Last week, Adobe Photoshop celebrated its 20th birthday. Its huge status in the computer world can be measured in numerous ways; the fact that it’s the second most pirated piece of computer software in the world (Microsoft Windows XP comes first, if you’re interested), the fact that the verb ‘to photoshop something’ is now used in popular culture. I think, though, the biggest effect that it’s had is the simple fact that we can no longer believe what we see.

This photo flew between people’s email inboxes around 2002, when Photoshop was as out-of-the-mainstream as it’s possible to be. It was used by advertisers and hardcore computer geeks, in a time when home computers were still relatively new.
It sent the (at that time quite small) internet into a flurry — ‘you think you’re having a bad day at work?’ was the caption attached in the subject line of emails. Then, someone pointed out that great white sharks (like that in the picture) hadn’t been seen around the San Francisco Bay area (see the Golden Gate Bridge in the background?) since the 1960s. It soon transpired that the photo that was doing the rounds was actually two photos, one on top of the other. The helicopter had indeed been in California, but the shark had been in (ironically named) False Bay, South Africa.. but what’s 10,265 miles (16,519.9162 kilometers) between friends?

Photo manipulation is as old as photography itself and it’s not just used for sensationalism. It was popular with political figures for removing characters unpopular after the photo had been taken.
In the photo on the left, Stalin is accompanied by Nikolai Yezhov — he worked in the political system rising in 1934 to the Central Committee of the Communist Party; in the next year he became a secretary of the Central Committee.
He became an enemy of the State and was erased from Soviet history after leading the failed struggle of the Left Opposition against the policies and rise of Joseph Stalin in the 1920s and the increasing bureaucratization of the Soviet Union.
After he fell from power, he was arrested, shot and his image removed by censors.
The rise of photo manipulation means that it’s very difficult to tell whether the photo is, for the want of a better phrase: ‘being truthful’. Was that person always there? Were there others? Was that crowd enlarged? We can no longer be certain of any of this.
For clarity, photo editing isn’t removing people or showing a shark attacking a helicopter — removing red-eye and other small actions would still come under the umbrella term of ‘edits’.
Is it right?
I can’t say for definite. I think that it largely depends on your motive. Cutting out a person because he’s fallen out of some dictator’s good books isn’t as bad as removing creepy red-eyes from your holiday snaps. Then again, it’s a slippery slope. From red eye it’s not a big jump to removing a stray mole or hair. There are only baby steps between them.
Quoting from a recent magazine article:
A guy I know was a journalist back in the 80s. He once interviewed Margaret Thatcher and afterwards, he asked if he could get a quick picture with her. She consented and it now hangs in my friend’s kitchen. He told me how people who come to the house and see the picture often commend his Photoshop skills — ‘how’d ya get a picture like that?’ they ask. The idea that the picture is actually genuine seems to be far from a lot of people’s minds.
Is this the future?