Talk:Photo manipulation

Lead image

It needed one, now that Stalin's gone, and – as suggested above – I'd intended the sponge one as a suggestion for the photoshopping section but it seems to fit better as a lead. I would suggest something more obvious be used for photoshopping, in keeping with the idea of something being "photoshopped in/out" - something like a reflection removed from a window or maybe just a simple before after composited from this and this (using crops from each, of course) for example. mikaul^talk 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Rename

A new era for the troubled article should start with an old proposal which was never implemented - renaming this Photo manipulation as it used to be before it was changed without consensus. There's a discussion about it up the page, or in the archive, or somewhere.. anyone have any objections or know the neatest way to do it? mikaul^talk 00:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

It's here, not much of a discussion :o/ mikaul^talk 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

An ordinary move should work, I think, and if it doesn't then it will tell you how to ask for a move. I have no objection, but give it a few days and see if anyone else does; I would also not object to leaving it as photo editing. DreamGuy seems to have taken an unannounced wiki-break, so maybe the article won't be so troubled for a while. Dicklyon 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Makes more sense as "photo manipulation" is what this article is really about. Editing implies minor fixes and corrections, while manipulation implies major stuff (such as removing people, changing objects' colors, etc.). --clpo13_(talk) 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is true, then photo editing shouldn't be directed to this article. Oicumayberight 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem; the redirect says for the uses, cultural impact, and ethical concerns of image editing, which is mostly about removing people, changing objects' colors, etc., per evidence in this article. If you think of a better way to put it, that's fine, too. But there's no reason to interpret either phrase so narrowly as to create a conflict.

There's already a conflict. Look up manipulating. It implies that there is no good reason to edit. Besides, read clpo13_(talk) comment above. Oicumayberight 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unclear on your point. Please expand. Dicklyon 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If editing is minor as clpo13_(talk) states, than image editing better describes photo editing than photo manipulation. There is no reason to imply that photo editing is manipulative. Oicumayberight 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't get that. And I don't see any general consensus that "editing is minor" even though one guy said that. The historical distinction on the naming is photo versus the more general image; I think that we should not use the name change here to narrow the article scope too much. And in general you want to be careful about changing redirects, as that changes all the pages that link to it, so they now link somewhere unexpected. So let's leave it as it was, OK? Dicklyon 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I'll give it a try... Dicklyon 14:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oicumayberight, after reverting your change to the photo editing redirect again, I see you did say "see Talk"; so that must mean here? What's the beef with leaving the old article title as a redirect? Dicklyon 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting my comment, Oicumayberight. The redirect is in place because this article used to be called "photo editing." The content of the article didn't fit the title so it was renamed. I was simply saying the new name fit the content better than the old one did. --clpo13_(talk) 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

clpo13 I knew what you meant. It applies both ways. If the article doesn't fit the title, then the title doesn't fit the article. I was just using what you said to make the case that the term wasn't summed up by the scope of the article especially after it was renamed. Oicumayberight 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So, having made your point, do you have a constructive suggestion? Dicklyon 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for those who wish to have a less controversial article, is to keep the term "photo editing" distinguished from "photo manipulation" either with a separate article, a redirect to image editing or the current disambiguation page. Oicumayberight 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the disambig page you made at photo editing. Good idea. Dicklyon 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a valuable distinction made in exactly the right place. I found the wholesale replacement of "editing" with "manipulation" a little careless but in general it seems to have been a good and necessary change too. I've copyedited the first three sections, as it was all starting to look like a badly-healed wound. --mikaul^talk 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. The disambig page is a very good idea. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mikaul's version of Photoshopping section

What's the general consensus with this? Should we replace the current section with his sandbox one? I would do it myself, but I can't find the link anywhere, plus I want to make sure it's all right with everyone first. --clpo13_(talk) 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it offers a net win over what we have now, go for it; I may add a ref url or two. I think you need to search up for a link "here". Dicklyon 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I merged the two, keeping the Fark image but adding in the note about how photoshop is often used colloquially and academically as a verb. --clpo13_(talk) 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok, but the Fark image is really bugging me now.. it was pretty much agreed up the page (somewhere) that it should go – there's already a link to it (or rather to email hoax, which displays it) in the wikilink from the phrase "actual news". I'm also unconvinced about the "Helicopter Shark" sentence. Like the Fark image, it was included as a wikilink (also at email hoax) and removed from the draft version in the interests of weight and balance with professional use. I'm not claiming the draft was the consensus version (it was never properly aired, I don't think) rather I'm appealing for opinions. Is the wikilink enough, or do you think the last sentence warrants space here? All things considered, I think we should get rid of it and put a seealso for email hoax, along with photoshop contest at the end of the section.

I'll also have a go at a before-and-after image as I suggested and post it up. If anyone has a better idea, maybe they can link to it here and we can look at replacing it again. mikaul^talk 17:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I only left the Fark image because it was in the original version. If consensus was against it, it can be safely removed then. The link to "Helicopter Shark," however, I think should stay because it properly illustrates the idea of manipulated images being passed as real news. It's only a brief mention and is good for showing how big of an impacted such images can have in popular culture. That's just my take on it, though. --clpo13_(talk) 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment. I think there was vague support for the Fark one staying until a better one can be found (better than nothing?) although I'm not having much success with the before/after I had in mind :o( In some respects the shark images are better (more illustrative) and I'd even prefer those to the Fark one, but let's not lose sight of the need for an illustration which covers all areas in which the term is used. I'll keep looking. mikaul^talk 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections

I think that history ethics and journalism could be subsumed into one all encompassing section - they are pretty much addressing the same thing. Maybe with existing categories could be subsections. 3tmx 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The history change looks good, I was thinking of beefing it up as there's a bit more could be said about it. Once I get my facts straight I'll add more ethics subsections as it's a big topic in its own right: medical, insurance, legal as well as political and journalistic angles need to be covered. Good work with the recent history, although am I right in thinking that Sun Microsystems should also be mentioned re graphics workstations? Also I'm not sure about PShop "replacing" its rivals, at least not until the early 90s, but my recollection of all that is admittedly sketchy. I went with Apple in '91 and never looked back :o). mikaul^talk 19:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent case in the UK

I was interested to see this article in the UK press this morning. It would seem to be an ideal candidate example for the ethics section, but I'm concerned that it might be a little too current as far as current affairs go. Should we hold off until the case is closed, d'you think? --mikaul^talk 18:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

We could stick a current events tag at the top of the ethics section and make sure to update it as the case goes on. Then again, since it hasn't been determined that it was manipulated, it's probably best to leave it out, just in case it turns out that it wasn't unethically manipulated. --clpo13_(talk) 06:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The latest from the same source is that the police have denied all accusations of photo manipulation and the prosecution has closed. I'm really not up on UK legal procedure, but I suspect those accusations will only be properly investigated, if at all, once the trial is over and related inquests can be set up. Are we on solid enough ground to proceed as discussed with a current events tag? --mikaul^talk 07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping factoid

I reverted the addition of a reference to a single-frame online cartoon which happened to be called "photoshops". This reversion has been reversed and I'd like a second opinion or three before getting into a trivial revert war. I'm not dead against it, it just seems frivolous in the extreme and barely worthy of a mention, in a section previously hauled over the coals due to exactly this sort of content. Thoughts? --mikaul^talk 17:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem a bit trivial, but Dicklyon may have inserted it to indicate how Photoshop is viewed and used in popular culture. XKCD does seem to have its finger on the pulse of society... I can see both sides, though. --clpo13_(talk) 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; it supports the point of the section, and doesn't seem to me to add undue weight to a point of view; just one more sourced example of how photoshop is used as a verb. What the cartoon happened to be called with not relevant, but the fact that the cartoon was about the use of photoshopped in the sense of manipulated. Furthermore, the previous hauling over the coals of this section was really about two things: (1) unsourced junk, which we fixed quickly; (2) one guy's opinion that photoshop is not used as a verb, or if it is then wikipedia shouldn't admit it (and that guy has been banned from such disruptive editing, via an arbitration, and has left wikipedia). Dicklyon 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added the comment "also known as Airbrushing" to the "Photoshopping" section, I was searching for what the more official term for it was, and thought it should really be on this page(Symo85 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

And feel free to add it again along with a source if you have one, rather than in front of the citations to the sources that do not support it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I felt free and added it back in with a couple of cites, sorry about putting the comment in front of the wrong cites.(Symo85 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

Neither of your citations supports the idea that "airbrushing" is uses as a general term for image editing; and certainly neither connects airbrushing with "photoshopping", which is the topic of that section. So I took it out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the O.J. Simpson cover “controversial”?

This article says that the magazine covers featuring O.J. Simpson were “controversial”. Why? Why is it even mentioned in this article?

One has been quite obviously darkened with some effects put on it to make it look dramatic. That’s not exactly controversial. Magazine covers use fancy effects all the time. It’s not as though the image of O.J. has been altered in a misleading way. The magazine hasn’t changed his face, or the shape of his body, as most magazines routinely do on their cover.

I’m obviously not denying that there was some controversy about this, if there was controversy, then there was controversy. But what was the controversy about? If the article doesn’t mention what the controversy was, there is no point in this incident even being mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand Dizzy (talk • contribs) 21:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that calling something "controversial" (or using almost any adjectives on wikipedia for that matter) is opinionated WP:POV without references. A simple "^{[citation needed]}" tag would suffice. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

some near synonyms

for the sake of completeness i'm interested in including terms like "airbrushing" and "shooping" in this article, with their appropriate placement in the language of "photoshopping", and of course citing appropriate sources. this may not be possible as often language changes too quickly to be notable or referenced. but akaik, airbrushing was a hangover term used from when airbrushes were actually used to manipulate images, mostly in fashion and advertising, but also in image manipulation for purposes of political propoganda. similar work is now done by image manipulation software and forms a subset of what is now known as "photoshopping". basically i'm suggesting some reciprocity with the mention of photoshopping at Airbrushing#Use.

shooping is a recent term usually applied to humorous or parodic use of photo manipulation, and as such may be harder to cite from good sources.--Mongreilf (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I agree the term has at least as much currency as "photoshopping", but it's worth pointing out that section has proven to be prone to a number of neologisms and otherwise inaccurate colloquial terminology that has been rejected in the past. If you can find academic or at least reliable sources using "airbrushing" in the right context, there's no reason why the term couldn't be mentioned alongside "photoshopping", afaic. mikaul^talk 11:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked for airbrushing and shopping (but not shooping) before, and couldn't find decent sources. Airbrushing is still commonly used to mean airbrushing, an editing style with an airbrush tool, even if done digitally, but I don't see evidence that it's used for photo manipulation more generally. Shopping is sometimes used, but I don't find sources nearly as good as what we have for photoshopping. Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming the equivalence of airbrushing for photo manipulation generally, but, as I said, as a subset of photo manipulation that has greater meaning than the literal act of physical airbrushing or using an airbrush tool within image manipulation software. It should be pretty easy to find if one considers the talk of people being airbrushed from history, such as Clementis the Czech communist.--Mongreilf (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

That's Dick's point, I think: it's a common enough expression & one easy enough to find in colloquial use, and "airbrushing history" is a term more photo-related than painting-related, but finding a source which isn't equally informal might be tough. I can find multiple instances of the expression "cloning out", for example (after the clone tool in Pshop) on forums, how-to sites, etc – all sources that don't cut it as far as WP:RS goes. As I said, for me, there's no more credibility to "photoshopping" than "cloning out" or "airbrushing" and far as this article goes, yours is in effect an argument in favour of a "pop culture" section to cover such terminology. I can sympathise with that call, but the problem of sources then becomes one of neologism and thenceforth enters "farking" and god knows what else. Avoiding being an urban dictionary, while allowing some informal terminology, is a dead-end path we've been down more than once in the past. mikaul^talk 02:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Can I ask whether the sections "History" and "Political and Ethical Issues" are open to be elaborated upon ?

I would suggest some sort of reference to Pictorialism, a Victorian movement that sought to employ photographic processes to emulate painting. Also, I wonder whether there needs to be some cross-checking with the Wiki article on Photomontage as both entries overlap somewhat.

Can I also suggest two additional titles for your list of references:

• Jean Baudrillard, Paul Patton (Trans.) (1995),"The Gulf War did not take place",Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN

This text crystallises the notion of photographic verisimilitude through Baudrillard's take on "Simulation" and "Simulacra" as experienced in the media coverage of the first Gulf War.

• Dawn Ades (1989),"Photomontage",Thames & Hudson, London, UK

This is a very useful overview of the history of image manipulation, available in every good library.

--Rbudegb (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

use of "photoshopped"

this may have been already debated to death but I wanted to raise consensus about the use of the term "photoshopped" in this article since it is misuse of a registered trademark of Adobe as seen here: Adobe trademark guidelines. is it standard practice on the EN wikipedia to respect the marks of companies as they have laid out? ⊂ Andyzweb ⊃ (Talk) 06:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The Manual of Style states that we shouldn't follow the rules of the trademark owners, but the rules of the English language instead. I think that using the verb “to photoshop” is not proper for Wikipedia, unless we are writing about the term itself, which is what the section “Photoshopping” is about. So I think this article is fine. Svick (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

And yes, it was debated to death several years ago; I think on an article that later got merged into this one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Main image

Maybe this has been discussed, but it doesn't seem to me that the main image of the sponge is the best example of photoshopping, or at least for the first image of the article. With the zoomed-out view that the reader sees, one can't even tell what is photoshopped in the image. I think an photo like File:Photomontage (Forggensee Panorama) -2.jpg, where it is clearly edited and unrealistic, would work better as the first image. Delaywaves ^talk 02:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)