Must be a slow news day. I've seen people on the internet get all worked up over "photoshopping" images, and not being able to tell real from fake. I'm glad that article points out that photo-manipulation goes way back, but still uses stinging words like "fake", and "malicious" near the start of the article (I only bothered to read the first few paragraphs then skimmed over the rest, I wonder how many others will do the same). The final image doesn't need 'photoshop' or any dark-rooming image, just use the wrong colour temperature, and to avoid facial lines, use a Minolta 100mm soft, or an older lens. If there's a distracting object behind that picture of Catherine Zeta-Jones your trying to take, take a step to the side. We will always choose how the final image will look at every step of the process. My concern is the lack of education that regular people have. Most often, they don't seem to be aware that 'photo-shopping' is not new. They also seem to have an almost unrealistic expectation that photos should never be manipulated... they'll tell you before they turn to their fashion magazines and are dazzled by the images they see there. In anycase, how many people see examples of the manipulated images where facial lines have been reduced or eliminated, and wish they could have their portraits done nicely like that?