First there were photographs: light exposed onto reactive film inside a dark room (since “room” is what the Latin camera means), exposed again onto paper, fixed with acrid-smelling chemicals under the dim glow of a red bulb, and brought out into the light. Then there were Polaroids, where the whole messy process was reduced to a matter of a few minutes, the photograph’s subjects coming into view like ghosts emerging from fog. So far, so analog.
But then came the digital revolution, which has turned so many of our analog experiences into bits. Digital images are no longer literally photographs, since no inscribing onto paper may ever be involved. They are accessible and manipulable beyond the wildest dreams of darkroom wizards. And nothing epitomizes the digital revolution more than Photoshop. Nearly every photograph you see in a commercial or journalistic context has passed through Photoshop or one of its cousin pieces of software. For that matter, your friends’ “profile pictures” on Facebook may have had some of the same treatment. (Notoriously, when Dove soap created an ad campaign to decry the digital corsets and cosmetic surgery which are applied to slim attractive models, electronically, to make them even more slimly attractive, even the “unretouched” photographs of “ordinary” women were enhanced in Photoshop.)
The effects can be minimal enhancement or full-scale rearrangement, and if the Photoshop jockey is skilled enough, no one will ever know the difference. What does Photoshop make of the world?
That many aspects of life are based heavily upon visual perception and that the ability to control visual perception is powerful and something to be desired.
—Charles Churchillthat nothing is perfect and everything can be improved upon?
that there’s is no way to exactly replicate God’s creation as one sees it through their own eyes
—JodiI suppose that Photoshop assumes that visual images are important and how we see aspects people and culture—even through a picture—influences our beliefs about those people and things. It also assumes that people have the ability to make something appear better than it actually is, which is a remarkable assumption considering how often nature is looked upon as the standard of beauty (sunsets, mountains, the female figure).
—Pat HastingsThat society as a whole is okay with photos being enhanced or munipulated.
—John Gage Add your own comment . . .It’s open and maleable to our whims. We create our own reality according to what feels good.
—Carl HetlerWe should be able to apply our creativity to photographs.
—Pat HastingsThe world should be easy to change.
—John Gage Add your own comment . . .Photoshop allows you to manipulate how others see your image. It can match an image according to how you want it to be remembered, or according to how you desire to be perceived.
—Noel WeichbrodtIt makes it possible to edit a photograph to make it a better reflection of what it is picturing (improving the lighting, or cropping to keep the focus on the main object), but it also makes it possible to edit it so that the image is different from the actual thing that is pictured (improving someone’s appearance or removing/adding someone/something from a photo). It makes it possible to deceive through photographs, though this can utterly fail: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/07/024015.php
It can create additional work for graphic designers, artists, and photographers. Yet, it can save time also. Picture didn’t turn out quite right? Don’t take it again. Just photoshop it!
It makes possible a great deal of creativity, some for the good and some for the bad. I have friend that uses Photoshop to create hilarious pictures that I really enjoy.
—John Gage Add your own comment . . .Visual certainty. A 2-D Photo has always been able to misrepresent a 3-D world, but Photoshop takes it to an incredible extreme. The point where experts can be fooled has come and gone and the technology is still maturing.
—Charles ChurchillIt is impossible to trust a photo, at least on the first look. Only with the right computer tools can one tell that a well-photoshopped picture has been edited.
—Pat HastingsI agree with Charles and Pat…
—John Gage Add your own comment . . .Cons: Cynicism, Uncertainty, an overeliance on snopes.com, deception as art, deception as consumable media, apathy. LOLCats.
Pros: actual art (http://www.crestock.com/blog/design/photoshop-contest-07-ndash-round-2-winner-announcement-110.aspx)
—Charles ChurchillCompetitors to Photoshop, like GIMP. Classes to learn to use Photoshop. Photographers, designers, artists and instructors who use and teach Photoshop. Pictures of the “unreal.” And of course, new words, like photoshopped.
—Pat Hastings Add your own comment . . .