Ethics Reading Post 1: "Digital Photography"

The first two paragraphs of this article discredit the author. First of all, unless he has some kind of super power, there is no way he could tell from 100 feet away that the cover picture on a newspaper had been tampered with. This automatically makes me think this author will exaggerate about everything else in the article, which he does. Second of all, the article states that the artist who made the picture made it very clear that he tampered with it in Photoshop. The rest of the article does not explain why it is wrong to tamper with a photo if you have made it blatantly obvious to the public that you have tampered with it. Thirdly, the examples of magazines that the author provides with edited photos on the cover are not strong enough to sway someone who doesn't already see photo-editing as wrong to believe it is a horrible thing. It seems as if the author is angry about photo-editing, but does not have enough evidence or credibility to back up his opinion.