I remember the old days when Photoshop required a good deal of professional expertise (way beyond my comprehension) to make something good with it. My mom would diligently magic around with the various colour corrections, that pixel-copying tool to manually and painstakingly excise power lines from beautiful landscape shots and turn a slightly overexposed silhouette against a sunset into a forest line through the precise and careful applications of spells I can only now begin to guess at after a few tentative steps in learning GIMP.
Today, I imagine it would be a prompt or three to a machine creating a decent, but not exceptional imitation of that work - good enough for professional work where excellence is secondary to efficiency, but hardly interesting for anyone with even a passing interest in photography.
What I’m trying to say is that being good at Photoshop may well point to a keen eye for details and affinity for diligent work.
Is it ironic that it was because they needed someone good at Photoshop?
I remember the old days when Photoshop required a good deal of professional expertise (way beyond my comprehension) to make something good with it. My mom would diligently magic around with the various colour corrections, that pixel-copying tool to manually and painstakingly excise power lines from beautiful landscape shots and turn a slightly overexposed silhouette against a sunset into a forest line through the precise and careful applications of spells I can only now begin to guess at after a few tentative steps in learning GIMP.
Today, I imagine it would be a prompt or three to a machine creating a decent, but not exceptional imitation of that work - good enough for professional work where excellence is secondary to efficiency, but hardly interesting for anyone with even a passing interest in photography.
What I’m trying to say is that being good at Photoshop may well point to a keen eye for details and affinity for diligent work.