tools...just increase the number of pixels in vertical measurement while leaving the horizontal measurement unchanged of the photo, or use the sheer tool to stretch it.

And he still looks fat, ugly and hateful in real life, so what's the point of someone doing this? Will this be the presidential portrait if he manages to off Dear Old Donnie in the White House? If so, it's a waste of effort. Those guys aren't even going to get close.

Bad news for the county if that happens as Vance wrote the forward for Project 2025.

Everybody pls have your ex-pat plans ready to not be herded into the deportation pins.

BTW, increasing the pixels, or inches if converting to inches, of the vertical height of a photo while leaving the horizontal measure the same is the best way to slim a photo vertically.

working as a professional art director in publication desigh.

Pls explain how you would do it?

A large, prominent mole on my face magically vanished between the flash and the printing. They just assumed I'd want it gone.

That hasn't changed; if anything, it's become easier and automated.

Still, a far cry from making a person into a palm tree.

I have a mole right between my eyes - poof! Gone! As if it was a temporary skin blemish that is standard retouching . . . even back in the 70s.

But yeah, my reaction was - that's not AI. That's good old-fashioned retouching using tools I've been using in digital photo editing since the early 2000s.

to sample an unblemished area then use that over the blemish and voila, flaten it, save it as a jpeg for online use, or as a hi-res tiff for printing

And I've been using digital photo-editing tools for about 2 decades for photo restoration, as well as ordinary photo editing. Removing blemishes is child's play.

(I'm also back in the physical darkroom this semester - I haven't attempted removing blemishes yet, but it is a much more challenging process.)

photoshop. I worked in a newpaper art department with designers, illustrators, cartographers and airbrush artists.

It was cool and wild at times too as one of the airbrush artist was nicknamed 'Too Loose La-Wreck' as he was a Toulouse-Lautrec fan.

Once Photoshop came in some resisted and wanted to stay with their drawing board and T-square, other viewed it as a tool that could do quite a lot more.

It worked out.

Very reminiscent of the current AI discussions.

Back in the early days of photoshop/paintshop pro, it was a benefit to have actually worked in a darkroom and with film. It was pretty clear to me that film photography was not as pure as those who viewed photoshop as the devil's tool made it out to be (perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much). There's more overlap than not in terms of both in camera and darkroom tools, at least until recently. It's a bit more challenging in the physical darkroom - BUT - knowing the actual processes in a physical darkroom/film camera make using an electronic darkroom significantly easier/more effective.

realized that film cameras were going to be phased out for digital cameras? And that Kodak executives, paid to stay on top of and anticipate trends in the marketplace, missed it.

I bought my first digital camera around 2005, and I tend to be a late adopter (from a practical standpoint - although not necessarily from a theoretical standpoint). Even if I have decided I like something new better, I wait until supply/demand has balanced out enough that I can justify spending money on it. Before that, however (between 2000 and 2005), I started pretty extensive use of an electronic darkroom - primarily for photo restoration. Shortly after I bought my first digital camera, I bought my computer-illiterate mother the same one. My father was sure she'd never learn to use it . . . he was wrong. So by that time the decline had happened. My recollection is that it was an exponential decline from when I bought my first to film being pretty much a dead industry.

And yes, Kodak executives missed it. Photography has always been an odd medium. There was such a fight for respect within the art world for photography (generally), and those who finally achieved artistic respect were reluctant to give the young upstart (digital) the respect that it took decades to earn. I expect Kodak executives missed the mark on where professionals were headed.

But there is a bit of a revival, I think (similar to the revival of vinyl records - for some of the same reasons). Unfortunately, the market is so small that the cost is prohibitive. My expenses for my darkroom class this year are around $300 (not counting things I would have to buy for a digital class, as well, not counting chemicals which are covered by the course fees, not counting the supplies I have from my first class 2 years ago, and bulk loading my own film). It has been 2 years since there were enough photography majors to offer the class I'm in currently. It's supposed to be offered every semester. And - Kodak is missing the mark, again. Ilford film is signficantly cheaper (and I like it better). Arista is about 60% the cost of Ilford. I haven't tried it yet - but at $50 for a 100' roll, I'm tempted. As my instructor said, she learned on Ilford and she's loyal. If they don't make it attractive to art students to use their products by pricing them at a point equivalent to the market (at least with a student discount), those beginning careers with film will become loyal to other brands.

BTW, photography has always been an art discipline in my book.

All of my art endeavors were mostly packed away between college and retirement. Now that I'm retired, I'm working on a BFA in photography and performing in musical theater twice a year (plus diving, gardening, and spending time with elderly parents). There were a few years post-law school when I did a lot of photo restoration/digital retouching - along with shooting the theatrical performances for my daughter's high school. But otherwise it's just been waiting in the wings for me to have time to play.

Photography has always been an art discipline for me, as well. But there's enough prejudice hanging around that my University (with one of a dwindling number with darkroom requirements) doesn't even offer a BA in photography. If you want a photography degree you have to get a BFA (the more hoity-toity of the two). So instead of roughly 30 hours for a second bachelor's degree, I have to complete 90 hours (60 of which are fine arts - history, studio classes, design, etc. For reference my first bachelor's degree required 112 hours.) At two classes a year, I've got roughly 5.5 years to go. I keep getting prompted to register for junior and senior activities. I'm close to ready for my first portfolio review in photography - but I'm just starting in the fine arts curriculum. Next semester (my sixth) I'll be ready for the Foundations review. It is typically a second semester class.

I earned a BFA years ago with all the requirements you mentioned, found out that I liked studying art history.

Surprised me. Rembrandt, De Kooning, Picasso, Caravaggio and Frans Hals are my all-time favorites. Traveled to Amsterdam years age, saw Rembrandt's 'Night Watch'. It's huge. Since I was in Holland I also traveled to Haarlem to see Hal's work at Haarlem’s museum of fine arts. The 'Laughing Cavalier' is one of his I really like. Some say his work doesn't reflect and delve into the character of the subject, it's to genre, whatever that means, but his brush work and technique are superb.

Good luck on your BFA work. It's worth it.

Which is exceedingly odd . . . since I didn't take a single history class in college (or for my masters or JD degrees, either). I avoided them like the plague, because of bad high school experiences. but the requirements for the BFA plus the additional requirements for the history of photography put me at one course away from a minor. I took the first of the history classes last spring - but I'm only up to about 1250 CE. Now I'm on break from the history classes while I finish up the foundation courses - and photography courses that are offered once in a blue moon (second semester darkroom this semester; large format next semester).

Thanks - I've encountered the first class I'm not really enjoying. ( 2D Foundations - the person in charge keeps tinkering, so the syllabus and materials that everyone has to use aren't stable, with new errors introduced every semester, and most of the folks teaching it are adjuncts without institutional or course history. Couple that with an immature instructor - and and immature class.) Now that I have time to teach myself, the rest of the semester will be more fun. But one out of 8 isn't bad.

Cut and paste LITERALLY means cut... with scissors or a razor knife... and paste onto another map... and then copy the cut n pasted map for a new version.

I can still smell the iodine smell from the blueprint printer.

Those of us who know the origins of cut and paste, dodge, burn, etc. will no longer be around and the youngsters will wonder why such odd terms are used.

(And I'm literally smelling the darkroom chemicals, again . . . two days a week, or more.)