User:Sanag24/sandbox

 CCT110: Wikipedia Assignment 

The topic we have chosen to edit is called 'photo manipulation', or 'photoshopping' on Wikipedia. There seems to be a considerable amount of information there in terms of explaining the concept of photo manipulation, therefore we should be more particularly focused on implementing some examples (specifically from Hollywood) which depict cases of photo manipulation. I'm going to be looking at a case from 2010 involving Britney Spears exposing "before" and "after" shots of herself photoshopped. I think that will be an interesting take at showing how consequential and deceptive photo manipulation really is. What celebs or scenarios are you guys analyzing? (Remember we need to have reliable and preferably 'academic sources' to cite from)--Maya.Riaz (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Britney Spears - Before and After Photoshop: The photo manipulation industry has often been accused of promoting or inciting a distorted and unrealistic image of self; most specifically in younger people. The world of Hollywood is one specific industry which has been heavily engrossed in the art of photo manipulation (an obviously concerning element as many people look up to celebrities in search of embodying the 'ideal figure').

In April 2010, Britney Spears agreed to release "un-airbrushed images of herself next to the digitally altered ones". The fundamental motive behind such a 'brave move' was to "highlight the pressure exerted on women to look perfect", namely to reflect and expose a certain constructed notion of 'perfection'. The 'before and after' images illustrated a startling difference between the digitally 'perfected' body and that which was captured originally prior to photo manipulation. Some of the main changes made to Britney's original photographed body include slimmed thighs, smaller waist, removal of bruises/blemishes, smaller bottom and the removal of cellulite. Although there remains a significant amount of debate behind Britney's incentives in releasing such images, it is conversely also accepted that Spears was not pressured into publicizing her imperfections and therefore such an act should be commended and accepted as an attempt to expose the falsity behind the visually 'perfect' Hollywood celebrities. --> Source: Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1265676/Britney-Spears-releases-airbrushed-images-digitally-altered-versions.html (includes images of the photo-shoot, adding which could enhance the credibility of the article). Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/britney-spears-reveals-un_n_535981.html --Maya.Riaz (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I found 5 celebrities who have recently refused to have their photos retouched in support of The American Medical Association which "has decided to take a stand against rampant photo retouching, declaring the practice detrimental to your health." http://www.dosomething.org/news/5-celebrities-rejecting-hollywoods-photoshop-fever These include: Keira Knightly, Brad Pitt, Andy Roddick, Kim Kardashian, and Jessica Simpson. I think the whole movement is important to mention as well as how celebrities do not actually want that much photo editing.--Najwa.nh (talk) 04:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Najwa.nh (talk)

That is a really interesting article Najwa, and also an intriguing take at the Hollywood vs. Photoshop debate. I think it is mostly assumed that digitally altered photos of celebrities are something they push towards themselves; hence wanting to appear 'perfect' in photographs etc. Our examples offer an entirely different perspective to the Photoshop issue; namely that many celebrities actually condemn photo manipulation as it is inherently deceptive and misleading. If you check out the main article page for 'Photo Manipulation' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photo_manipulation) you'll notice that it mostly discusses the benefits of Photoshop, and there is a small section going over the 'ethical issues' with photo retouching. However, even in these sections it appears that examples of those people/scenarios that utilized photo editing actually wanted to do it, with an actual interest in doing so. In the cases we have found, its quite the contrary where the subjects or people being photographed and 'perfected' via Photoshop are actually against or at least not entirely in support of digitally altered images of themselves. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, I will be providing a brief summary about photoshop manipulation. The content of the images are manipulated in a very devious manner. As a result, it depends on how the viewers differentiate between photo manipulation image and reality. Moreover, the images are edited in a way that it is difficult to deny the fact that the camera lies. '' Photoshop……. have become so ubiquitous that most of us gaze at faces, body, landscapes, not even registering that wrinkles have been diminished, legs lengthened, and sky honed to a dream- like shade of blue. And, unlike its predecessors, airbrushing, anyone can use it ………But photoshop popularity has proven to be divisive. While some laud it for its ability to allow people – and things – to look their best in a photograph, others see it as a vehicle for feeding our cultures desire for uber perfection (Stein 2009)'' This quote contemplates the idea of how photo manipulation images deceive the audiences and their understanding on how the media portrays everything in a perfect manner --Khansale (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Ethical concerns: Almost 20 years have passed by; computers were the first to processed photographic imagery in mass media. A photo was considered reality and a scientific document. In the past, photojournalist use to present the truth to the media because it was considered as a medium of communication. But now in the beginning of the 21st century images have went from the realm of chemistry to the ethereal world of electronics. Consequently, photojournalists are editing the content of the images to provide a different set of the information to their colleagues, professionals and the audience. Images have been modified to such an degree of extent that they will no longer be used as an evidence in the court --khansale (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)--Khansale (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, I was wondering if you have a look at my work. Can you please provide me with some feedback if I have to add or shorten the paragraphs.

Use in journalism''' "The edited version"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZHez2BXgIeQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Code/Space:+ Software+and+Everyday+ Life&hl=en &sa=X&ei=LW9zT5u8Esjo0gGE683_Ag&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Code%2FSpace%3A%20Software%20and%20Everyday%20Life&f=false

Photo manipulation alters the content of the images in a very devious manner. It becomes difficult for the audience to differentiate between photo manipulation image and reality. As a matter of fact, the images edited prove that the camera never lies ''Photoshop……. have become so ubiquitous that most of us gaze at faces, body, landscapes, not even registering that wrinkles have been diminished, legs lengthened, and sky honed to a dream- like shade of blue. And, unlike its predecessors, airbrushing, anyone can use it ………But photoshop popularity has proven to be divisive. While some laud it for its ability to allow people – and things – to look their best in a photograph, others see it as a vehicle for feeding our cultures desire for uber perfection ''

Photo manipulation images are created to deceive the audiences and form their understanding on how the media presents everything with perfection. --Khansale (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.ca/books?id=VYyldcYfq3MC&pg=PA340&dq=darkroom+manipulation+image&hl=en&sa=X&ei=K-5sT7fkDuf00gHcnqXYBg&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=darkroom%20manipulation%20image&f=false

Therefore, with digital democratization increasing at a rapid rate it is creating problems. Since, more people have access to technology it creates curiosity in the readers mind when they see an image published on newspaper and magazines. The reader begins to question the ethics of the publication which results in an intense debate. Photo images are considered as a reliable source and are known as a medium of communication to present the truth to the media. Darkroom manipulation A great example of dark manipulated images was the discovery of the renowned photograph of Robert Dosineau’s Paris street kiss. In the past, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as the way it is now. But even then the darkroom manipulation has captured beautiful moments of many legendary photographs with the utilization of the weighty equipment. --Khansale (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Saleha, your take at analyzing the role of Photoshop is really good and works to demonstrate how prevalent it is in society. I think the second part where you go into the ethical concerns can be shortened. For instance; by taking out the parts pertaining to "processed photographic imagery" and all the way up to "electronics" can really be taken out because it isn't really saying much about photo manipulation in particular. We need to try to be concise and straightforward because it is an encyclopedic article. We'll see if we need to add any info to the ethical concerns bit as it does have similar examples there already... --Maya.Riaz (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Maya I like your paragraph it's unbiased and presents a good example of how photoshop has been used negatively- it will be a good piece to include in the article. I will do a paragraph on one of Kelly Clarkson's controversies about a photoshopped picture of her on a magazine cover. I will post the links to the articles I'll be using so you guys can tell me if they're ok or not. --Sanag24 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to celebrities against photoshop, I also think it is worth mentioning how governments are exerting pressure on magazines, and banning photos that are too airbrushed and photoshopped. Examples of that would be how "Advertising Standards Authority, the ad industry watchdog in the UK, has banned an advertisement by Lancome featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true." http://www.petapixel.com/2011/07/27/julia-roberts-makeup-ads-banned-in-uk-for-too-much-photoshop/. Another example: Procter & Gamble recently pulled a CoverGirl print ad featuring singer Taylor Swift in the UK because it was among a group of ads cited by a watchdog for excessive Photoshop use. http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2011/12/taylor-swift-covergirl-ad-banned-in-uk-for-excessive-photoshoppi/#ixzz1pxUAKooq. Even the US is now moving in the direction of banning excessive photoshop where a CoverGirl model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/109375-us-bans-photoshop-use-in-cosmetics-ads Najwa.nh (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting take on photoshop manipulation There are many ways to incorporate photoshop with a variety of things. From hollywood celebrities to landscapes and sceneries there a many different ways photoshop can be used to make a picture interesting and creative. ''Photoshop manipulation is used for re-touching and adding 3D effects to a movie poster. But have you ever seen movie posters that will make you hungry? In the link below, you will witness a collection of 15 funny Hollywood posters of blockbuster movies that were created in a foodie style'' Sanj.93 (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, so I think we are coming together with a sufficient amount of information on this topic. I was currently working on adding my section to the article's main page, however at the moment I am having some difficulties with citing a repeating source only once. I've asked for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse so hopefully that will clear things up. As you guys get comfortable with your parts and finalize them for inclusion on the article's main page, be sure to post it up here for last bit of edits before submitting it onto Wikipedia. Thanks! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So, I found out that if you want to cite a repeating source you're supposed to add a 'reference name' to the citation and then simply copy-paste the ref name citation again to repeat the citation for the same source. A more in depth explanation of that is under the Teahouse area, so if you guys are doing something similar and having difficulties, do check that area out. I've added my section pertaining to Britney Spears' photoshoot under the 'Use in Hollywood' setion. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Add info to article talk page: As you guys go through finalizing your parts for the article, be sure to check out the 'Talk Page' for the article as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Photo_manipulation). I have added a new topic in the talk page which deals with basically explaining 'why' we have added a 'Use in Hollywood' section to the photo manipulation page. If you guys want, for those of you who are adding more examples to that section - you can go into the talk page and comment on that post explaining why you added the examples you did and how they contribute to the overall discussion on photo manipulation. Additionally, for those who are adding more information to the 'History' (or any other section) on the article, you could create your own section in the talk page addressing why you added the information you did (i.e you believed the information was lacking etc.) This will help show how we have engaged with the Wikipedia community on the whole in the process of creating our articles. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation help Maya, it will help all of us! I will look into creating a talk page. Here's my paragraph, ignore the numbers (that's where the citations will go in the final draft). Please give feedback and suggestions. I tried to keep it as short as possible but if it should be shortened even more or is it needs to be restructured, let me know... Thanks!

Many celebrities’ photographs have been transformed using Photoshop- Kelly Clarkson is one of them. A controversy exposed that Self magazine manipulated Kelly Clarkson’s photograph before using it on the cover of the September 2009 issue of the magazine (1). Her body looked slimmer and toned in that photograph when in fact it was not at the time, as it was revealed by other photographs taken during the same time period (3). Although Clarkson did not have a problem with her figure and felt confident in herself, the magazine claimed the photograph was edited so her confidence and beauty could be seen and she could look her ‘personal best (1).’ Not all readers gave a positive feedback as some said her ‘personal best’ would show if slight changes were made to the photograph, such as fixing a red eye or removing a pimple, but airbrushing and completely changing the way she looked were not minor changes- they were significant manipulations (1). However other points of view have stated that there were other factors in addition to digital retouching which contributed to the image looking significantly different than Kelly Clarkson in real life. It was argued the make-up, lighting, clothing and the pose also helped her look slim (2). It has been questioned that these aspects are also forms of retouching but if a photograph is digitally retouched, why does it suddenly become unnatural (2)? --Sanag24 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem Sana! And, I think your paragraph is excellent. It explains the issue at hand well while also taking into account different points of view. However, I don't think you should end your paragraph off with a rhetorical question (I think that would be more appropriate in an essay/research paper context but not an encyclopedic entry). If possible, try to rephrase the last part by getting the same idea across, minus the use of a question. The length of the paragraph seems fine as well, but I'm just wondering if there is a specific 'term' or name given to this issue? If not, when you're adding it into the main article you could just use a subheading of "Kelly Clarkson's Controversial 'Self' Magazine Cover" (or something along the lines of that). Hope that helps! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sana: The question I asked in the Teahouse got answered. So, don't forget to take screen shots of that when you're compiling stuff at the end. Thanks! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maya! I was thinking of a way to conclude it and this was what I came up with but you're right, it should be a bit more formal so I'll change it. And yes, I'll save that screenshot. --Sanag24 (talk) 18:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, great Sana! And guys, I was just wondering how you are coming along with your sections? Please try to have your parts for the article posted in the sandbox by tomorrow so we can edit them, finalize the content, and get the edited sections up on Wikipedia before Tuesday (at max) Thanks. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys I am done my part. I was wondering if you can have a look at it. Thanks in advance. --174.91.69.41 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll take it that the above comment was from Saleha? In which case, Saleha your part looks pretty good. I would just say add quotation marks around the direct quote from 'Stein 2009' (and this citation shouldn't appear in the article, it should be in the references - so, if this is a journal entry you are citing then use the 'journal' option under the "cite" drop-down menu). This goes for the other references you've listed, but I'll take it you intend to cite them properly in the actual article.
 * On a side note, I found this news article on Yahoo today and it talks about how Hollywood celebrity Cate Blanchett decides to go on cover of a magazine without makeup AND without digital 'enhancement'. Check it out guys it's a pretty great article aiding to the idea of celebrities opposing photo manipulation: http://ca.omg.yahoo.com/blogs/the-juice-celeb-news/cate-blanchett-goes-without-digital-enhancement-cover-intelligent-154517034.html (I've already written my part, if anyone has not yet decided what they'd like to focus on, this would be a great example to use). --Maya.Riaz (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maya. I was wondering after citing the the journal, can I add it to the wiki page?--174.91.69.41 (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you probably can. I would say just post your 'final copy' of the article here (with the references etc.) And Saleha, please log in to Wikipedia before signing your messages here cause it shows your IP address and not your name at the moment. Thanks! Maya.Riaz (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I can talk about the yahoo article since it relates to what I am talking aboutNajwa.nh (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. Quick question: when I cite my references it says cite error. What should I do? --Khansale (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about citing on this page or in the actual article? And if the cite error says your reference tag isn't complete or something like that, then you probably don't have a " " tag at the END of your citation (to close it off). If that's not it, let me know where you are trying to cite (whether on the actual article or in the sandbox) and I'll go in and check what might be the problem. Other then that, guys how are your parts for the article coming along? Does anyone need help with someone? Feel free to ask! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about citing on this page. I cited my references and it was perfectly fine. But when I add the " " as embedded citation it says cite error. --Khansale (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then just go ahead and cite in the actual article. As long as the citations work the way they are supposed to there you're good.--Maya.Riaz (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am done my part, if you guys could take a look and tell me what you think:

Celebrities against photoshopping:

Photoshopping has triggered negative responses from both viewers and celebrities. This has lead to celebrities refusing to have their photos retouched in support of The American Media Association that has decided to “take a stand against rampant photo retouching, declaring the practice detrimental to your health.” (cite) These include: Keira Knightly, Brad Pitt, Andy Roddick, Kim Kardashian, and Jessica Simpson. In addition, 42-year old Cate Blanchett also appeared on the cover of "Intelligent Life’s 2012 March/April" issue; makeup free and without digital retouching for the first time. (cite)

Governments against excessive photoshopping:

Governments are exerting pressure on magazines, and are starting to ban photos that are too airbrushed and photoshopped. This includes cases in the United Kingdom like the following: "Advertising Standards Authority, the ad industry watchdog in the UK, has banned an advertisement by Lancome featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true."(cite) Procter & Gamble pulled a CoverGirl print ad featuring singer Taylor Swift in the UK because it was among a group of ads cited by a watchdog (explain what a 'watchdog' is briefly) for excessive Photoshop.(cite)Furthermore, even the US is now moving in the direction of banning excessive photoshop where a CoverGirl model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects leading to a misleading representation of the model. (cite) Najwa.nh (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Very nice work Najwa! I really like the way you have formatted and organized your parts. The parts in bold are basically changes I've made, OR changes I think should/need to be made to ensure clarity in your reporting of the topic. Other then that, looks great. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Maya, I will take that into consideration, and will post it on the Wikipedia page soon. Najwa.nh (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Celebrities against photoshopping:

Photoshopping has triggered negative responses from both viewers and celebrities. This has lead to celebrities refusing to have their photos retouched in support of The American Media Association that has decided to “take a stand against rampant photo retouching, declaring the practice detrimental to your health.” These include: Keira Knightly, Brad Pitt, Andy Roddick, Kim Kardashian, and Jessica Simpson. In addition, 42-year old Cate Blanchett also appeared on the cover of "Intelligent Life’s 2012 March/April" issue ; makeup free and without digital retouching for the first time.

Governments against excessive photoshopping:

Governments are exerting pressure on magazines, and are starting to ban photos that are too airbrushed and photoshopped. This includes cases in the United Kingdom like the following: "Advertising Standards Authority, the ad industry watchdog in the UK, has banned an advertisement by Lancome featuring Julia Roberts for being misleading, stating that the flawless skin seen in the photo was too good to be true." Procter & Gamble pulled a CoverGirl print ad featuring singer Taylor Swift in the UK because it was among a group of ads cited by a watchdog which is basically a monitoring group for excessive Photoshop. Furthermore, even the US is now moving in the direction of banning excessive photoshop where a CoverGirl model's ad was banned because it had exaggerated effects leading to a misleading representation of the model. Najwa.nh (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good article Najwa, I really like it! I finished my article and I was about to post it on the main page but an error message says that the website which is one of my sources is temporarily blocked or a part of it is blocked so it's not letting me save. Did anyone else get that message? And also for the Talk page, Maya you asked yesterday. So we put the part we completed on our talk page and explain what we wrote about? Thanks! --Sanag24 (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Najwa, I've noticed that you've added your part to the article - great! One thing though, I'd say you should add the 'Celebrities against photoshopping' part under the 'Use in Hollywood' section as it seems to fit there accurately. Sana, I'm not sure why you're having that citation issue. I'd say go into the Teahouse and pose your question there, they should be able to offer some insight (don't forget to take screen shots of that as well).

For the talk page: don't add the part you edited to the talk page. I already added the 'Inclusion of a Hollywood section' subcategory there so all you'd have to do is scroll-down to that topic and hit edit. Once you're there, simply write a few sentences explaining WHY you added the edits/contributions you did to the Hollywood section. You are NOT copy-pasting your part here, moreover just briefly explaining the reasoning behind the edits you made. Same goes for everyone else; Saleha and Sanjana you guys would probably have to go into the "Journalism" or "History" sections in the talk page to explain the edits you made to those sections in the article's main page. Sana and Najwa, since you guys are doing work more in line with the Hollywood section - you'd add your explanation for your edits to the Hollywood section in the talk page etc.

Also, Saleha the section you've added to the main article requires a citation. Someone has actually gone into that section and said that a citation is needed right after the direct quotation you used in the first paragraph of your edits. So, please be sure to add the required citation as soon as possible. Thanks! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Najwa: the source you used for 'Celebrities against photoshopping' needs a title in the references. If you scroll-down, there is a citation error shown there. Just go into the citation for your source and add a title (even just 'Celebrities against photoshop' would do). Thanks! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The brief history of the beginnings of photoshop and where photoshop actually come about is an intriguing topic. ''My hope is that a survey of these techniques and ideas throughout the history of the medium will demonstrate that whether an image is fully realized at the time of capture, or whether extensive manipulation is used to achieve the desired result, artistic vision and judgement lies at the heart of every great image. Laziness and a half-hazard “fix it in post” mentaility utilizing pre-formulated actions will not elevate a pedestrian image to greatness, but a judicious application of carefully executed techniques can elaborate a theme more fully, and occasionally correct inconvenient realities that intrude on an artist’s design. Ultimately, post-production is neither requisite to, nor inhibitory of greatness.'', says Evan Baines, a professional photographer. Sanj.93 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Today, "to photoshop" is a verb, meaning to retouch one's own photos. Celebrities go through the task of being airbrushed and touched up in photos to make them look like a person everyone would want to look like, 'a false person'. Hollywood stars like Teri Hatcher And Tyra Banks fight back with a magazine shoot and campaigns.Sanj.93 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

In today's world, photoshop manipulation has a positive impact by developing the creativity of one's mind or maybe a negative one by removing the art and beauty of capturing something so magnificent and natural or the way it should be. According to the Huffington Post, “Photoshopping and airbrushing, many believe, are now an inherent part of the beauty industry, as are makeup, lighting and styling”. In a way, these image alterations are “selling” actual people to the masses to affect responses, reactions, and emotions toward these cultural icons. Sanj.93 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Actress Rachael Leigh Cook, recently expressed her strong attitude against photoshopping and media’s manipulation in a conference that regarded the impact that these have on today’s youth. The actress has joined forces with Academy Award winner Geena Davis, The Creative Coalition, and Girl Scouts of the USA for a Summit in Washington, D.C to address the impact of media images on youth. The group addressed particularly the struggle girls go through reconciling media’s idealized portrayal of women with their own bodies and self-worth. Sanj.93 (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Once again thanks Maya and Sana for helping me out with the references. I really appreciate it!--Khansale (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sanjana: Great collection of information there! The only things I'd say are: take out all the rhetorical questions, I said this before that since this is an encyclopedic entry we can't be posing questions to the reader, that makes for a very informal tone in this case. Also, take out any indication of personal pronouns like 'I' or 'My' etc. Encyclopedic entries should be written from a third-person point of view. By explicitly indicating that YOU are writing the article, it creates suspicion in terms of biased info etc. in your reporting. And, your research seems to be able to fit into quite a few different sections in the actual article. So, just be sure when you actually add it into the article that it goes into the appropriate section. For instance; the beginning part where you are talking about where Photoshop came from etc. would go under 'History', and then the ending bit about the actress would go under 'Use in Hollywood' etc. I think that is pretty self-explanatory but just putting it out there just in case. Hope that helps!

And, no problem Saleha! Glad to be able to help! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I will do that. Thanks for the feedback! Sanj.93 (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem Sanjana! And guys, did any of who make edits to the 'Darkroom Manipulation' section in the main article? --Maya.Riaz (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I realize Saleha you made the edits to the Darkroom manipulation section. Anyways, a user has raised some concerns with that edit in the talk page of the article. If you go there, and scroll down to the last section - it lists several things that are either unanswered or vague with the way you have written that part of the article. Could you please go back and make the necessary edits to add the missing info and clarity? I'm not particularly thrilled with the way this user has addressed us, almost as if we are inept students editing away articles with uninformed contributions. Once you make the changes Saleha, make sure to let that user know (in the talk page) that you have taken their concerns into consideration and made the changes as required. Thanks a lot. --Maya.Riaz (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I was wondering if you can have a look at my darkroom manipulation paragraph:--Khansale (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite the popularity of digital photo manipulation, darkroom manipulations are regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill. Techniques are very similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create than ones that are created digitally. A great example of images manipulated in the darkroom was the renowned photograph of Robert Doisneau's Paris street kiss. In the 20th century, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as the way it is now. But, the images manipulated in the darkroom manipulation has captured beautiful moments of many well- known photographs without the use of computers in a traditional manner.--Khansale (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I took Hoary's feedback into consideration. But I just want you to have a look at it before I add this information to the actual article. --Khansale (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Saleha! Here are a few small grammatical things I noticed in your paragraph (they are in bold).

Despite the popularity of digital photo manipulation, darkroom manipulations are regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill. Techniques are very similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create than ones that are (TAKE OUT) created digitally. A great example of images (REPLACE WITH "AN IMAGE") manipulated in the darkroom was the renowned photograph of Robert Doisneau's Paris street kiss. In the 20th century, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as the way (TAKE OUT) it is now. But, the images manipulated in the darkroom manipulation has captured beautiful moments of many well- known photographs without the use of computers in a traditional manner. (RESTRUCTURE LAST SENTENCE) --Sanag24 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Despite the popularity of digital photo manipulation, darkroom manipulations are regarded as traditional art rather than job related skill. Techniques are very similar to digital manipulation but they are harder to create than ones that are created digitally. (this part of the information was present from the beginning)--Khansale (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

In the 20th century, the use of technology was not as advanced and efficient as it is now. The images manipulated in the darkroom manipulation are done in a traditional method without the use of computers. -> Does this sound better?--Khansale (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sana for editing. --Khansale (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm done my part, I posted it on the actual page. Maya, I put it before your Britney Spears part because you had the date on there and it was 2010 whereas mine was 2009 so I just thought it would make more sense for it to be in order. Hope that works out! And I'm going to write my part for the talk page right now and then I'm done with my part. When will all of you be done so I can take final screenshots and get everything together? --Sanag24 (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm done my part and I made changes to the darkroom manipulation paragraph. I just want someone to have a look at it so I can add it to the actual article. Do we have to write on the talk page? --Khansale (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright Sana, sounds good! And Saleha, like I said you do have to write on the talk page just briefly explaining the edits you made and why they are a contribution to that section (e.g information was missing so you added it for completion etc.) Saleha for your dark manipulation paragraph, I'd say briefly in a sentence or so explain HOW in that Robert Doisneau picture the element of darkroom manipulation is illustrated. That way it will more effectively tie that picture example with the point you're making in that section. Everyone else, please try to have your parts on the main article page ASAP. Its getting late, and it isn't fair to have Sana compile everything last minute. Lets say by 10:30pm-ish MAX have your stuff on Wikipedia the way you want it to be for the submission. Thanks a lot guys! --Maya.Riaz (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys. I just wanted to let you know that I am done my part. Since, Mr. Hoary is not replying back on the talk page I am assuming that he finally likes my "darkroom manipulation" paragraph. Thanks in advance. --Khansale (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Sanjana is also done her part so you can take the screen shots.--Khansale (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys, yes I am done with my part as well. There was a bit of a problem while putting it into the main article but I figured it out. Made some edits to the text so we are set to go.Sanj.93 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Great! So I guess everyone has put their parts in, I'll take the screenshots.--Sanag24 (talk) 04:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

'''I just realized that I need all of your student numbers for the cover page of the assignment. I have Maya's, Saleha could you please text it to me since you have my number? Sanjana and Najwa I don't have your numbers so could you please text your student number to Maya? And Najwa could u also please tell your last name? I'll get them from her. Thanks!'''--Sanag24 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)