com.spotify.Client VS org.gimp.GIMP

There is nothing "unsafe" about flatpak. In fact for every package on flathub you can see exactly what the "unofficial" packagers do in the corresponding github repository. For example here is the repository for Spotify, if you look at the json manifest file you can see they are repackaging the "official" Snap with the necessary libraries and scripts to support it running as a flatpak. Everything there is open source and able to be examined.

If you click on the "Manifest" link for the package on flathub, it will take you to where the code that packages the app resides. There you can review exactly what the packager does in the json manifest. Here's the one for the Spotify client, for example, which shows where it pulls in dependencies and where it downloads the proprietary code from (in this case they base it on the snap) and what commands it executes while packaging the flatpak.

Try installing it via Flatpak

Flatpaks builds are made to be reproducible. Everything is done openly and you can check how the apps like for example Spotify where made.

Why not just use the flatpak?

Judging by the manifest, the Spotify Flatpak is built from the Spotify Snap.

Depending on what exactly you use Photoshop for, you can try alternatives like Gimp, Darktable, or Krita.

You could install the flatpak https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.gimp.GIMP, which might limit it somewhat.

Flatpak: 2.10.30, 2021-Dec-26

Yes, and the Flatpak is officially maintained by Gimp developers.

No, you don't.

For anyone wanting to try alternatives, Gimp is great. There's also a project called PhotoGIMP that makes the layout more like photoshop if you want that.