Subject: Re: OT: Photoshopping school photos
On Friday, 1 December 2017 18:21:53 UTC, Sandman wrote:
> 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.
Yes seems very likely, such group photos have been taken almost since the camera was invented people
have wanted group photos.
> > 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?
But from who, it's the school that wants the photos NOT the parents usualy as if they want a photo
of thier kid they'll take them.
Of course in the past before everyone could afford a camera in may have been differnt.
>With semipro-level cameras in the hands
> of everyone, just a plain old photo is less desirable and school photo
> businesses have surely plummeted.
Sometimes I do see a person taking pictures of kids in a shopping centre
but the customers seem to be few.
> 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.
Nothing like that happened at my school regarding swapping photos of the class.
> 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.
They'll always be some that want this sort of thingf I just think it's less nowerdays.
> > 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
> > apologize.
> 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),
or hoover is the best/most common one.
> 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
I agree, I can't see why adobe would be concerned by everyone advertising their product for them,
until photoshopping becomes a dirty word anyway.
 Legally, I'm not talking about the perve in the bushes.