Found the Reuters PS guidelines!
So what do you think about altering pictures for editorial use? I think it has always been done for good or for bad reasons. Why is the veracity of a photo any different than text? People who read are not completely ignorant.
They should know after watching a few zillion TV commercials and seeing a few zillion print ads that photos are always very incomplete version of the truth.
On the flip side I'd say now that PhotoShop is part of the common vernacular (and means drastically altered) a news resource has to nix virtually all uses of retouching just to play it safe. In the readers mind if you mess with one picture, you've probably messed with the rest.
Why not label altered pictures "photo Illustrations?" Or, my fave is "digitality."
