Talk:Photograph manipulation

Adding html a good or bad idea?

Should this be reset to previous version or can it be developed?--Profero 14:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you've on photos are mentioned in the text and should remain "close", but move your images and the two of the woman to another section. Imroy 20:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped someone, like you, with better skils than mine would help out in a friendly way with an expanded improvement of the less than perfect. Someone that immediately knows how to use the Meta:Help:Table.

In the meantime I shall read more about it myself, revert to an earlier version of the article and also read more about the Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I suggest you read those articles too. and also this! --Profero 02:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Huh? If you wanted someone to fix up the table you should have just said so. I simply offered my opinion and some suggestions. Try to be more clear in the future. That was not uncivil, and how can it be a personal attack? Yeesh. Imroy 03:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your point of view. To clarify my point of view, the first thing I asked for was help. So in that situation I found the "Wow", the "screwed" and the "at least" insulting. (Although no longer necessary for practical purposes, perhaps you, or someone else, could come up with an example of a friendly and constructive way on how to reply to the question.) Practically, I would think it is easy, for someone used to handling this type of layout, to revert and improve my idea without unnecessary fuss or uncivil insulting expressions like "Huh" and "Yeesh".

For more on language use, please see user discussion pages. --Profero 08:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this statement is spam:

Time illustrator Matt Mahurin was the one to alter the image, saying later that he "wanted to make it more artful, more compelling."

The focus of the first half of the sentence is Matt Mahurin and his role as a New York Times illustrator. Andyohio 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

identical material found elswhere on the Internet

Look at the series of images and the content of this web page:

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html

It has the same general content, but it quotes its sources better than this Wikipedia page. Perhaps someone took material from this source and put it in Wikipedia. Andyohio 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While the content is similar, the purpose of using it isn't. Here we are presenting the styles of photo manipulation while they are commenting on changing history for bias or other purposes. There is no copyright violation present as all pictures appear to be properly sources with appropriate fair use rational, or are otherwise ineligble for copyright and no text was directly copied from the aforementioned link. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

on definitions

Hi, I am a selftaught digital artist using Photoshop: http://abstract-digital-art.com I should like to comment on : Digital Art> Fields of art> Photography/cinematography-related: Would you pls. consider changing the definition to read: “Artwork created through a camera or through alterations of digital imagefiles”, as the noun manipulation may imply abuse or tricks. The subtitel >Photo manipulations< should read: “Alterations of digital imagefiles” as we are not manipulating photos but applying alterations to digital imagefiles. keas

Article is too negative and political

I changed the title and various instances from "manipulation" to "editing". Excessive use of the word "manipulation" implies that there is no good reason to edit photos. There needs to be more said about the creative and aesthetic reasons for photo editing to offset the negativity. If enough cannot be said to offset the negativity, then the political implications needs to be in a separate article titled "controversial photo manipulation" or something to the effect. Oicumayberight 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article could be greatly improved

I think this article is, in its current state, fairly poor. The structure of the article for one needs improving; starting the first paragraph "In digital editing.." seems premature or too specific as surely a paragraph discussing history or general overview should be first. There is nothing about the continuity from traditional retouching to digital retouching e.g. unsharp mask, nothing about the growing use of cgi alongside photoshop within the industry. What about a mention for photoshop aside from a link? I would also say that there is a fairly good argument for either merging the article with digital image editing into an all encompassing article or making clear that this article soley discusses the social/propaganda side of photo editing. And an additional article or pre-digital techniques? I would also question the redirect to this article from "retouching"; i think most people use the term with the sense of digital image editing. Also what is the point in saying that images can be obtained from stock libraries?? They have originated through either a digital or film-based process in the first place - isn't this a bit like saying tomatos can be grown in a greenhouse or a field or brought in a supermarket? What about the cited controversies over retouched images within the press - how extensive is this? There a case last summer where a Reuters (i think) photographer was sacked for using the clone tool in photoshop to make explosions look more impressive.

3tmx 00:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry just spotted link to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict photographs controversies

3tmx 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping merge

Please see the discussion at Talk:Photoshopping about why the section on photoshopping is being merged here, and comment there if you like. Dicklyon 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of Photoshop as a verb

Now, I understand that Adobe doesn't like their software used as a verb, but the section specifically on that should stay as is, instead of how it was changed in these two edits. I mean, who says "I enhanced this picture with Adobe Photoshop software"? No one. It may be genericization of the trademark, but it's used in the article to illustrate popular usage. Just an FYI for anyone coming across my edits and wondering why I made them. --clpo13 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments about wikipedia contributing to copyright violations Talk:List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarks#article_for_AFD.Tstrobaugh 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite see the relevance. You seem to be ignoring the difference between using a trademark generically and commenting on the generic use of a trademark. If you think the current section crosses the line, it can probably be adjusted by strategic use of quote marks or by substituing "photochopping" in places where the term seems be used generically. But wholesale denial or removal of content is not the way to fix it. Dicklyon 18:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I do not distinguish, on wikipedia, the difference between using a trademark incorrectly, and the commenting of the incorrect use of a trademark in an article. Please tell me how you think it is different to order a "rum and coke" at a bar (to use the old SNL bit "no coke, pepsi") and receive a "rum and cola" and writing an article in a newspaper that quotes "this guy ordered a "rum and coke""? How is one a trademark violation and the other not?Tstrobaugh 19:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you need to consult a trademark attorney. Dicklyon 19:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you assume that I'm not a trademark attorney?Tstrobaugh 20:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The point I was making is that I don't think this section is more just commenting on generification, not actually helping the process along. Revisions to make it known that genericization is a bad thing are okay, but the original edits I reverted completely changed it to something no one ever would say. That was all I intended. --clpo13 21:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

History section

I've split this into two, as it was unneccesarily large and covers two related, but different, themes. Journalism is current, rather than historical, even if the chronology does have to stop somehwere :) It provides a segue into the Ethics section, which could do with expanding, with links from the techincal terminology to Image editing. Basically there's a bunch of acceptable and unacceptable manipulation guidelines here and there (mostly in the US) which I'm currently reading up on. I was considering a spinoff article but I'll post it here first, if people think it's appropriate and it's not too long. mikaul^talk 10:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusion with Image editing

This article and Image editing are far too easily confused. Ok, once you're here (or there) it's quite obvious, but I (for one) can never remember which is the "technical" one. Photo manipulation is much more appropriate for this article, due to the slightly critical/negative connotation of the word "manipultation". I'd like to see the redirect currently in place there apply to Photo editing instead, to save all the confusion. Anyone know how to undo a redirect? mikaul^talk 10:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo manipulation does redirect to photo editing. What's the problem again? Are you saying you want to undo the previous move from photo manipulation to photo editing, where the reason was that manipulation sounds negative, because you'd prefer the more negative-sounding title? I wouldn't object, but let's see what others think. Dicklyon 17:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

If a revert is all it takes, yes. Where is the discussion referring to conotations of the word, exactly? I'd have said this article was a natural spinoff from image editing, an examination of its common uses, consequences and ethical considerations, which would be too much for the main descriptive article. Negative-sounding isn't a POV issue in this instance, it's a recognition of the verifiable falsehoods perpetrated via manipulation of visual media, which is negative by its very nature. Where applications are ethically neutral/positive, the term "manipulation" can be equally neutral/positve, cf manipulation of a limb, for example.
The problem is that we currently have two very similar-sounding articles with closely-related topics, only one of which is about the technical process of image editing. It seems obvious to me that the spinoff have a distinct name and "image manipulation" fits the bill perfectly. "Photo editing", on reflection, should redirect to "Image editing", not this page. mikaul^talk 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Photochopping

AFAIK, "photochopping" refers specifically to the interchanging of sections from different images, in order to create interesting juxtapositions etc.

It is not a generic term to replace "photoshopping" coined "out of respect for Adobe's trademark"; in fact it could be argued that it contributes equally to trademark dilution as it is obviously a play on the word "Photoshop". It is also not in common usage and the section on Photoshopping reads very poorly (in fact it makes little sense) with "photoshopped" replaced by "photochopped". If we're really desperate not to dilute Adobe's trademark (and frankly, I don't think it's our place to tiptoe around it when commenting on the phenomenon itself) then we should use a neutral term like "edited" or "manipulated" rather than some naff (and misused) bowdlerisation. --YFB ¿ 18:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Agreed. There's an active related discussion further up this page. mikaul^talk 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, you may be right. How about "shopping" for the generic alternative? Seems like we ought to be able to converge on a way of saying what needs to be said without stepping too much on trademarks; we'll have to keep reverting DreamGuy's removals, of course. Dicklyon 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

There's already an article on Photoshop contests, so there's no reason for having so much space taken up by a neologism by a bunch of internet kiddies who confuse something they do a lot and words they use with what the world as a whole does and what's encyclopedic. The mere concept that anybody would even consider "photochopped" to be something to be discussed in an encyclopedia article about this topic is just ridiculous. I wish people would start following Wikipedia policies on such things instead of putting their nonsense back in the article and recruiting the same old problem editors who go around reverting important edits to bring articles in line with encyclopedia standards. User:DreamGuy 19:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't you get blocked for vandalism last time we had this discussion? I thought it was resolved pretty well, converting the photoshopping article to a small section here. And it's increasingly well referenced. Take a look at the latest ref I added, which verifies that the usage is a lot more common than the "kiddies" you like to disparagingly characterize people as. I'm sure we would welcome any improvements you care to make, or even removal of unverifiable statements; but large-scale removal of well-cited material, along with the refs, is usually known as vandalism, isn't it? Or is that not one the policies you refer to as worth respecting? Dicklyon 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I *didn't* get blocked for vandalism last time we had this conversation. And you apparently STILL have not bothered to read the actual vanadalism policy if you are making such nonsensical claims. The problem is you say you welcome improvements but you don't, you just blind revert to your long, highly policy-violating version and ignoring the many major problems with the nonsense. All you do is have another editor who is known to go around blind reverting my changes because he's upset that he lost a conflict with me in the past showing up to threaten to block me yet again to try to bully his way into winning another fight, except neither of you are going to win, because policies are very clearly on my side, as proven time and time and time again on conflicts of this nature on other articles. DreamGuy 04:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this was you. Dicklyon 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of "chopping" or "chops" was that this was an abreviation from "Channel operations" and referred specifically to use of channels within the program. I'm not saying any other uses are right or wrong, just wanted to add this 3tmx 23:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard that, though chop can mean channel op in the IRC context. Dicklyon 00:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

its mentioned here by a reviewer, who appears to quote text the from the book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Photoshop-Channel-Chops-Compositing-Techniques/dp/1562057235/ref=sr_1_1/026-2486320-3330051?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182500559&sr=8-1

3tmx 08:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

mind you calling a book "channel chops" if the sense is how i think its being used would surely be a bit like when people talk about an "ATM Machine" or a "PIN number"

3tmx 08:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally never heard anyone use the term, ever. Nonetheless a comment at that linked page states:

I believe that Kai Krause coined the term "chops" to describe channel ops back around '90 or '91 :
"Chops" is an acronym, created by the authors, for channel operations."

which might be verifiable if someone has access to the relevant volume of Kai Krause: Famous Quotes and Digital Anecdotes. mikaul^talk 09:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree the use of the term to replace "photoshopping" is not in common usage, and I have never heard anyone use it before either. Most people I know refer to use as either photoshopping, retouching (which is arguably a specific area of image manipulation) or post-production. If (from what i can gather from above conversations) people have been suggesting "Photochopped" should be used within the article (other than maybe a mention of the term) its a definite no from me

3tmx 12:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest (per Dicklyon, recent edit) the splitting out of "photoshopping" again, to give this semi-relevant and clearly contentious info its own space. It's only going to get worse over time: there are quite a few images and so on which could illustrate the use of the term "photoshopping" which I can't see going down well here at all. "Shopping" in particluar seems a much more appropriate and widely used term for the more frivolous use of the tool and frees up this article for non-verb uses, and as for "chopping"... leave a short summary and good riddance! mikaul^talk 07:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the criticisms of the "photoshopping section" by dreamguy are certainly reasonable. For example

"Photoshopping", "photo-shopping", or simply "shopping", is slang for the digital editing of photos"

and

"Although professional graphic artists and designers might describe elements of their work as "photoshopping", the practice is more commonly associated with creating visual jokes on Internet sites"

The implication of the latter sentence when taking into consideration the former is basically that the digital editing of images is primarily associated with creating visual jokes on the internet. This is totally TOTALLY perposterous "more commonly associated" - BY WHO???? i think this is POV

3tmx 14:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that's a valid criticism, worth working on. I don't agree with DreamGuy's wholesale removal, which seemed to be primarily based on believing the point that you are questioning. Dicklyon 17:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I added a ref that more or less supports it. Feel free to edit it to be more precisely consistent with the ref, and/or any other relevant refs you can find. Dicklyon 17:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the word "practice" to "term", as this was obviously the original intent of the sentence. mikaul^talk 19:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that reference is not up to scratch- no way; plus the idea that the average man in the street thinks of "internet jokes" when the term photoshop is used is just obviously wrong. I'm sure you can find some random source that states 2+2=5 but that doesn't mean its correct. Plus the source does not appear to counter the very precise criticism i've made about the current phrasing. I find this section a bit indulgent and to quote dreamguy not very encylopaedic

3tmx 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And, more importantly, we already have an article on Photoshop contests that covers this slang usage, so it's not like I am trying to get it off Wikipedia completely, just in the section it belongs in. When we talk about robots in the Robot article, for example, we don't suddenly take up half the article talking about kids building robots so that they can fight in arena competitions and then try to claim that robots is more a term used for people who build robot warriors than in industrial or fictional uses. Some little side pastime along with some minor Internet slang should not take over what should be a serious article. DreamGuy 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is not really apt. It might be if there were a section on something like "roboshopping" in the robots article, which might be a good place for such content. But anyway the photoshopping content, about the usage of this term for image editing, fits well in this article, and is not as relevant to the article on contests. I agree that we need to work on better refs; GBS seems to be missing some key info and front matter on that one I found, though it does claim to have an isbn. Dicklyon 22:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The current implication of this section is not that "the average man in the street thinks of "internet jokes" when the term photoshop is used", but that the term photoshopping refers to something other than commercial image editing, which, as far as it goes, is correct. mikaul^talk 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. validity: if this were an article entitled photo manipulation, most of the section as is would indeed fit in well here. As it is, photo editing is near-synonymous with image editing and as such strongly implies applied, professional use of image editing tools (per DreamGuy). In its current context I would leave the section at that one statement, remove all other discussion of the various nicks and slang terms related to the recreational/frivolous use of the tool and spin it off to its own article from whence it came. How many image editing professionals refer to their craft as "photoshopping"? None that I know of. The section is way too long for "photo editing" and lends far too much weight to non-professional use. mikaul^talk 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with non-professional use? My opinion is that when people think of photo manipulation, they most likely think of messing with a picture in Photoshop. I say leave the section as is. It's not really enough to make a separate article, and it is relevant to the main subject of the article (photo editing). People don't come to Wikipedia to learn solely about professionals or professional usage of a term; they come to learn about every facet of a subject, which, in this case, would include photoshopping contests and the like. --clpo13 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's my point, you would expect "photo manipulation" to contain this info. The fact is that professional use and "messing about" are two very different things. You would not expect a techincal article like image editing to contain any more than a passing reference to it. "Photo editing" is practically synonymous with "image editing" and should redirect there, and this article should be renamed "photo manipulation" to deal with side-issues like Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten. I'd have no problem with it then. Frankly, what people do with their tools in their spare time is none of my concern... mikaul^talk 23:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether this article should be moved to "photo manipulation" is an independent question, which you can find discussion of above. I would be OK with it, but it had some objections; in fact, iirc, the article was previously moved from their to photo editing to avoid POV connotations. Dicklyon 00:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think they're related questions. A visitor looking for "photoshopping" or similar hobbyist themes would look under "photo manipulation" first. A serious background issue, mentioned by several contributors here, is that hobbyist themes have no place in a techincal article. Notwithstanding the fact that this isn't a technical article, tech info is exactly what I'd expect to find by searching either "image editing" OR "photo editing". Given the expressed theme of this article – uses, cultural impact and ethical concerns [which are] beyond the technical process and skills involved – what possible rationale is there for this article having a name so close to "Image editing"? It was changed from "photo manipuluation" without consesus, AFAICS, and apparently without awareness of the existence of Image editing.

Rationalising article names and content is key to resolving this "photoshopping" dispute. Once correctly named, this article has to mention "photoshopping" etc. because it is photo manipulation and not photo editing (which refers more to work on a single image). Another (better) place for it is photomontage (I'll come to that later). Once redirected, "photo editing" won't refer to any of this. The plan of action should be:

1. Move this article back to Photo manipulation
2. Redirect Photo editing to Image editing and amend the {{for}} tag at Image editing to link back here (photo manipulation)
3. Edit the "Photoshopping" section to remove all mention of non-frivolous and "professional" image editing.
4. Spin off these (using {{See}} tag) and other elaboration of the "shopping" theme to Photoshop contest and Photomontage and expand it there if necessary

The only really contentious part, IMO, is the moving of some text to Photomontage. It would have to be discussed there, but photoshopping is already mentioned in the lead: [photomontage] is referred to by professionals as "compositing", and in casual usage is often called "photoshopping" and properly referenced as such.

I've also relocated the Hypnosis info to the History section without "shopping" tagged to it. Hypnosis were early creative photo-compositors, not frivolous proto-"shoppers".

Sorry for the essay, but that's my 102-cents-worth.

mikaul^talk 13:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the problems are relating to different understandings of terminology (incidently i strongly disagree with Mikaul's suggestion that professionals do not use the term "photoshop"; they might not use the term formally e.g. describing themselves as "photoshopers" to a client but the verb "photoshop" is still used within the photographic industry and in my opinion in no way is exclusively understood as referring to amateur use).

I think that the current terminology "image editing" "photo editing" etc are all unclear terms and don't really describe what the pages are about and how they are different. What about if all the terms were directed to some kind of disambiguation page?

3tmx 14:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the title "usage" to Amateur usage" to clarify what the paragraph is actually about and altered some of the phrasing to make it sound more neutral. I hope these phrasings are accepted as an interim improvement until we thrash out some of the broader problems with these pages.

3tmx 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just put the record straight re. Photoshop as a verb: I don't dispute the fact that image editors use it in the past tense ("it was photoshopped out") but I've honestly never heard an editor use the term "photoshopping" in any respect, neither using the present continuous "I'm photoshopping it out" nor the gerund "when photoshopping an image, do this" – hence "shopping" is as foreign to me as "chopping" and I can only assume it's only ever used as urban slang regarding frivolous or mischevous use.

There are a few dozen published books that use photoshopping as a verb; most capitalize it, but quite few don't, too. Dicklyon 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

But you're right, "photoshopped" is much more common in books. Dicklyon 20:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a broad consensus to support article name changes, and it's hard to prove that people search for x theme using y phrase, but it seems like common sense to redirect the "editing" titles to the same place. I'm not sure disabiguation is needed beyond the "see also" tags in appropriate places, confusing though it might initialy be to a visitor. mikaul^talk 19:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We do have a redirect to here from Photo manipulation. Dicklyon 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that from the edit at 17th January. I can't see the point of having photo manipulation redirect to a page with a title which doesn't adequately describe its contents. If the whole article was called "photoshopping" it would be more appropriate than the current title. However, as I said, anything more than a mention of "photoshopping" should probably go to photomontage (because that's what it's about) and the phrase "photo editing" should redirect to image editing for the same reason - that's what that's about. Leaving photo manipulation to describe the content of this article. Can we agree on these definitions, at least? It's important, because terminology is important. We need to get the definitions right, call these processes by their proper names and name articles carefully, according to their content, or we will perpetually run into disputes not unlike the edit war happening here right now. mikaul^talk 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear, however, that photomontage is just one small subset of photo imaging, and doesn't begin to cover the range of techniques that are referred to as photoshopping. Personally, I think the best move would be to just move the current article back to photo manipulation.

It true I was thinking of the narrower "head-swapping", photo contest-type montage. I'm not sure this is such a tiny part of photoshopping though, seems to be the main activity referred to (at a guess) and as such, photo-manipulation isn't the place for detailed examination of photoshopping: it warrants a mention, sure, but the other artciles (or reinstate the original "photoshopping" one, as suggested earlier) would be the way to go. mikaul^talk 08:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Same confusion DreamGuy has, thinking it only applies to "contests" or something narrow. Did you bother to glance at the books I pointed out above? Dicklyon 14:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would provisionally support changing this articles name to photo manipulation as this describes the current pages content much better than current. Dicklyon i'm not sure what the point of those books was?

3tmx 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest we leave the paragraph about amateur usage until after the paragraph: " The shorter term "shopped" is also frequently used to describe an image that has obviously been edited"; delete or move the rest and put appropriate links to photoshop contest and photomontage.

Dicklyon - I agree the term photoshop refers to something broader than photomontage, but in its current state the amateur use detailed here and available elsewhere is predominantly photomontage; like i've said earlier i'm arguing that one major understanding term photoshop is as synonymous with retouching, image editing etc. The rest of the info is unnecessary- no point in reiterating every technique an amateur might use when it is pointless and clogs up the flow of this page - details of these techniques are available on the image editing page

3tmx 19:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict: sorry!) Google Books shows that the term "photoshopped" is in common use, a point I conceded a few posts ago. "Photoshopping" is much less common, however. In any event, I'm really not sure what demonstration of this usage is supposed to support, as 3tmx says. The point is, "photoshopping" refers to nothing which isn't routinely done under the name of image editing or photomontage. It simply doesn't describe anything unique, it's just a term used colloquially to refer to common image edting techniques. Where it might refer to something unique, that thing belongs in photoshop contest with all the other wacky things people get up to with CS3 and too much spare time on their hands. As I said, terminology is important, and where it's just another way of saying the same thing, it doesn't warrant a major section of it's own. Basically, this isn't a jargon guide and there's no justification for the overbearing presence this term currently has in this article. mikaul^talk 19:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you did miss my point. Photoshopping is just another term for photo editing, essentially, the way I read it; it is more commonly found as photoshopped, but not at all rare as photoshopping, with is the form that's parallel to the subject photo editing. It DOES include a lot more that just photo MONTAGE, which is a subset of editing that has to do with assembling parts of images. The pink elephant example that someone removed was a good example of a non-montage type of photo editing or photoshopping. The distinction form "image editing" is nothing to do with the term photoshopping, but rather with the split of content between the technical techniques in "image editing" and the social/political etc. implications and applications related to photographs in "photo editing"; photoshopping fits better in this part, in my opinion. Do some strategic editing if you think the section has undue weight, but don't throw out as much as DreamGuy does, as there's a pretty clear consensus that he goes way too far. Dicklyon 22:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

how is photoshopping distinct from image editing ? because i can't see a strict formal difference?

3tmx 23:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Is someone saying it is distinct? Or do you mean to ask why is it in the photo editing article as opposed to the image editing article? I had some remarks on that above. Dicklyon 04:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You aren't demonstrating a distiction between photoshopping and any other term, sufficient to warrant a large section of it's own in this article, whether it's called photo editing, image editing or photo manipulation. I've argued that the terms "photo editing" and "image editing" are practically symonymous and I've seen no argument to distinguish them except your claim that "photoshopping" *somehow* is more relevant to one than the other. How can this be?

I think you are confusing two issues again. The content split between "image editing" and "photo editing" has nothing to do with the photoshopping issue, and it's hard to make a rational response to these kinds of comments and questions. But if you think there' no distinction, then you could just put it into the leas as a synonym, like "Photo editing, also known as photoshopping or image editing, ..." It think that would be a bad idea, since there are things that need to be pointed out about phototshopping, which is why there's a small section on it. Dicklyon 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean to say that "photoshopping" belongs in this cultural/ethical/uses article (whatever it happens to be called) rather than the article on technical terms? Either way, you haven't shown why it belongs here, other than mentioning that it's yet another synonym for "photo editing". Again, I ask you – what does "photoshopping" refer to which is in any way unique? If there is nothing (and I can't think of anything) which isn't covered by an existing term, then it's no more than a jargon/slang term. This "amateur use" thing bothers me, as photoshopping specific to amateur use belongs in different articles – photoshop contest, photomontage – and more general "photoshopping" practices are already covered in image editing and this article under differnt terms. In many ways, the more I think about it, it seems "photoshopping" should be limited to two short paragraphs pointing to other articles. mikaul^talk 06:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Right this is begining to get tedious. Dicklyon at least two editors have stated that those refs are not up to scratch - and they definitely aren't - so please don't revert them again. I really don't think amateur usage is that significant and i would need some serious convincing that it even deserves a sentence or two, if that. I am happy with the article in its current state (as per dream guy edit) and also fully endorse Mikauls proposed changes above.

3tmx 10:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this got tedious a very long time ago, when DreamGuy and his sock puppets (sorry, I mean his not-logged-in selfs) were the only ones with a problem with the photoshopping article, and we ended up with a consensus to merge it here; he's been pecking away at it ever since. Dicklyon 17:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, you just ignored the fact that User:3tmx completely endorsed *my* version and not yours, and said *your* reverting of it was tedious. DreamGuy 04:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added in some of the reverted info, to fill it out into a more complete reference, plus the seealso tags to move the other rv stuff to. Still not sure about the refs at the beginning. Also removed bolding, which I think must have been a carryover from the original article's lead. mikaul^talk 17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on this, but I think your introductory phrase "Referring to general recreational use" is inappropriately narrow for the use of the term photoshopping; this is one domain where the term is popular, but it's also used much more generally. Did you glance at the variety of book refs where this term is used? Dicklyon 18:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did... it just sounded right like that. I have no refs to back up the statement, which was based on my experience and stuff I've read here and there. Fair cop ;o) mikaul^talk 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Progress

I think we've made some progress in tuning up the photoshopping section, thanks to the constructive edits of several editors. Feel free to tag anything else that needs references. In the mean time, I'll keep reverting DreamGuy's removals. Dicklyon 04:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, um, except that you have no reason to revert my edits, as these topics have been discussed and there is no justification for putting the badly-sourced, neologistic POV-pushing stuff back in, especially when there is ALREADY an article on Photoshop contests to cover it. Your antagonist edits, and especially your acting like such acts are acceptable, are wholly inappropriate. DreamGuy 04:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And User:3tmx above clearly pointed out that you should NOT keep reverting, and you ignored him and trued to pretend that he was agreeing with you. Are you just not paying attention, or are you purposefully misrepresenting what other people said? DreamGuy 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we're so far away from resolving this. I had hoped the slimmed-down version I posted the other day would solve some of the main issues, which AFAICS are as follows:

1. The WP:UNDUE and WP:RS problems: not just by shortening the article but by removing mention of the minority term "photochopping" which has no reliable source and which belongs entirely on Photomontage, if anywhere.
2. The WP:NEOLOGISM objection, valid for those terms (photochopping, gimp-up) which are only here because the term "photoshopping" (and its immediate variants) are here. This simply isn't the place for a list of image editing neologisms.
3. The bare facts of the matter (ie the first paragraph) are not enough to explain the presence of the term here. The rationale for "photoshopping" being here at all is that there is a recognizable "culture" of recreational image manipulation which uses the colloquial term to describe a variety of activities. An exhaustive list isn't necessary; there are seealso links for expansion of these themes in the relevant article.

My apologies, I realise I should have listed this rationale out earlier. I'll revert back to (more or less) the version it refers to and I'd appreciate it if any additions or revisions to this version of the section were discussed here first. mikaul^talk 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Links

Thanks for removing those links dreamguy. I've removed a link to that particular website a couple of times. I've put a warning on their talk, not that i imagine they'll look at it.3tmx 12:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Replaced para with new source

The following is my rationale for the restoration of the last revert.

I hope you agree that the Wired article is source enough for this. Maybe we should cite peer-reviewed sociological studies proving that increasingly vast numbers of kiddies get off on photomontage, but this is hardly a controversial claim. The article shows that it was notable in 2001, and this paper goes some way to showing that it hasn't abated at all since, although as I say, I think citing another source is overkill.

I don't think this one single single paragraph is WP:UNDUE given the scope of the article that expressly mentions "cultural impact" & which, without this para, doesn't get a mention.

Finally, the neologism aspect is covered in the first para, not the second one.

If there's something else I've missed, I would very much appreciate hearing about it here first, rather than the edit summary of another revert.

mikaul^talk 12:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not "one single paragraph" but a huge paragraph and pointless image full of trivial claims already covered on another article. Just by percentage of space of the total article it was HUGE amount of undue weight. It'd be different if this article were ten times as long as it is and full of great, solid info, then one paragraph (even a long one) and maybe one photo would be fine. In this one it sticks out like a sore thumb. Link to Photoshop contest. Done. Unfortunately we have some kiddie who wants every article on the site that even mentions Photoshop to suddenly be filled with long pieces about how cool they are for playing around with it for online jokes. We already had to move this off Photoshop, Photoshopping, and this article, and probably lots of other places too. DreamGuy 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest, dude. Dicklyon 04:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hear what you're saying but your method of saying it I find unconstructive to say the least. I happen to have quite a bit of (what I sincerely hope you will agree is) "solid info" to post up, which will certainly redress that balance. The whole article is a mess, not just this section – in fact it's the only section which is in any way finished; the Lead is too short, the Types section should be called Uses (in accordance with the lead) and needs completely rewriting, History is incomplete, Ethics is a much bigger topic than we have here and should encompass the Journalism section, and so on. I don't know about you, but I like to see these things evolve, gradually building into a worthy piece, based on consensus. It clearly can't do this under these circumstances.

You are alone, I'm afraid, in considering this particular paragraph "trivial". It is notable in accordance with the Lead, which refers to it directly ("cultural impact") – as there is a source for the info in this para and the neologism issue is trivial there, the real issue is WP:UNDUE. The argument for the notability of this para is basically that there is no other notable cultural impact of photo manipulation. Is there? In fairness, I'd support the moving of the Fark-type stuff to the Journalism section (as it's more relevant to that than the cultural thing) which would also slim-down this section. Is this a compromise we can build on? For now? mikaul^talk 08:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise, anyone?

All right, I've been loosely following the ongoing debate about how much about Photoshopping belongs in this article, and I could have sworn that a compromise was made a while back. However, judging from the recent history, a compromise is a long way off. Seriously, what happened to discussion? Did someone make a Wikipedia essay called "Edit warring is okay, as long as you really, really think you're right"? Seriously! This is juvenile! I'm not taking sides here, mind you. I just don't want to see a constant stream of notices on my watchlist about how Dicklyon reverted DreamGuy's edits and vice versa. Come to a consensus people! If things don't turn out how you like, don't just go behind peoples' backs and change things to how you like it! I can't be the only one getting sick of this. Let's decide on what to do and leave it at that. Isn't that how things work, or did I miss something while I was asleep? --clpo13 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was all worked out a while back, but then DreamGuy came back after a block; I've been pretty flexible about changes other than big removals, which is all he does, do I just keep reverting; he doesn't do it three times in a day, so no 3RR violation as far as I can tell, and he hasn't responded usefully to warnings in the past, so I don't waste my time on that any more. Thanks for putting back what he removed and your attempt at a compromise. However, I see one problem with your latest, at least. The "see also" in the photoshopping section to the Photoshop contest article makes sense, but I don't see what the e-mail art article has to do with anything. I was also concerned that the hoax photo didn't have much to do with photoshop contests, since nothing here or there said so, but on further investigation I found it was indeed a contest winner, so I fixed the caption there and linked the vote. I would still be nice to have an illustration of a photo that was avowedly "photoshopped" and not part of a contest for this section. Dicklyon 15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the CLPo13 version, which is pretty much the same as Mikauls compromise edit anyway is ok for now. But i strongly disagree with the reinclusion of the image suggested by Dicklyon which fails to demonstrate anything about anything and is of very little use to anyone reading the article. Plus shouldn't it be on the photoshop contest page????I think the question over the whole war is whether we seek arbitration or whatever dispute process wikipedia provides or just let things continue. I can't say i feel inclusion of amateur brings anything particularly enlightening to the article, but thats just my opinion. 3tmx 16:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed it from the photoshop contest page because it didn't seem to have any connection to a contest. Its info page talked about it spreading memetically, so it seemed like a candidate to illustrate what was being discussed here. But I'd be happy to see an alternative illustration instead. Dicklyon 16:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The ActiveDiscuss hint

I'm trying to figure out how to interpret this tag: "Some statements may be disputed, incorrect, unverified, biased or otherwise objectionable." As far as I know, there are no such statements, unless DreamGuy's desire to remove some stuff is due to "otherwise objectionable." There's really no ongoing editing or development, just a dispute over a small section that is all that's left of the article he took on the obliteration of a few months back. Dicklyon 06:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought about putting it just in that section, but I figured it might be easier to see at the top. Basically, it's just trying to get him to discuss his recent changes, which he hasn't been really up to doing. Might be a bit pointless though, since he is the only one causing problems. I doubt he'd get the hint anyways. Ah well. --clpo13 06:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he and I have said about all we have to say. What would be useful would be to hear from a few others, so that we can get feel for some kind of consensus. Perhaps a request for comment? Dicklyon 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea under the circumstances. Agree with the ActiveDiscuss tag too. I'm happy to sum up and post the RfC; I'll put a brief summary of the situation below and give it a week; if we have no more input by then I'll get onto it. mikaul^talk 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this can fairly been described as "all dreamguys fault" Dicklyon - you have to take some responsibility too. Not so long ago the section was grotesquely indulgent and way overlong- Mikauls' version was a very reasonable comprimise for something that needs only a sentence or two - yet you were still trying to reinsert pointless images from prior to Mikauls edit over the course of the last 24 hrs. In fairness to Dreamguy he has -whatever you think of his opinions - been supporting his argument by citing policy when you have produced a lot of dodgy citiations.

3tmx 16:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so; please point out the diff you are referring to (or several); on review, I find I did add a photo illustration when the section had been reduced to none; most of my other edits were reverts to versions by you or by Mikaul. Anyway, I'm willing take responsibility for the side that says we want this section to not be reduced to just a trivial mention, when it's actually a fairly prominent and notable phenomenon. Pointing to "undue weight" is just DreamGuy's opinion, on which we differ. Dicklyon 16:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, appreciate that for the most part you have reverted to my or Mikaul's edits rather than earlier versions. I think Dreamguy could possibly be more productive pursuing his changes through alternative means rather than warring, which does no one favours. 3tmx 17:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Dickylon has shown himself to completely ignore any discussion, any consensus, and so forth and blindly revert to his preferred version. He tried this on other articles previously. The only thing that does work is to undo his edits and improve the article. It worked on multiple other articles already, but he's been causing problems at this one longer than usual. Once he realizes he has no chance of prevailing he'll give up like always, and he;s always been the main person opposing all improvements. Once he goes away the others can discuss things like responsible editors. We already see from a number of editors broad support to undo all the nonsense he keeps putting back. We'll get there yet. DreamGuy 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've tried talking with DreamGuy on that point, but he deletes all my comments on his talk page. He doesn't appear to be willing to make compromises past what he's already done. Perhaps someone else could try talking to him? --clpo13 19:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted all your comments because they were not any attempt to discuss but just wild, rambling accusations of breaking policies and causing problems, which were completely false, and because I tried to talk on HIS talk page (where his talk page says he prefers to talk), but he insisted upon putting his ill-informed, mean-spirited histrionics on my page, even after he was told to knock it off, which was clear harassment-- and was confirmed as such by the admins he tried to run off to to complaint to me about. DreamGuy 05:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You are paranoid. First off, I never explicitly accused you, and certainly not in any wild, rambling fashion (a bit uncivil perhaps, but no more than your usual comments). Second, I reply to comments originally made on my talk page. Since I first commented on your page, the discussion should have stayed there. As to the harassment bit, you are guilty of exactly the same. You know what I'm referring to. Let's drop this and focus on the article at hand, shall we? --clpo13 22:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I think this sums up the disputed section about right. Feel free to amend anything you see fit. I'll hold off adding key comments from current contributors for now, but hopefully I'll get onto that later today.

Some of the content of the section headed "Photoshopping" is disputed. The current balance of agreement is as follows:

Not disputed:

1. A section headed "Photoshopping" belongs in this article.
2. It is broadly agreed that the neologism Photoshopping is in common use. The first paragraph has not been subject to repeated reversions.
3. Some mention should be made in this section of the cultural impact of photo manipulation vis a vis the recreational use of image editing programs.

Disputed:

Most of the dispute centers around the undue weight accorded the section which results from a fuller explanation of the term, specifically:

1. The inclusion of several alternative neologisms (shopping, photochopping, GIMPing, etc)
2. The inclusion of pictorial examples (eg this, this and this)
3. Any elaboration of the theme which duplicates information already existing in (a) the rest of the article or (b) related articles, specifically Image editing, Photomontage and Photoshop contest.

On the other hand there remains a concern that:

1. Information in the original Photoshopping article no longer has a coherent "home"
2. Photoshopping is a notable phenomenon which should be properly recognised; it was merged here, so it should be elaborated here
3. The phenomenon can not be properly illustrated without at least one image-based illustration.

Disputed

This is in the not disputed section:

"Some mention should be made in this section of the cultural impact of photo manipulation vis a vis the recreational use of image editing programs."

That is, in fact, disputed. My recent edits leaving a small section on that was a compromise, which, of course, was ignored by the kiddies who want amateur trivial nonsense to take over every serious article on this site. My position is that "Photoshopping" only needs to be mentioned at all as a term for photo editing based upon Adobe Photoshop and that Adobe disputes the usage. There's absolutely no call to draw any sort of attention to the fact that some bored kids with nothing better to do also play around with crap and then demand the world treat that as important for doing so. It's like going to the Microphone article and finding a couple of paragraphs about how kids sometimes grab them and make fart noises into them for their own amusement. Articles about the kids playing around already exist, and the See also section already links to them. That is far more than they deserve, and we certainly do NOT need to waste any actual text of this article saying that "well, duh, yeah, anything grownups use for real purposes can be turned into a toy for bored idiots, let's list them all here for no apparent reason." DreamGuy 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, point taken, but please clarify: was your compromise to leave a mention in the article, or in the section? Either is a valuable compromise and I would ask you to stand by it. I agree that Photoshopping is used too generically to refer only to "humorous" photomontage. A good compromise might well be to create a small section for cultural impact (which needn't amount to any more than the second para in the existing disputed section) and reduce the Photoshopping section to the existing first para, at least for now. To reflect that, I've struck out the phrase "in this section" from the "not disputed" point 3. I'll bring this up in the comments section below. mikaul^talk 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief history

Photoshopping was merged with this article (then Photo manipulation; there is a call to revert to this title on this page) following what appeared to be a consensus at the the Photoshopping talk page, but which effectively became the origin of the current dispute. The rest of the discussion (above) centered around the inclusion of the term "photochopping", which added the issue of neologism to the dispute. The rest of the discussion is above here. The section at issue has been edited and reverted approximately 100 times during the last six weeks.

mikaul^talk 19:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: the move from photo manipulation was 21-Jan-07; the merge of info from photoshopping was much more recent, 14-Apr-07. The inclusion of photochopping there (bold in the lead, even) goes back more than a year, and was part of what was merged here. Dicklyon 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've struck out the inaccurate part. Is there anything else relevent to a brief/general history which should be in there? mikaul^talk 12:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably enough. No need to rehash the whole nasty history. Dicklyon 22:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the history, Dickylon would have you believe that the fact that Photoshopping existed at one point and that it was then redirected here means that this article needs to contain info that was there. This is false. That article had basically stolen the term "photoshopping" that simply means "to edit photos using Adobe Photoshop" and tried to claim that it was used exclusively for these childish joke edits. That was declared incorrect, and all the information about the entertainment end of things was merged to Photoshop contest, which is where it really belongs. There's absolutely no justification for spending any amount of space in this article about a serious topic to give undue weight to the activities of some trivial playing around, especially when the articles on Photoshop contests andd Internet memes already exist. IT's like it's not good enough for them that they already have multiple articles, they feel they are more important than professional, real world (and by far the majority use of the software and the "photoshopping" term) work. DreamGuy 05:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the "more important" comment. It's (less) notable, that's why it's (only briefly) mentioned. The lead mentions "cultural impact" and that's basically what it amounts to. I agree, the term is too widely used to refer exclusively to this kind of use, but I also think that a mention of this kind of use belongs here, if not under the "photoshopping" header then elsewhere in the article. mikaul^talk 11:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

My two cents in a nutshell: first, one WP:NEOLOGISM is enough. Photoshopping is the only term worthy of mention. Others are simply not notable enough, are probably impermanent and are ultimately redundant: this is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon, or usage guide. Also, I agree that the Adobe ref carries enough weight that the book refs are not necessary. Second, the term should represent what is, in effect, the only notable form of "cultural phenomenon" connected with image editing, ie recreational or "humorous" use. If "cultural impact" is to appear in the lead, you have to accept a brief mention of the usual fora for this activity – email, contests, fark-type stuff – by which it has become popularised, somewhere in this section. Third, it's absurd to not have an image illustrating this, an entirely visual phenomenon.

As the section still seems to be a battleground, I've posted a version here as my take on what should be adopted. mikaul^talk 00:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added an alternative to this page, to include a small section for cultural impact (which needn't amount to any more than the second para in the existing disputed section) and reduce the photoshopping section to the existing first para. To reflect this (apparent, tbc) compromise on the part of DreamGuy, I've struck out the phrase "in this section" from the "not disputed" point 3.mikaul^talk 11:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"The book refs are not necessary" seems like a strange reason to want to remove references that support the opening sentence. These two are there: Laurence M. Deutsch (2001). Medical Records for Attorneys. ALI-ABA., and David Geelan (2006). Undead Theories: Constructivism, Eclecticism And Research in Education. Sense Publishers. ISBN 9077874313.. The first is particularly meaningful in its description of the field of use of the term in question; the second is perhaps not as good, as it is merely using the term, albeit with an explanation of what it means. So, if it's too much, remove the second, but not the first, which is the main independent secondary source supporting the main content of the section, and supporting the point that it's NOT just the humerous and "internet kiddies" or whatever DreamGuy called the users of this term. Also, we usually do acknowledge variant forms, if they are verifiable, rather than ignore them. Dicklyon 03:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you'd been paying attention, the book references are NOT RELIABLE SOURCES for the topic, so they were removed. The part about being unnecessary explains why I don't bother to tag it with it as needed a source citation, as the Adobe ref mentions the term. If you'd bother to go read WP:RS once the link had already been given you wouldn't be so confused all the time.

Oh, and you need to stop reverting, as between me and the other comments above, it's clear that that whole bit has no support to stay in the article. You are just reverting against consensus, and against policy. You lost on Photoshop and Photoshopping and you will lose here for the exact same reasons: what you are doing goes against multiple policies here. DreamGuy 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DreamGuy here: a one-line mention of photographic terminology in a book called "Medical Records for Attorneys" is the perfect definition of a non-reliable source, per WP:RS. The adobe citation is more than enough. mikaul^talk 12:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What is it about this source that makes you think it would be unreliable? It's a serious book with a serious section on tampering with electronic imaging data, and it is a source for the claim that this is sometimes called photoshopping. I'm OK with it if you have a better source, but the Adobe source does NOT support the claim, so we need something here. Dicklyon 22:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally like the version proposed by mikaul. It's a fair compromise, although I also support the inclusion of alternate terms as per Dicklyon's comment, even if they aren't as notable as "photoshopping." As long as they exist and are alternate terms, they should at least be mentioned to clear up any possible confusion when someone finds this article by way of "photochopping" or something and wonders what it is. Granted, someone like that would have to be fairly dense to not see the connection between the two terms, but hey, this is the Internet after all.

This sort of thing has precedent in articles such as Lop Nur. The alternate names of that lake group cannot all be that notable, but they're still mentioned as alternate names of the same thing. They exist and are verifiable. Not all article content has to be hugely notable as long as the main subject is.

Other than that, I completely agree with mikaul. There needs to be some mention of photoshopping as a cultural phenomenon, and an illustration makes any article (or section) much, much better. Of course, I don't really see the point in trimming the section down so much as long as it's verifiable and semi-notable, but that's just the inclusionist in me talking.

Alternately, if we're going by how Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, perhaps the section can link to an article on "photoshopping" (complete with alternate spellings, etc.) on Wiktionary. Would that be a good compromise? --clpo13 05:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support, I hope you feel the same about the new section mentioned above. I can't agree with more neologisms and I doubt it would get consensus. Wiktionary is the perfect place for all that, good suggestion. Photochopping already redirects here; maybe shopping should be disambiguated to provide a link here; it's basically another issue but that's the way to deal with other slang terms. With good, reliable sources (I'm thinking dedicated sociological studies and the like) the cultural side of things has a home here. If it ever gets to as big as the ethical or historical sections – and it's nowhere near that now – it'll be big enough for a spinoff article. mikaul^talk 11:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I could live with that, although I wouldn't use quite the same wording ("frivolous pastime" seems a bit strong). --clpo13 03:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed: I've fixed that with hobby and firmed up the opening sentence. mikaul^talk 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As to my Wiktionary suggestion, it would appear that there is an entry on photoshop, which has much of the same information as in the photoshopping section here. Should we bother to add an interwiki link to the section? --clpo13 08:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Italicize photo titles?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles)#Italics says to italicize the titles of "Paintings and other works of visual art ". The recent edit summarized as "these are not book or movie titles, so shouldn;t be italicized" should probably be reverted. Dicklyon 03:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with that and the other user's reversion of it. I also agree with the last edit DreamGuy made (diff) although I strongly disagree with his unilateral action when it's more than clear that there's both an {{ActiveDiscuss}} and RfC on the issue. However it seem to follow a weak consensus here. By the same strength of consensus, and in recognition of the concession of this edit, I think it's fair to replace the image. If there's no clear desire to split this out into two sections per my userpage suggestion, I suggest we call it a day with that. mikaul^talk 07:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as explained in the edit summary, italics are only used for official titles of major works of art, like books, films, magazine titles. Smaller works -- like poems, articles, short stories -- use quote marks. A painting could be considered a major work of art, but joke images certainly could not. The articles in question do not put the titles in italics, so why here? Furthermore, in neither case is the wording used in this article considered an official name of either piece, they have no titles at all, so even putting quotes there is probably more than it should have. So you are completely wrong. And the image most certainly should not go back either. DreamGuy 07:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the section on quotation marks. On re-examining everything, I don't see why there's any argument here. They're links to articles in the encyclopedia and don't need any more than the usual hyperlinked text. The clincher is that the name of the images referred to have a different title ("god-kills-kitten.jpg" and "SharkHelicopter.jpg") to the link text. Normally I'd say "no quotes, either", but the phrase-like titles need to be distinct from the body of the text. I'd guess that was a reason for using italics in the first place.

Re: your edit summary comment on the image, I just can't understand the logic of denying an image-based topic an image-based illustration, and nor, it seems, can anyone else but you. You've presented a good enough case (IMO) for stripping out practically all descriptive text, but if anything the lack of such text reinforces the need for a descriptive image. The Fark image is way better for this purpose than any other I've seen here: it should stay. mikaul^talk 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

National Geographic and WP:UNDUE

At the very end of the photoshopping section, there is this statement:

The latter image was widely circulated as a National Geographic "Image of the Year" and was later revealed to be a hoax.

DreamGuy has removed this a couple times saying it lends undue weight to manipulated images such as the Helicopter Shark image the statement refers to. Now, I feel this bit should be included since the section talks about humor images passed through email and as actual news. One of the first things I learned in my elementary English classes was that statements like this need examples to back them up. What good is it to say edited images can be passed as news without giving any sort of example of this actually happening? The National Geographic "Image of the Year" hoax fits this perfectly. It's not lending undue weight; it's clarifying a statement already made. --clpo13 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes/thoughts

Definition: to quote Mikaul "I agree with DreamGuy here: a one-line mention of photographic terminology in a book called "Medical Records for Attorneys" is the perfect definition of a non-reliable source, per WP:RS. The adobe citation is more than enough" Couldn't agree more. Another dodgy source.

Image:

1) What does " widely circulated mean" Among internet circles?

2) I can't help feel that if we are going to have an image to illustrate the section (leaving aside the fact there are images elsewhere) that it might be better to have one that is obviously photoshopped eg. head of x on y's body. I don't think the image says anything without knowing the story behind maybe something self evident would bring an added extra???

3) If we are talking about images that have "fooled" the press why not use the one of the explosions that that guy got sacked from reuters for? I know its not exactly appropriate for this paragraph but if the justification for the current image is that it fooled the press surely the reuters one is more notable.

4) IMO the current image should have been reinserted.

Adbusters: i don't particularly like this mag but could it be relevant?

Plus why does Jossi make changes without involving themselves in the discussion.Setting a good example? Or is it because he/she is an admin and above everyone else?

3tmx 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The reference that Jossi chose to restore is the other one of the two we had originally, since the one I recommended was taken back out. It says "And with digital photography, there is also the possibility of photoshopping – digtally editing the representation to make it more aesthetically pleasing, or to change decisions about framing". Here, nothing would be changed if they had used "photo editing" or "photo manipulation"; they aren't really talking about the term itself, though they do clarify what they mean by it; it is evidence in support of the observation, but is not an explicit source of the statement that this term is used this way. The other ref, however, which you reject as "non-reliable" for reasons that I don't get, talks of "photo-shopping" in quotes and refers to the word itself and its use in saying "(as it is now generally known in the commercial design industry)". And it's in a very serious context, of relevant topic, in a serious book, section on digital photo manipulation. I don't understand the logic of you guys objecting to this ref. Anyway, if you find a better source, please do add it; if not, put the one real verifiable source back. Dicklyon 17:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't vouch for anyone else, but I've clarified my objections to the medical book ref further down the page. mikaul^talk 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the obvious typo was "4)IMO the current image should have been reinserted" which was meant to have read "not" How do you strike through previous comments?

3tmx 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

With <s></s> tags around the text to strikethrough. Also, why shouldn't the image be inserted? As mikaul has stated before, an article or section that deals primarily with an image-related phenomenon should have an image to properly illustrate it. Journalism and propaganda examples are present earlier in the article to illustrate their respective sections, so why not have a photoshopped image (made purely for fun) to illustrate the cultural uses of the term photoshopped? --clpo13 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

well i wasn't exactly suggesting we replace it with the reuters one. I was saying that all this image has going for it is that it was a hoax - i'm not sure its a typical example of the sort of use we are discussing- i'd say of all the images the shark one - obviously comped, fairly banal -illustrated this better. 3tmx 19:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think however the article is generally better than it has been and one well chosen image could be good. Would it make sense to put the inks to the shark/kitten pages under the picture, rather than in the main text?

3tmx 19:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Image in the Photoshopping section

From reading through the more recent comments on the talk page (especially in the RfC section), it seems that the consensus is to include an image in the section on the basis that an image-related phenomenon would best be illustrated by an image. I bring this up because DreamGuy's recent edits have removed the image, although I see no rationale for his actions, especially considering they appear to go against consensus. So would it be possible to come to an agreement over whether an image should be included and which image it should be? I mean, at least a simple discussion before deleting the image would be nice. That's assuming DreamGuy even reads this talk page any more... --clpo13 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I just keep reverting DreamGuy's unilateral dismantling of the section, in spite of advice to let you other guys deal with it. But that's three today, so I'll back off and let someone else handle the next time. Dicklyon 04:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if you're only doing 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, you could still be blocked for WP:3RR. Perhaps a request for comment concerning this issue can be placed? --健次(derumi)^talk 04:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That was done already; see a few sections up. The result was generally positive, in that it brought in a few more moderate editors who have worked out a reasonably stable compromise. Yet DreamGuy keeps dismantling it, so I just keep reverting him. Dicklyon 04:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. From the message at the top of DreamGuy's talk page, it doesn't seem like he's open to discussion if he thinks he's right. If he's not amenable to a request for mediation, then I guess the next step is the Arbitration committee. --健次(derumi)^talk 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I got a copy of photoshop a little while ago and started taking an interest in this page, even though I haven't got the knowledge of the product to make any changes yet. Therefore I have been watching this edit war, and watching each party blame the other. I suggest that no more changes are made to the article until some sort of compromise is reached "Revert once, then take it to the Talk page". This has been changed so often that I'm no longer even sure what the original was. If this continues, we should probably get this page protected, which would be a shame, since there are other good contributions going on at the same time as this warring. So I appeal to both parties to stop making these controversial changes to the article page and to discuss it and establish consensus (the process appearing to already have started). It doesn't matter which version is currently being shown, the reverts/controversial changes needs to stop. It is contrary to Wikipedia's core principles. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 09:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It takes two (or more) to edit war. As far as i can tell both Dicklyon and Dreamguy were guilty of 3rr a long while ago. Can anyone clarify wikipedia policy: my undertanding is that its better to not include something dubious/unverfied, rather than include it, even if it is flagged as substandard 3tmx 10:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, you're correct. But Dicklyon (and all editors OTHER than DreamGuy) agree that DreamGuy's version is just wrong. Photoshopping is not photo editing using Adobe Photoshop. I suppose, under the guidelines, the entire section on phtoshopping could be removed, but that would require recreating the article photoshopping. Somebody did supply some references for the section, but I'm not sure there are any recent revisions which include them. (Disclaimer: I'm one of the editors who has been reverting DreamGuy's deletions.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that right now the first step has to be stopping the edit/revert/re-revert that is going on and just inflaming the situation further. Get all the parties to stop that and things calm down. This Talk page is where it should be discussed, not in warnings on user pages or revert wars. Once that has been established, then I think we need to start having the discussion about what principles should and shouldn't be used... or getting into a specific content discussion. Arthur, you claim that there is consensus, with the exception of DreamGuy - unless my memory is failing, I think there are others than DreamGuy who feel as he does, but have not been as actively persistent (check out the above RfC, for example). Consensus is not about voting, or shouting down the one or two people that object, it is about finding a solution that everyone can live with. Right now it seems like people are taking sides and digging in rather than trying to find a solution. If consensus can not be reached (and that is always a possibility) then other methods will have to be tried. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Such an agreement has already been reached. I have refrained from editing, and left it all up the others, except when DreamGuy violates the truce in which case I revert him. I keep asking for a suggested alternatives. If someone else will take on the role of reverting him, or will get him blocked, I'll step back and let others fine-tune the compromise that has been arrived at. Dicklyon 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping is a widely used term and there is a variety of sources on the subject. What is the problem here? Can someone succinctly explain the dispute? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have at least one user who disagrees with the conclusion vehemently enough to change the page, I would suggest that you do NOT have a true consensus -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, one user wants to say that photoshopping means using Adobe Photoshop; the rest don't agree. There are references that clearly support that slang use; none have been offered for the alternative. Dicklyon 20:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So claims that there is a consensus are not accurate. OK, that is something. Hopefully now we can try to reach one... the discsusion below seems to be a start, along with the RfC above -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The claim of consensus may have been insufficiently qualified. There's a consensus among those who are participating in the talk; that does not include DreamGuy. Dicklyon 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, DreamGuy has blown me off twice (diffs here and here), and has accused me of being a clueless, harassing newbie that hasn't read WP:3RR. Based on discussions on my talk page (starting here), I don't think this editor is interested in hearing anyone's opinion other than what agrees with his own. Perhaps some other editor can try a better approach? --健次(derumi)^talk 21:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy blows off everyone he thinks is wrong, especially with regards to this page. I tried talking to him, but my approach was admittedly worse than yours. He claimed I was accusing him and harassing him, much as he did with you. I have to say he's a bit arrogant, and not a few others (including some admins) would agree with me. Also, I agree with Dicklyon that a consensus has been reached on the talk page. DreamGuy hasn't posted on the talk page for a few days now and seems to only edit the article to revert Dicklyon's edits, which he thinks are plain wrong. I mean, his edits keep removing the image, something which nearly everyone active on the talk page would agree should be included (not a specific image, but some image at least). I think steps should be taken towards arbitration or something, considering how he refuses to discuss the matter any further than he already has. --clpo13 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Correction: he does NOT revert my edits. He pretty much just replaces whatever the current state of the article is with his short alternative interpretation. Then I revert his edits. Other than that, I'm not making edits, with the exception of a ref, a cn tag, a typo. Dicklyon 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent for readability) What he's doing is still considered a revert, even if done manually. He's also practicing ownership of the article, if he's not allowing any other editors to make contributions without stamping his own right over it. Hopefully he will re-join the discussion here and show some willingness to make compromises. --健次(derumi)^talk 04:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that it would be incorrect to think of DreamGuy as resisting changes to the section. His agenda is simply to gut it, to say that photoshopping just means using Photoshop; he doesn't care about the details otherwise, except that sometimes he tries nibbling away at the content (e.g. removing refs, removing illustration) as an alternative to taking it all out at once. Dicklyon 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, he has raised two other distinct and percipient objections to the content of the section: reliability of sources and the undue weight it carries inthe article. Whereas the refs issue is a little petty, I can see why the article would be imbalanced with an excess of examples and explanations, relative to the other sections. Until the other sections are more substantial, I think the current weight is about right, doesn't cut any relevant corners and correctly redirects the reader to more in-depth info should they be interested. What it doesn't do is provide the coverage afforded by the old photoshopping article, which is possibly an unspoken and understandable bone of contention here. The overall main issue, that of WP:NEOLOGISM has, I think, been dealt with well enough. mikaul^talk 17:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there were a few good points that DreamGuy made. We have pretty much happily agreed to reduce the size and emphasis, and nobody has been arguing for more than a single illustration. I don't get the issue on the reliability of sources, however. The bone of contention that I see is DreamGuy wanting to further gut the section to say that photoshoppping just means using Adobe Photoshop. And that's a contention of one editor against the rest. I don't see anything else at issue here. Dicklyon 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure, NOW you agree I had good points, but you were blind reverting all of them originally and denying anyone disagreed with you the whole time, even when it was multiple people here and fully explaining why on the talk page. I gavce up on the talk page as Dicklyon proved himself willing to revert even the compromise version to continue to try to slip more and more bad sources and more and more undue weight to the idea that a bunch of kids mucking around with photo software needs to be given just as much weight in this article as the professional meaning, even though there already are multiple articles about the recreational aspects located under names that are accurate, and this article already links to them. Dicklyon here is arguing from the position that he used to have an enitr article claiming that the only definition of "photoshopping" was for "kiddies making funny pics, lol, leet dude, we so cool". When it was pointed out that the professional meaning of the term has been around far long and has far wider acceptance, he kept playing games, reverted redirects, tried to link to sources with no reliability that cliamed the word meant fun and games. Now that the article is much better he's still stubbornly clinging to bad and unnecessary sources out of sheer inability to "let DreamGuy win" as he has even stated in several edit comments. This is a simple clean up matter, but even that is opposed by Dicklyon and a couple of people who had their sensibilities offended when they didn;t get their way. Hell, Arthur Ruben is still all offended form when he lost on Domain kiting and has come over here hoping he might bond with people opposing edits just to oppose them. It's all very sad and very against the Wikipedia way. DreamGuy 00:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it just boil down to these two references?

• ^ Geelan, David (2006). Undead Theories: Constructivism, Eclecticism And Research in Education. Sense Publisher, pp.146. ISBN 9-077-87431-3.

"And with digital photography, there is also the possibility of photoshopping – digtally editing the representation to make it more aesthetically pleasing, or to change decisions about framing".

• ^ Laurence M. Deutsch (2001). Medical Records for Attorneys. ALI-ABA, pp.382. ISBN 0-831-80817-9.

From DreamGuy's edit summary, he does not consider these two book sources to be reliable information. Otherwise, there's no real content change between the recent reverts — these two references just pop in and out depending on the editor. What exactly would make these two books non-reliable as citations for this phrase? "Photoshopping" is slang for the digital editing of photos. Is it just because these two books aren't about photo editing, and merely define the slang term? --健次(derumi)^talk 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the references are just a part of what DreamGuy wants removed. You'll have to ask him why, but he doesn't talk much. Many more references are available; most are just examples of the use of verb forms photoshopping and photoshopped; the Medical Records book actually has a statement about the term, which seems like the preferred thing we want in a source. Dicklyon 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

For more of the relevant history, review the History of Photoshopping; DreamGuy's removals of the content start about March 23, then move to his sockpuppet User:216.165.158.7. Numerous blocks and warnings since then have had no deterrent effect. Dicklyon 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was no sockpuppeting involved, and the "removals of content" in all cases were to follow policy, which Dicklyon here has fought tooth and nail. DreamGuy 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I meant you were just not logged in. Please say what policy you are talking about; if you mean the one on neologisms, I've looked at that and don't agree with your interpretation, so you may want to elaborate. Dicklyon 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the references debate is a bit of a straw man and something of a casualty of edit war, but there is a need to be extra-careful here, and the source guideline is quite clear on what constitutes reliability: "the reliability of a source depends on the context: a world-renowned mathematician is not a reliable source about biology" just about describes exactly the problem with the second ref. It might describe photoshopping in context, but it doesn't carry anything like the weight an equally prestigious book on image editing might. If this was an article on the legal implications of brain surgery, you wouldn't accept a ref from Adobe on the correct terminolgy for cavernous angiomas, would you? mikaul^talk 17:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with these sources is that they are not reliable and they are trying to prove something that doesn;t need proving, as we already having a completely reliable source from adobe later admitting that people use the word as a verb. It's linking to nonsensical books for no good reason, as explained time and time again in previous conversation and previous edit comments. DreamGuy 00:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find where Adobe said it was being used as a verb. Can you point that out please? Dicklyon 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Click the link in the citation. It says:

The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun.
The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term.
It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form. The following examples illustrate these rules:

Trademarks are not verbs.

CORRECT: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software.

INCORRECT: The image was photoshopped.

I don't think there could be any clearer nor more authoritative confirmation of use either as a verb or a slang term. It clearly is used as such in any number of diverse books and articles; we don't need any etymological refs, because wikipedia isn't a dictionary. mikaul^talk 10:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to establish some common ground

In my experience, "to photoshop" is used commonly as a verb to imply digitally editing a photograph. OK, I know this is WP:OR so I went to the web to see what I can find. If you Google "photoshopping", it comes up with two "sponsored links", one of which is Adobe's own site, which implies that they are aware of it being used as verb. So here are some other links, together with the relevant parts:

• Bloggerheads: "If you want to get into Photoshopping, you'll need Adobe Photoshop. You may wish to struggle along with lesser image editing tools, but Photoshop is the mutt's." This implies that you can do photoshopping with tools other than the Adobe tool, but that it is the best. The implication is that the term encompasses more than just using the Adobe tool.
• About.Com: "As digital imaging hardware and software has come down in price, the pastime of digital photo manipulation -- commonly referred to as 'photoshopping' -- has become a hugely popular hobby on the Internet." No reference to it being exclusively an Adobe activity.
• Wired Magazine: "But doctoring images -- or Photoshopping, as its practitioners call it -- is a booming online pastime for hobbyists and graphic designers..." Again, no reference to it having to use the Adobe product.
• Everything.com: "Just as "google" has transmogrified into "perform a Web search (on)", "photoshop" has come to mean "edit an electronic image using a graphics program". Witness: Person A: 'This blemish/defect/undesirable element ruins the picture!' Person B: 'Don't worry, we'll just photoshop it out.'" Implying that the term can be used to digitally enhance photos, or retouch them, not just to manipulate them into "fakes"..
• Leggnet's Digital Capture: "The word photoshop has become synonymous in the photography community and increasingly in mainstream speech with the word edit."
• Dictionary.Com: "photoshop (v.): to edit an image using a computer program. 1992, originally in ref. to Photoshop, a bitmap graphics editor trademarked and published by Adobe, released in 1990."
• Is Photoshopping your work appropriate in Fine Art photography?: "Is Photoshopping your work appropriate in Fine Art photography? Is it right to clone out Powerlines?" Again, it's use appears to be similar to enhancing or retouching.

So here is the question I have - can we agree on the following proposed "findings of fact"?:

• The term "photoshop" is in common usage as a verb.
• Its use is not specific to that of an Adobe product, but includes any changes to images.
• The use is not specific to doctoring images to make "fakes".
• There are numerous references to this usage.
• Some of these references can be considered reliable (for now it doesn't matter which).
• The use of the term in this form has been a subject of debate in Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia requires that anything that is disputed be backed up by citations from reliable sources.

Can we reach some common ground, here? If we can all agree on this, then all we have to do is to find one reference that can be considered reliable, and add it to the article. It might be an idea if you take the points and add 'Agree' or 'disagree' to each, with your sig, rather than discussing them at length (since that seems to have been done amply already!  ;-) ) -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A good example image

This article needs an image of a person before and after; since that is really what most people think of. If someone could find or make one that would be good.TrevorLSciAct 16:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

agree

3tmx 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I can't agree with that, it's not specific enough. The photoshopping section concerns two aspects of digital manipulation of images: first, what I've been advised to refer to as the "recreational" use of image editing programs, which this suggestion might well illustrate. Second, the "cultural impact" of this recreational activity, which IMO requires a published example of a resulting image.
The article text used to describe this activity as very basic, so it is clear that the image has been altered (often humour is derived from this fact), or in a hyper-realistic way so that the changes are seamless but now we're relying on a single image to "say" the same thing. The Fark one isn't so neat that you couldn't see the joke, nor is it so rough that it would fail to fool the viewer. Find a better one, by all means, but make it one which at least fits both criteria. mikaul^talk 16:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the recreational aspect is supposed to be on other articles, like Photoshop contest and meme and so forth. Certainly a professional before and after editing would be fine, but be aware that some in the past here were trying to find excuses to link to their own websites on which they tried to sell image editing services, so be wary that any aded info or photo is actually professional and not an attempt to sneak advertising in. DreamGuy 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the proposal related specifically to the photoshopping section -at least that was not my understanding 3tmx 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. This page has become such a single-issue discussion I assumed it related to photoshopping. Still, I'm not sure where it would fit as an illustration of anything but the sort of recreational/hobbyist use I was ranting about above. As such, it would only serve to add weight to a section which currently could do without it. In any event, wouldn't that be more of a photomontage example? Compositing is only a tiny part of photo editing / manipulation. mikaul^talk 22:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rearrangement

Here I have to agree with DreamGuy, against Minestrone Soup's rearrangement that puts "photoshopping" in parallel with digital editing under types of editing. Makes no sesne. Dicklyon 00:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Emphatically seconded. I've already outlined in detail above the need for a thorough re-jig of this article but it simply cannot happen – nor can any constructive editing occur – while we have this ongoing unresolved dispute. At the very least, under the circumstances, editors should observe the ActiveDiscuss tag on the page (which was removed.. why? I've replaced it, for this very reason) and run any and all edits via this page first. mikaul^talk 10:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)