Photoshopping has taken the Internet by storm. Editors and photographers are now so skilled at it, that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a natural photo and it's photo-shopped double.

Nick Minaj is the latest celebrity to have both versions of her album cover photo released to the public. Only when compared side by side can the viewer realize the immense amount of work done in the editing room.

So what's the big deal? If there's a computer program that can make you look ten times better, then why shouldn't it be used?

Ultimately, the trouble with photo-shopping is whether it's an ethical practice or not. There are no laws against it, and it doesn't directly damage anyone, but what photoshopping does do is give a heightened expectation regarding the body.

It's no secret that magazine covers and photo shoots dictate the American ideology of what 'beauty' really is.

If 'beauty' is being defined by a computer program, then the expectations about our bodies are being compared to altered images, rather than realistic onces. If that's the case, we run the ris of setting false expectations, and ultimately aspiring to unreachable goals that -- over time -- can lead to a damaged self-image.

The celebrities are not to blame for the industrty standards, which have become more and more unrealistic. A star comes out, takes the photos and then leaves. The rest of the editing and publishing is handled by the outlet itself, which then decides what tucks, airbrushes and touch-ups should be done.

Unless the star specifically states in their contract that the photo cannot be edited in anyway, there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Magazine publishers want to sell magazines, and front page photos of normal looking people don't sell. Even though the image is warped, there is a disconnect to what the public wants to believe is a perfect-ten body and an hour-glass shape.