[kcplate]

Not sure where you are from, but in the US they are still industries that produce significantly more digital image media than most all others. And by publishing, I am not just referring to print.

Pretty much almost every photograph that you see on a media company website has been touched, color corrected, cropped or otherwise digitally manipulated by Photoshop.

[digisign]

Anything that is expensive is going to be used less than other options that are free.

Personally I've worked in VFX, Internet, medical companies, and while there were a few things got photoshoped here and there externally we almost always used something else, whether expensive or free.

[kcplate]

Your perception of “expensive” might be different than mine and many folks managing photo production workflows. If I have a dozen artists who are not as productive on a less costly package, handicapped by poor automation scripting of a low cost alternative, or are less productive due to training time requirements on a new package for even half a week, those low cost alternatives have zero value to me over a more expensive, better, and de facto standard.

I’ll admit it’s value was greater when print publishing was still a thing, but those magazine and newspaper companies that transitioned to digital didn’t necessarily go out and buy all new tools to replace effective tools that already existed, already had a trained base, and already had robust digital asset workflows in place.

[digisign]

For every pro there are a hundred newbs, and other folks who don't care enough.