Is it just the tip of the iceberg?

Digital image is for manipulation. That has been the accusation ever since the beginning.

The recent case "Bloggers Drive Inquiry on How Altered Images Saw Print" may start more of such discovery.

It is certain that the digital imaging offers us the most efficient way to fine-tune our images. For personal use, there should not be any rules at all. When the image would affect the response on the events, it would be a serious problem. May be we can feel relief because most newsagents have their own standards and ethics against manipulated news photos.

Yet, there are many photojournalists and there is great competition for freelance jobs. Taking tricks to get an extra dollar is not limited to photojournalists; we have many frauds today.

That photojournalist may have to quit the career because no newsagent would employ him anymore. The price may be too high in compare with what could be earned.

This type of trick is common in the photographic fields. Although the purpose was to win the competitions for fame and price, yet it is still a poisonous act for photography. Of course, such bad practice had begun long time ago and evolved into so-called creative technique.

Therefore, it is not the digital imaging that allowed this trick. The digital imaging has given us an easy way to cheat. Gun is not responsible for the users to kill.

From the case just mentioned, it is easy to know that the photo had been manipulated. I do not think that we need senior editors to find it out. Anyone with experience in digital imaging should know immediately because the retouching was too rough.

Whether it is overlook or disregard would not be easy to prove. We just hope that there would not be more cases happened again.