Talk:Photoshopping

	Visual arts portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Don't Merge Photoshopping

I don't think you guys should merge this article with photo editing, as this, I think, is a form of pop culture distinct from conventional editing. - Blakegripling_ph

Ideas

Just dumping some of my ideas here in case anyone wants to flesh them out.

history of photoshopping

Early examples. Examples before the internet.

prominent websites

only two or three of the best

external links

only sites which feature regular photoshop contest, and are not too narrow in variety (fictional example: automobilephotoshops.com)

There is already a entry for 'photoshop contests', and those links would be suitable there. This entry is for the process of photoshopping itself, and any major site that displays such images, contest or not, should be linked

ways to detect if a picture has been photoshopped

I think there are ways to detect, but I'm not sure

It's clearly a photoshop. I can tell because of the pixels, and from having seen quite a few shops in my time.

Non funny digital manipulation

things like ford? digitally removing a black person from a photograph of thier employees - can't remeber the details.

I don't know what you're talking about, but it wouldn't belong here. There should be a page on image manipulation (there's a red link to image editing on this page) that would include serious instances such as that and Stalin's removal of "non-person" former Party members from historical photos, perhaps with a mention of similar manipulation in Orwell's 1984. Putting those sorts of things on the same page as pictures of "great tits" makes light of serious historic, racial, and philosophical issues and would be a poor, inaccurate juxtaposition. --BDD 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to photoshop

I should note that the image given is awful...but I guess since it's suppose to serve as to seperate photoshopping from just humorous images, the stark constast makes a good example. Still. Crtrue

I've my original example back in as well. It was removed a while back by an anon user but I'm not sure why. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

less controversial sample images, please

I assume someone thought it was humorous to include 'a pair of great tits' as the primary example of photopped images.

It isn't? --Shaddack 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's something of a Wikipedia inside joke here. Look on the right hand side of the user page for prominent adminstrator Theresa Knott. -Joshuapaquin 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the red cross (The flag of England?) on the chests of the photoshopped tits, anyway? Obli (Talk) 21:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina handbags

I've just uploaded Image:Argentina_football_2002_handbag_mockup.jpg, for the England and Argentina football rivalry page. Worth adding here? I thought there might be a "photoshopped" category. Jooler 11:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

I'm not sure who cleaned up the external links but that person removed actual photoshopping sites. A couple of them were spam, but not all of the ones that were removed.

Part of discussion about illustrative examples:

This is cut from the discussion page of User: Alkivar :
When an article is so small, and with two perfectly good images in it already, two more images are really unnecessary. ALKIVAR™ 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to simple guidelines that do not actually indicate a formal law of ratio as described in your "math example", and as I see it, my own suggested examples do contribute to an enhanced visualization of the possibilities in the use of modern techniques, and are not merely "two more images". Furthermore, I still would appreciate if you could say something about the denied right to publish the suggested pictures, as asked above. Articles can, obviously be constructively improved by adding and replacing both text and images subsequently, step by step. And when an artist is willing to contribute I think one should show some appreciation. Perhaps the image even could carefully be moved into nomination [[1]] instead of thrown out in a crude way. --Profero 02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any points to be added to the discussion? Please see the discussion page of User: Alkivar and the history of the Photoshopping article. --Profero 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, personally I'd like to see something better than the Tolstoy picture, it's not a very outstanding piece of work, and as a frequent photoshopper, I'd like to see something more advanced than a cutout of the same BW head placed over four bodies on a drawing. It's just not representative of how powerful the software is, if I'm not mistaken, that could have been done just as easily using MSpaint. -Obli (Talk)^? 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Digital image editing

The term photoshopping should be called what it is, a "misuse" that contributes to the dumbing-down of professional language. Anyone looking up that term should learn that digital photo manipulation is not limited to Adobe Photoshop. Having a separate page will only tempt those who misuse language to explain the technology of digital photo manipulation on this page instead of the page where it belongs. Oicumayberight 03:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree. The article itself says that Adobe is not the only maker of "photoshopping" software. Digital "image" editing is also not entirely limited to photos, but photoshopping, or digital photo manipulation, usually involves photographs. If it should be made more clear that the term is "dumbed down," perhaps it should just be expanded in the article. Look at the title of this page. http://www.worth1000.com/default.asp It does not say Worth 1000 Digital image editing contests. Also, Wikipedia is the first hit in Google for the term out of about 800,000 results. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photoshopping&btnG=Google+Search It would cause complete confusion to merge the well-established term to a lesser known term. Further more, Kleenex does not redirect to facial tissue. And finally, the Digital image editing article is technical and long. The Photoshopping information wouldn't fit the flow of the article.

Also, why does the link to Discuss lead to Digital image editing talk page yet the discussion was started here? --Hobbes747 19:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. We'll just have to keep watching this page to make sure it remains mainly about the terminology without going into too much detail of the process. Oicumayberight 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything about the term, other than the fact that it's an inaccurate trademark infringement, is original research or redundant to a complete article on digital photo manipulation. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree. I believe this should be merged, because the term "Photoshopping" is a label for digital image manipulation. "Photoshop" is a noun, not a verb, and should not be used as such. You might as well call word processing "Wording", or driving "Chevying". "Kleenex" doesn't redirect to "Facial tissue" because Kleenex is a brand name, which the article talks about. By your logic, "Photoshopping" should redirect to Adobe Photoshop. Semantics aside, this article simply talks about image manipulation under a different name. If nothing else, all the uses of the terms "photoshopping" and "photoshopped" should be changed to something like "manipulated". Bottom line: "Photoshop" asn't a verb. Stop treating it like one.--bicostp 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged/redirected to Photoshop, as Photoshopping just means "to use photoshop" -- photoshopping not just generic image editing, that's "image editing". 216.165.158.7 02:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please strive for some consensus before arbitrarily removing an article. You can take a poll, or nominate the article for deletion, or just talk about it here first.

Note that "photoshopping" is a term that has been widely used in reliable sources: [2]] - Dicklyon 06:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated blanking withokut consensus is vandalism

An anonymous editor keeps converting the page to a redirect, blanking the content. If this is what is needed, we should decide that here, or at least get a poll of editors to see what the arguments are. In my opinion, the large number of BOOKS that use the term photoshopping as a generic verb provide plenty of verifiable sources that this a true common neologism, not a fleeting little-used neologism. The policy on neologisms says not unless there are sufficient verifiable and reliable sources, or something to that effect. We're there. Dicklyon 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "blanking," it's a redirect to more appropriate existing content. The BOOKS that use the term Photoshopping do so in reference to using Adobe Photoshop, which already has an article we need to redirect to in that case. Furthermore, as already directed on your talk page, you need to read the actual Wikipedia:Vandalism policy before you throw out aggressive accusations. Specifically check Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. these edits are made to improve Wikipedia quality and therefore clearly do not fall under vandalism, your attempts at intimidation not withstanding. 216.165.158.7 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]