Subject: Re: OT: Photoshopping school photos
In article<firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tony Cooper wrote:
> Those of us who live in the US are familiar with "school picture
> day". Once a year, primary, middle, and high school students have
> their photographs taken. The photos are used in the yearbook (if the
> school publishes one) and prints are available to purchased.
Same in Sweden, and probably most of western civilisation.
> In my day, the students were hustled through the procedure and the
> resulting photo was actually a photograph of the student.
> Today, school photographers offer editing-at-a-cost. The local
> photographer charges $20 to whiten teeth, whiten the whites of the
> eyes, and remove minor blemishes. Other, more extensive services are
> available. If all the services are taken, the amount could be as
> much as $240. That might include taking braces off, restoring
> missing teeth, removal of tan lines, adjustments to the hair, etc.
Well, they've got to make money, ey? With semipro-level cameras in the hands
of everyone, just a plain old photo is less desirable and school photo
businesses have surely plummeted.
In my time, you bought sheets of those photos and cut them up and traded
photos with your class mates, and everyone had a pack of printed photos of
their school mates.
Kids today don't have to do that, with instagram, snapchat and whatnot at
their fingertips. So they have to appeal to the parents how may want a more
professional looking photo of their kids, and since the rushed-through
parameter is still the same, they aren't well-lit studio photos to begin
with, so with a fee, they can fix the images to look more professional.
> I've used "Photoshopping" in the Subject line, but some other
> software may be used. Adobe, of course, discourages the use of the
> word "Photoshopping", and - of course - using it as a generic term
> for editing a photograph with software. If they're reading, I
Mind you, Adobe probably *loves* that "photoshopping" is a verb and a
household name. Sure, it means that whenever someone uses some other software
to retouch an image it's still called "photoshopped" and that's trademark
degeneration (like Jeep or Kleenex), but at the same time, Google thrived on
the "verbification" of their trademark. In the end, I think it does Adobe
mostly good. They still discourage it in their trademark guidelines, which
you need not adhere to