![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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'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)
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)
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)
how is photoshopping distinct from image editing ? because i can't see a strict formal difference?
3tmx 23:44, 30 June 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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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.
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)
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.
This is in the not disputed section:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
"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".
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)
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)
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.
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:
So here is the question I have - can we agree on the following proposed "findings of fact"?:
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)
I don't think anything of the above is truly in debate, other than some people were trying to claim that "photoshopping" was solely for making cutesy jokes and memes, or that that usage was more important than other uses. The term, obviously, originally came from Photoshop and obviously meant photo editing, the whole shebang, anything you could do in Photoshop, and then later some people started using it for photo editing in general. But, LEGALLY, the word is only used for photoshop itself... and the problem with most references trying to prove otherwise is they say editing but do not specify with what and then people ASSUME other applications, except that Photoshop is so universal and everywhere the sources very well could be referring specifically to Photoshop only even if they don't specify it. In the field of graphic design you don't have to specify that Photoshopping means Use Photoshop, because that's obvious, and that's what all the professionals use. It's be like having to specify that when you say Windows machine you mean Microsoft Windows Windows machine and not just any machine that has a GUI featuring windows on it. The primary use of the term needs to be stressed, and neologistic uses by unreliable sources or sources using it wrong can;t be used to try to give undue weight to a claim that people really mean any program.
What the real problem here is, is that we have some people who insist that the jokesy, screwing around image editing is so extremely important that it needs a huge section here with images, when we already have other articles on that topic, and spending too much time here on it is trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to a bit of trivia. There's no reason whatsoever to spend any time here at all on that topic other than dropping a link in the See also section. As a compromise I agreed to a small section. But unfortunately Dickylon in particular insists that "photoshopping" is all about the screwing around amateur fake editing and memes and that it HAS to be here, and that he's going to keep adding it anywhere and everywhere he can because it's so important it overflows from the articles specifically about that. In the overall scheme of things when it comes to photo editing it's a wildly trivial and unimportant thing. In fact it should be assumed. When we talk about video cameras do we really need to give a long explanation that, gosh, kids use them to screw around and make (un)funny videos to share with friends, or when we talk about crayons that some kids shove them up their noses and going into detail about which colors small better? It should be assumed that for any professional topic or activity or poduct that there is some joker futzing around with it and that we don't need to spell it out in a freaking encyclopedia article devoted to a serious topic. It's nonsense like this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. DreamGuy 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this section so far. It's nice to see that there is so much common ground that everyone so far has agreed to. I would strongly suggest that we avoid analyzing other editor's actions right now (or who said what to whom) and try to stick to the on-topic matters of substance of the content of the page in an attempt to get this resolved. In the past, such debates on this issue have been less than productive and detract from reaching a conclusion.
So if we look at the current state of the article - most of the article talks about photo editing and the various ways in which it has been used in serious media, and then there is one section that discusses the "fakery" aspect. There are examples of both the "serious" uses and a single example of the "fake" use. The article seems to me to be of a reasonable length.
Could the various involved parties (without making changes to the article) please try to articulate here what, if any, objections they have to the *current* form of the article? Is the current section on "photoshopping" still giving undue weight to it, or is it not giving enough, or is it just right? Please restrict your points to the contents themselves, without naming editor actions. Or is the current form already an adequate compromise that satisfies everyone? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
While this discussion is going on, *any* change to the page pertaining to issues covered in this discussion is not appropriate. We are trying to work towards a consensus here, and changing the document is not conducive to keeping the discussion going. If we can't keep ourselves from doing it, I will request a page lock while we talk. I think this is in everyone's interest. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I asked about a specific revision to this page and whether it could be a decent compromise, and since others have since made changes, I have reverted all changes back to that date, so that we can at least be looking at the same thing. I strongly suggest that nobody make any further changes to this until we have made every effort to get this resolved. We can not have a discussion about this if edits continue. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Another plea - can we *please* stop referring to the personalities and motives of other editors and instead discuss the article? Go and look at the current, frozen, state of the article, and critique it, based on the findings of fact that we agreed upon earlier and whether *you* feel that the article is appropriately balanced. Don't worry about what others think. The protect on the page was simply so that we have a common discussion point, it's not endorsing this version. If we agree that a change is necessary I will vigorously support that change. Since this discussion has been long, I will start a new section at the bottom of the page... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have archived a number of older discussions that are inactive and unrelated to more recent discussion. Contrary to what DreamGuy would think, this is not in order to cover up any discussions agreeing with him (or disagreeing with certain editors), but to shorten the talk page and make it more manageable. None of the discussions have anything to do with the Photoshopping section, and most are many months old. They are all accessible here for anyone who wishes to verify that they are ancient, inactive, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. -- clpo13( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a follow-on to the discussion above ("Trying to establish some common ground"). Please take a look at the currently-protected form of the article, with regards to two very specific things:
Please do NOT refer to other editors or their actions during this discussion. Confine your comments to these two points, which I believe are the major sticking points currently. If there are any subject matter issues (as opposed to editor conduct or actions) that I have missed, please let me know. Hopefully we can drive this to some sort of conclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and keep this as concise as possible
weight: fark image unnecessary (my issues outlined in earlier discussion). Have weight concern with these two sentence: "Some well known images include "Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten" and "Helicopter Shark". The latter image was widely circulated as a National Geographic "Image of the Year" and was later revealed to be a hoax"
If we must include reference to these images i think it would be better if it wasn't in sentence form. perhaps wiki links bracketed in previous sentence e.g. (see "every time.. and kitten). The second sentence is unnecessary as there has already been a mention of PS hoaxes passing as news within the paragraph and anyway people can find out about that on the page dedicated to the topic.
citations: 8,9,10 - fine, no problems. 6&7 - we could surely come up with better references i.e.from sources that deal expressly with photographic subject matter.
3tmx 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sugegstion: In popular culture, the term photoshopping is sometimes associated with montages in the form of visual jokes, such as those published on the fark.com website and in MAD Magazine. Images may be propagated memetically via e-mail as humor (e.g. Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten") and have even been passed as actual news (e.g. "Helicopter Shark").[9] 3tmx 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Also we should move "See also: Photoshop contest" to below second paragraph as it fits better- otherwise it certainly gives undue weight . Sorry all that wasn't that concise after all 3tmx 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I think there's a point missing from this summary, as evidenced by the last two posts – use of images. The current image has to go (I concede) and be replaced by another, less "contesty" one. I suggest this one for now, as it's a really obvious composite. If people want to suggest the form an ideal image should take, I'd be happy to put something together myself.
Weight-wise, the first para is fine and I'd settle for anything which mentions hobbyist activity in the second. I'm not convinced that the ideal method of linking to examples has been found. Suggest adding to the section at hoax to show the Fark and Shark ones without mentioning names and leave it at that. I'd go with 3tmx's suggestion here, however, if that ends up being a popular version.
Citations are fine. As long as the Adobe one and the Wired ones are in, there are enough relevant sources for the section. If there is no better demonstration of "common currency" usage than ref 7, there's no harm having it in; its reliability as a main source may be highly questionable, but it serves the demonstration purpose well enough. A non-photo-specific ref is actually case in point and in that respect I could live with it. mikaul talk 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Because of quiet legitimate WP:UNDUEconcerns. I have had questions over whether amateur photoshopping deserves a mention at all, but i'm happy to compromise and don't see big harm in one sentence. But "why isn't this stuff in its own article?" > are you seriously suggesting we give amatuer usage its own article after reading the above discussions???
3tmx 11:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that this is a wholly relevant place to mention amateur use. There are multiple sources supporting a kind of "culture" of photo-manipulating hobbyists. It should be briefly mentioned, sources quoted, wikilinks provided (to photoshop contest among others) and left at that. The refs are a problem as they're rarely top-notch reliable (like ref 7) but notability is easy to prove with any Google search. Is there any reason why we shouldn't add an inline ref link to a Google search on "photoshoppping"? mikaul talk 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that DreamGuy has said he's going on break to move for a few days, and has explicitly refused to comment here, can we unblock the page and get back to normal incremental improvements? The standard process is a lot easier than trying to negotiate every detail up front. I just want to make sure the first sentence of the second paragraph of photoshopping gets a reliable citation, and I'm open to letting others pick which one or two; and I'd like to put the url back on ref 7 and maybe get rid of ref 6. But if someone objects, I'm open to alternative refs for those points. And of course anyone else wanting to make constructive edits should do so, and react to talk if there are objections. That's how consensus evolves normally. Dicklyon 06:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
3tmx and mikaul bring up very good points. The kitten/shark sentences should be done some other way. I think it'd be better if the citations were from more topical resources, but it does show "common currency" usage. The Wired and Adobe references definitely need to be in. --健次( derumi) talk 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Trying to summarize what others have suggested, in order to get this more concise. These are only the things I am sure of, based on the discussion - if I am have missed something, let me know, please:
(This would result in one sentence in this section)
Composite images may be propagated as e-mail hoaxes or as visual humor on dedicated websites like B3ta.
I will take this and make those changes to the page that mikaul made available, and we'll see how we feel about it. Please see here for the proposal - for now I have left out the other image, to see if this is good. has this captured the essence of what was said? Please tell me what I missed, if anything, and whether you think this will be adequate from your point of view. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My 2 (minor) issues with the proposal is it is phrased in such a way as to potential imply "Every time..." has passed as news. I think it could look better if the gap was deleted so the sentence became part of the rest of the paragraph. 3tmx 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it does look better with an image,be it an interim one (fark or mikuals) or not 3tmx 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is the article still protected? Don't we have a clear consensus about what needs to be done? I'm not hearing any pushback. Dicklyon 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You absolutely CANNOT link to Google search results. This is never done anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think is expressly prohibited but I do'thave time to track it down.
The correct thing to do here is to put all the info about the amateur usage into its own article... either Photoshop contest, which already exists, or, if that's not broad enough, some new name (note: NOT Photoshopping because that'd be a repeat of the attempt to take the professional term and steal it for the amateur usage). We have multiple articles for a reason, and that's so different topics can be treated separately. It always astounds me when people in small niche amateur activities want to take over the main article. We can link to the main article when it's created, or Photoshop contest if it goes there, but there's no reason to waste space about Photo editing on any of this. When you go buy a book about Photo editing it has real info there, not lolcats or whatever. I previously would have accepted a compromise with a few short paragraphs here anda link to the main article, but since we are (yet again) discussing what was discussed previously, I am now returning back to endorsing what shold have been done some four or more months ago -- and, in fact, was, other than the blind reverts by Dicklyon, who for some reason insisted it go here and not some more suited article. DreamGuy 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight: this article patently does not aim to cover the same ground as a book on photo editing. That privilege belongs to Image editing, among others. This article, badly-named though it may be, concerns the "uses, cultural impact and ethical concerns [...] beyond the technical process and skills involved". This is the fundamental reason why some mention of the non-professional use of photoshop is an entirely relevant and legitimate subject here. There is no better-suited article in which to mention this in the context of the cultural impact of digital image editing. This rationale, AFAICS, was the sole basis for the earlier concession allowing "a few short paragraphs". We currently have one short paragraph, in one short section, and no-one at all is arguing for more than this, let alone trying to "take over the article" with it. mikaul talk 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Found the link: " http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics" to be broken. Just letting someone know to either change it or remove it when it's unlocked. ClosedEyesSeeing 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
After having seen the discussion on this page and other involved users' Talk pages, and with the various procedures that are being pursued against other editors, I no longer feel that I am in a position to be able to devote the time and the energy required to continue to try to find consensus here. I am deeply sorry that we I could not help to get this resolved, and I wish you luck in finding a workable solution. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that photoshopping should redirect to the paragraph. At present this paragraph should be kept on this page as opposed to moved to image editing as this page deals with the cultural . can't quiet believe i read the phrase "undue to professional usage (I paraphrase)" - the term is used professionally but i appreciate and agree that its going to be difficult to find a professional source using it. As i've stated before i have some sympathy with dreamguys concerns around undue etc but the amateur usage does appear to be a genuine (though fairly minor) subculture and one sentence doesn't do any harm if only to place the photoshop contest article in context. However i do not feel it is significant enough for much more than that and have concerns that there could be a creeping back to the point where this article stated that most people associated the term photoshop with the amatuer subculture and it had 8 or whatever pictures of pink elephants, sharks, kittens, scientists etc. Photoshop was a program developed for professional usage. 3tmx 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
3tmx 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
We absolutely need to make sure the main article doesn't confuse people on what the term "Photoshopping" means. We just had someone try to redirect that link on Photoshop to Photoshopping which someone had incorrectly redirected to only the Photoshopping section of this article, and this article usage is nonstandard. Once again, as we've had pointed out and cleared up for months, Photoshopping means "to edit with Photoshop" or, when people are being lazy in the usage "to edit a photo with an image editor".It does NOT mean "make cutesy stupid images for entertainment purposes by bored kids and unemployed adults who need to get lives" like some people keep pushing. The Photoshopping redirect MUST go to the overall Photo editing article and NOT a subsection. We should also not put the amateur usage as the overall bulk of a section labeled "Photoshopping" as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that that's the main ot most important use of the term. It's not. It's not even close. If the playing around aspect is discussed on this page at all (which it shouldn't be, a link in See also to Photoshop contest is more than adequate) it can't be in a section called "Photoshopping," period. This is why the Photoshopping article got removed in the first place, because it was giving people the completely wrong idea about what the term means. It's a professional term for professional activities, or for overall editing, NOT the amateur Internet hobby. DreamGuy 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, this really is not about who is right and wrong. The point is that the section is quite possibly not balanced enough to achieve that.
Basically, I really don't see how DG can deny that amateur hobby use of photoshop, often referred to as "photoshopping" is not part of the set of activities often referred to as "photoshopping". Whatever: if the real WP:WEIGHT problem you have isn't the size of the section but the fact that only amateur use is mentioned, then (ironically) the best option is to insert another para between the two to the effect that "photoshopping" mainly refers to "serious use of a serious tool". I'd have no problem with something like this:
Despite this, the term "photoshopping" is used colloquially to refer to any form of digital image editing, such as retouching, compositing and color correction, carried out in the course of commercial printing and publishing.
Ok, the links and other wrinkles can be ironed out, but slip this into the slimmed-down version and it wouldn't amount to more than it was a month ago. I can't see this being a problem with any contributor here. The only alternative is complete removal, which almost certainly would be objected to. mikaul talk 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd support addition of a non-hobbyist pic of a "photoshopped" image, if that sweetens the cake enough to allow mention of what is a verifiable fact: "photoshopping" doesn't just mean professional use of image editing tools. That's what the article is basically about, other uses, ethical concerns, cultural stuff. If we were at image editing, it wouldn't get a look in. mikaul talk 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that photoshopping should redirect to the paragraph. At present this paragraph should be kept on this page as opposed to moved to image editing as this page deals with the cultural . can't quiet believe i read the phrase "undue to professional usage (I paraphrase)" - the term is used professionally but i appreciate and agree that its going to be difficult to find a professional source using it. As i've stated before i have some sympathy with dreamguys concerns around undue etc but the amateur usage does appear to be a genuine (though fairly minor) subculture and one sentence doesn't do any harm if only to place the photoshop contest article in context. However i do not feel it is significant enough for much more than that and have concerns that there could be a creeping back to the point where this article stated that most people associated the term photoshop with the amatuer subculture and it had 8 or whatever pictures of pink elephants, sharks, kittens, scientists etc. Photoshop was a program developed for professional usage. 3tmx 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, which one was the photoshopping the president ref? I missed that one. mikaul talk 23:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking for references, like here, to try to source DreamGuy's contention that photoshopping more commonly means using Adobe Photoshop. I found a few books on Photoshop that mention photoshopping, but of course to find that connection in a book on Photoshop doesn't say much about how it's used. If anyone can come up with a reliable source, I think we should add this as another meaning of Photoshopping. And if anyone can find something that's more explicit about which use is more common, then of course we'd want to use that, too. So far, the only sources I can find that talk about photoshopping per se are more aligned with the current article content, but you never know what will turn up. Per WP:UNDUE, we should strive for reasonable weight on different viewpoints; I think we're not far from it, but DreamGuy disagrees, so I keep looking. Dicklyon 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are more potential refs. Dicklyon 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is one that definitely supports "using Adobe Photoshop software". But it's a blog, so not usually deemed reliable. Dicklyon 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "photoshopping" just a conjugation of photoshop. Do we really need a ref for general use of the term as we have a good one for the verb photoshop? specific use/ non use may be another issue.
3tmx 11:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The scott kelby in the first link uses photoshopping. While he has produced some of the most irritating, badly written and frankly technically average guides to the program he is regarded as a professional and a PS authority. In the section he uses the term in the context of a professional dealing with a client.
3tmx 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Referencing for when "Photoshopping" means "use Adobe Photoshop"?!?!?! The word ITSELF is the reference, for crying out loud. I can't believe how farcical the attempts here to redefine basic terms into something else entirely just to promote their silly hobby with a fancy sounding name. Every time I think someone comes up with something completely nutty and ridiculous as an argument it just gets worse. Most of the references already provided over the course of the history of editing this article to "Photoshopping" were direct references to "using Adobe Photoshop (or maybe some other program that works the same way) for basic photo editing in general and NOT merely for fun and games" -- people who WANTED to believe it supported their side just saw the usage and ASSUMED it meant only what they wanted it to mean. It's just absurd. I've never seen people work so hard to twist a rather obvious meaning so thoroughly. DreamGuy 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, now I'm really confused. Are we all in agreement that Photoshopping means editing with any image manipulation program (even though it was originally derived from and meant to represent editing with Adobe Photoshop)? If that's the case, why is there even an argument going on here?
Unless the argument is about what kind of editing Photoshopping represents, i.e. professional vs. amateur purposes. But again, I still don't see a problem. If Photoshopping simply means "to edit with Adobe Photoshop or possibly other image editing programs," why does it matter what kind of editing goes on with it? Anyone can Photoshop. Saying Photoshopping is for "basic photo editing in general" includes the "fun and games" part of it, as well as professional usage. That's why I think there should be mention of both professional and non-professional use. I just can't see what the problem is, considering we all appear to be in agreement. -- clpo13( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite this, the term "photoshopping" is used colloquially to refer to any form of digital image editing, such as retouching, compositing and color correction, carried out in the course of commercial printing and publishing.
Dicklyon i think its farcical that you suggest that dream guy needs a newbie template about reliable sources (which verges incidently a personal attack IMO ) when you were citing what was effectively a wiki mirror as a source yesterday. The fact that adobe have concerns over usage as a verb implys that it is used as a verb - "Adobe say it should not be used as a verb" since when do adobe control the English Language???? Scott Kelby uses in the context of a professional use - plus the Mac world & new york times indicate the word is used without specfifc bias. There we go = photoshop does not just refer to amateur use but general- end of discussion hopefully. 3tmx 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if you were joking i apologise. The only other point would be regarding the term being used to refer to images edited without photoshop - Again the trademark concerns bely the fact that adobe are concerned about this being the case e.g. verbs like hoover, nouns like cellotape et al. Its quiet easy to see an edited image and refer to it as photoshopped making an assumption that is the program used so I'd say the term can be used colloquilly to refer to an edited image. 3tmx 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm beyond confused with this page. i have no idea of anyones positions anymore. 3tmx 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's no surprise that no-one, AFAICS, has been able to provide a single scholarly, peer-reviewed analysis of the colloquial use of the neologism to photoshop; however, we have plenty of citeable usage of the term and a number of direct references to its widespread use as a verb, from respectable publishing houses (satisfying WP:RS) supporting all usage mentioned in the article. I mean that to refer equally to these refs [1] [2] (recently provided by DreamGuy, for specific use of Photoshop) as these ones [3] [4] [5](for the other uses mentioned in the draft version of the article) They all carry more or less equal weight (ie. are from respectable publishers and/or authors) and therefore lend roughly equal support to each relevant point.
This is the only way we will get a lasting armistice. It's a content dispute, so we set the bar at that height and any content falling short of it is removed. Please, everyone, look (again) at those links, read them, assess them honestly against the first para of WP:RS, check them against the draft version (which I've just updated) and give your opinion below. mikaul talk 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Can i propose that when the page is unlocked the stalin image is moved to "history", where it is more appropriate. The current placement of the Stalin image implys to someone looking at the page for the first time that the page deals mainly with propaganda.Maybe the currently proposed professional before and after could go in its place??? Either way I think with the stalin image less prominant the possibility of a name change to image or photo manipulation would then appear less negative and less geared towards propaganda usage.
3tmx 21:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a picture of someone in the act of photo editing then? monitor graphics tablet etc Just a question of where to get the image! 3tmx 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming there are no more unanswered points, I suggest we break from this page and take the discussion over to the mediation page to iron out the remaining creases of disagreement. I've taken the liberty of adding a paragraph to the proposed version, slimming the "popular culture" para down to balance things out (wikified the "kitten" example and weeded out a few superfluous words) which I think fits with the current state of the consensus. The new para really is begging at least one supporting ref, and I've found this one using "photoshopped" with reference to art and graphic design in a fairly highly-acclaimed book. Anyway, I've linked to this version on the mediation page and suggest we use it as the basis for a final compromise there. mikaul talk 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Very old versions of photoshopping have some interesting images. Here's one. Dicklyon 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a thourough look but thought these two [ [6]] were also interesting, however would need to check why removed etc. good idea Dicklyon. 3tmx 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC) No reason given by editor who removed them + nothing on the archived talk 3tmx 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Professional images only, per the professionalism of the article. DreamGuy 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the before and after illustrates things adequately. The issue with getting 'professional' images is copyright etc. 3tmx 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to unprotect the page, and I am happy to do so. I trust you all to cooperate with one another. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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'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)
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)
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)
how is photoshopping distinct from image editing ? because i can't see a strict formal difference?
3tmx 23:44, 30 June 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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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'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 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.
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)
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.
This is in the not disputed section:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
"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".
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)
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)
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.
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:
So here is the question I have - can we agree on the following proposed "findings of fact"?:
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)
I don't think anything of the above is truly in debate, other than some people were trying to claim that "photoshopping" was solely for making cutesy jokes and memes, or that that usage was more important than other uses. The term, obviously, originally came from Photoshop and obviously meant photo editing, the whole shebang, anything you could do in Photoshop, and then later some people started using it for photo editing in general. But, LEGALLY, the word is only used for photoshop itself... and the problem with most references trying to prove otherwise is they say editing but do not specify with what and then people ASSUME other applications, except that Photoshop is so universal and everywhere the sources very well could be referring specifically to Photoshop only even if they don't specify it. In the field of graphic design you don't have to specify that Photoshopping means Use Photoshop, because that's obvious, and that's what all the professionals use. It's be like having to specify that when you say Windows machine you mean Microsoft Windows Windows machine and not just any machine that has a GUI featuring windows on it. The primary use of the term needs to be stressed, and neologistic uses by unreliable sources or sources using it wrong can;t be used to try to give undue weight to a claim that people really mean any program.
What the real problem here is, is that we have some people who insist that the jokesy, screwing around image editing is so extremely important that it needs a huge section here with images, when we already have other articles on that topic, and spending too much time here on it is trying to give WP:UNDUE weight to a bit of trivia. There's no reason whatsoever to spend any time here at all on that topic other than dropping a link in the See also section. As a compromise I agreed to a small section. But unfortunately Dickylon in particular insists that "photoshopping" is all about the screwing around amateur fake editing and memes and that it HAS to be here, and that he's going to keep adding it anywhere and everywhere he can because it's so important it overflows from the articles specifically about that. In the overall scheme of things when it comes to photo editing it's a wildly trivial and unimportant thing. In fact it should be assumed. When we talk about video cameras do we really need to give a long explanation that, gosh, kids use them to screw around and make (un)funny videos to share with friends, or when we talk about crayons that some kids shove them up their noses and going into detail about which colors small better? It should be assumed that for any professional topic or activity or poduct that there is some joker futzing around with it and that we don't need to spell it out in a freaking encyclopedia article devoted to a serious topic. It's nonsense like this that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. DreamGuy 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this section so far. It's nice to see that there is so much common ground that everyone so far has agreed to. I would strongly suggest that we avoid analyzing other editor's actions right now (or who said what to whom) and try to stick to the on-topic matters of substance of the content of the page in an attempt to get this resolved. In the past, such debates on this issue have been less than productive and detract from reaching a conclusion.
So if we look at the current state of the article - most of the article talks about photo editing and the various ways in which it has been used in serious media, and then there is one section that discusses the "fakery" aspect. There are examples of both the "serious" uses and a single example of the "fake" use. The article seems to me to be of a reasonable length.
Could the various involved parties (without making changes to the article) please try to articulate here what, if any, objections they have to the *current* form of the article? Is the current section on "photoshopping" still giving undue weight to it, or is it not giving enough, or is it just right? Please restrict your points to the contents themselves, without naming editor actions. Or is the current form already an adequate compromise that satisfies everyone? -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 11:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
While this discussion is going on, *any* change to the page pertaining to issues covered in this discussion is not appropriate. We are trying to work towards a consensus here, and changing the document is not conducive to keeping the discussion going. If we can't keep ourselves from doing it, I will request a page lock while we talk. I think this is in everyone's interest. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since I asked about a specific revision to this page and whether it could be a decent compromise, and since others have since made changes, I have reverted all changes back to that date, so that we can at least be looking at the same thing. I strongly suggest that nobody make any further changes to this until we have made every effort to get this resolved. We can not have a discussion about this if edits continue. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 21:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Another plea - can we *please* stop referring to the personalities and motives of other editors and instead discuss the article? Go and look at the current, frozen, state of the article, and critique it, based on the findings of fact that we agreed upon earlier and whether *you* feel that the article is appropriately balanced. Don't worry about what others think. The protect on the page was simply so that we have a common discussion point, it's not endorsing this version. If we agree that a change is necessary I will vigorously support that change. Since this discussion has been long, I will start a new section at the bottom of the page... -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I have archived a number of older discussions that are inactive and unrelated to more recent discussion. Contrary to what DreamGuy would think, this is not in order to cover up any discussions agreeing with him (or disagreeing with certain editors), but to shorten the talk page and make it more manageable. None of the discussions have anything to do with the Photoshopping section, and most are many months old. They are all accessible here for anyone who wishes to verify that they are ancient, inactive, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. -- clpo13( talk) 09:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a follow-on to the discussion above ("Trying to establish some common ground"). Please take a look at the currently-protected form of the article, with regards to two very specific things:
Please do NOT refer to other editors or their actions during this discussion. Confine your comments to these two points, which I believe are the major sticking points currently. If there are any subject matter issues (as opposed to editor conduct or actions) that I have missed, please let me know. Hopefully we can drive this to some sort of conclusion. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll try and keep this as concise as possible
weight: fark image unnecessary (my issues outlined in earlier discussion). Have weight concern with these two sentence: "Some well known images include "Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten" and "Helicopter Shark". The latter image was widely circulated as a National Geographic "Image of the Year" and was later revealed to be a hoax"
If we must include reference to these images i think it would be better if it wasn't in sentence form. perhaps wiki links bracketed in previous sentence e.g. (see "every time.. and kitten). The second sentence is unnecessary as there has already been a mention of PS hoaxes passing as news within the paragraph and anyway people can find out about that on the page dedicated to the topic.
citations: 8,9,10 - fine, no problems. 6&7 - we could surely come up with better references i.e.from sources that deal expressly with photographic subject matter.
3tmx 13:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Sugegstion: In popular culture, the term photoshopping is sometimes associated with montages in the form of visual jokes, such as those published on the fark.com website and in MAD Magazine. Images may be propagated memetically via e-mail as humor (e.g. Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten") and have even been passed as actual news (e.g. "Helicopter Shark").[9] 3tmx 13:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Also we should move "See also: Photoshop contest" to below second paragraph as it fits better- otherwise it certainly gives undue weight . Sorry all that wasn't that concise after all 3tmx 13:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I think there's a point missing from this summary, as evidenced by the last two posts – use of images. The current image has to go (I concede) and be replaced by another, less "contesty" one. I suggest this one for now, as it's a really obvious composite. If people want to suggest the form an ideal image should take, I'd be happy to put something together myself.
Weight-wise, the first para is fine and I'd settle for anything which mentions hobbyist activity in the second. I'm not convinced that the ideal method of linking to examples has been found. Suggest adding to the section at hoax to show the Fark and Shark ones without mentioning names and leave it at that. I'd go with 3tmx's suggestion here, however, if that ends up being a popular version.
Citations are fine. As long as the Adobe one and the Wired ones are in, there are enough relevant sources for the section. If there is no better demonstration of "common currency" usage than ref 7, there's no harm having it in; its reliability as a main source may be highly questionable, but it serves the demonstration purpose well enough. A non-photo-specific ref is actually case in point and in that respect I could live with it. mikaul talk 17:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Because of quiet legitimate WP:UNDUEconcerns. I have had questions over whether amateur photoshopping deserves a mention at all, but i'm happy to compromise and don't see big harm in one sentence. But "why isn't this stuff in its own article?" > are you seriously suggesting we give amatuer usage its own article after reading the above discussions???
3tmx 11:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems clear to me that this is a wholly relevant place to mention amateur use. There are multiple sources supporting a kind of "culture" of photo-manipulating hobbyists. It should be briefly mentioned, sources quoted, wikilinks provided (to photoshop contest among others) and left at that. The refs are a problem as they're rarely top-notch reliable (like ref 7) but notability is easy to prove with any Google search. Is there any reason why we shouldn't add an inline ref link to a Google search on "photoshoppping"? mikaul talk 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now that DreamGuy has said he's going on break to move for a few days, and has explicitly refused to comment here, can we unblock the page and get back to normal incremental improvements? The standard process is a lot easier than trying to negotiate every detail up front. I just want to make sure the first sentence of the second paragraph of photoshopping gets a reliable citation, and I'm open to letting others pick which one or two; and I'd like to put the url back on ref 7 and maybe get rid of ref 6. But if someone objects, I'm open to alternative refs for those points. And of course anyone else wanting to make constructive edits should do so, and react to talk if there are objections. That's how consensus evolves normally. Dicklyon 06:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
3tmx and mikaul bring up very good points. The kitten/shark sentences should be done some other way. I think it'd be better if the citations were from more topical resources, but it does show "common currency" usage. The Wired and Adobe references definitely need to be in. --健次( derumi) talk 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Trying to summarize what others have suggested, in order to get this more concise. These are only the things I am sure of, based on the discussion - if I am have missed something, let me know, please:
(This would result in one sentence in this section)
Composite images may be propagated as e-mail hoaxes or as visual humor on dedicated websites like B3ta.
I will take this and make those changes to the page that mikaul made available, and we'll see how we feel about it. Please see here for the proposal - for now I have left out the other image, to see if this is good. has this captured the essence of what was said? Please tell me what I missed, if anything, and whether you think this will be adequate from your point of view. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
My 2 (minor) issues with the proposal is it is phrased in such a way as to potential imply "Every time..." has passed as news. I think it could look better if the gap was deleted so the sentence became part of the rest of the paragraph. 3tmx 19:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it does look better with an image,be it an interim one (fark or mikuals) or not 3tmx 19:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Why is the article still protected? Don't we have a clear consensus about what needs to be done? I'm not hearing any pushback. Dicklyon 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You absolutely CANNOT link to Google search results. This is never done anywhere on Wikipedia, and I think is expressly prohibited but I do'thave time to track it down.
The correct thing to do here is to put all the info about the amateur usage into its own article... either Photoshop contest, which already exists, or, if that's not broad enough, some new name (note: NOT Photoshopping because that'd be a repeat of the attempt to take the professional term and steal it for the amateur usage). We have multiple articles for a reason, and that's so different topics can be treated separately. It always astounds me when people in small niche amateur activities want to take over the main article. We can link to the main article when it's created, or Photoshop contest if it goes there, but there's no reason to waste space about Photo editing on any of this. When you go buy a book about Photo editing it has real info there, not lolcats or whatever. I previously would have accepted a compromise with a few short paragraphs here anda link to the main article, but since we are (yet again) discussing what was discussed previously, I am now returning back to endorsing what shold have been done some four or more months ago -- and, in fact, was, other than the blind reverts by Dicklyon, who for some reason insisted it go here and not some more suited article. DreamGuy 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight: this article patently does not aim to cover the same ground as a book on photo editing. That privilege belongs to Image editing, among others. This article, badly-named though it may be, concerns the "uses, cultural impact and ethical concerns [...] beyond the technical process and skills involved". This is the fundamental reason why some mention of the non-professional use of photoshop is an entirely relevant and legitimate subject here. There is no better-suited article in which to mention this in the context of the cultural impact of digital image editing. This rationale, AFAICS, was the sole basis for the earlier concession allowing "a few short paragraphs". We currently have one short paragraph, in one short section, and no-one at all is arguing for more than this, let alone trying to "take over the article" with it. mikaul talk 23:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Found the link: " http://www.nppa.org/professional_development/business_practices/ethics" to be broken. Just letting someone know to either change it or remove it when it's unlocked. ClosedEyesSeeing 19:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
After having seen the discussion on this page and other involved users' Talk pages, and with the various procedures that are being pursued against other editors, I no longer feel that I am in a position to be able to devote the time and the energy required to continue to try to find consensus here. I am deeply sorry that we I could not help to get this resolved, and I wish you luck in finding a workable solution. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that photoshopping should redirect to the paragraph. At present this paragraph should be kept on this page as opposed to moved to image editing as this page deals with the cultural . can't quiet believe i read the phrase "undue to professional usage (I paraphrase)" - the term is used professionally but i appreciate and agree that its going to be difficult to find a professional source using it. As i've stated before i have some sympathy with dreamguys concerns around undue etc but the amateur usage does appear to be a genuine (though fairly minor) subculture and one sentence doesn't do any harm if only to place the photoshop contest article in context. However i do not feel it is significant enough for much more than that and have concerns that there could be a creeping back to the point where this article stated that most people associated the term photoshop with the amatuer subculture and it had 8 or whatever pictures of pink elephants, sharks, kittens, scientists etc. Photoshop was a program developed for professional usage. 3tmx 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
3tmx 21:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
We absolutely need to make sure the main article doesn't confuse people on what the term "Photoshopping" means. We just had someone try to redirect that link on Photoshop to Photoshopping which someone had incorrectly redirected to only the Photoshopping section of this article, and this article usage is nonstandard. Once again, as we've had pointed out and cleared up for months, Photoshopping means "to edit with Photoshop" or, when people are being lazy in the usage "to edit a photo with an image editor".It does NOT mean "make cutesy stupid images for entertainment purposes by bored kids and unemployed adults who need to get lives" like some people keep pushing. The Photoshopping redirect MUST go to the overall Photo editing article and NOT a subsection. We should also not put the amateur usage as the overall bulk of a section labeled "Photoshopping" as it gives WP:UNDUE weight to the idea that that's the main ot most important use of the term. It's not. It's not even close. If the playing around aspect is discussed on this page at all (which it shouldn't be, a link in See also to Photoshop contest is more than adequate) it can't be in a section called "Photoshopping," period. This is why the Photoshopping article got removed in the first place, because it was giving people the completely wrong idea about what the term means. It's a professional term for professional activities, or for overall editing, NOT the amateur Internet hobby. DreamGuy 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Hang on, this really is not about who is right and wrong. The point is that the section is quite possibly not balanced enough to achieve that.
Basically, I really don't see how DG can deny that amateur hobby use of photoshop, often referred to as "photoshopping" is not part of the set of activities often referred to as "photoshopping". Whatever: if the real WP:WEIGHT problem you have isn't the size of the section but the fact that only amateur use is mentioned, then (ironically) the best option is to insert another para between the two to the effect that "photoshopping" mainly refers to "serious use of a serious tool". I'd have no problem with something like this:
Despite this, the term "photoshopping" is used colloquially to refer to any form of digital image editing, such as retouching, compositing and color correction, carried out in the course of commercial printing and publishing.
Ok, the links and other wrinkles can be ironed out, but slip this into the slimmed-down version and it wouldn't amount to more than it was a month ago. I can't see this being a problem with any contributor here. The only alternative is complete removal, which almost certainly would be objected to. mikaul talk 17:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I'd support addition of a non-hobbyist pic of a "photoshopped" image, if that sweetens the cake enough to allow mention of what is a verifiable fact: "photoshopping" doesn't just mean professional use of image editing tools. That's what the article is basically about, other uses, ethical concerns, cultural stuff. If we were at image editing, it wouldn't get a look in. mikaul talk 17:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree that photoshopping should redirect to the paragraph. At present this paragraph should be kept on this page as opposed to moved to image editing as this page deals with the cultural . can't quiet believe i read the phrase "undue to professional usage (I paraphrase)" - the term is used professionally but i appreciate and agree that its going to be difficult to find a professional source using it. As i've stated before i have some sympathy with dreamguys concerns around undue etc but the amateur usage does appear to be a genuine (though fairly minor) subculture and one sentence doesn't do any harm if only to place the photoshop contest article in context. However i do not feel it is significant enough for much more than that and have concerns that there could be a creeping back to the point where this article stated that most people associated the term photoshop with the amatuer subculture and it had 8 or whatever pictures of pink elephants, sharks, kittens, scientists etc. Photoshop was a program developed for professional usage. 3tmx 21:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, which one was the photoshopping the president ref? I missed that one. mikaul talk 23:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been looking for references, like here, to try to source DreamGuy's contention that photoshopping more commonly means using Adobe Photoshop. I found a few books on Photoshop that mention photoshopping, but of course to find that connection in a book on Photoshop doesn't say much about how it's used. If anyone can come up with a reliable source, I think we should add this as another meaning of Photoshopping. And if anyone can find something that's more explicit about which use is more common, then of course we'd want to use that, too. So far, the only sources I can find that talk about photoshopping per se are more aligned with the current article content, but you never know what will turn up. Per WP:UNDUE, we should strive for reasonable weight on different viewpoints; I think we're not far from it, but DreamGuy disagrees, so I keep looking. Dicklyon 20:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are more potential refs. Dicklyon 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is one that definitely supports "using Adobe Photoshop software". But it's a blog, so not usually deemed reliable. Dicklyon 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Isn't "photoshopping" just a conjugation of photoshop. Do we really need a ref for general use of the term as we have a good one for the verb photoshop? specific use/ non use may be another issue.
3tmx 11:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The scott kelby in the first link uses photoshopping. While he has produced some of the most irritating, badly written and frankly technically average guides to the program he is regarded as a professional and a PS authority. In the section he uses the term in the context of a professional dealing with a client.
3tmx 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Referencing for when "Photoshopping" means "use Adobe Photoshop"?!?!?! The word ITSELF is the reference, for crying out loud. I can't believe how farcical the attempts here to redefine basic terms into something else entirely just to promote their silly hobby with a fancy sounding name. Every time I think someone comes up with something completely nutty and ridiculous as an argument it just gets worse. Most of the references already provided over the course of the history of editing this article to "Photoshopping" were direct references to "using Adobe Photoshop (or maybe some other program that works the same way) for basic photo editing in general and NOT merely for fun and games" -- people who WANTED to believe it supported their side just saw the usage and ASSUMED it meant only what they wanted it to mean. It's just absurd. I've never seen people work so hard to twist a rather obvious meaning so thoroughly. DreamGuy 16:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait, now I'm really confused. Are we all in agreement that Photoshopping means editing with any image manipulation program (even though it was originally derived from and meant to represent editing with Adobe Photoshop)? If that's the case, why is there even an argument going on here?
Unless the argument is about what kind of editing Photoshopping represents, i.e. professional vs. amateur purposes. But again, I still don't see a problem. If Photoshopping simply means "to edit with Adobe Photoshop or possibly other image editing programs," why does it matter what kind of editing goes on with it? Anyone can Photoshop. Saying Photoshopping is for "basic photo editing in general" includes the "fun and games" part of it, as well as professional usage. That's why I think there should be mention of both professional and non-professional use. I just can't see what the problem is, considering we all appear to be in agreement. -- clpo13( talk) 19:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite this, the term "photoshopping" is used colloquially to refer to any form of digital image editing, such as retouching, compositing and color correction, carried out in the course of commercial printing and publishing.
Dicklyon i think its farcical that you suggest that dream guy needs a newbie template about reliable sources (which verges incidently a personal attack IMO ) when you were citing what was effectively a wiki mirror as a source yesterday. The fact that adobe have concerns over usage as a verb implys that it is used as a verb - "Adobe say it should not be used as a verb" since when do adobe control the English Language???? Scott Kelby uses in the context of a professional use - plus the Mac world & new york times indicate the word is used without specfifc bias. There we go = photoshop does not just refer to amateur use but general- end of discussion hopefully. 3tmx 21:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if you were joking i apologise. The only other point would be regarding the term being used to refer to images edited without photoshop - Again the trademark concerns bely the fact that adobe are concerned about this being the case e.g. verbs like hoover, nouns like cellotape et al. Its quiet easy to see an edited image and refer to it as photoshopped making an assumption that is the program used so I'd say the term can be used colloquilly to refer to an edited image. 3tmx 08:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm beyond confused with this page. i have no idea of anyones positions anymore. 3tmx 17:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
It's no surprise that no-one, AFAICS, has been able to provide a single scholarly, peer-reviewed analysis of the colloquial use of the neologism to photoshop; however, we have plenty of citeable usage of the term and a number of direct references to its widespread use as a verb, from respectable publishing houses (satisfying WP:RS) supporting all usage mentioned in the article. I mean that to refer equally to these refs [1] [2] (recently provided by DreamGuy, for specific use of Photoshop) as these ones [3] [4] [5](for the other uses mentioned in the draft version of the article) They all carry more or less equal weight (ie. are from respectable publishers and/or authors) and therefore lend roughly equal support to each relevant point.
This is the only way we will get a lasting armistice. It's a content dispute, so we set the bar at that height and any content falling short of it is removed. Please, everyone, look (again) at those links, read them, assess them honestly against the first para of WP:RS, check them against the draft version (which I've just updated) and give your opinion below. mikaul talk 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Can i propose that when the page is unlocked the stalin image is moved to "history", where it is more appropriate. The current placement of the Stalin image implys to someone looking at the page for the first time that the page deals mainly with propaganda.Maybe the currently proposed professional before and after could go in its place??? Either way I think with the stalin image less prominant the possibility of a name change to image or photo manipulation would then appear less negative and less geared towards propaganda usage.
3tmx 21:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
How about a picture of someone in the act of photo editing then? monitor graphics tablet etc Just a question of where to get the image! 3tmx 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Assuming there are no more unanswered points, I suggest we break from this page and take the discussion over to the mediation page to iron out the remaining creases of disagreement. I've taken the liberty of adding a paragraph to the proposed version, slimming the "popular culture" para down to balance things out (wikified the "kitten" example and weeded out a few superfluous words) which I think fits with the current state of the consensus. The new para really is begging at least one supporting ref, and I've found this one using "photoshopped" with reference to art and graphic design in a fairly highly-acclaimed book. Anyway, I've linked to this version on the mediation page and suggest we use it as the basis for a final compromise there. mikaul talk 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Very old versions of photoshopping have some interesting images. Here's one. Dicklyon 20:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't had a thourough look but thought these two [ [6]] were also interesting, however would need to check why removed etc. good idea Dicklyon. 3tmx 20:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC) No reason given by editor who removed them + nothing on the archived talk 3tmx 20:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Professional images only, per the professionalism of the article. DreamGuy 00:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the before and after illustrates things adequately. The issue with getting 'professional' images is copyright etc. 3tmx 06:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been asked to unprotect the page, and I am happy to do so. I trust you all to cooperate with one another. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)