[embedding-shape]

> Sorry what? This is nonsense.

Would you like to specify exactly what part is nonsense from that quoted part? Because it's what I saw myself first-hand when I owned a restaurant, so would be interesting to here what exactly of that you think is "nonsense"?

> So if you use photoshop professionally/commercially then you can afford to pay for it.

No, my point is that even if you're basically part-time "starting out"/"fresh", you most likely can afford it, which is different than a professional user who uses it every day.

Back in the day, it truly was "You can only afford Photoshop if you use it professionally every day" but today you can work as a waiter and have photography as a hobby, and still be able to afford it.

[jaffa2]

I read the para as saying $16 is so cheap, anyone can afford it! That is nonsense. Also subjective. Closer reading reveals the scenario is a restaurant having picture of its food taken. Presumably the restaurant is making money, and so can justify the expense of only $16. (or paying the photographer, who can then pay for the sub.)

Billy the 12 year old who wants to 'play with photoshop' now and again (as many of us did when we were younger back in the day) can't afford $16 a month for that.

> you're basically part-time "starting out"/"fresh", you most likely can afford it,

yes - you are agreeing with me.. 'starting out/fresh' refers to making money? i.e. professional use. A professional is merely someone who makes money. Frequency is irrelevant.