Which is why it’s nice to see that Adobe’s introduced renting options for their products — consumers can either rent monthly or yearly depending on their needs

It seems crazy to consider a rental of Photoshop, but 700 bones ain’t nothing to sneeze at. Of course, it’s $35 per month for a yearly rental, which seems like a bit much, if only because after 12 months, that’s $420 towards the full product.

Without the full yearly rental, Photoshop will run you $49 a month (one month rental, or month-to-month, depending, obviously) and that’s not so horrible.

After all, there are tons of small businesses that have graphic needs which they outsource for substantially more than that. If you have someone in-house who knows what they’re doing in terms of graphic design, you can spend $50, download the software, let them fire out whatever you need over the course of a month and save hundreds of dollars.

Or, perhaps, you’re looking to design a website but don’t want to pay someone $1,000 to do it. $29 for a month of Dreamweaver seems like a pretty good price, if you ask me.

And, of course, this is a pretty stupendous option for a freelancer. If you’re the one who lands the graphic/website design that pays several hundred bucks, you can substantially cut down on your costs and, obviously, make a bigger profit than you would if you needed to purchase the entire

Here’s a handy breakdown of the pricing guide, courtesy of Download Squad:

Rent Adobe Products – [Adobe]
You can now rent Adobe Photoshop for $29 a month – [Download Squad]

Naturally, a lot of the women out there are up in arms. Katy Perry’s naturally pretty hot. And then she’s made up by Rolling Stone’s photography crew, anyway. So why the excessive ‘shoppage?

Tumblr…er lourtneycove — the originator of the .gif above — says:

This is terrible. She’s beautiful to begin with. Why does her skin have to be silky smooth? Her boobs pushed up? They even took off her sock in the ‘enhanced’ one. Her stomach. Her fingers. Her moles are removed from her neck. Lines removed from her underarm. Is it so bad not to be perfect?

I see absolutely nothing wrong with the before picture. She’s absolutely beautiful. Why does the media see fit to change that? No wonder why society is messed up.

I tend to agree with the above sentiment. That said, they did make her much brighter and foxier in the Photoshopped version. If you compare the “after” to the “before”, it’s sort of like looking at someone who looked at the Ark of the Covenant, but just really briefly. And then put a sock on her right foot for no reason.

So…did she need the Photoshop treatment?

This Is Shopped of the Day [The Daily What]
Lourtney Cove [Tumblr]

The pop star looks picture perfect on the November issue’s cover, with a dewy complexion, rosy cheeks, pink pout and darkly rimmed eyes.

Todateen Star addressed the Photoshop accusations in a denial to the Huffington Post, which translated it from Portuguese.

“We could not help noticing your comments and tweets from the picture of Justin on the [magazine's] cover,” the statement read. “We would like to say that there was no change made in the area of the singer’s eyes.”

“We also want to say that all of us find Justin very naturally beautiful,” the statement added. “We’d never think it necessary to alter pictures of him. Natural beauty says it all, right?”

That’s not Photoshopped?! Todateen Star mag denies alteration of Justin Bieber’s cover photo [NY Daily News]

Original version is on the left. Just in case you’re blind or incapable of seeing race

The smiling, ethnically diverse family featured on the cover of Toronto’s latest edition of its summer Fun Guide was digitally altered to make the photo more “inclusive,” which city officials say is in keeping with a policy to reflect diversity.

A spokesman for the department that publishes the guide listing recreation activities confirmed the publication was doctored to insert the face of a different father.

“He superimposed the African-Canadian person onto the family cluster in the original photo. It was two photographs and one head was superimposed over the original family photo,” said John Gosgnach, communications director for the social development division.

“The goal was to depict the diversity of Toronto and its residents.”

I’d say that goal has been successfully achieved. Assuming that Toronto wanted to showcase its large contingency of black guys with oversized heads creepily staring at Latina women. In which case, there’s really no disputing their presence. I am disheartened at how that contingency has opted to leave the Bronx, however.

[via, as seen on]