Talk:Photoshopping

message: Just dumping some of my ideas here in case anyone wants to flesh them out.
===history of photoshopping===
Early examples. Examples before the internet. 
===prominent websites===
only two or three of the best
===external links===
only sites which feature regular photoshop contest, and are not too narrow in variety (fictional example: automobilephotoshops.com)
There is already a entry for 'photoshop contests', and those links would be suitable there.  This entry is for the process of photoshopping itself, and any major site that displays such images, contest or not, should be linked
===Ways to Detect if a Picture has been Photoshopped===
There currently arn't 100% sure ways to tell if a picture has been photoshoped or not, people can take a good look at the picture itself, and take a good zoom in and, if edge's that shouldn't be blurred, are blurred(Feathered) this could be a big ruiner of the photoshopers secret.
===Non funny digital manipulation===
things like ford? digitally removing a black person from a photograph of thier employees  - can't remeber the details.
I don't know what you're talking about, but it wouldn't belong here. There should be a page on image manipulation (there's a red link to image editing on this page) that would include serious instances such as that and Stalin's removal of "non-person" former Party members from historical photos, perhaps with a mention of similar manipulation in Orwell's 1984. Putting those sorts of things on the same page as pictures of "great tits" makes light of serious historic, racial, and philosophical issues and would be a poor, inaccurate juxtaposition. --BDD 16:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ideas

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

message: I should note that the image given is awful...but I guess since it's suppose to serve as to seperate photoshopping from just humorous images, the stark constast makes a good example. Still. Crtrue
:I've my original example back in as well. It was removed a while back by an anon user but I'm not sure why. Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 07:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: How to photoshop

message: I assume someone thought it was humorous to include 'a pair of great tits' as the primary example of photopped images.
:It isn't? --Shaddack 18:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's something of a Wikipedia inside joke here.  Look on the right hand side of the user page for prominent adminstrator Theresa Knott. -Joshuapaquin 04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  less controversial sample images, please 

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

message: This is cut from the discussion page of User: Alkivar : <BR>
When an article is so small, and with two perfectly good images in it already, two more images are really unnecessary.  ALKIVAR™ 22:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer to simple guidelines that do not actually indicate a formal law of ratio as described in your "math example", and as I see it, my own suggested examples do contribute to an enhanced visualization of the possibilities in the use of modern techniques, and are not merely "two more images". Furthermore, I still would appreciate if you could say something about the denied right to publish the suggested pictures, as asked above. Articles can, obviously be constructively improved by adding and replacing both text and images subsequently, step by step. And when an artist is willing to contribute I think one should show some appreciation. Perhaps the image even could carefully be moved into nomination [] instead of thrown out in a crude way. --Profero 02:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are there any points to be added to the discussion? Please see the discussion page of User: Alkivar and the history of the Photoshopping article. --Profero 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, personally I'd like to see something better than the Tolstoy picture, it's not a very outstanding piece of work, and as a frequent photoshopper, I'd like to see something more advanced than a cutout of the same BW head placed over four bodies on a drawing. It's just not representative of how powerful the software is, if I'm not mistaken, that could have been done just as easily using MSpaint. -Obli (Talk)? 18:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of discussion about illustrative examples: 

message: An anonymous editor keeps converting the page to a redirect, blanking the content.  If this is what is needed, we should decide that here, or at least get a poll of editors to see what the arguments are.  In my opinion, the large number of BOOKS that use the term photoshopping as a generic verb provide plenty of verifiable sources that this a true common neologism, not a fleeting little-used neologism.  The policy on neologisms says not unless there are sufficient verifiable and reliable sources, or something to that effect.  We're there. Dicklyon 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "blanking," it's a redirect to more appropriate existing content. The BOOKS that use the term Photoshopping do so in reference to using Adobe Photoshop, which already has an article we need to redirect to in that case. Furthermore, as already directed on your talk page, you need to read the actual Wikipedia:Vandalism policy before you throw out aggressive accusations. Specifically check Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. these edits are made to improve Wikipedia quality and therefore clearly do not fall under vandalism, your attempts at intimidation not withstanding. 216.165.158.7 06:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the article is not about Adobe Photoshop, you are blanking the content when you redirect there.  If you feel the article title is inappropriate, then proposing an alternative title might be more constructive.  Quite a few of the BOOKS (did you follow the link?) use the term photoshopping generically, referring to the action of modifying photos, not referring to using the particular program from which the word is derived. Dicklyon 06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dicklyon, "photoshopping" is used as a generic term. In addition, the article specifically mentions that the term is used generically, and that some people have modified it as "photochopping" to emphasize that. Regardless, this ("Photoshopping") is probably the best title for this article, at least in my opinion: it is the most widespread, partly as a result of Adobe's dominance. It would be NPOV to use it, whereas other titles would reflect an attitude against corporate monopoly, regardless of its effective existence. Nihiltres 14:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term IS about Photoshop, and claims that the article isn't about Photoshop only goes to prove how screwed up and unencyclopedic the current article is. The book links speiafically refer to the use of Photoshop to edit photos and not the content of this article. Claims from a couple of editors tossing around terms like "blanking," "vandalism," and "NPOV" when it's clear they have not read and understood those policies are just silly. DreamGuy 11:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated blanking withokut consensus is vandalism

message: Please indicate your preference(s) on what to do with this article.  The repeated anonymous redirect to Adobe Photoshop seems to be outside the space of sensible possibilities, but all the others have some possible logic to them, so let's at least see where we stand. Dicklyon 04:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, that's just nonsense... It is 100% sensible to direct the term to the one that spawned it. Your opijnion on what is logical or not is clearly at odds with reality. DreamGuy 11:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: When I reverted the anon (which was probably you, right?), I reverted that person because he had used a merge vote as an excuse to redirect the article immediately, before it was merged anywhere. That's different from pretending that merge votes are keep votes. See the history of "Photoshop tennis" - while my initial edit summary for the revert is certainly wrong (accidentally overwrote part of my statement while using laptop, pressed enter blindly and soon noticed it, was horrified at what looked evil), I immediately clarified my summary with another in a null edit. Be civil, DreamGuy/216.165.158.7. Nihiltres 14:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge/redirect/move/keep poll

message: There may be consensus that the article should be merged somewhere, but that does not mean it can be arbitrarily redirected without merging.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The info in the article is still available in the history so anyone can merge any salavageable text at any time. Most of what's here belongs on Photoshop contest if anywhere, as people with that small subset of the overall topic in mind took over the article. Just because you opposed the consensus and don't want to do the merge yourself (hey, if you thought it was worth keeing then you should think it's worth moving to an article that stays, but your not doing so indicates that it's really not worth keeping in the first place) mean you can stand in the way of the clear consensus. 216.165.158.7 17:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting 

message: As far as the poll is going, I am seeing a general consensus that this article, and perhaps some related articles, should be merged into one longer and hopefully more encyclopedic article. The real question is: to where should we move this content? In my humble opinion, the article clearly deals with what photoshopping has been called, and how it happens in a social context, especially given the "competitive photoshopping" section I merged in earlier. Photoshopping is in and of itself digital manipulation of pixels, whether or not those pixels originally came from a camera or were created from scratch. It is, however, usually based off of images originally taken from some sort of camera, so the "photo manipulation" moniker may be appropriate, if merged well as a subsection of the idea of the culture involved. I'm not - by any means - sure about this, so please, if you have a good suggestion about where this article should be merged, announce it here, and present good reasons for your suggestion. Let's figure out where this content should go, rationally and through consensus - our ultimate goal here is to improve the encyclopedia. A single article dealing with the subject is most likely to be able to cover the subject well, and perhaps if we can agree on something, we can eventually push it to GA or even FA. Ideas? Nihiltres 21:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is wanting a discussion over something already solved, at least until Dickylon decided he was going to blind revert everything and then wholesale copy and paste inappropriate information to an article it clearly does not belong on. At this point you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult.  216.165.158.7 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have put a "photoshopping" section into photo editing, so it would now be OK by me to redirect there.  Mr.7 has redirected there indirectly, redirecting off photo manipulation, but had dropped the relevant content. The stuff about photoshop tennis and contests has been put into the photoshop contest article.  So I think it's now pretty much captured and merged, but please check. Dicklyon 21:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You absolutely CANNOT put the silly ridiculous "Photoshopping" nonsense on the photo manipulation page. All of that information is already on Photoshop contest and so it doesn't need to waste space in an article on a more general topic. That article already does (or did, with all the edits flying aaround I can't guarantee it's still there) link to Photoshop contest so there's no reason to duplicate it again. Furthermore you absolutely CANNOT continue to try to push "Photoshopping" as some official term that means "Photoshop contests by little loser kids just playing around" because it means "use Adobe Photoshop," hence the word. For the love of god, stop your POV-pushing of this ridiculous neologism, follow Wikipedia policies,  and accept that the Photoshop contest is exactly the article where all that information belongs. 216.165.158.7 05:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I thought we were getting close to a consensus, but apparently I was wrong. Dicklyon 06:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 216.165.158.7, I don't mean to push a POV (WP:AGF). I base my opinion on that the information in Photoshop contest seems too specific, especially if we don't have an article on photoshopping with which to begin. In addition, photoshopping has been noted as something not specific to "little loser kids just playing around [with Photoshop]."  As such, I'd say that the photo manipulation page seems very conducive to this. By the way, if Photoshopping (Photoshop contest, oops Nihiltres 17:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't want to see the photo editing article accumulate too much distraction from the sidelines like the contests.  But it should acknowledge that photoshopping is a common neologism for photo editing, and should have a redirect from there if we're not going to have an article on the word itself, which does seem like overkill. Dicklyon 17:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge, OK. Where? 

message: Mr.7 thinks we need to flush the neologism "photoshopping".  My impression based on searching books and things was that it has become a pretty well established term; and my impression was that others here agreed.  So we have a different perception of what the consensus is/was on this.  So, how about another poll?  Flush it, or keep the term photoshopping in some article about photo editing?
* Keep – seems to me that photoshopping is a perfectly well supported neologism, deserving of mention. Dicklyon 06:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate the support.  It was a bit of a struggle, and when 7 is unblocked it may be again. Dicklyon 15:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Both of you, we long since settled this as a merge into a Photo editing section and redirect there; there is no open poll to which "restore" is an option, and if one is started I will oppose it.  But for the record, I never suggested any belief in any definition of photoshopping.  It's about the usage, not the definition.  In the merged article section, I found and added references (books and magazines, not web junk) to support the assertions of the article.  I was never in favor of keeping the  article that was here in its bloated state, but there was a bit worth saving, so we did that.  And I don't think the dispute should be about "meaning", since we don't talk about meaning; again, it's about usage.  For the record, the "Mr.7" above is shorthand for DreamGuy's non-logged-in IP address. Dicklyon 01:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to where it was settled?  I looked over the page carefully; the one straw poll that was held was generally ambivalent, but reading it I fail to see even a simple majority favoring a merge over a keep. --Aquillion 02:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: True, it was more of a compromise than a majority, based on the older responses and the objections and my own willingness to change a keep to a merge.  But I did ask if anyone objected, and only got an attaboy for it. Dicklyon 02:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another poll