Here’s an interesting ethical question for anyone who dabbles in Photoshop: to what extent is it OK to retouch a photo? We’ve all done it. Some skin smoothing here, some teeth whitening there… hell, I bought out the rights to every single image taken by my wedding photographer just so I could have complete creative control over the retouching. But when does it cross the line?

For many, the answer comes down to a single question: is the image for advertising or editorial purposes? Obviously, we can’t have National Geographic moving pyramids around to fit better in a vertical format magazine cover. (Yes, that really did happen.) But when a photo is being used for commercial purposes, should anything and everything in the retouching department really be free game?

I’ve gotta be completely honest. I’m torn.

The feminist part of my brain thinks the “Barbie-fying” of women in the media today (ala Britney Spears, above) is a slippery slope that leads to unrealistic expectations and distorted body images. (For God’s sake, if Britney needs to be retouched, do any of us stand a chance?)

The artistic part of my brain, however, says “go for it.” Sure, some people may say that “au naturel” is best, but it’s hard to argue that dewey skin and radiant hair don’t make a woman look more attractive. Regardless of how unnatural it is. I guess in my mind, using Photoshop’s powerful arsenal of tools in post-production is not that different than a woman spending hours each morning applying makeup and hair products.

What do YOU think?