“Manipulation” of imagery has been around since people could draw pictures. However, the Internet can make distribution of fake images more rapid and widespread than ever before. Is this a big deal? Perhaps not, if it’s one of those e-mails from your friends with a couple of dozen cc’s and "Have You Seen This?” typed in the subject line.

Also, you might say that in U.S. culture, we are used to the idea of celebrity pictures in glossy magazines being “retouched” or “photoshopped.” The actress Jennifer Aniston recently hinted on ABC-TV’s “The View” that her nude picture on the cover of GQ magazine was “photoshopped.” Whether that means artists used subtle shading to highlight the nearly 40-year-old actress’ physical attributes, or assembled the image from stock photos, we will probably never know.

Of course, this kind of technology and dissemination can be abused. What if, in the critical closing weeks of a presidential campaign, someone circulated an altered image of a leading candidate in a compromising position? That actually happened in the 2004 election, as our report describes. Our culture searches for the perfect moment, the perfect body, the perfect smile, the perfect confluence of events to capture an event or demonstrate a point of view. And so, are many of us aspiring to resemble an aesthetic of human perfection that doesn’t exist? Are we seeking to reduce a complex reality into a perfect-package moment in time, when all the proper characters, locations and symbols appear at once, because our intelligence isn't trusted to grasp complexity?

These are large questions without simple answers. For the purposes of daily living and digital image literacy, here are some tips from Consumer Reports WebWatch to keep in mind:

1. As anyone who has tried to take a family picture with young children and pets knows, the “perfect” photographic moment is hard to achieve. The well-worn consumer caution, “if it looks too good to be true, it is,” can be applied to photos and video on the Internet as well.

2. As anyone who has purchased school pictures knows, you can pay a few extra bucks to have your child’s photos “retouched” to remove blemishes, chocolate smears in the corner of the mouth and other anomalies. On the Web, context is critical. “Before-and-after” images demonstrating weight loss, the miracles of skin creams, and attractive potential mates just waiting to talk to you should be treated with skepticism.

3. Technically, it’s easier to alter a single image than hundreds of them, as would appear in frames in video. However, digital video editing software can raise similar manipulation concerns.

4. Manipulated or not, when placing images of yourself or your family online on community, social networking or video sites such as Flickr, Facebook and YouTube, you should consider the ramifications carefully. Think of the genie that’s hard to put back in the bottle: Photos and video that enter the digital domain, remain. They may follow you for a long time, and they may present a picture to a future employer, or spouse or partner you might regret. Hence, there’s a growing business in online reputation management.

5. You may decide to play around with software such as Photoshop. Consider your responsibility as a Web publisher and tell people on your Web site, blog or photo file if you drastically alter the composition of a photo in order to make a point. For more on this, read the sections in our report on compositing, photo illustrations and other types of imagery construction.

Many major media organizations publish their guidelines for publication of photos and video, for their own staffs and for “citizen journalists” and amateurs. We’ve compiled a list here.

Finally, for a fascinating discussion on the power of the still image to shape events and opinions, check out this analysis of photographs of former President Bush by the photo editors of several major news services, led by documentary filmmaker and Werner Herzog associate Errol Morris.