James_B_II wrote:
... I dont care if you have infinite knowledge of math(complex algorithyms) and physics, it will not make you an artist.  ..... 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.

I'll agree with this much.

To add, knowing how a program works does not make an artist.

However, an artist with potential who is taught how to properly use a tool can make magic . I think that is the point of this thread.

Anyway, I went to school to study graphic design. I started out self-taught, but a full course in Photoshop helped me untapped tools that have helped me tremendously.

James_B_II wrote:
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.

you missed the point in every way you could. I even used 3 different metaphors; but instead of seeing the metaphors you instead tried to take the words literally. It is like you read Animal Farm and thought it was a documentary look at the life of farm animals. That last sentence was a simile.

Please look up each of the words you misspelled, that should help you in your understanding of my last post to you.

Now if you do not feel I am an adult artist, that I cannot answer since I would have to speak about your work to do so. That would break at least 3 rules of MM, and while you think it is appropriate to act in this manner I do not.

I am happy in the work I create and would gladly welcome the opportunity to critique your work in caparison to mine, but here is not the place to do it. Critiques are only allowed in the critique forum, and only if you have started a critique thread there. Please cease in your critiques here as I am bound by the rules of MM to not reciprocate.

Also, as a side note, Rick Miller is a member of this site, mods, and the comments made about him to me seem like a personal attack on an MM member. I hope you deal with them as such.

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.

Neither can Steve Howe.  I asked him.

I took a Community College Photoshop class as part of general certificate in Digital Multimedia Arts.  It was a helpful beginning, but there's so much more to Photoshop that's still a mystery to me.

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.

One day I will pick your brain.

One day.

Just got to bring enough rope with me when I'm in the area.

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.

Speaking for myself, you're quite right, I only have a very general understanding of algorithms.  I don't believe you need to have a deep understanding of the mathematical fundamentals, you just need to understand how PS employs them.  Kevin articulates my thoughts on this very well:

Kevin_Connery wrote:
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.

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?

James_B_II wrote:
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.

You clearly missed the point of this thread, but at least you confessed to it in your first post.

Here, in the simplest terms I can think of, is what it's about:  In order to learn and grow in any creative medium, you need to understand the fundamentals of the tools you are using.  That goes for painting, music, writing - and digital imaging.  You don't need to be a mathematician to use Photoshop well, you just need to understand the fundamentals of pixel-based software, and how algorithmic mathematics play a part in how that software works.  You can successfully learn these fundamentals from an expert and mentor, through formal education, and even on your own, but sometimes the self-taught unknowingly miss things along the way.  A small number of these self-taught users will consider themselves experts at retouching, when they really are not.

Once you understand the fundamentals, and you are no longer struggling to remember what sequence of clicks you once made to get whatever effect you once did, the real creativity can begin.  This is the difference between understanding the "why's" of PS versus simply understanding the "how's".  Or as Kevin puts it, not just learning "recipes" in a book, but understanting the processes behind them.

Therein is the beauty of Photoshop:  There is often more than one "right" way to do something, and having a clear understanding of how to use it frees up your mind to be as creative as you can be.  Far from seeing them as "trapped inside... a box", I have no doubt that the programmers at Adobe are constantly being surprised at how users are finding innovative new ways of using their software.

James_B_II wrote:
... I dont care if you have infinite knowledge of math(complex algorithyms) and physics, it will not make you an artist.  ..... 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.

Stacy Alberto wrote:
I'll agree with this much.

I also agree with this, insofar as the OP never suggested you need to be a mathematician to use PS, or grow as an artist, contrary to what James seems to think.

Stacy Alberto wrote:
To add, knowing how a program works does not make an artist.

However, an artist with potential who is taught how to properly use a tool can make magic . I think that is the point of this thread.

Anyway, I went to school to study graphic design. I started out self-taught, but a full course in Photoshop helped me untapped tools that have helped me tremendously.

That is indeed the point of this thread.

Star wrote:

you missed the point in every way you could. I even used 3 different metaphors; but instead of seeing the metaphors you instead tried to take the words literally. It is like you read Animal Farm and thought it was a documentary look at the life of farm animals. That last sentence was a simile.

Please look up each of the words you misspelled, that should help you in your understanding of my last post to you.

Now if you do not feel I am an adult artist, that I cannot answer since I would have to speak about your work to do so. That would break at least 3 rules of MM, and while you think it is appropriate to act in this manner I do not.

  I am happy in the work I create and would gladly welcome the opportunity to critique  your work in caparison to mine, but here is not the place to do it. Critiques are only allowed in the critique forum, and only if you have started a critique thread there. Please cease in your critiques here as I am bound by the rules of MM to not reciprocate.

  Also, as a side note, Rick Miller is a member of this site, mods, and the comments made about him to me seem like a personal attack on an MM member. I hope you deal with them as such.

I see, I have upset you, lol.  Calm down and let's agree to disagree with your comment about not being able to grow as an artist without knowing how Photoshop works.  Cool?  And, unless you can throw your computer away and still be a graphic designer, I would tread carefully when it come to challenging me and my skills.  Photoshop plug-ins were modeled after what I have been able to do for the past 25 years.

James_B_II wrote:
And, unless you can throw your computer away and still be a graphic designer, I would tread carefully when it come to challenging me and my skills.  Photoshop plug-ins were modeled after what I have been able to do for the past 25 years.

As this is not a critique forum, proclaiming your great talents as a graphic designer has no place in this thread.