Thought on using guids for non-free stuff with trasferable skills to free stuff?
Example: Say if you watch a video or read a book on how to do x in Photoshop or Premiere and you're like "Hey, let's see if Gimp or Kdenlive can do that".
You get the idea, you just implement the idea in something else. I know there's plenty of guides on free tools, but that's not what the experts use and there's nothing wrong with somebody using a tool not used by experts like using Crayola Markers instead of Copics. Yes, a pro can make good work with Crayola because it's mostly the skill of the pro, but most pros are going to use Copics and one could transfer that mentality to another tool. Not to say I look down at Gimp, (or Crayola because I bought some) 2.10 looks fantastic, bit's easier to find pros that use Photoshop and DuckDuckGo how to do that step in Gimp or ask on stack exchange.
Free Software Foundation is not against using proprietary software if you are using it to make a Free Software replacement :)
I think there are a lot of pros using free software, and now even some universities are ditching Adobe in favor of Krita, Gimp, Synfig, Pitivi, Kdenlive, etc :)
You mean reverse engineering? Yeah, I love reverse engineered projects like GNU was. Though Gimp was never trying to be a Photoshop clone. If I could spare the cash, I would pay the Gimp Project and Kdenlive what Adobe normally charges. Money gets stuff done.
Not to be a pedant, but did you mean "guides" in the title?
Studying the features of proprietary products is not in itself bad at all, and (as you mentioned) can be a great way to gain ideas for free software equivalents. If you're paying for the guide with money or your personal data (or both), then there is a little harm being done, but it's probably not worth worrying about it too much. Avoiding those payments isn't usually too hard anyway, although it might be illegal.