Talk:331: Photoshops

While many alarming or suspiciously interesting pictures (and videos) have later proven to be 'shopped', I believe that Randall is commenting on the abysmal existence of a certain kind of person who cries foul on *any* picture that isn't straightforward.

They usually profess to be Photoshop experts and point out various 'defects' in the photo that 'prove' it has been manipulated.

This is just a (hopefully unconscious) attempt to appear more cynical, more intelligent and harder to fool than everybody else who has ignored the glaring evidence.

What makes it simultaneously amusing and annoying is that usually the commenter is patently, completely and obviously wrong - the image has in fact captured a real occurrence.

The original examples that come to mind are the Apollo 11 photographs from the surface of the moon, but the internet abounds with such. -- StephenP 108.162.219.223 18:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, like this pic of me from back then:

...which is clearly, completely natural. —Kazvorpal (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

To be entirely fair, with the advent of 3D printers, it will become possible to "shop" real-life objects. 108.162.218.101 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/new-matter-mod-t-3d-printing-for-everyone Brettpeirce (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This is already done with plastic surgery, although to a more limited degree, of course. All other physical alterations widely available to the public used on existing objects (that come to mind) are for practical means, such as fixing a refrigerator 172.68.46.11 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Predicting a resurgence of this comic/dynamic with the advent of "looks AI generated". Reminds me a bit of 1306: Sigil Cycle in that there's something of an arms race between awareness of what makes something "look fake" and the fakery technology itself becoming able to fake those details. 172.70.230.197 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Huh. Meant to say that myself, but it seems someone did it first. 172.68.7.206 (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2025 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

This but with AI image generation RG (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

“But sometimes leaves artifacts” still does not explain what an artifact is. SacrifycedStoat (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps an example of a shopped pic would be in order? Probably would need an original for comparison. 7amiþ moi · 💬 · 📊 17:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Photoshop vs. AI: I started a new paragraph in the article. It might be worth comparing accusations of 'shopping vs AI generation now. 158.173.67.206 18:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

I improved the part about AI images n along with basically everything else. someone should talk about how people can tell AI images are AI and compare how similar it is to the photoshop thing. Morpheus (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

crashing sounds because of a failiure of the explanation improvement project - user without signadure 2605:59c0:450b:3410:d9e6:2829:2571:7127 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)