Star wrote:
Much of my photoshop knowledge comes from Rick Miller, who took my self taught basics and not only taught me photoshop inside and out, gave me the tools to keep learning and growing on my own.

So many people have learned through classes, or working with great people. 

Who here is not self taught?

I don't get it.  Another man gave you the tools to keep learning and growing on your own?  What?  He gave you Photoshop or a brain?

James_B_II wrote:
I don't get it.  Another man gave you the tools to keep learning and growing on your own?  What?  He gave you Photoshop or a brain?

really, was this necessary? 

James_B_II wrote:
I don't get it.  Another man gave you the tools to keep learning and growing on your own?  What?  He gave you Photoshop or a brain?

If you don't understand a program, and not just how it works but the reason behind the algorithms, then you can not grow as the program evolves and changes.

Just like if you cannot understand a simple proof you will be lost in higher mathematics. As the tools inside change, the reasoning behind why the tools exist and how they can be manipulated doesn't. the math doesn't change, just the ways you can use the math.

If that is too hard to understand think of photoshop as a language. There is much you can lean just on the surface, but inside there are deeper meanings, better more precise words, greater flexibility. The words are all there to be found, the question is have you found all the right words to be a poet? Or are you a mediocre wordsmith, lost in a language you only partialy understand. Forever unable to truly get your concept across to others.

It is a difference in perception and ability, aptitude and clarity of purpose.

Without the tools to truly dissect photoshop and understand the language I was trying to speak, the numbers I was trying to add together...

Finally a music metaphor, which really is just math that you can experience more viscerally. 

It is something that can be learned on your own, just as there are self taught concert pianists, but there aren't too many of those are there?

There are many people who learn piano from books, and years down the road they can play pretty proficiently.

And there are others, who have teachers and coaches and in the end end up composing great works. Are the works less great for somebody showing them a harmony and how it works? Does learning how the notes become music mean that before that knowledge they were without a brain?

No.

So to make it simple, Rick showed me harmonics when I had been playing only a melody line.

Theloneous Jones wrote:
Self motivated and no classroom or personal training but  tons of online  tutorials and books.  Massive black and The Gnomon Workshops to name a couple.
I find a lot of artists cling onto the self taught thing like a badge of honor when it is only stunting their growth.  Ones personal style doesnt get corrupted or tainted by learning from others, only enhanced.  In general when I see someone proudly proclaiming that they were "self taught", I look at their work and think, "it shows".

I think your generalizing.

Star wrote:
If you don't understand a program, and not just how it works but the reason behind the algorithms, then you can not grow as the program evolves and changes.

Just like if you cannot understand a simple proof you will be lost in higher mathematics. As the tools inside change, the reasoning behind why the tools exist and how they can be manipulated doesn't. the math doesn't change, just the ways you can use the math.

If that is too hard to understand think of photoshop as a language. There is much you can lean just on the surface, but inside there are deeper meanings, better more precise words, greater flexibility. The words are all there to be found, the question is have you found all the right words to be a poet? Or are you a mediocre wordsmith, lost in a language you only partialy understand. Forever unable to truly get your concept across to others.

It is a difference in perception and ability, aptitude and clarity of purpose.

Without the tools to truly dissect photoshop and understand the language I was trying to speak, the numbers I was trying to add together...

Finally a music metaphor, which really is just math that you can experience more viscerally. 

It is something that can be learned on your own, just as there are self taught concert pianists, but there aren't too many of those are there?

There are many people who learn piano from books, and years down the road they can play pretty proficiently.

And there are others, who have teachers and coaches and in the end end up composing great works. Are the works less great for somebody showing them a harmony and how it works? Does learning how the notes become music mean that before that knowledge they were without a brain?

No.

So to make it simple, Rick showed me harmonics when I had been playing only a melody line.

Simple answer... some people need guidance...some naturally pick things up. Your making this more complicated than it is. Some are just gifted and learn things quickly on there own. Some need a teacher to show them how. It happens with music as well...or any form of art.

alegion wrote:

I think your generalizing.

You're

ASYLUM - Art Nudes wrote:
Self taught here. Would like to sit down and learn from someone some day.

x2  I'd like to just sit and watch someone work.  I think I'm going to sign up for a month with Lynda.com.

Robert Randall wrote:

You're

At least he didn't say he was self learned in grammar.

alegion wrote:

I think your generalizing.

What makes you say that?   Was it the part where I said "In general"?

Star wrote:
BTW- there are non formal training techniques too. Such as people who worked for a great photographer or retoucher and learned that way. Self taught means you taught yourself. It really is that simple.

For a musician there are many ways to learn, from outside yourself. McCartney was raised by a musician in a musicians household, somehow i think that helped.

"McCartney revealed that the guitar accompaniment for Blackbird was inspired by Bach’s Bouree in E minor, a well known classical guitar piece. As kids, Paul and George Harrison tried to learn Bouree as a “show off” piece. Bouree is distinguished by melody and bass notes played simultaneously on the upper and lower strings. McCartney adapted a segment of Bouree as the opening of “Blackbird,” and carried the musical idea throughout the song."

http://www.musicteachershelper.com/blog … rd-trivia/

Your post implies that McCartney can read music, yet everything I've ever read indicates he can't read music, to the point that the Beatles always had classically trained musicians transcribing their live jam sessions onto paper.

Which is true?

Robert Randall wrote:

Your post implies that McCartney can read music, yet everything I've ever read indicates he can't read music, to the point that the Beatles always had classically trained musicians transcribing their live jam sessions onto paper.

Which is true?

Maybe we can move this to another thread? Your posting implied that Paul was self taught in music do to the fact that he can't read music. I don't believe that is possible growing up in a musicians household to be a self taught musician, regardless of reading sheet music or not.

One of the best performers in a traveling show of Les Mes in the 1980's could speak not a word of English, but performed her songs so beautifully that it was not apparent that the words, to her, existed outside of time and language.

Star wrote:
Much of my photoshop knowledge comes from Rick Miller, who took my self taught basics and not only taught me photoshop inside and out, gave me the tools to keep learning and growing on my own.

So many people have learned through classes, or working with great people. 

Who here is not self taught?

90% of my PS knowledge came from you in that 10 minute crash course you gave me.

Thanks!!

Star the retoucher wrote:

Maybe we can move this to another thread? Your posting implied that Paul was self taught in music do to the fact that he can't read music. I don't believe that is possible growing up in a musicians household to be a self taught musician, regardless of reading sheet music or not.

One of the best performers in a traveling show of Les Mes in the 1980's could speak not a word of English, but performed her songs so beautifully that it was not apparent that the words, to her, existed outside of time and language.

I wasn't implying he was self taught, I was implying he was a musical genius that couldn't read music. I have no idea how he came to be that, which is in line with my statement about holding jock straps...  I have no idea how someone lacking in formal training could acheive such artistic heights, but they do. That's all.

Brian T Rickey wrote:
edit - I misread something.  pardon me

I have taught myself, mostly from reading what I can find on the web and some magazines like Advanced Photoshop. 
But, with that being said, I have spent hundreds of hours in photoshop trying different things.  That is where I have learned the most.

I too experiment with PS in an effort to learn and better understand the programs capabilities. I wonder if my formal education gives me an edge in learning and understanding, as well as assimilating that knowledge into my workflow. I believe it does, and I always encourage everyone to follow a similar path. I also believe you can be a huge success without it, although the odds are against you.

Robert Randall wrote:
I too experiment with PS in an effort to learn and better understand the programs capabilities. I wonder if my formal education gives me an edge in learning and understanding, as well as assimilating that knowledge into my workflow. I believe it does, and I always encourage everyone to follow a similar path. I also believe you can be a huge success without it, although the odds are against you.

Having both the formal education and hours of practive are perhaps the best of both worlds.  Each will show you something that will help you in the future.  Most of the time the hours of practice was spent trying to work with something I learned from a formal source.  One without the other would have left a huge gap in my knowldge.

Star wrote:
Who here is not self taught?

Me.  I had two instructors here in Toronto, and one in NY.

James_B_II wrote:
I don't get it.  Another man gave you the tools to keep learning and growing on your own?  What?  He gave you Photoshop or a brain?

Star wrote:
If you don't understand a program, and not just how it works but the reason behind the algorithms, then you can not grow as the program evolves and changes.

Just like if you cannot understand a simple proof you will be lost in higher mathematics. As the tools inside change, the reasoning behind why the tools exist and how they can be manipulated doesn't. the math doesn't change, just the ways you can use the math.

If that is too hard to understand think of photoshop as a language. There is much you can lean just on the surface, but inside there are deeper meanings, better more precise words, greater flexibility. The words are all there to be found, the question is have you found all the right words to be a poet? Or are you a mediocre wordsmith, lost in a language you only partialy understand. Forever unable to truly get your concept across to others.

It is a difference in perception and ability, aptitude and clarity of purpose.

Without the tools to truly dissect photoshop and understand the language I was trying to speak, the numbers I was trying to add together...

Finally a music metaphor, which really is just math that you can experience more viscerally. 

It is something that can be learned on your own, just as there are self taught concert pianists, but there aren't too many of those are there?

There are many people who learn piano from books, and years down the road they can play pretty proficiently.

And there are others, who have teachers and coaches and in the end end up composing great works. Are the works less great for somebody showing them a harmony and how it works? Does learning how the notes become music mean that before that knowledge they were without a brain?

No.

So to make it simple, Rick showed me harmonics when I had been playing only a melody line.

QFT, with emphasis on the bold part.

To add:  With a good educational foundation in PS, you begin to see how there are several ways of approaching each project, and know immediately what will work best, instead of repeating possibly ineffectual self-taught techniques because that's all you know, or don't understand them well enough.  You need to know the "why's", not just the "how's".

Richard Dubois wrote:

James_B_II wrote:
I don't get it.  Another man gave you the tools to keep learning and growing on your own?  What?  He gave you Photoshop or a brain?

QFT, with emphasis on the bold part.

To add:  With a good educational foundation in PS, you begin to see how there are several ways of approaching each project, and know immediately what will work best, instead of repeating possibly ineffectual self-taught techniques because that's all you know, or don't understand them well enough.  You need to know the "why's", not just the "how's".

I think comments like the emboldened one about algorithms are kind of misleading. In it's loosest interpretation, any action you create is an algoritm in that it uses finite steps to achieve an end goal.  In light of that, stating that you need to understand actions is acceptable. In it's literal interpretation, an algorithm is most likely a sequence of mathematical formulas that a college level math whiz might have a problem understanding.

Noting the complexity of a true algorithm, do you really feel it's necessary for me to understand the finite mathematical steps necessary to produce a mask from a calculation? The reason I ask is that I don't believe for one second that either you or Star know anything about the actual math behind a calculation. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you and Star are trying to get at, but plain speak usually outweighs techno garble on almost any level. Most of the people lurking in here are probably already intimidated by the program itself, you needn't add to their frustration by throwing hyperbole into the mix.

Robert Randall wrote:
I've probably had more formal technical training in imaging than anyone on this site, including Rick Miller. There are artists on this site who are so good, I would be ashamed to hold their jock strap. I assume a great many of them are self taught, while others have formal training. I believe the one constant is how quickly a well trained artist can assimilate technique into their artistry, while the self taught artist may never assimilate quality technique. While I obviously approve of formal training, it isn't the only path to creative success.

To this day, I don't think Paul McCartney can read music.

He cant and claims not to be able to do so regardless of how much he has tried to learn , I recall his BBC interview a few years ago , right along the time he premiered his
Full First Complete Classical Symphony .

Just a footnote...

oh and QFT  on the rest of your post.

Richard Dubois wrote:
To add:  With a good educational foundation in PS, you begin to see how there are several ways of approaching each project, and know immediately what will work best, instead of repeating possibly ineffectual self-taught techniques because that's all you know, or don't understand them well enough.  You need to know the "why's", not just the "how's".

Robert Randall wrote:
I think comments like the emboldened one about algorithms are kind of misleading. In it's loosest interpretation, any action you create is an algoritm in that it uses finite steps to achieve an end goal.  In light of that, stating that you need to understand actions is acceptable. In it's literal interpretation, an algorithm is most likely a sequence of mathematical formulas that a college level math whiz might have a problem understanding.

Noting the complexity of a true algorithm, do you really feel it's necessary for me to understand the finite mathematical steps necessary to produce a mask from a calculation? The reason I ask is that I don't believe for one second that either you or Star know anything about the actual math behind a calculation. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you and Star are trying to get at, but plain speak usually outweighs techno garble on almost any level. Most of the people lurking in here are probably already intimidated by the program itself, you needn't add to their frustration by throwing hyperbole into the mix.

I agree that 'algorithm' lends itself to hyperbolic use, but the concept still applies.

The biggest difficulty I had when teaching Photoshop was dealing with students who had self-taught starting around version 6 or 7, when so many of the fundamental functions weren't needed for simple work. You didn't have to use a channel to get a drop shadow; you didn't have to use channels to do much of anything simple, in fact, and because of that, they'd never learned.

Things which had to be learned in the early versions, and which formed a simple path to advanced work, didn't need to be learned for simple stuff...but without those fundamentals, advancing was extremely difficult.

And far too many books and videos provide nothing more than recipes to follow, with little or no explanation as to the underpinnings. (Of course, so do many classes; the format isn't the limitation, it's what information is covered.)

Call them algorithms, call them fundamentals, call them basics, call them the stuff under the hood: whatever they're called, without them, the user is going to be much more limited. And some form of guidance will make learning them much easier--how many people would have discovered the wealth of options from channel chops without Kai , for example?

In fact, a good argument can be made that the more you know about the tool, the less you need the new features for core editing purposes, as a very large fraction of the new features are ways to make older features easier to get started with. Only last year, Bob Staake made the news by using Photoshop v3 (not CS3, but version 3.0, released in 1994) to produce the cover of a 2008 The New Yorker magazine.

Star wrote:

If you don't understand a program, and not just how it works but the reason behind the algorithms, then you can not grow as the program evolves and changes.

Just like if you cannot understand a simple proof you will be lost in higher mathematics. As the tools inside change, the reasoning behind why the tools exist and how they can be manipulated doesn't. the math doesn't change, just the ways you can use the math.

If that is too hard to understand think of photoshop as a language. There is much you can lean just on the surface, but inside there are deeper meanings, better more precise words, greater flexibility. The words are all there to be found, the question is have you found all the right words to be a poet? Or are you a mediocre wordsmith, lost in a language you only partialy understand. Forever unable to truly get your concept across to others.

It is a difference in perception and ability, aptitude and clarity of purpose.

Without the tools to truly dissect photoshop and understand the language I was trying to speak, the numbers I was trying to add together...

Finally a music metaphor, which really is just math that you can experience more viscerally. 

It is something that can be learned on your own, just as there are self taught concert pianists, but there aren't too many of those are there?

There are many people who learn piano from books, and years down the road they can play pretty proficiently.

And there are others, who have teachers and coaches and in the end end up composing great works. Are the works less great for somebody showing them a harmony and how it works? Does learning how the notes become music mean that before that knowledge they were without a brain?

No.

So to make it simple, Rick showed me harmonics when I had been playing only a melody line.

Respectfully, that is a bunch of crappola.  I dont care if you have infinite knowledge of math(complex algorithyms) and physics, it will not make you an artist.  It would seem your friend, "Rick" as trapped you inside an Adobe box, only able to grow as Adobe programmers do.  Not knowing you will truely never be able to grow as an artist until you understand what it means to not be bound by the rules of physics and mathmatics.