Figure 1 - I created this image in Microsoft Paint. I also made it extra shitty on purpose to prove a very stupid point.

This is one of the few assurances the internet offers aside from an abundance of viruses, porn, and opinions. You can almost guarantee that when somebody posts a picture of something remotely interesting or unlikely on the internet that someone, somewhere…

…will claim it was “Photoshopped.”

I’ll start off by noting for the purposes of this article, the terms “Photoshopped”, “Photoshopping”, “Photoshopper”, and “internet trolls who live in their parents’ basements” are being used to reference situations in which others may use them, and I am not endorsing their use. Why the disclaimer?  I’ll get to that later.

A few months back, I posted a photo, which, at the time, I did not think would garner much interest. The photo was of a sealed package of Fig Newtons that, upon inspection, revealed one of the Newtons turned the opposite direction of the rest.

I must have been hurting for material.

Nevertheless, I thought it was at the least somewhat funny, so I took a picture and posted it. The post became wildly popular, and by 2Lincolns.com standards, that means about 384 people visited the post.  Self deprecation aside, it was actually a lot more than that.  With popularity comes both admiration and scrutiny, and the comment brigade began. Many just enjoyed the post for what it was: a simple glitch in normalcy.  A few others, whom some would refer to as “internet trolls who live in their parents’ basements”, claimed I was a “Photoshopper” who in the act of “Photoshopping”, had “Photoshopped” the image. Some claimed to be experts, stating that they had, um…”examined the pixels.”

Figure 2 - See? I'm not all that good at "Photoshopping" anyway. Trust me, if I'm going to be "Photoshopping" something, it'll be obvious.

Really?  Are you fucking serious?

Let’s be honest.  With the abundance of spam on the internet these days, comment systems require a little effort. The point I’m getting at is more than one person decided to visit my blog in a small corner of the internet–yes, it has corners–enter a name and email address, and post a comment disputing the validity of my photograph of Fig Newtons. I’m usually against the visual real estate that ASCII face palms require, but if there were ever a time when I was okay with them in the comments, it is now.

So why the effort? I suppose it’s all part of the virtual pissing contest on the internet. I guess I just don’t see why who is “FIRST!!!!!!!11!” on the web really matters.  In this case, congratulations, you’re the first one to show you have no idea what you’re talking about and too much time on your hands. If I was going to be “Photoshopping” something, it would be of something cool, like R2-D2 playing back a message–among Tatooine huts for some reason–recorded by my girlfriend dressed as princess Leia (Figure 2).  I responded to the claims of a “Photoshopped” image, but it ended up not being necessary, as the internet has a balance. Comments were left in defense of the photo and in opposition to being lame and avoiding enjoyment of any sort.

The funniest part about all of this is that all of these supposed “experts” on Adobe® Photoshop®
were using incorrect terminology to describe what they thought I had done.  Believe it or not, but the Adobe Systems Incorporated Permissions and Trademark Guidelines actually specifically state:

The Photoshop trademark must never be used as a common verb or as a noun. The Photoshop trademark should always be capitalized and should never be used in possessive form, or as a slang term. It should be used as an adjective to describe the product, and should never be used in abbreviated form.

I don’t know which is funnier…the fact that people had accused me of posting a “Photoshopped” package of Fig Newtons, or the fact that Adobe actually took the time to document that “The image was photoshopped” is an incorrect use of their trademark.