From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshopping school photos
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.55.159.198 with SMTP id i189mr11009698qke.38.1512388906254;
Mon, 04 Dec 2017 04:01:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.31.120.9 with SMTP id t9mr1159868vkc.7.1512388906041; Mon,
04 Dec 2017 04:01:46 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!m31no287744qtf.0!news-out.google.com!t48ni627qtc.1!nntp.google.com!g35no287280qtk.1!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 04:01:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <sandman-5d862d98c45cca78abdb10630e76d56b@individual.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=138.37.90.65; posting-account=Fal3rgoAAABua4brvRuRwdmPfigIDi6x
NNTP-Posting-Host: 138.37.90.65
References: <krju1d5e8j478cuojq3ro0opppqkoqii5f@4ax.com> <sandman-5d862d98c45cca78abdb10630e76d56b@individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7dec1f76-b44e-4d9d-a91f-295128f21443@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Photoshopping school photos
From: Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 12:01:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 79
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 1 December 2017 18:21:53 UTC, Sandman  wrote:
> In article<krju1d5e8j478cuojq3ro0opppqkoqii5f@4ax.com>, 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[1] 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.


> 
> -- 
> Sandman

[1] Legally,  I'm not talking about the perve in the bushes.