Talk:Photo manipulation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Graphic design (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Graphic design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of graphic design-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lead image[edit]

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


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

It's here, not much of a discussion :o/ mikaultalk 00:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
An ordinary move should work, I think, and if it doesn't then it will tell you how to ask for a move. I have no objection, but give it a few days and see if anyone else does; I would also not object to leaving it as photo editing. DreamGuy seems to have taken an unannounced wiki-break, so maybe the article won't be so troubled for a while. Dicklyon 00:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. Makes more sense as "photo manipulation" is what this article is really about. Editing implies minor fixes and corrections, while manipulation implies major stuff (such as removing people, changing objects' colors, etc.). --clpo13(talk) 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
If that is true, then photo editing shouldn't be directed to this article. Oicumayberight 20:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the problem; the redirect says for the uses, cultural impact, and ethical concerns of image editing, which is mostly about removing people, changing objects' colors, etc., per evidence in this article. If you think of a better way to put it, that's fine, too. But there's no reason to interpret either phrase so narrowly as to create a conflict.
There's already a conflict. Look up manipulating. It implies that there is no good reason to edit. Besides, read clpo13(talk) comment above. Oicumayberight 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm unclear on your point. Please expand. Dicklyon 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If editing is minor as clpo13(talk) states, than image editing better describes photo editing than photo manipulation. There is no reason to imply that photo editing is manipulative. Oicumayberight 20:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get that. And I don't see any general consensus that "editing is minor" even though one guy said that. The historical distinction on the naming is photo versus the more general image; I think that we should not use the name change here to narrow the article scope too much. And in general you want to be careful about changing redirects, as that changes all the pages that link to it, so they now link somewhere unexpected. So let's leave it as it was, OK? Dicklyon 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

You're misinterpreting my comment, Oicumayberight. The redirect is in place because this article used to be called "photo editing." The content of the article didn't fit the title so it was renamed. I was simply saying the new name fit the content better than the old one did. --clpo13(talk) 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

clpo13 I knew what you meant. It applies both ways. If the article doesn't fit the title, then the title doesn't fit the article. I was just using what you said to make the case that the term wasn't summed up by the scope of the article especially after it was renamed. Oicumayberight 00:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So, having made your point, do you have a constructive suggestion? Dicklyon 05:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion for those who wish to have a less controversial article, is to keep the term "photo editing" distinguished from "photo manipulation" either with a separate article, a redirect to image editing or the current disambiguation page. Oicumayberight 06:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the disambig page you made at photo editing. Good idea. Dicklyon 06:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a valuable distinction made in exactly the right place. I found the wholesale replacement of "editing" with "manipulation" a little careless but in general it seems to have been a good and necessary change too. I've copyedited the first three sections, as it was all starting to look like a badly-healed wound. --mikaultalk 18:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely. The disambig page is a very good idea. --clpo13(talk) 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mikaul's version of Photoshopping section[edit]

What's the general consensus with this? Should we replace the current section with his sandbox one? I would do it myself, but I can't find the link anywhere, plus I want to make sure it's all right with everyone first. --clpo13(talk) 04:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel it offers a net win over what we have now, go for it; I may add a ref url or two. I think you need to search up for a link "here". Dicklyon 04:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I merged the two, keeping the Fark image but adding in the note about how photoshop is often used colloquially and academically as a verb. --clpo13(talk) 05:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks ok, but the Fark image is really bugging me now.. it was pretty much agreed up the page (somewhere) that it should go – there's already a link to it (or rather to email hoax, which displays it) in the wikilink from the phrase "actual news". I'm also unconvinced about the "Helicopter Shark" sentence. Like the Fark image, it was included as a wikilink (also at email hoax) and removed from the draft version in the interests of weight and balance with professional use. I'm not claiming the draft was the consensus version (it was never properly aired, I don't think) rather I'm appealing for opinions. Is the wikilink enough, or do you think the last sentence warrants space here? All things considered, I think we should get rid of it and put a seealso for email hoax, along with photoshop contest at the end of the section.

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

I only left the Fark image because it was in the original version. If consensus was against it, it can be safely removed then. The link to "Helicopter Shark," however, I think should stay because it properly illustrates the idea of manipulated images being passed as real news. It's only a brief mention and is good for showing how big of an impacted such images can have in popular culture. That's just my take on it, though. --clpo13(talk) 17:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair comment. I think there was vague support for the Fark one staying until a better one can be found (better than nothing?) although I'm not having much success with the before/after I had in mind :o( In some respects the shark images are better (more illustrative) and I'd even prefer those to the Fark one, but let's not lose sight of the need for an illustration which covers all areas in which the term is used. I'll keep looking. mikaultalk 17:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


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

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

Recent case in the UK[edit]

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

We could stick a current events tag at the top of the ethics section and make sure to update it as the case goes on. Then again, since it hasn't been determined that it was manipulated, it's probably best to leave it out, just in case it turns out that it wasn't unethically manipulated. --clpo13(talk) 06:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The latest from the same source is that the police have denied all accusations of photo manipulation and the prosecution has closed. I'm really not up on UK legal procedure, but I suspect those accusations will only be properly investigated, if at all, once the trial is over and related inquests can be set up. Are we on solid enough ground to proceed as discussed with a current events tag? --mikaultalk 07:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Photoshopping factoid[edit]

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

It does seem a bit trivial, but Dicklyon may have inserted it to indicate how Photoshop is viewed and used in popular culture. XKCD does seem to have its finger on the pulse of society... I can see both sides, though. --clpo13(talk) 20:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly; it supports the point of the section, and doesn't seem to me to add undue weight to a point of view; just one more sourced example of how photoshop is used as a verb. What the cartoon happened to be called with not relevant, but the fact that the cartoon was about the use of photoshopped in the sense of manipulated. Furthermore, the previous hauling over the coals of this section was really about two things: (1) unsourced junk, which we fixed quickly; (2) one guy's opinion that photoshop is not used as a verb, or if it is then wikipedia shouldn't admit it (and that guy has been banned from such disruptive editing, via an arbitration, and has left wikipedia). Dicklyon 21:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

And feel free to add it again along with a source if you have one, rather than in front of the citations to the sources that do not support it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I felt free and added it back in with a couple of cites, sorry about putting the comment in front of the wrong cites.(Symo85 (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
Neither of your citations supports the idea that "airbrushing" is uses as a general term for image editing; and certainly neither connects airbrushing with "photoshopping", which is the topic of that section. So I took it out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

some near synonyms[edit]

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

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

Personally, I agree the term has at least as much currency as "photoshopping", but it's worth pointing out that section has proven to be prone to a number of neologisms and otherwise inaccurate colloquial terminology that has been rejected in the past. If you can find academic or at least reliable sources using "airbrushing" in the right context, there's no reason why the term couldn't be mentioned alongside "photoshopping", afaic. mikaultalk 11:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I looked for airbrushing and shopping (but not shooping) before, and couldn't find decent sources. Airbrushing is still commonly used to mean airbrushing, an editing style with an airbrush tool, even if done digitally, but I don't see evidence that it's used for photo manipulation more generally. Shopping is sometimes used, but I don't find sources nearly as good as what we have for photoshopping. Dicklyon (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the equivalence of airbrushing for photo manipulation generally, but, as I said, as a subset of photo manipulation that has greater meaning than the literal act of physical airbrushing or using an airbrush tool within image manipulation software. It should be pretty easy to find if one considers the talk of people being airbrushed from history, such as Clementis the Czech communist.--Mongreilf (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
That's Dick's point, I think: it's a common enough expression & one easy enough to find in colloquial use, and "airbrushing history" is a term more photo-related than painting-related, but finding a source which isn't equally informal might be tough. I can find multiple instances of the expression "cloning out", for example (after the clone tool in Pshop) on forums, how-to sites, etc – all sources that don't cut it as far as WP:RS goes. As I said, for me, there's no more credibility to "photoshopping" than "cloning out" or "airbrushing" and far as this article goes, yours is in effect an argument in favour of a "pop culture" section to cover such terminology. I can sympathise with that call, but the problem of sources then becomes one of neologism and thenceforth enters "farking" and god knows what else. Avoiding being an urban dictionary, while allowing some informal terminology, is a dead-end path we've been down more than once in the past. mikaultalk 02:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

use of "photoshopped"[edit]

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

The Manual of Style states that we shouldn't follow the rules of the trademark owners, but the rules of the English language instead. I think that using the verb “to photoshop” is not proper for Wikipedia, unless we are writing about the term itself, which is what the section “Photoshopping” is about. So I think this article is fine. Svick (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And yes, it was debated to death several years ago; I think on an article that later got merged into this one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Main image[edit]

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

Inclusion of a 'Use in Hollywood' section[edit]

One of the major industries in which the art of photo manipulation actively thrives today is that of Hollywood. Therefore, to better reflect the sense in which Photoshop is utilized today we have added a subsection into the article stated 'Use in Hollywood'. When I say 'we' I'm referring to myself and a group of 4 other students from a University of Toronto rhetoric in media class, purposed at improving or bettering articles on Wikipedia by adding our own contributions to them. In terms of the Hollywood section, I think it is very important to be able to present the various perspectives/opinions in which photo manipulation is received in Hollywood. It is a typical assumption to think that most celebrities must openly embrace photo retouching, or at least push towards the implementation of it before their photos are published. Our research actually reveals quite the opposite results in which many celebrities either are not in favour of, or rather entirely oppose photo manipulation on the whole. Hence, in the Hollywood section we look to provide an overview of a few cases in which celebrities have either prompted for/against/OR worked in agreement of exposing the dramatic difference between an original picture and that which is photo manipulated. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My section about "Kelly Clarkson's Self Magazine Cover Controversy" is an example of how magazine covers are photoshopped. This is a case through which it can be seen how sometimes celebrities are blamed for getting their photographs edited when in fact they have no say in the matter. Kelly Clarkson did not want her photograph manipulated but it was done anyways for the company’s own good. It must be realized that there are multiple views and opinions about whether manipulating an image is good or bad and sometimes celebrities are not to blame for the images we see in magazines- there are other sides to the story. I decided to write about this particular topic because it is controversial and readers/viewers need to be more aware about what they see in the media and to what extent they can trust what they see. Our group’s aim was to bring everyone’s attention to this topic and increase their awareness and this is an example which presents a different perspective on this debatable topic.--Sanag24 (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have particularly focused on adding information to the "Use in Journalism” and the “Darkroom manipulation” paragraph. These two paragraphs lacked information regarding the various perspectives of media on photo manipulation image. Consequently, the photo manipulation images used in journalism are created to deceive the audiences by illustrating that media presents everything with perfection. This was a group assignment where students from the University of Toronto Mississauga in Digital Interactive Media Environment class concentrated on the rhetorical aspects of the Wikipedia articles. In essence, for the “Darkroom manipulation” paragraph I focused on how the use of technology in the past was not as advanced and efficient as it's now. To summarize, photo manipulation images are no longer considered as a reliable source and a medium of communication. --Khansale (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you took literal text elements from your sources. That is a copyright infringement and it is not allowed on Wikipedia. Change it or delete it, please.Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Bloating an article doesn't make it better, especcially when it is done by copy pasting text from other articles. If the article doesn't say the text is to by copied and used freely, it's copyright is incompatible with Wikipedia. I urge you to go over the reworked article to remove the remaining many copyright violations. You know where they are, better than me. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Bloating an article doesn't make it better. Less is more. Kill your darlings. Come to the point. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
A tasty photo reference there, Jan! -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This was a group assignment where students from the University of Toronto Mississauga in Digital Interactive Media Environment class concentrated on the rhetorical aspects of the Wikipedia articles. In essence, for the “Darkroom manipulation” paragraph I focused on how the use of technology in the past was not as advanced and efficient as it's now. To summarize, photo manipulation images are no longer considered as a reliable source and a medium of communication. Mm-hmm. Let's put the matter of rhetoric aside for a moment: Just how was the use of technology not as advanced or efficient as it is now? I don't recall your saying anything about the technology (it was me who mentioned enlarger and brushes), and I start to wonder whether you've either (a) digested accounts of it or (b) contemplated the results of its (advanced, I think) use, by people as unlike each other as Jerry Uelsmann and Angus McBean. ¶ Now, you do have a reasonable general point, that the ease with which photos can be photoshoplifted (example) or the increased publicity given to tampering or both has contributed to reducing the general credibility of photographs that at first glance look realistic. But unlike a university course, you can't put the pieces together yourself; doing so would be dismissed as "original synthesis". Instead, you can digest such books as Errol Morris's excellent Believing is Seeing, and summarize what they say. -- Hoary (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Dosineau" and "dark manipulation"[edit]

Thanks to this edit, the reader is told that:

A great example of dark manipulated images was the discovery of the renowned photograph of Robert Dosineau’s Paris street kiss. In the past, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as the way it is now. But even then the darkroom manipulation has captured beautiful moments of many legendary photographs with the utilization of the weighty equipment.
  • Does "dark manipulated images" mean "images manipulated in the darkroom"?
  • Does "Dosineau" mean Robert Doisneau?
  • A discovery is not an example of an image.
  • "In the past": When?
  • "Legendary photographs": Which legend(s)?
  • "Weighty equipment": Does this mean an enlarger?

Which photograph is meant? This one, perhaps? Where is the evidence that the photograph was manipulated in the darkroom (or darkly)?

Or are students in the class that has arrived at this (admittedly poor) article just encouraged to add material off the tops of their heads? -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your feedback and concerns into consideration and made changes. But I just want to inform you that it's our first time editing a Wikipedia article so we are bound to make mistakes. --Khansale (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not good enough. The article now says: A great example of images manipulated in the darkroom was the renowned photograph of Robert Doisneau's Paris street kiss. If you're new to editing WP, this explains for example why Robert Doisneau is not linked. And yes, anyone can make a typo and then not notice it when it's made. But if (i) the course you're taking is any good and (ii) you've been paying attention to what's said in it, you'll know that an assertion such as that a particular photo by Doisneau was manipulated in the darkroom needs reliable evidence. Where is this evidence?
By "the renowned photograph of Robert Doisneau's Paris street kiss", do you mean Le baiser de l'hôtel de ville or do you mean something else? If the former, then no darkroom manipulation is mentioned in such coverage as this; when and where was manipulation revealed? If you mean some other photograph, then precisely which one, and what's your source?
There's no hint about darkroom manipulation in the (admittedly shallow) article on Doisneau in the (admittedly rather dreadful) two-volume Encyclopedia of Twentieth-Century Photography, and a charge of manipulation in Doisneau's work comes as a surprise.
Or do you mean one or more of dodging, burning and cropping? While these are not usually thought of as "manipulation" one could make a case for calling them manipulation. But if this is what you mean by "manipulation", you should say so -- and again, you need to cite the sources that talk about dodging, burning or cropping.
Meanwhile, your rewritten version tells us that But, the images manipulated in the darkroom manipulation has [...]. Manipulated in manipulation? Please! -- Hoary (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I took out the Robert Doisneau's Le baiser de l'hôtel de ville example and other information to make it more brief. Do you still think it's not good enough? --Khansale (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This needs a lot more work.
Despite the popularity of digital photo manipulation, darkroom manipulations are regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill.
Regarded by whom? And what do you mean by "darkroom manipulations"? (Dodging and burning? Cropping? If something more radical, then what?)
Techniques are very similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create than ones that are created digitally.
I don't understand at all. Do you perhaps mean that the effects (e.g. burning) are very similar to what they are now, but that the techniques for achieving them are very different? (I can tell you that dodging and burning in GIMP is very different from doing so with an enlarger.)
In the 20th century, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as it is now.
Oh? It strikes me that photographers such as Jerry Uelsmann made stunning use of the technology that was available to them. Do you perhaps mean that the technology itself wasn't as advanced or efficient?
The images retouched through darkroom manipulation are done in a traditional method without the use of computers.
Well, yes, if you're going to do everything with GIMP or Photoshop it would be perverse to bring your computer into a darkroom. However, it's wrong to say that traditional methods don't use computers, first because "darkroom computers" (timing devices) were widely used, and secondly because traditional darkroom methods can be aided by computer (example). But what do you mean by "darkroom manipulation" and "retouching"? You haven't said what the former is. And to me, the latter primarily suggests work done with pens or paintbrushes on the developed, fixed, washed and dried negative or print -- this doesn't use a computer, but of course it's done outside the darkroom.
You can see crude retouching of this kind in the fake eyebrows applied on this photograph. This kind of thing was routine in/for newspapers at the time.
If you want to find out about traditional darkroom techniques, look in a either a specialist book or in a general book on photography that predates the "digital revolution" and that therefore can devote more space to traditional techniques.
I believe that you're at the University of Toronto. Here's the library OPAC. I can't immediately see how you can limit a search to a span of years (and so can search for e.g. all books published until 1999 that have both "photograph*" and "techni*" in their titles). Maybe the librarians can help you with this. But it's easy for me to see that the library right now has two copies of the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography from the 1960s in the stacks. Well, go get one! Better, take a look on that shelf for specialist books. -- Hoary (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Meanwhile, something is "sourced" to:
Peres, Michael (2007). The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, Fourth Edition. Focal Press; 4 edition. pp. 880. ISBN 0240807405.
Eh? The last page of the copy of this that I'm looking at is page 846.
That matter aside, if you cite something from an encyclopedia, please indicate precisely which part of the encyclopedia you are citing. -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Source for history expansion[edit] (and more details on the Transcript page) -- Beland (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Dead Link[edit]

^ "NPPA Code of Ethics". National Press Photographers Association.
This is a dead link. Please fix. (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Using the 2013 Commons picture of the year as an example?[edit]

2013 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the year: Filament burns through, the scientific art of Stefan Krause, from Saarland in Germany.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/News and notes#Commons Picture of the Year—winners announced says

We have the awkward situation where the winner is an image that probably shouldn't be used in any Wikimedia project. The image is very well-photographed: It shows a cracked lightbulb plugged into the socket, the loss of vacuum allowing the filament to burn.

Unfortunately, the photographer then manipulated the image in a way that ruins all the encyclopedic value: he removed the lamp fitting and photoshopped the bottom of the lightbulb in its place. We're left with a picture of a lightbulb that has electricity moving through it that gives the appearance of not having any such thing happening.

I think that, properly done, we can use that image in this article or a similar one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have linked to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-03-26/News and notes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo manipulation in science[edit]

We don't mention that here, and probably should. Here's a good source: It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't by Nicholas Wade, NYTimes. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

And an example: UT-Southwestern cancer research group notches ninth retraction, for "inappropriate image manipulation". While this is definitely scientific misconduct, it appears to be more in the line of self-plagiarism and chart manipulation -- the articles aren't very clear. So I'll leave this here, as a "memo to self", but it doesn't seem to be a good example of what the NY Times is talking about. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Impression it is a painting[edit]

@Atsme:, I removed that image because it is not a good example of photo manipulation. The image in the article does not show the effects described in the caption. Even clicking on the image does not show that. Only when the image is enlarged even further to the level of actual pixels, it shows. But you cant expect a reader to do that. The image in the article, as it is, should be clarifying. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. It does a better job of demonstrating image manipulation than does the 2nd image which is a better example of manipulating viewers instead of actual photo manipulation. It needs a side by side comparison because were it not for the caption, no one would know the photo was manipulated. The 1st example includes objects in the image that viewers know don't belong; obvious manipulation of an image. The 3rd example demonstrates the smearing of pixels, the addition of texture and brush strokes to make the photograph look like a painting; obvious manipulation. All thumbnails are difficult to see. I'm of the mind that readers of an encyclopedia who are researching photo manipulation understand the common process of clicking on thumbnails for enlargement. I've watched 4 yr olds do it without any instruction. AtsmeConsult 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't agree. The text in an encyclopedia is an explanatory text, that introduces the reader in the ins and outs of the subject. The subject here is photo manipulation. A photo that shows a certain aspect of photo manipulation only after it has been clicked on twice is not a good example. Furthermore, a photo has no meaning if it is not viewed by someone, so the difference you make between photo manipulation and viewer manipulation in this context is meaningless. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Another editor, Rothorpe also disagreed with your deletion of that photo. [1] I suggest you initiate an RfC. AtsmeConsult 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC's are not meant for the quality of an article. Look, it is your image and I can imagine that you are proud of it, but for the naked eye it doesn't explain what this article is about. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
What do you think this article is about? AtsmeConsult 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't answer silly questions. I am asking for quality. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The quality is there so I don't understand why you have a problem with it. Your argument is not substantive. I would be more inclined to delete the 2nd photograph because it demonstrates....nothing without a caption. Furthermore, this isn't about who uploaded the images so please cease and desist from making comments about editors and restrict your comments to content. Anonymity as a volunteer neither provides an opportunity for vanity nor income so please drop that silly argument. The photo belongs in this article unless you can provide a substantive reason for why it does not. AtsmeConsult 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The second photo shows the same thing as the Goebbels photo, manipulation. Unless one investigates your image only shows a photo of flamingo's. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of banal objects[edit]

A news photo might be altered to remove an object that has no relevance to the image (let us say a soft-drink container at a meeting of a city council) that has a highly-visible brand name or part thereof. Air-brushing out such an object would do two things: (1) remove pointless clutter, and (2) excise a brand name, as a newspaper has no desire to offer product placement except as paid advertising.

Would such be unethical? Consider two possibilities:

(1) no notice of such is given to readers, or

(2) the newspaper states that an object with a visible brand name not germane to the story has been removed. Pbrower2a (talk) 04:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

2 Sections should be removed unless they have evidence[edit]

2 sections either need some serious revising or at least reassessment. First off, "Types of digital photo manipulation" has no citations. Secondly, how is this section even relevant if it simply restates what is above it? Thirdly "Today, photo manipulation is widely accepted as an art form." by who? a few magazines? Fourthly, what are those categories? What scholarly source are they coming from? are they even different? What is their relevance? How is this helping my understanding?

"Governments against excessive photo manipulation" needs another look. The 2 articles do not describe governments against it, rather they talk about the [[2]] (a council of the BBB). This is an international organization's ruling, not any sort of official ruling of a court with any real power.Dabrams13 (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There are templates editors can use when they believe the prose or a section in an article needs revising, assessment or lacks proper citations. If you don't want to take the time required to find the necessary WP:RS, and possibly improve the article, then please use one of the appropriate templates which you can find at Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. It helps to be more specific about the contents you believe needs attention, that way, another editor can try to fix whatever it is you think needs fixing. Atsme📞📧 21:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


This page has some very good information, as well as some not so good. I liked that wikipedia actually gave the history behind photo manipulation and how and why it started. Most other sources I visited didn't have this useful background information. However, most of the information doesn't directly relate to my topic of, how photo manipulation can cause unrealistic expectations of beauty that have a negative impact on young girls and their self image. There was a paragraph about photo manipulation in "glamour" that i thought would work well, but ended up being basic information about the ways models are photoshopped. Overall most of the article was about how photo manipulation was used as a propaganda tool. About two small paragraphs of information was good enough that I could have used it in my essay to relate to my topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Why, please?[edit]

Hi Sir, May I know why you reverted the changes I made at Photo manipulation page, please... Jon Ascton  (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Those images did not improve the article. One could barely see the change which actually wasn't "manipulation" per the topic, rather it was a correction. The photographs themselves are not aesthetically pleasing because of all the clutter and distractive elements in the scene. Atsme📞📧 12:24, 23 September 2017 (UTC)