Comments on: Why Photoshop Sucks

By: frenk

frenk — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 19:02:49 +0000

photoshop does sucks, big time.
it’s not intuitive. it’s big.
it has got useless filters and effects.
the gui is lame, lots of impractical ui stuff,
the gradient tool for example.
it’s expensive.
it’s slow.
it has useless vector stuff in it.

By: amburlynne

amburlynne — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 02:19:40 +0000

i agree. when i was in high school i took a class on photography, and we were required to learn how to “fix” our photos with photoshop. i flat out told my teacher i wasnt going to use it. i think it ruins work. if your photo is bad then its bad. you can fix it. you live with it. you learn from that, not try and make it better by using software. i enjoyed your post (:

By: johnny

johnny — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:53:27 +0000

great conversation, nice site.

A good photo is a good photo… whether it’s journalistic, commercial or personal. We all want them to look good, yes? We all want sell what’s in the photo whether it’s a person, a story or brand. We all have what satisfies us, but I must say, that even personal photos look much better after some work in GIMP or PS.

Also, it seems in my line of work, there is more work logos and graphics for web sites than photos. So there’s a lot more application for graphics imaging software.

By: Calevphoto

Calevphoto — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:36:34 +0000

Wow! Thanks for the comment Dean. I never realized that anyone enjoyed that post, though it was one of my favorites to write. There are certainly many better macro and insect photographers out there, but I still appreciated the comment.

By: Dean

Dean — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:09:38 +0000

John, I think what draws me to this website is the quality of some of the posts and this man’s unmatched knowledge of macro photography and particularly the MP-E65. For example, I am a psychologist and MP-E65 fanatic and the article “Zen and the art of the MP-E65″ was so impressive that I started thinking of using this lens as part of anxiety management. It might be wishful thinking but it gives you the idea of the quality of some of the posts.

By: Cristian

Cristian — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:25:21 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. Though it works also the other way around: you can be limited by your gear and try to compensate by using whatever software tool may help (RAW developers, HDR&bitmap editors etc).

By: Adam R. Paul

Adam R. Paul — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:18:40 +0000

Well-said! Although, I am with Mon@rch in that I take photos mostly for documentation and blogging, and a poorly-lit photograph of a rare bird is better than none at all.

On a similar vein, I get slightly irritated when people ask what camera they need to buy to make photographs as good as mine (not that mine are all that, but anyways).

And what you say in the last two paragraphs definitely rings true for me – I take /many/ fewer photos now than I did when I got my first dSLR.

By: Dean

Dean — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:43:01 +0000

If a photographer does not plan to sell the photos – it really does not matter how much they use the Photoshop and for which photos. To the “pros” a photo might look like it sucks because it does not comply with the current pro standard of photos but if the “non-pro” believes that it’s a great photo with or without photoshop then it is a great photo no matter what anyone says. I say if you only keep the perfect photos and limit the use of photoshop then you are in danger of eventually reaching and staying in mediocrity as definitions of “perfect” photos change.

By: mon@rch

mon@rch — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:58:24 +0000

I am not always after the best photo in the world since I am not selling them! I am normally looking for the story behind the photo . . . but I agree. . . Photoshop isn’t for making bad photos better, they make good ones a little better!

By: John Moore

John Moore — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 10:04:58 +0000

Random question: I am just starting my blog, but how did you start gaining readership? was it just natural? I mean how did people start finding you?