"Photoshop" is now strongly associated with fashion magazines that some take issue with for altering images of womens' bodies. How does Adobe feel about this association and what, if anything, are they doing about it?

I've been a user for 7.5 years now. I haven't met anyone 'in the field' who had this association. I think that Adobe's users are (semi-) professional and their purchases are not altered by the use of 'photoshop' as a means of referring to fashion magazines. Now Adobe does care about their trademark, but I think that it has more to do with the legalities of properly using the trademark. See http://www.adobe.com/misc/trade.html#section-4 for Adobe's stance on properly using 'Photoshop'. Especially note the following: Trademarks are not verbs. Correct: The image was enhanced using Adobe® Photoshop® software. Incorrect: The image was photoshopped. Trademarks are not nouns. Correct: The image pokes fun at the Senator. Incorrect: The photoshop pokes fun at the Senator. Trademarks must never be used as slang terms. Correct: Those who use Adobe® Photoshop® software to manipulate images as a hobby see their work as an art form. Incorrect: A photoshopper sees his hobby as an art form. Incorrect: My hobby is photoshopping.

I don't know what they're "doing about it". I don't think the ball's in their court. I been a professional PS user for over 15 years, it's a tool. If anything it comes down to education. We live in a digital world and that has it's ups and downsides, so if it's becoming a terrible problem for adolescents then education boards should address it - maybe cut out a few young earth classes and introduce a "media awareness" class, seriously. From inside the fashion and advertising industry it is of course a completely different story. I've shot models who've been on Wella hair product packaging, Sony campaigns, Nivea, endless cover girls and many many more. They have often turned up for the shoot and left me speechless for a second because sometimes they have very irregular features and look absolutely nothing like they do in the ads. But - agencies know this, the models are often chosen not because they are entirely perfect but because they have "something" that really is striking, say for example their eyes or lips. These days a professional fashion photographer can spot that and immediately work around and manipulate the models weak points. I see it as a good thing, commercially it gives models who have something spectacular but not entire beauty a working chance to earn a respectable living, it also drops the costs of model agency rates considerably as they know the photographer/agency will need to spend time working to bring certain features into line. There is a well documented psychological theory that has been demonstrated throughout thousands of years, starting with the face of Cleopatra. Now facial reconstruction surgeons have developed a grid in order to map the best reconstruction possible after, say a car crash for patients, there is a formula to physical beauty. The theory that is darn close to fact is this: We trust better looking people more than less good looking people instinctively 9 times out of ten. And that's on first sight. Products and services sell based on this. There will always be movements against radical change and now we're seeing it from the fashion consumer side and some PC celebs who are likely put up to it by their billion dollar PR firms. But in order to churn out the amount of model based advertising that we as modern cultures demand we need to manipulate the faces and bodies of models, no one inside the industry cries foul, on the contrary the expectations and standards are high, the clients - the brands demand it. So I don't think Adobe need to answer for today's fashion and advertising methods. I think the brands fill a demand, all be it a perceived value, and we are hard wired to trust better looking people. In a brave new digital world it's the educators that should step up to the times and dismiss notions that "those faces and bodies" are often not true representations of the person in the advert. Neither are the products. And that doesn't mean it's a bad thing, a photograph doesn't fall out of the camera in RAW format ready for publication, it needs work. And that's what it is all about - work, branding and economics. Kids should be taught that this is the world they live in, those pictures are not hard reality and they can't be. Below is a shot I took of Miss Teen World 2009 for an Italian jewellery company. The before and after is obvious. I will say don't advocate drastic alteration of body shape, that's shouldn't be required as a model should, as part of his/her job remain in good physical condition anyway. But the rest, the details...well skin lines and blemishes don't sell. And a pro DSLR will pick up every little detail. This model was 18 years old at the time.

You present two different issues: 1. The normal tendency of common usage to turn the most popular trademarked brand names into generic terms. Bayer, owner of the trademark Asperin, LOST their trade name when this term became commonplace for the generic. Coke, Xerox, and other companies since that time have worked hard, using legal means to protect the integrity of their trademarks, logos, and brand names. The rule here is that if you don't defend it, you can lose it. I'm sure they sue somebody from time to time, and send complaints by registered mail from lawyers to people who abuse the term, using it for a generic photo editor. 2. I'm sure Adobe does not support use of their editing software for any purpose of fraud, or any other purpose that would harm people, include the body image issues you mentioned. A hammer can be used to commit murder, but it is intended more for building and repairing things. Obviously, any tool can be misused.

I really don't feel that it is a marketing dilemma for Adobe or necessarily an issue anymore than xerox is used ubiquitously to refer to making photocopies. Photoshopping (or any derivative thereof - e.g. photochopping, photohacking) has just earned the cultural nod as a means to indicate any digital photo fixing means regardless of the tool used be it Photoshop, Paint, Gimp, Fireworks or any of the rich online apps now available.