Mike Greer
Leading Member
This is an interesting point, and one in which I happen to agree with. However, there is an assumption being made. That assumption is that Photoshop is the best. In order to come to that conclusion, we have to some how define "best". Just what is "best" anyway? "Best" implies "superior". In order to judge something "superior", we have to evaluate a set of attributes that would lead us to that conclusion. So just what are the attributes of an image editor that we could objectively evaluate to determine what is superior? THAT's where the problem lies.
I love my wife. I happen to think she is one of the most beautiful women in the world. Why do I think that? Because she has attributes that attract me. Ask a man what makes a women of "superior" beauty. He might say blonde hair, blue eyes, tall, shapely, etc. But what if I'm 5' 7" and don't like to date woman taller than me and I prefer red heads? Then we can't agree on the attributes of "superior" beauty. Therefore, we're not going to be able to agree on women of superior beauty.
This is the very issue I have with people who assume that Photoshop is the best image editing tool. You can't say this without siting attributes. Once attributes are listed, then its up to the potential customer to decide whether a particular attribute is important to them or not. Also, in order to be absolutely fair, one would have to evaluate all tools on the market to a deep enough level (in order to uderstand them) to be able to adequately come to a conclusion on various attributes. This is rarely done. Many PS users will say things like, "Can you do ABC with XYZ editor?". But what they don't take into consideration is that other tools have some nifty ways of doing things that PS doesn't do IN THE SAME WAY.
So the analogy of the car and tires below is faulty because it assumes Photoshop is superior with no basis in fact because there is no agreed upon list of attributes that make one product "superior".
Like what? Let's be specific. What have you needed to do that only Photoshop could accomplish? Before you answer, I'll tell you this. I'm a photographer and a digital imaging instructor. I've evaluated and continue to evaluate high and low end tools because I must stay current in order to do justice to my students. I hear this statement about "eventually needing the power of Photoshop" all of the time. But that statement is never quantified, it is just assumed to be true. People who are use to PS look to do things they do in PS in other tools in the exact same or similar way they are used to in PS. But this approach is not fair to those tools because they can reach to goal albeit in a different mannor. The suprerior one is the one that is most intuitive to the individual.