I do think Akjack makes some good points, there is great deal in photoshop that your average user is never going to need .
Michael Reichmann gave some background on photoshop when taking a first look at Lightroom.
"Photoshop is arguably the 800 pound gorilla of the digital photography world, and these days digital means photography. Now in its 18th year, the brainchild of Thomas and John Knoll has gone from being a tool primarily for graphic artists and pre-press people, to the dominant program used by photographers around the world.
It is not without its problems though. Now on Version #9 (dubbed Photoshop CS2), the program has been described by pundits as something of a Frankenstein. No, not because its evil, but because it has grown with a part from here, and a part from there – with a feature designed for this constituency, and another for that one. In trying to become all things to all people (at least those in the imaging arena), it has become a heavyweight product, but also one encumbered by a lot of baggage"
Read on
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... oom1.shtml
What uses having a great depth of field, if there is not an adequate depth of feeling? -
W. Eugene Smith