Ever Wanted to Learn to use Photoshop ?

What I take from most guys unwillingness to use Adobe products is mostly from the cost of these Applications, it once was expensive and prohibitive to own these Application but not anymore.

Learning Photoshop admittedly is a daunting task when you only want to edit your photos properly, but that too can be overcome easily, you just need the right starting place, even if it’s not in ones DNA.

I came across this small booklet years ago on how to use Photoshop in easy steps which I used to introduce Photoshop to my grandson, it’s not your average booklet for learning, it’s easier than that and anyone can pick it up quickly. (No joke)

I would recommend this booklet to anyone who has a keen interest in learning “HOW” but always found it impossible to get anything done and so dumped it, or just didn’t bother.

Using Photoshop for everyday things and more can be accomplished if you read and use this booklet and best of all, you don’t even need the latest Photoshop either in fact any old Version back to 7 will work fine and can be gotten free I am told from the web. (License free)

The ISBN number of this booklet is: - 1 – 84078 – 276 - 5 and it retails at about tenner (Or Amazon) and is worth every penny, once you read this booklet you’ll become an accomplished user...

Click to enlarge..

If I recall correctly, I broke the ice with learning PSE by buying the "Dummy's" book! It gave a step-by-step instruction to basic workflow with any photo. There was enough instruction in that book to get me started and avoid the confusion of looking at the opening screen and scratching my head. A few more books followed to learn about such things as layers, using distortion to eliminate parallax problems with architectural pix, etc. Building individual functions on top of the really simple basics was actually fun.

I like programs that will not only solve the simplest needs but also provide more advanced functions when desired. Anyone preparing a simple business letter can use any word processing program. Editing the OCR output of a scan, however, can be maddening with MS Word but much easier in Wordperfect while using the screen that shows all of the formatting codes that can then be removed or changed.

fotofreek said:

If I recall correctly, I broke the ice with learning PSE by buying the "Dummy's" book! It gave a step-by-step instruction to basic workflow with any photo. There was enough instruction in that book to get me started and avoid the confusion of looking at the opening screen and scratching my head. A few more books followed to learn about such things as layers, using distortion to eliminate parallax problems with architectural pix, etc. Building individual functions on top of the really simple basics was actually fun.

I like programs that will not only solve the simplest needs but also provide more advanced functions when desired. Anyone preparing a simple business letter can use any word processing program. Editing the OCR output of a scan, however, can be maddening with MS Word but much easier in Wordperfect while using the screen that shows all of the formatting codes that can then be removed or changed.

Click to expand...

After YEARS of frustration I can sort of get myself around Photoshop. I would have an incredibly extensive array of books, DVD's and videos on the subject.
They ALL, without EXCEPTION share the same flaw, I challenge everyone, read and ONLY, repeat ONLY follow the instructions. YOU WILL GET NOWHERE. No one has yet written a step by step anything, on this subject, each and every one ASSUMES that you carry forward prior learning. and by that I explicitly refers to commands. ALL, repeat ALL authors ignore the fact that commands change with function and unless computer savvy understanding the how and when is beyond them, nothing to do with DNA and everything to do with arrogance.

I have a DVD on using layers, it is a tutorial format with supplied image, Over the years, just for fun, I go back and try ONCE AGAIN to follow and it DOES NOT WORK.

Reason: the Author, resident in Australia was accessible so I phoned him. The answer - finally was, to provide a comprehensive step by step, repeating common functions/commands (read Keystrokes) is just too, too complex and boring to write down each step every time, it would take an entire DVD just to do one part of a layer image. WELL IF I AM TRYING TO LEARN!..... WHAT PART OF MY BUTT AM I GOING TO SUCK SOMETHING THAT I DO NOT KNOW AT ALL, FROM!!

I was, and remain gobsmacked. To this day the fellow does not understand how bloody ARROGANT that is.
Its like designing a software program written in code then giving an abridged english language outline to a never used a computer before person and saying ...Right.. Off you go its all there with that you will be able to program a computer now.

Example: Blend two images in PS - layers. Nothing I have ever read, if followed works FULL STOP. They DO NOT WORK. I eventually got there myself, and there are ESSENTIAL steps, commands left out..........BECAUSE THEY ARE MUNDANE< BORING!!!! GEEEZZZ they are ESSENTIAL to the flaming success of the process and until a person knows enough to pick the right one by instinct its just not possible to LEARN.

So, with respect, you may have found your way via, Dummies, but sadly MORE fail and give up.
I use Lightroom more than PS.
Lightroom is in my opinion beautiful evidence of the arrogant mindset of NERDS. Adobe can't see that what they have done by developing Lightroom is to expose their sneer and childish verbosity for all to see.
Just because you and others find your way via specific tools, does not mean that ALL can or will, we each have to find what works for us, and we are all different, not less, just different.

3Dogs - I didn't mean to imply that I'm a PS expert! I've learned enough to do what I want in the program, and when the occasion arises I have a more advanced book to consult - just as you describe. You are right that learning a new "trick" in PS can be a daunting task. Because the program works for me at the level I've learned it I'm willing to occasionally take on the frustration of learning a new task.

Personally, I've found similar issues with many programs that at the simplest level work for many people but are difficult to navigate when doing something new that is more complex. In MS Excel I've stumbled along each time I have to set up formulas with arrays. Looks simple in the books but always feels like they've left out something that would make it work on the first try.

I've been on the board of a few large non-profit organizations. We have sent our clerical and financial staff members to classes to learn the more complex side of Word and Excel. There is a lot of helpful stuff in these and many other programs that is simply very difficult to learn by yourself on the fly with a 500 page aftermarket documentation by your side.

For many tasks there are what some would call "dumbed-down" programs that are intuitive and work perfectly well for the majority of people. The photo printing programs that come with Windows or with printer software can certainly do some simple editing and print a picture. It seems that the programs that can solve more complex issues veer away from being intuitive. What ever works for any individual is what he/she should use. I'm certainly not prepared to take on the BIG PS program nor do I need what it can do. I also don't need to learn every nuance of PSE. Just enough to do what pleases me. After all, this is not my life's work --- it's supposed to be fun!

It is supposed to be fun, even if a person is using the thing for a living.
No offence intended ok! But the very concept of Dumbing down gets my goat big time, and I am offended by the wider community in particular the nerd segment using the term to belittle the general user.
Was a time when the generation of company documents required a typing pool with trained operatives and supervision, today desk top or mob. Device one liners are the norm.
IMHO there is no justification for the clunky, verbose, crud that one has to go to to use PS today, Lightroom proves it, and it is only perverse peevish ness that holds back a user friendly interface.
The eletist behavior is at best outdated, and compellingly boring.
Notwithstanding, my main gripe is actually with the quality (or lack there of) in the tutorial arena.
With honest tutorial material the task would still be demanding, rather than nigh impossible for so many.
That is the crux of my post

All sounds very familiar.

In PSE 13.1, my latest update, they have four modes:- elive, Quick, Guided, and Expert, so they appear to be trying to help(?), but I haven't tried them all yet.

Tell me 3dogs, does Lightroom do soft proofing?
PSE doesn't.

Emulator said:

All sounds very familiar.

In PSE 13.1, my latest update, they have four modes:- elive, Quick, Guided, and Expert, so they appear to be trying to help(?), but I haven't tried them all yet.

Tell me 3dogs, does Lightroom do soft proofing?
PSE doesn't.

Click to expand...

In short, Yes.

The current version of LR is packing some grunt and also has as standard the best sharpening tool that Adobe has written to date, according to them.
I used the first three or four versions of PSE and switched to PS as I was able to get my hands on legit Student pricing, as a Student!! Out of frustration went to LR. and have added each new version along the way.
I find that the LR catalogue system fits my mind ergonomics about 80% which is near enough to good enough for me.
Image processing is very powerful, but does not have layers. however, I subscribe now and have access to both so If I happen to want to mask or do more complex stuff with layers etc. I just open in PS from inside my Lightroom module, on closing the image returns from PS to LR for further handling, this makes things much much easier.
The Print module is a beauty, far, far better than PS itself, but that will buy an argument from the folks that LOVE their sack cloth and ashes and the Birchwood bundle to thrash their undeserving backs to shreds

Having said all that I hasten to add that I have not looked inside PSE since V5 I think so I can't do a comparison.
Cheers,
Andrew

When I started this thread I expected guys to say “ huh no way” can this book be that simple or the answer to my prayers, well guys it is that and more, it’s not plain and simple it’s just simple.

I like many of you got books on how to learn, and best solutions, be an expert and so on, you name it, and as 3dogs has already said there’re all way outside what the learner/newbie is looking for, and a total waste of money.

You want to be able to do more than just open Photoshop and stare at all the possible things that you want to do and not end up been frustrated by it, and closing the program then swearing never to go near the bloody thing again, some have even go as far as uninstalling the application in a rage.

This book takes you, as the newbie to the very start and spoon feed you till you can burb without the possibility of throwing up what you've just learned, from womb to walking so to speak.

Now no other book that I am aware of does this and I can assure anyone willing to get the book and then only make a half-hearted attempt at learning just a few basic steps, they will have little problem coping, it will certainly have an impact on sceptics..

Yes thanks to both, I had a further look and found this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4Z_6Y2Kbk

Looks useful. But I am not convinced by this!

Emulator said:

Yes thanks to both, I had a further look and found this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4Z_6Y2Kbk

Looks useful. But I am not convinced by this!

Click to expand...

Seems to be pretty right on. Don't know enough nuts and bolts to say if his assertion is correct, but it does seem ok.
Either way, if the print looks good, and is repeatable who really is to know? And what difference does it make anyway. Only person that will ever know is the author and how accurate is colour memory anyway.

My view on colour is on the record anyway. Chasing 3D gamut maps is for folks that don't trust their own visuals and fear that others will peep and point at theoreticals - just another piffle IMHO