After Microsoft's Photoshop snafu this week, everyone is abuzz about altered images. The New York Times took a look at a bunch of photos throughout history that have had severe editing done, and lets just say there are a lot more than you'd think.

Perhaps the most incredible thing about all these old photos, is that they were altered without Photoshop.  Now that imaging software is so accessible to general public, and relatively easy to use, any Joe with a computer can put Oprah's head on Ann-Margret's body.

But photo tampering dates back to the birth of the photo itself. According to Hany Farid, a computer science professor at Dartmouth that has taken a shine to detecting altered images, photo tampering dates back to the 1960's a mere 50 years after the photography's invention.

Back in the day, altering was primarily done for political reasons. Whether it was superimposing Abe Lincoln's head on a stronger and more manly body, or communist China literally erasing  the Gang of Four from party photographs, editing photos could change public opinion.

Photojournalism was long viewed as an infallible testament to the truth. After all the controversy in the past few years, however, altered images have tarnished that perception. Still, photos can be a very powerful tool, and thus when they are used for photojournalism need to be as such. Many newspapers have added sections to their code of ethics concerning image manipulation.

How much manipulation in Photoshop is too much? Where do we draw the line? It is obvious that from a photojournalism perspective there needs to be guidlines, but what about for the rest of the photography community? Making Oprah look skinny is hardly a history changing move, and yet is it ethical?

Where do you stand on the use of Photoshop and other image manipulation tools?  I think a regulatory board of some sort is in order, but then again maybe that's what all of us out here in the blogosphere are for.

(top, middle and bottom images from the research of Hany Farid)