Photoshop:

There's a difference between "touching up" and completely changing a person in a picture. For some reason some professionals, don't know the difference. Ok so if a person has a scar, distracting mark, wrinkle or two, sunburn, etc it is totally acceptable to retouch their skin so that the picture for the magazine, ad or movie poster looks more appealing and in result, sells. But when a person's body suddenly becomes completely distorted to a point of no return, that's where the line is drawn. I'm all for using Photoshop to retouch small imperfections, but morphing bodies is another subject.

Not only does the picture affect the individual themselves, but society as a whole. Most importantly, younger women and teenage girls. Ads and covers place a negative body-image upon many girls, resulting in extremely low self-esteem across the world.  We basically unconsciously try to look like the  airbrushed, porcelain celebrities that appear on covers, although it may only be 50% of the actual celebrity. All in all, Photoshop is great for retouching and fixing small things that would originally push people away, but almost completely morphing a person's face or body is just unacceptable and unrealistic.

http://designtutorials4u.com/top-ten-photoshop-controversies-and-disasters/

http://dslrfairytale.com/2012/01/19/photoshop-controversy-where-do-we-draw-the-line-on-beauty-manipulation/

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/adeles-vogue-magazine-cover-causing-controversy/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2048375/Self-Esteem-Act-US-parents-push-anti-Photoshop-laws-advertising.html

http://www.latimes.com/features/image/la-ig-photoshop2-2009aug02,0,4042697.story