| There is change in the air in photo editing software. | | | | This is very different from typical photo editing tools, |
| For the first time in over a decade, Photoshop, which | | | | which have no inbuilt concept of beauty at all. |
| so dominates photo editing that its name is | | | | So how does this work in practical terms? After the |
| synonymous with touch up, might be vulnerable to | | | | user has marked up 5 key points on the face, the |
| new competitors. How is this possible? Photoshop | | | | software analyses the face that is to be enhanced, |
| dominates high end photo editing because it is the | | | | and compares it with its statistical beauty model. |
| industry standard, around which users, educators and | | | | Based on the variance between the face and the |
| gurus gather, to form an extensive network of | | | | model, the software then creates a custom set of |
| knowledge about the software. This intellectual | | | | slider controls to adjust different aspects of the |
| investment by millions of users makes it hard for | | | | face, as required. For instance, there is a slider to |
| other software packages to gain a foothold. | | | | adjust the jaw line. The effect of this slider on the |
| So hard, in fact, that it would require a new and | | | | jaw will vary depending on what the jaw looks like: |
| significantly easier and better way of doing things, | | | | bulking it if it is weak, or reducing it if there is a |
| before a standard like Photoshop could be challenged | | | | double chin. In this sense that the software 'knows' |
| at all. Photoshop and similar traditional photo editing | | | | how to help the touch up artist enhance the picture. |
| programs such as Paint Shop Pro, have grown over | | | | This approach of offering intelligent software that |
| many years to become large collections of complex | | | | creates 'custom' tools depending on the needs of the |
| tools. It is because of this complexity that a whole | | | | particular subjects constitutes a step change in photo |
| Photoshop industry including 'how to' magazines, | | | | editing software. As the software becomes more |
| tutorial websites, books etc has grown around the | | | | intelligent, the requirement for purely technical skills |
| software. | | | | will reduce and the emphasis will shift only to vision. |
| This is both the strength and weakness of | | | | This in turn has ramifications for photography and |
| Photoshop. The tool set is extensive and powerful, | | | | graphics as a whole. Just as cameras going digital has |
| so just about any effect is possible, but, and this is a | | | | reduced the need for specialist photographers, as |
| very big but, only if the user has the knowledge, | | | | well as hugely increasing the number of actual photos |
| technical skill and most importantly, the time | | | | taken, so as photo editing software becomes more |
| necessary to achieve the effects he wants. Further, | | | | intelligent and easier to use, more photographers and |
| the great bulk of Photoshop's tools are essentially | | | | designers will do their own touch up and the need for |
| electronic versions of the traditional stencils, brushes, | | | | specialist touch up artists will decline. |
| etc. that artists have always used. Just as a brush is | | | | And all in all this will be a good thing. We will shift |
| useless unless its owner has the technical skill to | | | | from a world where mastering complex technical skills |
| know how to use it, so are Photoshop's tools useless | | | | is a prerequisite for photo editing to a world were |
| without extensive technical training. | | | | the technical stuff is easy, and where what matters |
| But software does not have to be complex and | | | | is the quality of the vision of the photographer. And |
| dumb. In fact, just as artists in the past had human | | | | freedom from endless technical tinkering and |
| assistants, so software, which has been suitably | | | | Photoshop tutorials can only be a good thing. |
| trained, can also assist artists in their work. For | | | | So, interesting times for Adobe, Photoshop and the |
| example, Portrait Professional software is designed to | | | | photo editing establishment. Will Photoshop evolve or |
| automatically beautify faces in photographs. To | | | | die? Whatever the future brings, the emergence of |
| achieve this, the software has actually been 'trained' | | | | easy to use, lower cost alternatives to Photoshop |
| in human beauty, using many hundreds of portrait | | | | such as Portrait Professional can only be good news |
| photographs. So the software has learnt statistically | | | | for photographers and creatives everywhere. |
| what tends to make faces more or less beautiful. | | | | |