The ‘Bad Photoshop’ subreddit is an old one. It’s been a part of Reddit since December 2010. At the time of writing, the sub had 20.6k members and two moderators overseeing the community. Bored Panda has reached out to the mod team to learn more about r/badphotoshop. Stay tuned, folks, we’ll update the article as soon as we hear back from them.

The main theme of the sub is fairly straightforward. The mods invite members to share “bad examples of photoshopped pics. Cut off legs, extra hands, wrong heads... if you can imagine it, someone has poorly photoshopped it.”

There’s absolutely no laughing at the people behind these edits. It’s the end results of their ‘efforts’ that are definitely worth a chuckle, though. So long as someone is genuinely putting in the time and energy to improve their skills and doesn’t mind wading through failure after failure to up their Photoshop game, they’ve got our utmost respect.

However, the people who pump out cheap edits on the fly and have no intention of aiming for something even remotely resembling quality deserve to be called out online. Hey, at least they’re making someone laugh, right? That’s a win in itself… though it’d be better if it was intentional.

Though it’s perfectly possible to be a pro photographer in this day and age without the use of digital software, it’s becoming more and more prevalent. Retouching photos, adjusting the colors, rebalancing contrast—even a few light touches can completely change the mood of the image. Having a good, strong set of editing skills in one’s arsenal can be a godsend, professionally.

Recently, Bored Panda spoke about photoshopping pictures with Ohio photographer Dominic Sberna. He mentioned that, even though digital software can be a great tool, it isn’t all-powerful. You can’t rely on it exclusively if you want quality photos.

"At the end of the day, any editing software is not going to turn a bad photo into a good photo. A quality photographer will have a good eye for the subject they are capturing. Editing the photo enhances the details that the camera does not pick up as well as the naked eye," he told Bored Panda during an interview.

"You can recover a photo sometimes too. I've been able to do this with work that I thought at the time would be a throwaway for whatever reason. So, it takes a good hand in both most times, he said that you can even save some shots.

"No amount of software is going to insert pixels in a way that will salvage a low-resolution image or anything of that nature. At least not that I'm presently aware of," he warned photographers that editing won’t be able to solve all of their problems.

At the end of the day, how much you rely on photo editing software in the post-processing phase will entirely depend on your goals, your style of photography, and the type of person that you are. You should use the tools that you need to achieve the goals that you have in mind.

"It really depends what the person holding the camera is going for. If you're looking to make a quality photograph from an artistic perspective, then it would come down to the framing and how the scene is laid out. Likewise, if you're just looking to get a funny photo, don't sweat the small stuff like that."

Now that you’ve experienced some of the worst that photo editing has to offer, how do you feel about it all, Pandas? Which of these photoshops stood out for you with their (lack of) quality? What’s your own experience editing pics? What’s your go-to software of choice? (Yours truly still relies on MS Paint way too much.) Tell us all about it in the comments—we can’t wait to hear from you.