Last updated on April 26th, 2019. Posted in Photoshop & Graphics.
Is Photoshop hard to use? So long as you go about digging into it in the right way, you'll find Photoshop easy to learn. But dig too deeply too quickly, and you'll likely get confused and frustrated. This is why most people find Photoshop hard. In this post, we'll unpack all this -- let's do it!
By pirating Photoshop or other photo-editing software, the only message we send out is that we don't actually care about them at all. The main impetus for Adobe's move new Photoshop CC – a cloud-based software (not service, to be clear) – is to deter software piracy. It is illegal to portray an underage girl as nude; even if the photo is fake. Might want to double check google on this, but yes the last I heard about this it's illegal.
Outrage after Adobe says customers using an older version of Photoshop may be SUED if they continue - even though they paid for the software Adobe is under fire for saying users could face lawsuits. We can say that the fashion industry can still flourish without the digital alteration of the images of models if Photoshop is banned, however if it's not banned then these side effects pertaining to youngsters and the psychological interpretation of the society today cannot be stopped, or contained. So many weird edits. Oh internet, you never seize to amaze me. 🔹 Yesterdays video on Thea's channel - 💛 Merch Store - http://www.mrcra.
Photoshop can be hard to use if you don't get a solid foundation in the basics first.
So is Photoshop hard to use? No, learning the basics of Photoshop isn't that hard and won't take you much time. Where Photoshop can get frustrating is if you jump straight into it's more intermediate and advanced features. This can get confusing and make Photoshop seem complex, because you don't first have a solid grasp on the fundamentals. Nail down the basics first, and you'll find Photoshop easy to use.
For instance, early on it's important to get comfortable with Photoshop's interface, understand the difference between raster and vector graphics, learn about fundamentals like resizing, cropping, and basic colour adjustments, and know about the different graphic file formats.
So just how easy is Photoshop to use? Let's discuss. Webcam security for mac.
Is Photoshop Easy To Use?
It's difficult to answer the question, Is Photoshop easy to use? because it's such a huge, sometimes intimidating, piece of software that can be used in such a wide variety of ways. That said, learning the fundamentals of Photoshop is easy.
Because Photoshop's more intermediate and advanced functions can get pretty complex, I recommend really learning the essentials well first. It's pretty common for people to get too far ahead of themselves early on with Photoshop. And so they get frustrated because Photoshop seems too hard.
So, nail down things like Photoshop's interface, tools, general commands, and palettes (aka: panels). And, learning Photoshop's common keyboard shortcuts will help you work more efficiently before jumping into more advanced areas.
Once you get a solid grasp on Photoshop's essential tools, you'll naturally begin pushing further and further into the areas of Photoshop that most interest you. Where the real fun and power of Photoshop comes in is when you begin combining tools, commands, and features with one another. This is where Photoshop's real horsepower begins to show.
Once you get rolling, you'll really start loving Photoshop and you won't want to stop learning more about it!
And I really want to stress here that you don't have to master everything there is to know about Photoshop. I've been using and teaching Photoshop since the late 90's (that's a long time!), and although I had to learn nearly everything it can do because I was teaching it so often, in my day-to-day work, I use less than 15% of it's capabilities.
Yeah, less than 15%!
This is because Photoshop can do so many different things and be used in so many different ways. Anyone involved in graphics, photography, design and imaging of any kind is using Photoshop for something -- from comic book artists and web designers to fashion photographers and even forensic archaeologists -- anyone doing anything related to imagery is doing it with Photoshop.
But for your work, you'll likely only use a fraction of it's capabilities. Later on, we'll talk more specifically about some of the things Photoshop can be used for.
And, consider this: Because Photoshop's packing a lot of muscle, it might even be too powerful for what you need. So you might want to opt for a simpler graphics editor. A little later, we'll run through a handful of Photoshop alternatives.
But for lots of people, Photoshop's horsepower and flexibility make it a great choice. Even though it's often used by amateurs and hobbyists, Photoshop is a world-class, industry standard professional graphics application.
So if you think Photoshop'll be a good fit for you, get a solid foundation in the fundamentals first before going too deep, and you'll find Photoshop easy to use. One of the worst ways to learn Photoshop is to just start fiddling around with it, trying to figure it out. Photoshop is not intuitive to learn. You'll easily get lost in Photoshop's myriad of panels, dialog boxes, and menus. You'll quickly become overwhelmed and get frustrated, thinking Photoshop's too hard.
Later on, we'll talk about some of the best ways for you to learn Photoshop. But first, you might be wondering how long it will take to learn Photoshop. We'll cover that next.
How Long Does It Take To Get Good At Photoshop?
So we know that Photoshop is a pretty massive beast that can get quite complicated pretty quickly. So how long is it going to take for you to learn Photoshop?
If you nail down Photoshop's fundamentals first before getting carried away into it's more advanced areas, as I've recommended a few times already, then you'll be able to learn the basics of Photoshop very quickly.
How long will it take you to learn Photoshop? You could easily get the fundamentals down in about a weekend -- maybe three or four days of consistent effort to start feeling comfortable and confident with it. So, it doesn't take too long to learn Photoshop.
But this assumes you're using a good learning guide (maybe a good book or an online course). As I said above, the slowest, most frustrating way to learn Photoshop is to try learning it on your own by clicking around and trying to figure it out. So make sure you find a good resource to learn from.
And once you have these fundamentals down, you can go in whatever direction you want with Photoshop. You probably already have a pretty good idea of what you want to do with Photoshop already -- maybe you want to get into photo editing and retouching, front-end web design, creating print layouts, image compositing, or some other specific area of Photoshop. Get the fundamentals down, and you'll be all set to move into the area of Photoshop that interests you most.
And for these more specific areas of Photoshop, you can begin feeling confident with each of them in about 30 to 40 hours -- about a full work week -- which isn't too bad, considering how powerful the tools are and what you can do with them.
For most people, that's about as long as it's going to take to learn Photoshop.
So here's what I suggest: Take a weekend or so to zero in on those basics. Then, choose the one or two specific areas of Photoshop that interest you most and focus all your time and effort on those. And honestly, you can completely ignore the other, more advanced areas of Photoshop for now. Maybe later on you can consider getting into them if they interest you enough. But remember, there are large parts of Photoshop that you'll very likely never use.
I hope that sounds like a good plan for you. Now next up, you might be wondering why Photoshop is so widely used. That's next.
Why Is Photoshop So Popular?
As I'm sure you know already, Photoshop is hands down the most popular, widely used graphics editor on the planet. It very much is an industry standard. In fact, it's now so engrained in our culture that it's become a verb -- 'That looks Photoshopped,' or 'Did you Photoshop that?'
But, Photoshop wasn't always so popular or widely known. Way, way back when I first started with Photoshop (version 4 my friend! Not CS4.4!) it was very rare to run into someone outside of design circles who'd heard of Photoshop.
Back then, there were other applications competing in the graphics market alongside Photoshop. Some were quite impressive and could even handle a few things better than Photoshop. So how did Photoshop pull ahead and become as ubiquitous as it is today?
Two things, actually: First, Adobe had other graphics software that complimented Photoshop, like Illustrator. And second, Adobe tightly integrated these complimentary applications. So Photoshop's (and Adobe's) popularity grew because of improved graphics workflows.
And ever-improved workflows are exactly what every graphics professional longs for most. A streamlined workflow mean that you could move between Photoshop, Illustrator, and other Adobe graphics apps easily and efficiently. Today, newer programs like InDesign, Premiere, and Lightroom sit along side Photoshop, Illustrator, and others in a tight creative ecosystem.
So that's how Photoshop became the de-facto image editor in the world of graphics. However, despite it's power, flexibility, and ability to handle a huge variety of tasks, there are still a few applications that specialize in areas that Photoshop can't quite handle.
Corel Painter, for example, is a long-standing go-to application for digital painting. Even though Photoshop has powerful painting tools, Painter has a much more natural feel to it, earning it widespread popularity with digital artists, concept designers, and other digital creatives.
So while some applications might beat out Photoshop on very specific, niche tasks, Photoshop still maintains widespread use because of it's diverse and flexible feature set. Although it's claim to fame is photo editing, Photoshop is also used by web designers, marketers, video professionals, 3D modellers, artists, and many other professionals.
So just what can Photoshop do? Let's discuss that next.
What Is Photoshop Used For? What Can It Do?
So what can you use Photoshop for? In short, a lot!
A lot of people think Photoshop is only used for photo editing -- maybe things like photo retouching, colour correction, and so on. At it's core, that's really what Photoshop is. But more specifically, Photoshop's what's called a raster image editor. Raster images are graphics that are made up of blocks of colour called pixels. Photos, web graphics, and scans are all great examples of raster graphics.
If you'd like to learn more about raster graphics, and how they differ from vector graphics, take a look at my video, Understanding Raster vs Vector Graphics.
And even though Photoshop's original intent is handling raster graphics and editing photos, many powerful features have been added to it over the years. Today, Photoshop can do much, much more than just edit photos. It's used in a variety of creative and graphics industries, from photography to web design, marketing.it's even used in forensics.
From their website, Adobe tells us, 'Adobe Photoshop CC is the world's most advanced digital imaging software, used by photographers, designers, web professionals, and video professionals. The app gives you the utmost power and creative control for 2D and 3D image manipulation and compositing, video editing, and image analysis.'
So suffice it to say, lots of people are using Photoshop for lots of different things. Below, I'll outline some of the most common tasks Photoshop handles.
Photo manipulation:
As discussed, Photoshop's roots are in photo editing and manipulation. And this is a huge area -- photo manipulation includes any kind of image correction or manipulation, from removing a few photo blemishes to putting your dog's head on your sister-in-law!
So more specifically, image correction means things like photo touch up and colour correction, removing imperfections and blemishes, or even changing the colour of objects, removing backgrounds, and so on.
With Photoshop's powerful set of correction and touch up tools, you can enhance images, adjusting their exposure contrast, and saturation to get them looking their best.
Or, you could delve into things like special effects and image compositing. When Photoshop was first gaining popularity, it would usually be advertised with some kind of surreal Magritte-esque composited image.
Pushing Photoshop's image manipulation capabilities even further, many movie and video game concept artists use Photoshop to photobash ideas and designs together -- that is, they take bits and components from various photos and other resources and combine them together to create a concept design or illustration.
One of my favourite current concept artists, Maciej Kuciara has a photobashing tutorial, which'll give you a better idea of what this is all about.
Meanwhile, what's possible with photo adjustment and manipulation in Photoshop is incredible. Really, the only restrictions are your imagination!
Digital painting:
Even though many digital artists prefer to use a dedicated painting application like the aforementioned Corel Painter, Photoshop comes packed with many digital paintbrush and art-related tools. Vip marathi koligeet mp3 songs free download.
Paired with a Waccom drawing tablet, Photoshop can be used for all sorts of art-related projects, including comic books, concept design, interior design illustration, and even fine art. I've done a bit of this kinda work myself, and while I know Painter's better suited to the task, I already know and use Photoshop -- and that's the case for a lot of other digital artist and graphics professionals, too.
So if you're interested in creating digital art, Photoshop is more than capable of handling it.
Print design:
Although programs like Illustrator or InDesign are much better suited to laying out designs like posters, business cards, and brochures, Photoshop can handle these sorts of tasks. However, it can sometimes be a little unwieldy at these kinds of tasks.
In the world of print design, a page layout application like InDesign is best suited to this sort of work. Here, Photoshop is normally used to handle raster images that might be used in a layout. So if an image needed to be adjusted, colour corrected, or cropped, it would be done over in Photoshop and then inserted into an InDesign layout.
But if you'll only do occasional print design work, you'll be able to get away with just using Photoshop. You'll just need to know how to use it in this specific way (knowing things like image resolution, trims and bleeds, and so on).
But if print design will make up a larger part of your daily tasks, taking the time to learn a more dedicated application like InDesign is well worth your time.
Web design:
In it's static form, web design could be thought of as a low-resolution version of print design. There's of course a heck of a lot more to it than that, but suffice it to say, Photoshop can handle it!
With Photoshop you can not only design web elements like buttons, banners, and icons, but you can also mock up full web layouts and designs.
In the past, I've used Photoshop to create wireframe designs, establishing the structure of a web layout that I want to build. Then, you can apply a fully branded design on top of that structure. Once that's complete and everything's looking great, you can use Photoshop's built in commands to export the necessary background code to either further edit or to pass over to a web developer.
Most often though, Photoshop is used to optimize and convert images for use on the web. So, in the world of web design, Photoshop is widely used by designers, developers, and marketers.
Editing Video:
Another common area that Photoshop is used in is video. You can either use Photoshop to create graphics that can then be imported into a video editor like Premiere, or you can even use Photoshop for basic video editing -- yeah, video editing directly inside Photoshop!
So while limited, it is possible to edit video footage with Photoshop. Adding transitions, titles, cut points, and more is all possible via Photoshop's Timeline panel.
So even though Photoshop is primarily a photo editor, as you can see, it can be used to handle a wide variety of tasks. And we haven't covered all the different things that Photoshop can do-- these are just the most common ways Photoshop is used.
Suffice it to say, Photoshop can handle pretty much anything you'd want to be able to do with graphics.
Personally, I use Photoshop for all kinds of different tasks -- from web design to video graphics to personal projects. And for me, even though there might be more specialized software available, I'd much rather use and know a single application that I can apply to all my graphics work than have to learn and maintain a handful of smaller applications.
So, what's the cost to Photoshop? Is it expensive? Let's get into a few cost-related topics.
Is Photoshop Free?
You might be wondering if Photoshop is free. No, Photoshop is not free. It's a commercially available product that's available through various subscription options that Adobe offers.
However, Adobe does offer a free Photoshop trial. So, give it a spin and see if it's right for you.
As for a full version of Photoshop, Adobe offers a variety of subscription plans to choose from. You can check out all their subscription options right here. But for now, here's Photoshop's current pricing for individuals (all prices are in US dollars).
Adobe offers a variety of subscription models for Photoshop CC.
- Photography plan: $9.99 per month (includes Photoshop CC, Lightroom CC, Lightroom Classic CC, and 20gb of cloud storage)
- Single Photoshop app: $20.99 per month (includes Photoshop CC, Adobe Portfolio, Adobe Fonts, Adobe Spark, and 100GB of cloud storage)
- Full Creative Cloud suite: $52.99 per month (includes all Creative Cloud applications -- Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, and others -- Adobe Portfolio, Adobe Fonts, Adobe Spark, and 100GB of cloud storage)
- Full Creative Cloud suite and Adobe Stock Photos: $82.99 per month (includes everything the previous plan has, plus ten free images from Adobe Stock)
At just $10 per month for Photoshop, that's pretty tough to beat. But if you're just a hobbyist or are turned off by Adobe's subscription model, then these options might not be right for you.
If that's the case, you could try tracking down a used version of Photoshop CS6, the last 'traditional' version of Photoshop before Adobe switched to their subscription model. Try checking eBay or Craigslist -- but if you're going this route, be very careful! Make sure you're buying a legitimate, genuine copy of the software.
Otherwise, you could go with an alternative graphics editor. We'll explore some different Photoshop alternatives a little later.
Why Is Photoshop So Expensive?
You might be thinking that Photoshop seems expensive. Well, that all depends on how you look at it. For decades, the only way to get a genuine copy of Photoshop was to purchase it either as standalone software ($699 for the regular version or $999 for the extended version) or as a part of Adobe's Creative Suite (ranging in price from $1299 to $2599).
But now, as you saw above, you can get a full, legitimate installation of Photoshop for just $10 a month.
Whether that's expensive to you or not depends on if you're a professional or a hobbyist, and your interest level in Photoshop.
And you know, conversations about whether Photoshop's expensive or not always get messy. Not everyone's happy about Adobe's subscription service. In fact, when they first announced their move to a subscription approach, Adobe got a lot of backlash from their users. And this subscription model has not been error free -- like the time in 2014 when the service went down for an entire day and no one could use their software.or the problems Adobe's had with it's Cloud Storage service.or the time the subscription service got hacked and pirated.
And a lot of people argue that Photoshop's actually more expensive under a subscription model. The argument here is that over the span of several years, depending on the subscription you go with, it would actually be cheaper to buy Photoshop outright.
And here's where things get messy.
Is Photoshop More Expensive Under Adobe's Subscription Model?
Largely this argument's a dead horse that's been beaten, resuscitated, and beaten to death again. And, it's largely a mute conversation anyway -- the math gets messy and a direct, apples-to-apples comparison of subscribing to Photoshop monthly versus buying it outright is impossible. Here's why.
- Adobe offers a variety of different subscription options for Photoshop and the full Creative Cloud suite. Will we be comparing the entire Creative Cloud suite, or just Photoshop CC?
- Previously, there were a variety of Photoshop versions (regular Photoshop and Photoshop Extended) and different versions of the Adobe Creative Suite (Creative Suite Design Standard, Creative Suite Production Premium, Creative Suite Master Collection, etc). With all these variables, what are we comparing?
- Prior to Creative Cloud, Adobe was on an 18-month, and then a 12-month upgrade cycle. Any kind of comparison gets very complicated. And making it even more complex is the fact that many users wouldn't be buying full copies with each new version, but paying for an upgrade instead. I have no recollection of what upgrade costs were.so how far back are we going to stretch the math?
With all these variables, doing a direct comparison between Adobe's previous licensing model and their current subscription model is impossible. Besides, arguing over whether Photoshop is too expensive or not is largely irrelevant, because no matter how you or I feel about Adobe's subscription approach, they're not switching back to their traditional software model.
In other words, this is how things are now. No matter how I feel about Adobe's subscription service, there's no point in me complaining about it or wishing things would go back to how they were before. This is just how it is now.
How do I feel about Adobe's subscription model? I'm on the fence. On the one hand, I like to own the tools I use, not rent them. On the other hand, $10 a month to gain access to a world-class piece of software like Photoshop that used to cost at least $699 is a freakin' steal! So what I do is, I still have my old copy of CS6 that I often use daily (it does everything I need to do anyway), and subscribe to CC to keep up with the latest changes and updates.
So ultimately it's up to you to decide if Photoshop's too expensive for you or not. And is it worth the expense? That's next.
So Is Photoshop Worth The Price?
So is Photoshop worth it? This is largely a personal question that you'll have to answer for yourself. How serious are you about learning Photoshop? Will you be using it to earn an income? Or will you be using Photoshop with a hobby you enjoy like photography?
Then you'll have to decide if Photoshop's worth $10 a month or not.
For me, a professional who's uses Photoshop every day, $10 a month to have access to the most modern version of my favourite graphics application -- one that I've been using for decades -- it's an easy decision.
And remember, the $10 a month subscription gives you access to Lightroom and a few other goodies, too. I should also mention that updates are also included in your subscription, so anytime a new version of Photoshop rolls out, you get it automatically at no extra cost.
But, if you're more of an occasional user or don't need the level of power that Photoshop brings, maybe $10 per month is hard to justify. If that's the case, going with an alternative is your best option. We'll cover some Photoshop alternatives shortly. But first.
Is Photoshop Better On Mac Or PC?
After decades of using and teaching Photoshop on both Windows and Mac computers, I can honestly say that Photoshop functions identically on both platforms. What's different between Photoshop on a Mac versus a PC? Keyboard shortcuts -- that's about it!
In fact, this holds true for most cross-platform applications. Back in the 90s, there were some significant differences with software when it was run on a Windows computer versus a Mac. But it's rare to see big differences today.
So neither Windows or Mac computers are better for Photoshop. Which one's better really boils down to your personal preference. What are you more comfortable on, Windows or Mac? What do you currently have, a PC or a Mac? Go with that!
But there are a few minor caveats that I should add to give you some additional food for thought: First, do you have software or workflows that you need for your work, that are dependent on either Mac or PC?
For example, all the workflows I run here are Mac-based. And within these workflows are a few pieces of Mac-only software. So despite my love/hate relationship with Mac computers and Apple overall (it may be more that I love to hate them --jury's still out on that one!), until I figure out new workflows, I'm stuck on Island Apple. That makes my decision to not use Photoshop on Windows easy.for now at least.
Another thing to consider is hardware -- does Photoshop run faster on a Windows computer versus a Mac? Raw power certainly does make a difference in how fast Photoshop will run. But when comparing direct apples-to-apples between Macs and PCs, there's really no difference in terms of performance.
So performance-wise, there's no difference between Macs and PCs -- the only difference is the price tag!
If you'd like to check out Photoshop's system requirements, you can get 'em right here.
Now, I've mentioned a few times that going with an alternative to Photoshop might better suit your needs. Let's take a look at a few different options.
Photoshop Alternatives
If you're not happy about Adobe's subscription model, or if you think Photoshop might be too overpowered for what you'd like to do, there are a variety of Photoshop alternatives that might better fit your needs.
For example, if you're getting into web design and maybe WordPress, at a minimum you'll need a graphics editor that can handle simple tasks like sizing, cropping, basic colour correction, and maybe a few other tasks.
And over the past several years, a few graphics editing contenders have emerged as alternatives to Photoshop. As we'll discuss below, some are free while others are modestly priced. However, despite more and more alternatives are becoming available, none match Photoshop's power, range of tools, integration with other Adobe applications, and flexibility. But again, maybe you don't need any of that. So a few of these could be worth a look.
- Affinity Photo: The biggest contender to give Photoshop a run for it's money is Affinity Photo, which is available for both Mac and PC, with an iPad app available to boot.
- GIMP: Next up is GIMP. This guy's been around for years and years as a free and open source alternative to Photoshop. But despite its very low price tag of zero, GIMP can be overly complex and unintuitive to learn. It can do a lot -- most things Photoshop can do -- but often in a much more tangled and tedious way.
- Pixelmator: A third contender as an alternative to Photoshop is the Mac-only Pixelmator. At just $29.99, Pixelmator might not be as powerful as Photoshop, but it still offers a lot of features and options for the money.
And I gotta tell ya, I have my eye on Affinity Photo. At just $49.99, it can handle pretty much everything Photoshop can, including photo retouching, image manipulation, and digital painting. All this has me humming and hawing.
The only thing missing from Affinity Photo is maybe some advanced features that Photoshop has, and integration with other Adobe applications like Illustrator. That said, Affinity has an Illustrator alternative called Designer, and even an InDesign competitor called Publisher.
If you want to own your software rather than subscribe to it, or if you don't quite need all the power Photoshop has, Affinity Photo just might fit the bill.
But, if free fits your budget, then GIMP could be worth looking into.
Truth be told, I've known about GIMP for a long time, and I think at one point I downloaded it and opened it for 30 seconds or so, but I've never really given it an honest try. But I know that it is a viable alternative to Photoshop.so long as you have the patience to navigate it's complexities.
The biggest challenge with Pixelmator is that at first, it can seem unintuitive. So, you might need to spend a bit of time getting comfortable with it. But, once you're up and running you'll have a powerful set of tools at your disposal.
If you're a Mac user who's on the lookout for a Photoshop alternative, Pixelmator might be worth checking out.
So there's a look at a few graphics editor for you to consider instead of Photoshop. There are of course many others (a few honourable mentions include Paint.NET, Pixlr Editor, and the in-browser option Photo Pos Pro.
Ultimately, it's up to you to decide if any of these alternative graphics editors will be right for you. My challenge, as I mentioned earlier, is that in order to get the same power and flexibility that I have with Photoshop, I'd need a few of these programs on hand.
One other thing to consider is that if you think you'll want to go far with graphics and image editing, the industry-standard Photoshop is likely your best option. Imagine starting with one of these alternatives, only to realize halfway down your learning path that you'll need to switch to Photoshop in order to do the kind of work you want. That would be terrible!
Ultimately, of course, you'll have to decide. Just choose carefully!
Which Should You Learn First, Photoshop Or Illustrator?
If you're just getting started in the world of graphics, and you've decided to stick with Adobe, it can be tough to know where to start -- should you learn Adobe Illustrator first, or Photoshop?
In order to know where to begin, it's important to know and understand what each tool specializes in.
You already know that Photoshop's all about raster image editing and manipulation. We've covered a lot of what Photoshop can do already, so hopefully you're clear on all that.
But what about Illustrator? Illustrator is a vector graphics editor. What it does best is manipulate graphical objects to create things like logos, line art, and icons.
And don't forget, if you're unsure on the differences between raster and vector graphics, take a look at that video of mine, Understanding Raster vs Vector Graphics.
And as a quick aside, you might be wondering about Adobe InDesign and Lightroom. I mentioned earlier that InDesign is all about laying out print designs like business cards, book covers, brochures, and so on. As for Lightroom, it's essentially a photo management application that makes sorting and cataloging your images a breeze.
But back to the original question: Which should you learn first, Photoshop or Illustrator?
Of the two, I think you'll find that Illustrator is both harder to learn, and a graphics application that you'll use less frequently than Photoshop. At least, that's what I've seen and experienced over the years.
So if you want to learn both Illustrator and Photoshop, my suggestion would be to start with Photoshop. Once you've got it down, then head over to Illustrator. I say this because, as we've discussed, you can learn the basics of Photoshop fairly quickly. And while Illustrator's fundamentals can be learned fairly painlessly too, you'll certainly use Photoshop more than Illustrator, especially if you're interested in web design and photo manipulation.
So that begs the question, What's the best way to learn Photoshop?
Where Can You Go To Learn Photoshop?
So how can you learn Photoshop? As you might guess, there are a whole bunch of different ways to get yourself up to speed.
But whenever learning something big like WordPress, web design, Photoshop, or other skills, trawling through Google, YouTube, and forums is a very slow, painful way to learn. The problem isn't that the information isn't out there, the problem is that there's too much information! And it's all disorganized and sloppy.
My preferred method for learning new things is with online courses. I'm learning new things all the time, and online courses are a great way to learn a new skill quickly and on your own schedule.
The challenge with online courses is finding a good one that's taught by an industry expert who has tons of experience. These days, anyone with a laptop, an internet connection, and a pulse can make an online course -- and man have I seen some train wrecks!
Here on Ten Ton, I have an online video course called Getting Started With Photoshop CC. This course is designed to get you up and running quickly with Photoshop, giving you a solid foundation that you can build on.
If this sounds like a good fit, I'd love to see you there!
Author: Melanie Navamanikkam, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review
In March 2014, Congress introduced the Truth in Advertising Act Bill.[1] The goal of the law was for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to regulate to what extent advertisers could digitally alter images[2] used in advertisements through a systematic framework.[3] Digitally altered images of models in beauty ads, the Act's supporters say, are harmful to consumers as they are misleading, manipulative, and they contribute to negative body-image.[4] The Act did not gain the momentum necessary to pass the bill into law, and remained stagnant until a reintroduction in early 2016.[5] Although the Act is well intended, and takes on the noble effort of ensuring that men and women in America are not bombarded with images of unattainable beauty, the Act has many flaws and gaps that need to be addressed before it can be successful.
The major issue with the Act: blanket regulation on all digitally altered advertisements. Since not all digitally altered images are necessarily misleading, or contribute to negative body image, the fate of the Act remains unclear. Digital alterations of images often speak to simple aesthetics of an advertisement, and seek to only enhance the visuals. Other times, digital alteration can delve into manipulation.[6] The point of contention is discerning when artistry and creativity cross over into manipulation. Drawing that abstract line, distinguishing the point where art transcends into something dangerous, is what lawmakers struggle to mold.[7]
The First Amendment: Free Speech
Some countries regulate the use of digitally altered images in beauty advertisements. England, for example, famously banned two skincare advertisements by two large global brands, L'Oréal and Maybelline.[8] The governing body, the Advertising Standards Authority, claimed that the digitally altered images mislead consumers through exaggeration of the skin of celebrities in the advertisement, and breached its code of conduct.[9] In France, after six years of consideration, members of parliament voted to update the country's code to require published images to have bold printed notice disclosing any digital enhancements.[10] The move was in direct response to complaints that the beauty industry was negatively impacting young women in France.[11]
England regulates the use of digital alteration in advertisements for consumer deception reasons, and France regulates them for health concerns. The reason the United States cannot so easily follow suit is because the First Amendment bars certain kinds of regulation. Free speech is an extremely cherished right by American society, and lawmakers and judicial authorities are careful to protect free speech. While commercial speech[12] does not enjoy all the protections of religious or political speech, it still has First Amendment protections.[13] If an advertisement references a specific product and is not misleading, it is generally protected by the First Amendment and may not be subjected to regulation.[14] If it is shown to be misleading, the speech is open to possible government regulation, as long as the government has a substantial interest in restricting the speech and the regulation directly advances that interest without being broader than necessary.[15] The rationale behind affording less protection for commercial speech is that it is economically motivated, and much more readily verifiable, it is much more durable and less likely to be chilled as opposed to other forms of speech.[16]
To analyze the constitutionality of the Act under the commercial speech doctrine, two issues need to be assessed. First, whether digital alterations of advertisements are ‘misleading' and subject to government regulations, and if so, whether the Act directly advance a substantial governmental interest without being too broad.
Photoshop in Advertisements–Misleading?
Is Photoshop Illegal Picture
The issue of whether digital alterations are implicitly misleading, due to consumer perception, is significant and worth analyzing. The Supreme Court has held that commercial speech that is false or misleading receives no protection.[17] To stop constitutional challenges right in its tracks, digital alterations would have to be shown as misleading and/or false. However, whether a digital alteration of a human body in an advertisement for a beauty or body product is deceptive is not easy to discern. The FTC holds that an advertisement is false or misleading if it 'misleads consumers who are acting reasonably under the circumstances.'[18] If digital alteration in an advertisement plays a material or important role in a consumer's decision to buy the product in the advertisement, the advertisement is deemed deceptive and is not offered constitutional protection.[19]
The lack of guidance in the Act on how to evaluate this key issue is troublesome. Picsart app for windows 8. To date, the FTC has not decided on such an issue. The only guidance comes from a 2013 decision by National Advertising Division[20] (NAD) where it determined that a CoverGirl advertisement for its ‘Clump Crusher' mascara was misleading and deceptive.[21] The advertisement showed a model who was wearing lash extensions, despite the advertisement being for the mascara alone. According to the NAD, the marketing ploy could deceive consumers into thinking that the mascara alone could offer such results. The NAD also held that when an advertiser made a quantified performance claim and included an artificially enhanced picture of a model, either digitally or physically, the picture served as a false product demonstration. However, NAD decisions are not binding on the FTC, and so the decision does not offer much weight. It is unclear if the FTC would look to such decisions when creating the required regulatory framework is yet to be discussed. Since the Act does not address such issues, the standard of review for such cases is extremely vague.
The Act could potentially regulate advertisers whose digital alterations would not be misleading or false according to the FTC's definition. For example, the Act would allow the government to restrict an advertiser from slimming the body of a model or actor in an advertisement for lawn equipment. Although such an alteration may serve as a fringe reason to purchase the lawn equipment, such a representation would not play a pivotal role in the purchasing decision of a reasonable lawn equipment consumer. Despite this, the Act would regulate such marketing decisions just the same. This concern of over broadness even at the false and misleading level leads directly into the second concern of whether the regulation directly advances government interest.
Health and Photoshop: A Substantial Government Interest?
The Act adopts the American Medical Association's policy that encourages advertisers from altering photographs in a manner that promotes unrealistic expectations of appropriate body image.[22] Congressional findings indicate that advertisements that include human bodies that have been digitally altered directly cause negative body image among young people.[23] Continuous subjection to only ideal beauty standards in the media cause children, adolescents, and adults develop unhealthy self-esteem issues.[24] Therefore, the substantial government interest the Act proposes is the government's interest in the mental health of its citizenry.
Since the proposed rule seeks to place a blanket regulation through a one-size fits all framework, the Act could potentially restrict advertisers whose digital alterations do not contribute to negative body image. The Supreme Court is cautious of paternalistic regulations that attempt to restrict otherwise truthful advertising.[25] In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, the Court found that laws seeking to restrict what people can see ‘for their own good' should be met with skepticism.[26] Such bans, the Court held, often only serve to obscure an underlying governmental policy that could be successfully implemented without regulating speech.[27] The concern that such advertisements negatively affect the mental health of people by promoting unrealistic beauty standards may not survive analysis under the 44 Liquormart standard of skepticism. The basis for the Act's conclusion that such regulation would significantly advance the state's interest in promoting healthy body image would have to include a showing that regulating such advertisements would significantly contribute to a nationwide increase in positive body image.[28]
The Act would have to show that regulation of digital alterations in advertisements are the only reasonable way for the government to achieve the goal. It could be argued that the solution for promoting positive body image is not through speech regulation, but through education in schools. Since regulating advertisements would only screen a risk factor for negative body image, and does not confront the issue at the root, it could be argued that the Act does not directly advance the government's interest in positive body image. Furthermore, advertisements tend to use extremely attractive people that do not represent the average population. Therefore, regulation of digital alteration of images does not mean that the average consumer will no longer be subjected to impossible beauty standards. Consumers will still be barraged with images of unattainable beauty standards due to the very nature of who advertisers feature in their advertisements.
The New Celebrity: Social Influencers
The rise of social media has dramatically shifted the way people purchase goods.[29] A poll conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed that nearly half of more than 22,000 respondents indicated that reviews, posts, and conversations on social media affect their purchasing decisions.[30] Advertisers have capitalized on this by increasing their social media presence, and by partnering with social influencers. [31] The issue with the Act is that it does not account for this shift in marketing and consumer habits.
By uploading content that appeals to the masses, social influencers interact with astonishing amounts of people all over the world.[32] Due to their access to such large audiences, social influencers are swiftly redefining the meaning of celebrity endorsements.[33] Research from twitter showed that 49% of consumers who are active on social media look to social influencer accounts for guidance on what to buy.[34] Advertisers partner up with these social influencers, either by directly paying them for uploading content, or by giving them free products in exchange for reviewing their product or posting about it.[35] The phenomenon of using ‘regular people' with powerful reach to advertise products is so prevalent that the FTC responded by releasing a guideline for social influencers who post sponsored content.[36] Since the Act seeks to restrict digital alterations on all advertisements, the restrictions and/or the required disclosure of digital alteration could potentially encroach on individual privacy rights. A social influencer who posts sponsored content for makeup would either be restricted in their own private choice to edit their photographs, or be forced to disclose any editing. Since the Act turns on the impact of seeing altered images in advertising, and not whether the altered images are misleading and materially affect purchasing decisions, the Act presupposes the ability to regulate private actors' individual decisions as well. Allowing the government intrusion over the actions of private individuals is a concern that the Act fails to adequately address.
A New Direction
To have meaningful impact, the Act must be reanalyzed for clarity and prospective constitutional challenges. The Act should be rewritten to focus on deceptive claims only. By making the concern over the prevalence of Photoshop in advertisements a health concern, the Act is vulnerable to attacks on being too broad.[37] Instead, the Act should focus specifically on beauty advertisements that are digitally altered to project a magnified version of whatever the product purports to do.
The Act must be clear as to not implicate social influencers and their decisions to edit their images, unless the decision was prompted by the content sponsor. Ensuring so will protect the privacy and individual autonomy of average citizens from unnecessary government intrusion. The rationale behind this is simple–social media followers look to the guidance of social influencers. By taking this course, Congress can protect consumers from false and misleading advertisements, and also advance its interests in responding to staggering levels[38] of negative body image in America.[39]
By adhering to such standards and laws, and framing the Act to conform to existing judicial standards, the Act can indeed become a key piece of legislation that successfully aids the fight against body image concerns.
[1] Truth in Advertising Act of 2014, 113 H.R. 4341, 2014 H.R. 4341, 113 H.R. 4341.
[2] The Act concerns only digital alterations of human bodies. Id (Truth in Advertising Act of 2014 – Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to submit a report to Congress that contains: (1) a strategy to reduce the use, in advertising and other media for the promotion of commercial products, of images that have been altered to materially change the physical characteristics of the faces and bodies of the individuals depicted; and (2) recommendations for a risk-based regulatory framework with respect to such use).
[3] Truth in Advertising Act of 2014, 113 H.R. 4341, 2014 H.R. 4341, 113 H.R. 4341. The FTC would have over a year to produce this framework, and include a report to Congress about the general trends of digital alteration in advertisements.
[4] Press Release, Capps, Ros-Lehtinen, Congresswoman Lois Capps, Introduce Truth in Advertising Act, (March 27, 2014) (on file with author).
[5] Congress Gov., H.R.4445-114th Congress (2015-2016), https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4341 (last visited Nov. 26, 2016). While the 2014 version of the Act did not make it past the introduction stage, the Act was reintroduced in 2016 and is currently awaiting feedback from the Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
[6] The Procter & Gamble Company (COVERGIRL Clump Crusher Mascara), NAD Report No. 5635 (Sept. 25, 2013).
[7] Vivian Diller, Is Photoshop Destroying America's Body Image?, The Huffington Post (July 8, 2011), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivian-diller-phd/photoshop-body-image_b_891095.html.
[8]Airbrushed make-up ads banned for ‘misleading', bbc news (July 27, 2011), http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-14304802.
[9]Id.
[10] Rachel Lubitz, France Passes Law Requiring Companies to Admit When Models Have Been Photoshopped, Style Mic, (Nov. 23, 2016), https://mic.com/articles/130789/france-passes-law-requiring-companies-to-admit-when-models-have-been-photoshopped#.sKWMjSOBu.
[11] Id.
[12] Commercial speech is speech with a message that is an advertisement, that references a specific product, and has an economic motivation. Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 103 S. Ct. 2875 (1983).
[13]Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 556 (1980).
[14]Id; see alsoBolger, 463 U.S.
[15]Cent. Hudson Gas, 447 U.S. 557.
[16]Va. State Bd. of Pharm., v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771-72 (1976).
[17]Cent. Hudson Gas, 447 U.S. 557.
[18] The Federal Trade Comm'n, FTC Policy Statement on Deception (1983).
[19]Id.
[20] The NAD is a division of the Better Business Bureau that offers advertisers alternate dispute resolution avenues. Compliance and participation is voluntary.
[21]Supra note 5.
[22] American Medical Ass'n., Truth in Advertising, (Nov. 23, 2016), https://www.ama-assn.org/truth-advertising.
[23]Supra note 8.
[24] Nat'l Eating Disorders Ass'n., Media, Body Image & Eating Disorders, (Nov. 24, 2017) https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/media-body-image-and-eating-disorders.
[25] 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
[26] Id. at 503.
[27]Id. at 530.
[28]Id.
[29] EMarketer, How Social Media Influences Shopping Behavior, (Nov 21, 2016), https://www.emarketer.com/Article/How-Social-Media-Influences-Shopping-Behavior/1013718.
[30]Id.
[31] A social influencer is an average person who has amassed a large following on their social media accounts and has a high level of influence over their followers.
[32] Nathan Skid, How Much Is A Social Media Influencer's Audience Really Worth?:
Is Photoshop Illegal Copy
Laundry Service CEO Jason Stein Breaks Down Social Media Economics, Advertising Age (Nov. 17, 2016), http://adage.com/article/digital-crash-course/a-social-media-influencer-s-worth/300479/.
[33]Id.
[34] Katherine Karp, New research: The value of influencers on Twitter, Twitter Blog (Nov. 20, 2016), https://blog.twitter.com/2016/new-research-the-value-of-influencers-on-twitter.
[35]Id.
[36] The Federal Trade Comm'n, Native Advertising: A Guide for Businesses (2015) (For example, the guidelines call for clear and visible disclosure of sponsored content).
Is Photoshop Illegal For Teens
[37]Id.
[38] Anxiety and Depression Ass'n of America, Body Dysmorphic Disorder, https://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/related-illnesses/other-related-conditions/body-dysmorphic-disorder-bdd (last visited Nov. 24, 2016).
[39] While regulating digital alteration of images in advertisements would not solve the issue of negative body image, the regulation of images that contribute to this issue could be helpful. By regulating the prevalence of unrealistic and unrepresentative images of bodies in the media, the Act could help circumvent the negative effect that the media has on self-esteem, body image, and overall mental health.
