Sometimes I wonder about the overall legitemacy of Photoshop. Think back to 20 or more
years ago when Playboy was accused of airbrushing the Centerfolds. There are plenty of
people who think that today's Cetnerfolds have been PS'd. They're not. I can prove it,
because I work with the original files, usually around 30-40 megapixels.
I went to a wide format print workshop north of San Francisco several years ago. This
particular photographer lives near a national park. He takes fairly ordinary photos, only to
turn them into masterpieces with PS. He sells them for a fortune. If a person was to ask
where the original photo was taken, they would never be able to find it, because it only
exists in PS.
If I look at a photo of the Statue of Liberty or Hong Kong's skyline, I dream of seeing exactly
that someday. The scenes that today's photographers are selling never existed in the first
place. The dead tree that was broken in half, the brown spots of grass, the beetle-kill pine
trees, washed-out sky and so much more are all gone. They've been fixed
Whether it be a photo of a terribly average girl turned into a beauty - or a picture of a forest
that could be taken almost anywhere in the world, but turned into someone's idea of
Heaven. Other than for fun, what's the point?
Commercial applications of PS are entirely different. Today's magazines wouldn't exist without
it. We all know that and accept it for what it is. But what about the girl in the YouTube link?
Assuming that she even knows about it, which is a big assumption, does she feel better
knowing what she "could" look like if the computer operator had his way?
Just food for thought, again not meant to be sarcastic. I love PS, but I consider what's being
done in this example to be cruel rather than awesome. Would you want to see your own
mugshot on the Net compared to what someone turned you into? Or your kid or GF?
