1y ago
  I didn't say Lightroom and said Photoshop and mentioned that subreddit for a reason.
- neom 1y ago
  Especially colouring, In college I worked for a dude who would re-colour old B&Ws for people, 60% the work (the work he enjoyed) was trying to research enough to know reasonably well what colour something actually ought to be, not just what we thought looked good.
  - polynomial 1y ago
    "Realism is overrated." /s
SoKamil 1y ago
If you commented it a decade ago, I would say that at least you own the program and skills in case Google decides to turn off the lights or ask prohibitive price tag. Now you need to pay subscription for PS and maybe there would be some decent open weight model released.
- stefs 1y ago
  qwen3 is open weights and offers passable image generation
ctippett 1y ago
Interesting take. I'm a programmer, but learned Photoshop in the early 2000s and had a blast making and editing images for fun. Sure, the generative models today can do a far better job than anything I could come up with, but that doesn't detract from the experience and skills I picked up over the years. If anything, knowing Photoshop (I use Affinity Designer/Photo these days) is actually incredibly useful to finesse the output produced by AI. No regrets.
- __rito__ 1y ago
  > learned Photoshop in the early 2000s and had a blast making and editing images for fun > "had a blast" One can have blasts in many things nowadays. Like playing Factorio, writing functional code for recreational problem solving, playing Chess, making SBC/Microprocessor projects for fun, doing Math for fun, and so on... Photoshop just couldn’t compete with the existing blasts in my life, and I felt a little bad for not learning it. But that teeny, tiny bad feeling has been wiped away by nano-banana.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- polynomial 1y ago
  Photoshop was hella fun, turned out that programming paid more. And now AI pays much more.
jumpinjackjill 1y ago
[dead]
CuriouslyC 1y ago
it's still a useful skill to know photoshop. AI images can be great but you are almost always going to want to A. create the base composition yourself B. clean up artifacts in the AI generation and C. layer AI compositions into a final work.

echelon 1y ago

Programming and everything else will eventually fall to automation, too. It's just a matter of time. Engineering probably takes a while (5 years? 10 years?) because errors multiply and technical debt stacks up. In images, that's not so much of a big deal. You can re-roll. The context and consequences are small. In programs, bad code leads to an unmaintainable mess and you're stuck with it. But eventually this will catch up with us too.

quantumHazer 1y ago
Both of you are wrong and this is not good discussion level for HN
- echelon 1y ago
  I'm unclear as to which side of the argument you're taking. If you think that these tools don't automate most existing graphics design work, you're gravely mistaken. The question is whether this increases the amount of work to be done because more people suddenly need these skills. I'm of the opinion that this does in fact increase demand. Suddenly your mom and pop plumbing business will want Hollywood level VFX for their ads, and that's just the start.
- casey2 1y ago
  If being wrong isn't good discussion for HN then they should delete the site

esafak 1y ago

Retouching is an art. To the pro, this is just another tool to increase efficiency. You pay them not just for knowing how to use Photoshop, but for exercising good judgement. That said, I imagine this will shrink the field, since fewer retouchers will be able to do the same work, unless the amount of work goes up commensurately. Will people get more retouching done if the price goes down? Not sure.

__rito__ 1y ago
I didn't say Lightroom and said Photoshop and mentioned that subreddit for a reason.
neom 1y ago
Especially colouring, In college I worked for a dude who would re-colour old B&Ws for people, 60% the work (the work he enjoyed) was trying to research enough to know reasonably well what colour something actually ought to be, not just what we thought looked good.
- polynomial 1y ago
  "Realism is overrated." /s

SoKamil 1y ago

If you commented it a decade ago, I would say that at least you own the program and skills in case Google decides to turn off the lights or ask prohibitive price tag. Now you need to pay subscription for PS and maybe there would be some decent open weight model released.

stefs 1y ago
qwen3 is open weights and offers passable image generation

ctippett 1y ago

Interesting take. I'm a programmer, but learned Photoshop in the early 2000s and had a blast making and editing images for fun. Sure, the generative models today can do a far better job than anything I could come up with, but that doesn't detract from the experience and skills I picked up over the years. If anything, knowing Photoshop (I use Affinity Designer/Photo these days) is actually incredibly useful to finesse the output produced by AI. No regrets.

__rito__ 1y ago
> learned Photoshop in the early 2000s and had a blast making and editing images for fun > "had a blast" One can have blasts in many things nowadays. Like playing Factorio, writing functional code for recreational problem solving, playing Chess, making SBC/Microprocessor projects for fun, doing Math for fun, and so on... Photoshop just couldn’t compete with the existing blasts in my life, and I felt a little bad for not learning it. But that teeny, tiny bad feeling has been wiped away by nano-banana.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
polynomial 1y ago
Photoshop was hella fun, turned out that programming paid more. And now AI pays much more.

jumpinjackjill 1y ago

[dead]

CuriouslyC 1y ago

it's still a useful skill to know photoshop. AI images can be great but you are almost always going to want to A. create the base composition yourself B. clean up artifacts in the AI generation and C. layer AI compositions into a final work.