Online photoshop course deal

dinneenp

Hi,
I saw this deal online, some people may be interested, price €45, 'worth '€410'

I know there's loads of tutorials online but some people might like the structure or a 'course'

Course Syllabus:

1. Getting Started with Photoshop CS5 or CS6 : Duration 2 Hours

2. Exploring the Workspace : Duration 2 Hours

3. Using Adobe Bridge : Duration 2 Hours

4. Understanding Photoshop Basics : Duration 1 Hour

5. Making the Best Selections : Duration 3 Hour

6. Painting and Retouching : Duration 3 Hour

7. Creating a Good Image : Duration 2 Hour

8. Working with Layers : Duration 3 Hour

9. Doing More with Layers : Duration 2 Hour

10. Using Smart Objects : Duration 1 Hour

11. Using Filters : Duration 1 Hour

Kenny Logins

This doesn't inspire confidence..



I'd prefer to spend that money with lynda.com.

squareballoon

I'd be interested to know what Creating a Good Image entails.

Corkbah

its an online course !!

- all that information is available on youtube ...it might be worth something if it was sit down in a classroom with someone inspecting your work, but this appears to be a course where you get a login to access the tutorials online....no-one to actually look at your work or check it is done correctly !!

and the company are based in England !! ...not good if you have any issues to complain about - you don't know which jurisdiction you are legally in when you purchase.

(that last bit was in reference to apple's recent tax filings - if my understanding of it is correct - they are claiming purchases are made in Ireland so they pay less tax in USA - despite all the sales staff not working here)

tricky D

Deke McClelland's PS courses on Lynda are great value and much more comprehensive than the above.

BrensBenz

Wouldn't it be better to tell the designers of Photoshop (and other photo-manipulation packages) to go back to the drawing board and make the product more intuitive, thereby rendering the parasitic industry trying to decipher their icons and their "help" menus redundant? Or do we actually enjoy having to seek out explanations online, from magazines and / or night classes? What other manufacturers get away with selling a product that can only be used successfully if you embark on endless treasure hunts trying to find a Plain English "How To" from third parties?

Kenny Logins

BrensBenz wrote: »

Wouldn't it be better to tell the designers of Photoshop (and other photo-manipulation packages) to go back to the drawing board and make the product more intuitive, thereby rendering the parasitic industry trying to decipher their icons and their "help" menus redundant? Or do we actually enjoy having to seek out explanations online, from magazines and / or night classes? What other manufacturers get away with selling a product that can only be used successfully if you embark on endless treasure hunts trying to find a Plain English "How To" from third parties?

It has evolved over 24 years, adding various functions and features with each revision, not sure how it would be possible to make something as advanced as this usable without some guidance.

BTW They do have a simplified version, in a new separate application - Photoshop Elements.

tricky D

PhotoShop has just grown way, way too big, functional, sophisticated, complicated.... for it to fit into a nice simple and intuitive design. I've been using it for almost 20 years now and still have a lot to figure out. There's always so many 'how tos' still to be picked up.

As for other manufacturers with huge, complicated etc... products, have a go at something like AutoCAD and its relations, then seek therapy:).

BrensBenz

Kenny Logins wrote: »

It has evolved over 24 years, adding various functions and features with each revision, not sure how it would be possible to make something as advanced as this usable without some guidance.

BTW They do have a simplified version, in a new separate application - Photoshop Elements.

Yes, PS has made and continues to make a fortune for Adobe. They've had 20+ years to marry functionality with useability but why should they when third parties supply the cheatsheets?

Also, I didn't find Elements to be any more intuitive than it's bigger brother. It too "assumed" considerable prior knowledge and refused to fill in any blanks.

tricky D wrote: »

PhotoShop has just grown way, way too big, functional, sophisticated, complicated.... for it to fit into a nice simple and intuitive design. I've been using it for almost 20 years now and still have a lot to figure out. There's always so many 'how tos' still to be picked up.

As for other manufacturers with huge, complicated etc... products, have a go at something like AutoCAD and its relations, then seek therapy:).

Agreed! AutoCad is complex but (I would suggest) it was designed by and for engineers and was, as far as I could see, based on established Engineering practice. Photoshop seems to have been designed by and for software nerds, or people who like puzzles, and then sold to photographers!

In the good ole days, and with little more than the instructions printed on the paper and chemical packs, I was able to produce colour prints. A couple of (cheap!) magazine articles later, I could produce competition winners. After wasting hundreds of Euro on PS and sons, glossy "how to" magazines and internet access for online tutorials, PS still insists on telling me "I can do this that and the other......but I won't tell you how".

Kenny Logins

Haven't cameras also become increasingly complicated? As a side-effect of becoming more much powerful and versatile. It's just a matter of doing a little homework.

ado100

BrensBenz wrote: »

Yes, PS has made and continues to make a fortune for Adobe. They've had 20+ years to marry functionality with useability but why should they when third parties supply the cheatsheets?

Also, I didn't find Elements to be any more intuitive than it's bigger brother. It too "assumed" considerable prior knowledge and refused to fill in any blanks.




Agreed! AutoCad is complex but (I would suggest) it was designed by and for engineers and was, as far as I could see, based on established Engineering practice. Photoshop seems to have been designed by and for software nerds, or people who like puzzles, and then sold to photographers!

In the good ole days, and with little more than the instructions printed on the paper and chemical packs, I was able to produce colour prints. A couple of (cheap!) magazine articles later, I could produce competition winners. After wasting hundreds of Euro on PS and sons, glossy "how to" magazines and internet access for online tutorials, PS still insists on telling me "I can do this that and the other......but I won't tell you how".

So don't use it then!!

Corkbah

BrensBenz wrote: »

After wasting hundreds of Euro on PS and sons, glossy "how to" magazines and internet access for online tutorials, PS still insists on telling me "I can do this that and the other......but I won't tell you how".

The problem is that with photoshop there are loads of different ways of getting the same result.

to simply brighten an image - you can adjust the levels, adjust the curves, adjust the brightness/contrast or the exposure, add fill in light (when working in RAW) ... its crazily over complicated.

Kenny Logins

Corkbah wrote: »

The problem is that with photoshop there are loads of different ways of getting the same result.

to simply brighten an image - you can adjust the levels, adjust the curves, adjust the brightness/contrast or the exposure, add fill in light (when working in RAW) ... its crazily over complicated.

How do you adjust exposure in camera? Should cameras just have a brighter/darker button?

Corkbah

Kenny Logins wrote: »

How do you adjust exposure in camera? Should cameras just have a brighter/darker button?

I dont understand your witty remark - I can tell its intended to be witty by the tongue out smiley

some cameras have basic editing features like exposure adjustments (some Nikon cameras allow you to post process in camera)

Kenny Logins

Corkbah wrote: »

I dont understand your witty remark - I can tell its intended to be witty by the tongue out smiley

My point is of course there's more than one way to achieve something, each with it's own merits. There are differences, subtle perhaps, but they are there.

I don't think Photoshop is overly complicated, just use the functions you do understand until you need the functions you don't, then read up. I honestly can't see the problem - having more options is a good thing IMHO.

There is the option to use Lightroom or Photoshop Elements..

Corkbah

Kenny Logins wrote: »

My point is of course there's more than one way to achieve something, each with it's own merits. There are differences, subtle perhaps, but they are there.

I don't think Photoshop is overly complicated, just use the functions you do understand until you need the functions you don't, then read up. I honestly can't see the problem - having more options is a good thing IMHO.

There is the option to use Lightroom or Photoshop Elements..

while I agree with you I also disagree - Photoshop is overly complicated because it allows several methods of doing the same thing, different people use different methods and it causes confusion when someone who uses one path shows his/her method and the person "learning" can see an easier method ...you end out with people claiming their way is best/quicker/lossless etc etc.

I use photoshop on a daily basis, I have lightroom (cant get into it - have lightroom 2 and 4) and also have aperture (cant get into that either) - have been using photoshop since photoshop 7 and currently working off CS5, its amazing what you can do with photoshop - but for me, because of the multiple methods of doing the same thing its overly complicated....how many of the photoshop tools do most people use ?

I doubt most people use any more than the basic commands, I will continue to buy photoshop as I've grown up with it, I have my methods and paths which I use and unfortunately for me, I cant seem to shake them and adopt the newer (possibly better) methods/programmes.

if you look at the recent amateur photography club winners - the vast majority are heavily photoshopped - but thats the way everything is going - its like HDR all over again.

ado100

I think the problem a lot of people have with Photoshop is that they see it purely as a photo editing tool - 24 years ago when it was first launched that was certainly the case, but it is now so much more than that - it's a web tool, a graphics tool, a video tool etc.

There have been a vast number of tomes written about its functionality over the years but none of them can do it any real justice. Every day Photoshop users combine layers, actions, effects and filters in different ways to create new and wonderful results that the designers and engineers of Photoshop could never have conceived when they built it.

I use Photoshop every day (although rarely for photo manipulation, that honor goes to Lightroom these days) and would consider myself reasonably proficient, I recently went through the lynda.com 'Photoshop Essentials' course and learned many things I never knew. The 'Essentials' course assumes no prior knowledge of Photoshop but there are plenty of more advanced courses for more experienced users.

Like the car, it's a great invention - you just need to know how to drive.

squareballoon

I've been using photoshop since 1995 for various different jobs. Design, illustration, photo manipulation and editing. Whatever you're using it for there are different skills you need to know but the thing is PS can be used for all these disiplines. Sure you could buy LR, PSE, InDesign, Illustrator and use them all for the different digital art you want to create but I prefer to just buy the latest CS and do everything in there.
I used LR for 3 years until Adobe made vast improvements to ACR. Now that the two programs have the same editing engine I don't think the extra expense is worth it when ACR comes with CS.

endacl

Or iTunes university. Loads of free courses there. Covering just about everything photoshop.

Snowie

Corkbah wrote: »

The problem is that with photoshop there are loads of different ways of getting the same result.

to simply brighten an image - you can adjust the levels, adjust the curves, adjust the brightness/contrast or the exposure, add fill in light (when working in RAW) ... its crazily over complicated.

whats over complicated about working in raw?

Corkbah

Snowie wrote: »

whats over complicated about working in raw?

please re-read ... my message was about the various ways of achieving the same result in photoshop ..making the program complicated !!

5uspect

Digital image manipulations can be achieved in many different ways. A lot of these are well documented and are used in many applications such as machine vision. PS offers many, if not most, of these standard ways in a very straightforward interface.

You don't have to understand or even worry about most of them. Some are useful for graphic designers, others are good for photographers, and even some are good for scientists and engineers.

As an engineer who has used various CAD, imaging, visualisation and development packages, as well as building a few if my own, I've yet to come across one as well thought out as Photoshop.