In the comic, Cueball states that his hobby is insisting that real-life items can be digitally manipulated, even though it is generally not possible to do this to actual physical objects outside of a computer. The comic then demonstrates an example of this hobby: Megan claims that the sabre she found is a 19th-century heirloom, but Cueball insists that the sabre "looks photoshopped", implying that it looks like it has been edited via image editing software. It is unclear whether he is doing this with the intent of irritating Megan, or whether he is just enjoying surrealist humour without intent to annoy. The description of "insisting that real-life objects are photoshopped" implies that Cueball is aware that physical objects cannot be altered in Photoshop.
Continuing the joke, Cueball then goes on to rationalise his insistence that the sabre is photoshopped by explaining, "Yeah, the reflections are all wrong. Definitely photoshopped." This is also likely to be a direct reference to the internet meme "This Looks Shopped", which often utilises phrases such as "I can tell by the pixels". Digitally edited images can show errors which reveal that the image is not true to life - shadows which don't align with the direction of the light in the image, reflections that don't match the surroundings they are reflecting, or individual pixels where the colours do not align with the rest of the image. Phrases such as "I can tell by the pixels" are a reference to this trait.
If Cueball were sincere in his statement about reflections, then it would be a bizarre claim to make, because real world objects generally cannot cast "wrong" reflections, unlike digitally manipulated images. Alternatively, calling the artifact "photoshopped" could be Cueball's way of suggesting that the item is a fake or a replica, such as it being a 3D printed model of the stated object rather than a historical family heirloom.
The joke could be a reference to the paranoia some internet users have when trying to discern whether images online are real or edited, suggesting that this behaviour might extend into real-life situations such as mistaking actual physical objects as "photoshopped" edits. As explained below, this uncertainty among internet users has only grown after the use of generative AI images.
The title text contains a more obvious reference to the internet meme, the complete text of which is: "THIS LOOKS SHOPPED / I CAN TELL FROM SOME OF THE PIXELS AND FROM SEEING QUITE A FEW SHOPS IN MY TIME." Most people have seen this from the popular image format JPEG, which uses an image compression algorithm that works by converting an image's color data into small blocks, changing those blocks into cosine frequency patterns, rounding off details human eyes cannot see easily, and packing the final data tightly. This works remarkably well, but can sometimes leave artifacts (noticeable distortions or errors in the image) that are visible when zooming in far enough. Cueball is treating Megan's eyes as literal digital images on a screen, claiming that he can tell that he and Megan are "wrong for each other" based on the supposed JPEG artifacts and pixels her eyes are made of.
Seeing "something in someone's eyes" that indicates that two people are wrong for each other is a common poetic/clichéd expression for the experience of one person suddenly recognising, from something in the other person's expressions or wider demeanor, that the relationship will not work between them. This is normally based on recognising incompatibilities (or a simple lack of attraction) based on the other person's behaviour, attitudes or priorities; it is not usually based on the physical appearance of their irises.
Adobe Photoshop is a popular image editing application first launched in 1990, which reached its peak popularity around the 2000s, when it was considered the industry standard for editing graphics. Adobe Photoshop is still considered a prominent image editing service (as of 2026), but has since lost its monopoly in the market.
The verb "photoshop" (as in "to photoshop an image") is a verbalization of the noun "Photoshop", referring to the act of using editing software to digitally alter an image. Its derived adjective "photoshopped" and its shortened version " 'shopped" are applied to an image that has been manipulated in this way. This editing, or "photoshopping", is often performed for marketing purposes to make an image look more appealing or dramatic, or to combine two or more images into a single seamless picture via image compositing rather than needing to capture all elements of an image in a single photo. The deliberate image manipulation or altering of images has also been used to mislead people into believing an edited or created image is "real" (an unedited photograph taken from life) and showing a true object or scenario. This is widely seen in the beauty industry.
In internet culture, this deliberate "photoshopping" or altering of images is sometimes used to for humour by making falsified scenarios, such as editing an image of a person to making someone look like they're holding a rapier when in reality, they were not holding one in the original photograph. Humorous use of "photoshopping" (image editing) can be simply to create an image that others may find funny, without an intent to mislead the audience into believing the image is unedited. However, it may also be done with the intent to trick the viewer into believing the image is "real" (unedited), where the creator derives humour from misleading the viewer.
This comic also unintentionally foreshadowed the rising and unavoidable presence of AI-generated or AI-edited images online, which began several years after the comic's publication. Manipulating images on social media to create misleading content has remained commonplace, though the techniques most often used (Photoshop, AI image generation) have changed as technology has developed. Today (2026), people online often accuse content creators, businesses or websites of using images generated by AI rather than created by humans.
Creating images and other content using AI is broadly frowned upon due to:
AI aggregating images/content using material made by human artists without their consent and without paying the artists for their work;
AI servers having a large detrimental impact on the environment;
AI having no "creative intent" of its own, meaning the images generated by them have no inherent artistic meaning; and
The output produced by AI often being low-quality, bland, uninspiring or inaccurately rendered.
Identification of photoshopped images and AI images may both follow the same base principle of examining minute details for inconsistency. With photoshopped images, it can include inaccurate reflections (as mentioned by Cueball) and differences in quality in sections of the image; with AI, the best tell is inconsistencies with reality.
The explanation only does a surface graze of the topic of photoshopping images.
Better explain what JPEG artifacts are.
Title text section needs to explain seeing in someone's eyes that they're wrong for you.
The explanation could use some copyediting and reorganization, it is not polished and does not feel cohesive.
Add an image to illustrate JPEG artifacts
Better explain the meme this comic is based on and the context behind it.
Add parallels to today's AI image editing.
While many alarming or suspiciously interesting pictures (and videos) have later proven to be 'shopped', I believe that Randall is commenting on the abysmal existence of a certain kind of person who cries foul on *any* picture that isn't straightforward.
They usually profess to be Photoshop experts and point out various 'defects' in the photo that 'prove' it has been manipulated.
This is just a (hopefully unconscious) attempt to appear more cynical, more intelligent and harder to fool than everybody else who has ignored the glaring evidence.
What makes it simultaneously amusing and annoying is that usually the commenter is patently, completely and obviously wrong - the image has in fact captured a real occurrence.
The original examples that come to mind are the Apollo 11 photographs from the surface of the moon, but the internet abounds with such. -- StephenP 108.162.219.223 18:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, like this pic of me from back then: ...which is clearly, completely natural. —Kazvorpal (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
To be entirely fair, with the advent of 3D printers, it will become possible to "shop" real-life objects. 108.162.218.101 00:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This is already done with plastic surgery, although to a more limited degree, of course. All other physical alterations widely available to the public used on existing objects (that come to mind) are for practical means, such as fixing a refrigerator 172.68.46.11 19:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Predicting a resurgence of this comic/dynamic with the advent of "looks AI generated". Reminds me a bit of 1306: Sigil Cycle in that there's something of an arms race between awareness of what makes something "look fake" and the fakery technology itself becoming able to fake those details. 172.70.230.197 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Huh. Meant to say that myself, but it seems someone did it first. 172.68.7.206 (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
This but with AI image generation RG (talk) 00:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
“But sometimes leaves artifacts” still does not explain what an artifact is. SacrifycedStoat (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps an example of a shopped pic would be in order? Probably would need an original for comparison. 7amiþmoi · 💬 · 📊 17:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
Photoshop vs. AI: I started a new paragraph in the article. It might be worth comparing accusations of 'shopping vs AI generation now. 158.173.67.206 18:39, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
I improved the part about AI images n along with basically everything else. someone should talk about how people can tell AI images are AI and compare how similar it is to the photoshop thing. Morpheus (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
crashing sounds because of a failiure of the explanation improvement project - user without signadure 2605:59c0:450b:3410:d9e6:2829:2571:7127 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2026 (UTC) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
Hello! I had a go at copy-editing and re-organising, including splitting out the explanation of what "photoshopped" means and the foreshadowing of GenAI into their own sections so they don't interrupt the flow of the actual comic explanation quite as much. Apologies in advance for any Britishisms that snuck in there, and also apologies if I goof'd it, I've actually never contributed an edit before! MegaRobit (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
@MegaRobit Thank you so much, your rewrite was amazing! This is exactly what the explanation needed, I've removed the incomplete tag. Welcome aboard, please feel free to ask us if you have any questions! FaviFake (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2026 (UTC) Add comment
.svg){kind=icon}
The explanation only does a surface graze of the topic of photoshopping images.
.svg){kind=icon}
Better explain what JPEG artifacts are.
.svg){kind=icon}
Title text section needs to explain seeing in someone's eyes that they're wrong for you.
.svg){kind=icon}
The explanation could use some copyediting and reorganization, it is not polished and does not feel cohesive.
.svg){kind=icon}
Add an image to illustrate JPEG artifacts
.svg){kind=icon}
Better explain the meme this comic is based on and the context behind it.
.svg){kind=icon}
Add parallels to today's AI image editing.
Add comment