Has the Photoshopping been overdone?

https://www.behance.net/gallery/Human-type-for-KEROZEN/11239455

 

Thanks for posting.

I don't know anything about Photoshop (except that I can't afford
it!).

Are those sort of images difficult to do at all?

 

you can't afford $50, yet you can afford a digital camera and a
computer?

 

Where can you buy Photoshop for $50?

 

Not if you get the intended joke, I guess.

 

pretty much anywhere. $50-60 is the typical street price for photoshop
elements.

those who need the full photoshop aren't concerned with the price since
they'll make it back very quickly.

 

$50?

Not talking about Elements here, but thanks for playing.

 

elements is all you need unless you're a pro, in which case the price
doesn't matter. the amount of time it saves can be made back very
quickly. it's *cheap*.

 

Another one of your twisted responses, which no doubt you will fight
to defend.

Photoshop Elements is not Photoshop, even if it has the same publisher
and has the word Photoshop in the name.

You have absolutely no idea of how quickly 'full Photoshop' users will
make their money back. I bet you can't even give a definition of what
you mean by 'full Photoshop' which is relevant to this thread.

 

there's nothing twisted about it and i can see that you're going to
start in with your idiotic nitpicking, as usual.

it most certainly *is* photoshop.

just what exactly do you think it is, if it isn't photoshop?

it even *says* photoshop in the name.

here's a hint: it's photoshop for non-pros.

actually i do, having worked with many graphic artists over the years.

and it's not just photoshop. pro level tools generally pay for
themselves *very* quickly.

you must be kidding.

 

nospam will tell it's all you need unless you're a pro. It's very
convenient for us in this group to have nospam around to tell us what
we need and what we don't need. It's amazing how he knows what we
need and what we don't need without knowing anything about what we do.
We all stand in awe of him.

 

*adobe* will tell you that.

that's why they have more than one version.

 

My 'nitpicking' occurs because you dan't mean what you say or say what
you mean. When Polly the Parrott wrote "I don't know anything about
Photoshop (except that I can't afford it!)" you responded "you can't
afford $50 ...". It turned out you were not writing about Photoshop
but Photoshop _Elements_ which is a different animal with a different,
but similar, name.

It is Photoshop Elements, no matter how you argue to the contrary.
Even Adobe knows they are two different products - otherwise how could
they know which one you want to buy?

It also says *Elements* in it's name. Do you really need an
explanation of why that should be?

Another hint. It doesn't say a thing about who it's intended for.

Savageduck and PeterN are full Photoshop users. When do you think they
are going to make their money back?

No I'm not.

I would ask you to have a try but I haven't the energy to deal with
arguing over the confused mess which I expect to emerge.

 

That's interesting. Someone was asleep at the switch the days I
purchased various versions of the full Photoshop. They didn't ask me
if I was a pro. They just took my money.

Can I get my money back since I didn't qualify for the full version?

If I order CC, and inform them I'm not a pro, will they refuse my
order because I don't need it?

 

Typical troll bait. nospam said that those that *need* Photoshop are
professionals and they can afford it because their line of work pays for
the software.

nospam never said that all Photoshop *users* have means to pay for the
software via profits from their usage of it.

 

This is one of those situations where technically something has one
meaning, but in use it has another meaning.

The program's full name is "Adobe Photoshop Elements (version)", so
one could say that calling it "Photoshop" is technically correct.
However, in general practice, people understand "Photoshop" to mean
the full version and not Elements.

I would not call it "Photoshop" because there's no reason to confuse
anyone. "Elements" is sufficiently descriptive and just as easy to
say or type.

 

it's the same animal, just an older sibling.

even adobe knows they're the same animal, from the same codebase, with
some compile time switches. that makes them both 'photoshop'.

the difference is one has more features than the other because it's
targeted for pros who need those features while the other omits those
features and offers the product at a lower price.

it's a lot like nikon having a d3200 and a d4. they're both nikon slrs
and work the same way and use the same lenses and accessories, with one
targeted to pros and the other to non-pros.

that's just branding. it's still photoshop.

the price does. the list of features does.

there is no requirement that someone make their money back.

the point is that a pro can justify the price of pro tools because it
can make them more productive, so they'll make back the expense very
quickly.

it's not an absolute. just because there are the occasional exception
doesn't change anything. you're just nitpicking inconsequential
details, as usual.

the nikon d4 is a pro camera but there are non-pros who own them. so
what? that doesn't mean it's now an entry level camera. the nikon d3200
is an entry level camera but you might see a pro use one on occasion,
perhaps if their d4 failed. so what? that doesn't make it a pro camera.

only one of your making.

 

if you're going to hand them money, why would they say no?

i never said you had to qualify for anything.

they should refuse it on the grounds that you're stupid.

 

Then I guess, once more, your information is not reliable. You told
me they'd tell me.