Photoshop Ethics

Upon doing some research online regarding photoshop and ethics, one question seemed to be reoccurring: when is it okay to digitally alter an image, and how much is okay? These days, photographers seem to have a set of rules and guidelines to follow as far as digitally altering images goes. But how much altering is too much? I continually came across the story of a man named Brian Walski who lost his job in 2003 after combining two photos of the war in Iraq and passing it off as one. There were several other similar stories of photojournalists who had been fired or suspended for altering their images too much. But just how much is too much? We live in a world based around our computers and now that photoshop is here it isn't going anywhere. Asking a photographer to take a photo and leave it 'as is' without any editing at all isn't going to happen. But the problem is figuring out where to draw the line.
It's not just in photojournalism, either. Ad campaigns all over the globe are getting into trouble for digitally altering either their products or models to the point that what is being advertised isn't what really existed at the time the photo was taken. Is it okay to edit out the blemish on a model's face but not okay to shrink her waistline? Everyone knows that the models you see in any advertisement for any product have been altered in some way, but we still continue to do it and companies continue to get in trouble for not only over-editing their ads, but setting a bad example for the young boys and girls seeing these ads.
Personally, I think we too often go too far with photoshop. It's gotten to the point that when we take pictures instead of focusing on the composition or trying to get the best shot possible at that time, we instead go "Oh, if it doesn't turn out right I'll just edit it later." It's one thing to fix a blemish on a model's face or alter the color of a tree to make it brighter, but it's another thing entirely to change the photo to the extent that it represents something that was never even there. If you're going to use photoshop to that extent, then at least make it completely known that that was the case. But passing off a heavily edited picture as something that was completely natural and untouched by computer software is dishonest.

The Brian Walski photo:

Five articles I found on photoshop ethics:
1. http://sundial.csun.edu/2010/03/the-ethics-of-photoshop-and-photojournalism/
2. http://www.all-things-photography.com/photography-ethics.html
3. http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/post.php?id=425
4. http://digitalnewsjournalist.com/2010/04/21/photo-ethics-in-the-age-of-adobe-photoshop-cs5/
5. http://lauri-the-artist.com/ethics-of-photoshop/