back to article Don't touch me up there! Photoshop creator appeals for 'ethical' use

Adobe Photoshop inventor Thomas Knoll spoke to the press on the 25th anniversary of the pic-mangling programme, which dominates the market for professional image processing. The word "Photoshop" has passed into the English language, a fact which causes its creator some justifiable pride. "When you are watching a TV or a movie …

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

    Face it - if you looked for a job in marketing/advertising and alike is because "ethic" has no meaning for you - and you like money and manipulating people above everything else.

    You learnt how to lie, and lie well - and it became a second nature. Image manipulation is a perfect kind of lie, because people are after all "trained" to think "images can't lie". Photoshop turned them into the "perfect lie" (as long as you are able to use it well...) Nobody in marketing/advertising and the like will ever kill the golden eggs chicken. All we could to, it training people to understand the lies.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

      Ethical? well, there's a difference between giving a model the benefit on a shoot where her chin might have been a bit spotty, and taking 6 inches off her waistline.

      1. Ragarath

        Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

        well, there's a difference between giving a model the benefit on a shoot where her chin might have been a bit spotty, and taking 6 inches off her waistline.

        There is? Not in my eyes!

        If you want a model with no spots or a model with a certain waist size then go out and find them. Both are still a lie. Young girls and boys think they must be abnormal because they are hardly ever without spots or some other ailment they think makes them not the "normal" as these pics show.

        I think models should be shot in whatever state they are in, surely it's not the model we are meant to be looking at but the product?

        1. Electron Shepherd

          Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

          That's not the way the world works, though. Most advertising is aspirational in nature.

          People don't buy products - they buy how they think using the product will make them feel.

          That's why a Heinz baked bean advert features Mum, Dad and two kids round the table, because when Mum/Dad buys the tin in the supermarket, they're buying "the family having a meal together", not "tomato-flavoured protein and carbohydrate in a can"

          An advert for clothes etc is the same - the target isn't buying the jeans, they're buying how they think the jeans will make them feel, and if, as a result of the advert, they think they'll be less spotty, the jeans are more likely to sell. You'll no more see a clothes advert with a fat / spotty / ugly model, despite the fact that that's the reality of their appearance for most people any more than you'll see the Heinz advert showing the typical family meantime we all experience.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

            "People don't buy products - they buy how they think using the product will make them feel."

            That happened later. In the beginning most ads were about the product itself, and its benefits. It was in the late fifties, early sixties, that advertising switched to the "feel good factor", and promoted more the lifestyle they want you to believe a product will allow you, than the product itself. That also, required more "appealing" and "idealized" people, especially young women. Lately digital manipulation led to absurd idealization - but the in the "backstage", there's always someone ready to sell his or her mother, and sell you snake oil.

        2. Joey

          Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

          While you are at it, ban foundation cream, eye shadow, lipstick, hair colourants etc, etc. They are all examples of 'retouching'.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

            It's a bit different, even if heavy make-up and other "props" can literally change you - but not so extensively like Photoshop can. But even using make-up and other tools, there's a line between what is just correcting minor, maybe temporary, defects, and enhancing subtly some features, while removing what you won't notice in reality (say, a forehead reflection from a light above), and transforming someone in someone else.

            Anyway, lying to customers and readers didn't begin with Photoshop, who ever said that? There's always been a group of people ready to sell their soul to the devil (and yours too, if they could) to try to sell something to you - at any (ethical) cost.

        3. Evil Auditor Silver badge

          Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

          @Ragarath, I don't agree with you. When I take a portrait, my subject wouldn't be very happy if I left this or that ugly pimple in their face. So I eliminate it or at least tone it down. Is that a lie? You may say so, but no one likes to look at an unpleasant picture, much less so of themselves.

          But it doesn't start at post production. Already the way the lighting is set up for taking the picture, to emphasis or attenuate certain features, isn't that a lie, too? I can only guess that you would agree with me that we're not required to only take portraits in harsh front light but can use lighting creatively. So, if someone has an unfavourable feature, I try to set pose and light up to make it look better. And with unfavourable feature and look better I mean in the perception of the model/client.

          While some "faults", e.g. a difficult waistline, are easier to "correct" with setting up the shot, others, such as a spot in the face, are easier to "correct" in post-production. Both are "lies". Where is the ethical limit?

          Check the terms of reputable press photo agencies, they have stringent conditions - you may change exposure and negligible features (e.g. dust on the lens). For me, with regard to post-production, I wouldn't touch a waistline or double chin etc. But I do "correct" minor, temporary features, like a spot on the nose (not for press though). The limit is that I don't change a material feature of the photo.

        4. Benjol
          Joke

          Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

          "I think models should be shot in whatever state they are in"

          That's a bit harsh isn't it?

          1. channel extended
            Joke

            Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

            @ Benjol

            Only if they are allowed to shoot back.

        5. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

          Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

          "Young girls and boys think they must be abnormal because they are hardly ever without spots or some other ailment they think makes them not the "normal" as these pics show."

          That is a myth which is being spread about by lobbying groups.

          People are born with instinctive idea of what is "normal". There will be a distribution curve - with most people's normal being "normal" and those in the tails whose preferences tend to be more... unusual.

          Seeing pictures of only fatties or of only planck-thin anorexics does not change an individual's perception.

          Also, most people are happy with their own bodyview but some are born with a negative one - those will develop various eating disorders, abuse cosmetic surgery etc and no amount of showing "positive" body images to them will change that.

          1. Electron Shepherd
            Coat

            Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

            planck-thin

            Does someone who is Planck-thin wear Rayleigh-Jeans to cover up their black-body?

            1. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

              Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

              I feel you're putting a spin on it! ;-)

          2. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

            Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

            "Young girls and boys think they must be abnormal because they are hardly ever without spots or some other ailment they think makes them not the "normal" as these pics show."

            Don't the downvoters of my post realise that the above is exactly the same type of argument as "violent videogames turn children into bullies" and "watching porn will make you want to rape women"?

            That children (or adults, for that matter) are incapable of telling the difference between idealised fantasy pictures and reality?

            1. roger stillick
              Facepalm

              Re: Marketing/advertising have no ethic, so asking for ethical use is useless...

              HDTV imaging here in the USA is so intolerent of bad body features that 100 percent of all network TV video is processed to make the images watchable... the other day, one of the soap operas missed a layer for a hallway scene, the grid layering was showing and they aired the scene anyway, no one even seemed to notice... IMHO= i sincerely hope that no one compares themselves to those folks on the telly... RS.

  2. hammarbtyp

    that's one way of looking at it, here's another

    We have an incentive to provide new features very quickly, to ship them as they are ready."

    Well, that's one way of looking at it

    Another way is that developers can get away with doing bugger all, because whatever they produce you are tied to them for life.

    At least with the upgrade model, companies had to work hard for our money, now it just rolls in every month whatever they do.

    The truth is, if Photoshop had any glimmer of competition out there, there is no way the could support a subscription only model. I wonder how long until they end up like all monopolies, fat and lazy.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. hplasm
        Coat

        Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

        > I wonder how long until they end up like all monopolies, fat and lazy.

        I say it happened at least 5 years ago and I believe this is a fair assessment, others will argue for 10 years.

        Every time they start to look fat and lazy, they Photoshop themselves...

    2. Preston Munchensonton

      Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

      "I wonder how long until they end up like all monopolies, fat and lazy."

      The sooner they end up fat and lazy, the sooner someone will come along and kick their market share square in the nuts.

    3. Vladimir Plouzhnikov

      Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

      "At least with the upgrade model, companies had to work hard for our money, now it just rolls in every month whatever they do.

      The truth is, if Photoshop had any glimmer of competition out there, there is no way the could support a subscription only model."

      This is so true, it pains me that I can only upvote your post once.

      1. Danny 14

        Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

        Well it didn't work out for them in our school. Our previous annual licence cost circa £3000 per annum. They wanted that renegotiating to roundabout £5000 (even with discounts etc) so we cancelled completely. It was quite a bit of pain at first getting the art and photography departments off photoshop but it is possible and the whining has dropped to a whisper (we still have 10 copies of CS5 on our 10 macs but they aren't used as much anyway).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

          I understand your financial concerns, but I would not send a son/daughter of mine to an art/photo school that didn't teach them digital imaging without Photoshop. Because you may like it or not, it became an industry standard, and it's much easier to find a job in those sectors if you can use it proficiently.

          1. DarrenJ

            Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

            Its pretty much a default entry level requirement - don't really understand why this is down voted. Sorry but the graphic design and photography world doesn't really rate Gimp or Paint.Net I'm afraid. Want to work in a digital creative industry? Well, get good at using Photoshop. I've yet to see a viable alternative.

            1. fung0

              Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

              Hard to believe, but some of us really resent being coerced by an unabashed monopolist, and will gladly accept considerable inconvenience just to spite them. And it's not a matter of price, it's a matter of basic logic. You invest your time and training in Photoshop, you've just given Adobe more power over you. You put your precious images in an Adobe format, and Adobe owns you forever.

              No thanks. I was a huge fan, but Photoshop is dead to me now. I eagerly await the day when I can dance on the smoking ashes of Adobe's graphics empire.

              1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

                Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

                > “Now it changes the incentive from creating flashy features that demo well but may not be all that useful, to trying to keep our existing subscribers happy,” he added. “We have an incentive to provide new features very quickly, to ship them as they are ready."

                > Future users of Photoshop are likely to make increasing use of cloud technology, for example to enable processor-intensive operations even on low-spec mobile devices, and such things only make sense with subscriptions that pay for the ongoing usage costs. So, like it or not, subscription is here to stay.

                Sounds like an advert for Gimp.

          2. Dave 126 Silver badge

            Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

            >I understand your financial concerns, but I would not send a son/daughter of mine to an art/photo school that didn't teach them digital imaging without Photoshop. Because you may like it or not, it became an industry standard, and it's much easier to find a job in those sectors if you can use it proficiently.

            I think it's just assumed that students and young people will just pirate Photoshop, and become proficient in it. This makes the chief advantage of The Gimp irrelevant. Adobe doesn't really lose out -those young people couldn't afford PS anyway. The students will become proficient in PS, and go on to use legitimately licensed copies in industry; If they become self-employed, the PS licence goes against tax.

    4. DiViDeD

      Re: that's one way of looking at it, here's another

      "if Photoshop had any glimmer of competition out there.."

      Once upon a time it looked like they would. Anyone remember Jasc Paint Shop Pro? It was really starting to get there (from about v6 onwards, IIRC), with sophisticated effects and filters, print ready colour separations and pretty advanced resampling, when along came Corel, who added bloat, incomprehensible multi level menus et al.

      I used to wonder whether Corel simply bought it to remove competition from their existing products, or maybe it was doomed by its own (in the old days) shareware pricing model.

  3. Truth4u

    They should call it ForgeryShop

    Why would I spend hours 'shopping an image for ethical reasons? We aren't all Greenpeace members you know.

    1. Jordan Davenport

      Re: They should call it ForgeryShop

      There's a huge difference between ethically using any image manipulation software and using image manipulation software for ethical reasons. You're confusing the concepts of how and why.

      1. Truth4u
        Trollface

        Re: They should call it ForgeryShop

        "There's a huge difference between ethically using any image manipulation software and using image manipulation software for ethical reasons. "

        I don't want to do either.

  4. TRT Silver badge

    Subscription model is sh**.

    It's unfortunate that Photoshop and Illustrator have become as good as they have. It's a plus point on a CV to have experience with them. However, they are, for many, just another tool for digital image manipulation. And digital images are not just from photographers.

    I work in medical research, and the three biggies (PS, AI and Acrobat Pro) get used for producing posters, illustrations and images sourced from microscopes and other documentation instruments.

    But researchers and scientists spend ~80% of their work time at the bench or reading, not fiddling with Photoshop. If they were going to go for a subscription model, they'd rent it by the hour, not by the month or the year.

    In 2013, a lab with 6 people in it would put in their grant application something like 2 concurrent copies of CS, over a 5 year period, for around £500. Utilisation of the money would be something like 60-70%.

    In 2015, the same group would have to buy 6 copies, so they can deploy on as many machines (1 laptop, 1 desktop), and pay out each year, so that figure rises to £5310 over the same 5 year period. Utilisation of that figure will be something like 5%.

    It's not worth it, but people are used to PS/AI, they see it as a CV brownie point, so they are really, really upset by this move. They will either use it illegally now, or continue to use old versions until they die a death. In the meantime they may well start to use cheaper alternatives because, let's face it, they hardly use a fraction of the features.

    1. keithpeter Silver badge
      Windows

      Re: Subscription model is sh**.

      @TRT

      Interesting post. Imagine pricing by feature rather like those 'add ons' the mobile phone companies push to pay as you go customers. Your 'utilisation percentage' view could be used to design a subscription structure that charges fairly low for bog standard basic controls but then prices in 'premium' controls much higher - allowing those premium controls to be purchased as you suggest by the hour. Might be a way forward...

      Practical suggestion: Could the large medical science funders not put a moderate amount of development dosh into GIMP/Inkscape and reap rewards long term?

      1. TRT Silver badge

        Re: Subscription model is sh**.

        They already do with things like ImageJ etc. Built on the back of spare time! And they have their uses, for example thresholding an image and counting cell number, cell density etc. But Adobe has become so dominant in the market place that it will be hard to shift. I already heard one person say they need it because a reputable journal has to have files in Photoshop format.

        As a former pre-press technician, I know that's bull, the publishers just don't want diagrams submitted in PPT format, but that's what some people believe - Adobe format only.

  5. Spoonsinger

    Re: -Adobe Photoshop inventor Thomas Knoll???

    'creator', I think is the word you are looking for.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How the 1% Live

    Knoll has too much money: ". . .for a very low price. In the US it’s $10 a month"

    Sure paying $120 a year, every year is such a bargain!

    Why, let us all get two copies each as that would only be $240 a year!!

  7. gcla72
    Gimp

    Bring out the GIMP!

    See title ^

    1. Steve 76

      Re: Bring out the GIMP!

      And, it's free, as in free beer

      1. joeW

        Re: Bring out the GIMP!

        It's also second rate compared to Photoshop. I use both on a daily basis - GIMP in work, because my employer is too cheap to buy Photoshop, and Photoshop at home (where lets just say price isn't such a huge consideration) - and honestly something that takes me 10 minutes in Photoshop can take upwards of an hour in GIMP.

        In the Photoshop 6 era I would have said they were comparable products - not anymore though which is a shame.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Bring out the GIMP!

          Yea right... but for a normal home user it is perfect. How many people actually need Photoshop? Just the pro's I guess, and that wouldn't be many compared to the Internet user base that just needs to edit an image.

          GIMP is excellent for the home user.

          And bollocks to this cloud stuff.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Bring out the GIMP!

            Maybe because it's easier to find books/tutorials about achieving something with Photoshop than GIMP? If you know what to do maybe you can also find your way in GIMP - if it fits your needs - but if you're learning, it's much more difficult to learn with a far less "supported" tool.

            1. roger stillick
              Linux

              Re: Bring out the GIMP! buy a book...

              there are at least 2 books on actually using GIMP to do something... Amazon n Powell's both have them... That n Darktable makes still pix work... probably simple video stuff also (i don't do videos)...RS.

            2. Bleu

              Re: Bring out the GIMP!

              There are books for GIMP in Japan, I don't know about other places.

              Mainly explaining how to do the same kind of cheap and low-key image manipulation for which most photoshop users use that program.

        2. fung0

          Re: Bring out the GIMP!

          > It's also second rate compared to Photoshop.

          True, for many users, it may not be possible to abandon Photoshop - yet. But it is possible to stick with an older version. It is possible to learn GIMP and gradually move more work over to it. It is possible - and vitally necessary - to promote GIMP and other tools at every opportunity - to take a bite, however small, out of Adobe's extortionate business model.

          I used to sing the praises of Photoshop to anyone needing an image editor. Now, I point out how GIMP can provide 90% of the functionality (for most users), at 0% of the price. And as a bonus, you get to keep your self-respect.

    2. Bleu

      Re: Bring out the GIMP!

      The GIMP model takes a little accustomisation, seems to me to be very suitable for anyone who has both an analytical and aesthetic side.

      That is, someone who didn't hate science, maths, logic at school.

      Photoshop is far more suitable for those who did.

      I used to like the Corel products, still have a purchased copy from their peak about somewhere.

      This idea of a lease-only deal and murky data exchange with the 'cloud' is a killer app. for me, it kills any chance of me ever buying it.

      Doubtless the same for many others.

      1. SleepGuy

        Re: Bring out the GIMP!

        I miss the Corel products as well, they were always my favorite. I am a GIMP user now and even though it's a bit clunky, it gets the job done (that I need to do).

        1. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Bring out the GIMP!

          I'm not really a photographer (more design and 3D visualisation), so perhaps I need the less mainstream tools more often than some people. I have used the Gimp, and I kinda get on with it*... and then find some functionality just isn't there.

          - *.EXR and *.HDR files, containing high dynamic range information. Gimp doesn't do HDR. A Gimp fork called CinePaint does.

          * with some help from a GIMP plugin called 'GIMPShop'- as you can guess, it mods The Gimp to closer resemble PhotoShop.

  8. Senshi

    The only advantages for subscription are for Adobe and that's it. To pretend otherwise is just foolish, or in this case, shilling for Adobe. What a tool.

    1. Mike Moyle

      @ Senshi

      "The only advantages for subscription are for Adobe and that's it. To pretend otherwise is just foolish..."

      As much as I dislike the software rental model, I'm going to have to disagree with you, here. It would actually have been quite useful and kept me from starting up smoking again a couple of years ago.

      I'm the graphics geek for a government planning agency in a smallish city (population: a bit over 100,000). Every ten years, the city produces a consolidated Master Plan outlining where we think we should go for the next decade and beyond. Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign featured heavily in putting the book together on the last go-round.

      At the time, I had a copy of Adobe Creative Suite (original) on my work machine, and had had since... well... since CS came out. Because, as I said: municipal government; we're not talking big budgets here. The Design Planner had bought her own copy of CS 5 for when SHE needed to produce presentations. The Neighborhood Planner/Community Development specialist, who was the coordinator and lead writer on the project, had none.

      In order to incorporate he Design Planner's pages into something MY version could open -- because, while she is a REALLY GOOD urban designer, she is a REALLY BAD document designer -- I had to bring in my home laptop, with CS 4 on it, to down-save to a version that CS could open (CS 5 only would only save down to something that CS 3 could open, IIRC).

      So the workflow was:

      1 -- Produce template document in InDesign and start inserting the lead writer's Word files, editing and inserting photos, creating infographics, tables, etc.

      2 - Design Planner produces her pages in CS 5 and down-saves to CS 4.

      3 - I open her files on the laptop and down-save to CS.

      4 - I open in CS on the work machine, correct her out-of-standard layout, type, graphics, tables, etc., and export a PDF for the lead writer to look at and make edits.

      5 - Writer makes changes in Word. Design Planner makes edits in CS 5 and down-saves to CS 4.

      6 - Repeat steps 3 - 5, up-saving and down-saving as needed.

      7 - When finished, submit draft to City Manager for approval.

      8 - Writer and Design Planner include Manager's edits in Word and CS 5.

      9 - Repeat steps 3 - 8 as needed.

      Now, let's look at how it COULD have worked:

      1 -- Produce template document in InDesign Creative Cloud and start inserting the lead writer's Word files, editing and inserting photos, creating infographics, tables, etc.

      2 - Design Planner produces her pages in ID. (Since she only needs InDesign, Photoshop, and Acrobat Pro, we rent her that subset)

      3 - I open the edited files, correct any infelicities, and send to the lead writer.

      4 - Writer makes text changes in the copy of InDesign that we rented her on a temporary month-by-month basis for the duration of the project.

      6 - When finished, submit draft to City Manager for approval.

      7 - Writer and Design Planner include Manager's edits in the CS file.

      8 - I do final cleanup and export as PDF.

      Granted, my local liquor store, smoke shop, and physician (I punched a lot of walls and heavy pieces of office furniture!) wouldn't make as much money from me with this more linear workflow, but my lungs and liver might be in better condition, and -- who knows? -- I might still have hair!

      So, yeah... Being able to standardize and streamline workflows across multiple users on a project, and to custom-tailor software toolboxes with ONLY what you need, ONLY when you need it, DOES have certain advantages, even though I still don't like software rental as a general concept.

      1. fung0

        Re: @ Senshi

        Mike, judging from the workflow you describe, you are the poster child for software as a subscription. Yes, there are some users who benefit from this model, chiefly in large organizations like yours. There are also a great many (millions) of individual users and small graphics shops who most emphatically do not benefit.

        I have nothing against subscriptions as an option, provided outright sale is also offered. That's what we used to have, with various sorts of corporate discounts and long-term licensing arrangements. What Adobe did was not so much to invent the subscription model, as to abolish the purchase model. My response is that it's high time we abolish them.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like