Photoshop Is Not a Brand of Facial Tissue.

I have seen this going on for some time, not only on this site but others including in the recent White House Picture release. I know I work with the programs all the time and I know that its not all "Photoshop". "Photoshop" seems to have taken on a universal meaning and it just seems to bother me. Just as "Kleenex" is not the only facial tissue but a name of a single brand, so too is "Photoshop".

"Photoshop" is an Image Editing Program. So is "Gimp", "Paintshop Pro", "Photo Pros II", "Paint", etc., etc., etc.. Simply because an image is edited, manipulated, sized or cropped does not make it a work of "Photoshop". I realize that it is fairly popular among businesses and other users but it is far from the only one. In fact, depending on which Top Ten list of image editing software you choose to look at "Photoshop" may not even be on the list at all, much less in the number on slot.

Also, as stated above "Photoshop" is an Image Editing Program and it does just that, it edits images. It does not edit video. Therefore, a video can not be "Photoshopped". As "Photoshop" is an "Adobe" product I will let you know the video editing program by "Adobe" is called "Premiere Video Editing Software". It could be "Premier Elements" but it is not "Photoshop". Just as there are many image editing programs out there there are many video editing programs as well.

Another thing, most for the work done in videos especially when it comes to UFOs, explosions, gun fires, Light sabers, etc. is not even done in "Premier" it is done in "After Effects" which is another "Adobe" product. And you might have guessed there are many programs out there that edit in special effects.

I realize that many of you may not know the names of the different programs and I would not expect you all to but can we please call them what they are and not a universal brand name? Image Editor/Image Editing Program, Video editor/Video Editing Program, Special Effects Editor.

or not, It's just me asking.

reply to post by Agarta


I hear ya.

I can't tell you how many people call small four wheel drive vehicles "Jeep" meanwhile it's a Suzuki samurai or some other such vehicle.

But, I can see how Photoshop has become the catch phrase though.

reply to post by Agarta


I see where you're coming from, but I don't believe we can get it to change any time soon. "Photoshop" is now the generic term for any image that has been manipulated in some way, just as "Kleenex" has become the generic term for facial tissues, and the term "UFO" automatically meaning aliens.

People just connect "Photoshop" to any image being manipulated, so it has become a popular, broad term.

ETA: I remember a user a while back who made a similar thread about the use of "UFO" to mean aliens when it's actual definition is entirely different. People are used to using quick terms to remember things and with Photoshop being one of the most known image manipulation programs out there, people just assume that's what's used.

Until everyone stops using "Photoshopped" to describe something that has been manipulated some way, there's going to be no real way to stop it unfortunately.

Nice rant

I have to admit that I do have a little chuckle to myself every time I see people on forums decry a video as being "photoshopped"

The good thing about ATS though is that we do have more than a few real experts on image and / or video manipulation and effects that sometimes (although maybe not as much as we would like) grace us with their knowledge and set everyone straight.

As a side note, English people call all vacuum cleaners "Hoovers" after a specific brand name of vacuum cleaner in much the same way that people have started to call all image or video manipulation as "photoshopped"

Meh, we also "google" things.

Oh, and unless your flying disc isn't an original Wham-O or trademarked with the name Frisbee,it's not a frisbee so don't ever say that.

And heaven forbid you try to Xerox something on an HP device.

I hear ya OP. I catch myself saying After Effects as a catch all to animation and motion graphics, when that's hardly the only one capable. I think it's the best but that comes from being the only one I've been trained on. That's the point though.

After a couple semesters in college doing 100% graphics by Adobe (Photoshop. Indesign, Illustrator and After Effects) I can say that by my experience, it's pretty much taking the market share and monopoly over time by virtue of the fact the schools are training the next generation of people to use nothing but those.

Even the younger people in the classes were coming out of High School with functional skill levels in Adobe Photoshop. Now I've left graphics to return to straight academics and a whole different degree for a number of reasons but I can say this. I'm enjoying Gimp and Inkscape as alternatives (Although I'd stuck in Adobe's CS Master by their subscription thru September ..like it or not ). I didn't DARE try using those while in courses for the Adobe stuff though.

As a student?? Adobe makes their stuff JUST different enough so trying to actively learn more than one at the same time is mental gymnastics with a broken arm in my thinking. Adobe is taking over because they're moving in to be as exclusive as possible where everyone learns to start with. It's a Photoshop world coming... Ask the White House.

Photoshop was very much a pioneer, when people say something is Photoshopped or shopped they don't assume it was done with Photoshop, they assume it has been manipulated. I don't see why this is a problem.

reply to post by DaTroof


Ha Ha lol. I do "Google" things using "Google" I do search on other engines but it is not Googeling but great example. As for flying disks there is no other than "Frisbee" all the others are off balance, have hard sharp edges, or flop all around, not to mention shatter when you skip them at 100 feet lol. They are simply knock offs lol. and I am not sure they make xerox machines anymore do they? All Great examples.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yah I recognize that for sure, in fact the brushes, textures, patterns etc designed for "Photoshop" are "Gimp" compatible as well lol.

I get it. From here on in the UFO forum we'll say: "Naww... That's been Gimped, Paintshop Pro'd, Photo Pros II'ed, MS Paint'ed, and/or Photoshopped." Sounds really convincing and professional....

reply to post by Agarta

Indeed... In all honesty as I hinted above, I think Gimp and Inkscape are more intuitive and easier to use than Adobe stuff. Although I'll admit that before learning the Adobe programs in a formal way, Gimp was like latin to me and pissed me off more than anything. It's a pretty daunting program when Paintshop Pro is the level of experience one has. That was me before going into the graphics course. lol..

Xtreme path makes Illustrator half way friendly now ...but that's hardly free as an add-on to an already over-priced bundle of headache to learn as a new person, IMO.

reply to post by SpearMint


Actually "Photoshop" was not a pioneer. That tile goes to "Paint" and then to "Corals PaintShop" then the "Pro" versions. "Photoshop" simply upped the ante when the basics had been figured out and they combined the best of what was available. The difference is is that unless you know how to view the image information you do not know what image editor was used and it will never be used to edit video.

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by SpearMint

 

Actually "Photoshop" was not a pioneer. That tile goes to "Paint" and then to "Corals PaintShop" then the "Pro" versions. "Photoshop" simply upped the ante when the basics had been figured out and they combined the best of what was available. The difference is is that unless you know how to view the image information you do not know what image editor was used and it will never be used to edit video.

Paint is not even close to the same category as Photoshop, as far as photo manipulation software goes, Photoshop was and still is miles ahead. Like you said, the only difference is in the EXIF data. It's a universally understood term really, I don't see how it's an issue.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


"Gimp" can be overwhelming but the nice part about it is that there is 3 different ways to do what it is you want to do in most cases so figuring it out isn't that hard when you realize that what you see is really more than you need. Once it is figured out in its basic form the rest just falls into place(If you have a basic idea of image editing)

Originally posted by Agarta
reply to post by DaTroof

 

Ha Ha lol. I do "Google" things using "Google" I do search on other engines but it is not Googeling but great example. As for flying disks there is no other than "Frisbee" all the others are off balance, have hard sharp edges, or flop all around, not to mention shatter when you skip them at 100 feet lol. They are simply knock offs lol. and I am not sure they make xerox machines anymore do they? All Great examples.

I'm just razzin ya.

Seems like you know your way around a frisbee. Ever play frisbee golf? (Disc Golf) Those discs are different because they need the extra weight for stability. And as far as I know, neither Wham-O nor the Frisbee trademarked brand make golfing discs. I love most discs made by Innova. Great company.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Agarta

 

Indeed... In all honesty as I hinted above, I think Gimp and Inkscape are more intuitive and easier to use than Adobe stuff.

I have to whole-heartedly agree with you there, Wrabbit. GIMP is so much easier to use than Photoshop. I've tried them both, and out of the two, I will always choose GIMP. Once you go through some trial and error stuff, GIMP is a lot easier to figure out than photoshop. It does a lot more, too.

Just had to throw my 0.2 in there, sorry to get a bit off topic!

Originally posted by Ex_CT2

I get it. From here on in the UFO forum we'll say: "Naww... That's been Gimped, Paintshop Pro'd, Photo Pros II'ed, MS Paint'ed, and/or Photoshopped." Sounds really convincing and professional....

I think the point is that before you say something is "photoshopped" you should have some knowledge of how the image might have been manipulated using a piece of software to produce the effect that you are saying has been used. Understanding the limits of what you can do with image manipulation software.

Granted Gimp and Photoshop can be used to produce the same results but a lot of people use "no it has been photoshopped" as a seemingly more "intelligent" way of just saying "I don't believe this picture / video is real" so it's just a short cut for incredulity

It's more or less "pics or it didn't happen" for use when someone actually has pics

I admit that I am guilty of the above.

But in my defense........People look at you funny if you tell them that you Gimped an image.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Gimped....I like that one. It might even work it's way into the lexicon...Like someone whacked the photo in the kneecaps..LOL

As to the Original post.
Like others have said. Photoshop is familiar and is the Kleenex of Photo adjusting software.
Even the words, photo, and shopped are descriptive as to what happens to the image. Someone worked on the photo in their shop

reply to post by SpearMint


You are correct in that "Paint" and "Photoshop" are in a different class but that is by today's standards not 15 years ago and 25 years ago when all you had was "Paint" it was awesome. The issue is that the motto of this site is "Deny Ignorance" and we should say what we mean. In fact, it was "edited" is half the number of keys to hit than "Photoshopped" and gives a more accurate description.