>>496493Regardless of what Photoshop is, it's the go-to tool of the industry for painting (that, or Painter).
It's not a strawman argument. It's a parallel, which exists show there's context and precedents to the argument "People get attached to what they use and are refractory to try something new".
It's not my "anecdotal memories" either. It's all over the net, every tutorial, every magazine, every advice on what to use. Photoshop, or Painter.
For every open-source, free tool that exists, you will have a plethora of people arguing their paid-for tool is better. Sometimes with some validity (Mac people), sometimes not at all (cuteFTP, WinRar, Kaspersky,...). People are just attached to what they use, what they found first, what they learned. The more they'll use it, the more invested they'll be in it, and the more they'll be likely to defend it without actually trying the other options.
But all this is a deviation from the main conversation. Fact is, I didn't say Blender was the best without reason.
I said (
>>496469) that I could do with Blender everything I could do with other tools. On top of that, it's lighter on my resources (which allows me to use it both on my powerhouse and my crappy laptop), and it's free.
Similar to others + lighter + free = better.
Your rebuttal was:
- "your analogy to show people might be close-minded about this because in a similar situation other people are similarly close minded is a strawman argument" -- it's not
- "Photoshop is not a painting program" -- it is, proof is all the PAINTING brushes, and the million of PAINTING tutorials, both official and unofficial, that advise to use it.
- insult assuming I'm referring to my anecdotal memories when I'm actually referring to the industry consensus
- "Blender is not better, it's different"...Yes, how?
4 lines, and not a single argument about the subject at all.
If you care to actually say something worthwhile, one of us could learn something today.
