The past few years have seen a small number of celebrated cases of scientific fraud that have found their way into the general media. Many more examples of inappropriate data handling have come across the editorial desks of virtually every scientific journal. These have focused editors’ attention on inappropriate data handling and fraudulent image manipulation. The Plant Cell and Plant Physiology are no exceptions. Two decades ago, the practicalities of image handling meant that the boundaries were well-defined between what was acceptable and what was not; the darkroom skills needed posed a significant technical barrier to inappropriate manipulation of image data, particularly manipulation done without the intention to deceive but simply to “clean up” the image. The ethical boundaries are as clear-cut today as they were a quarter century ago, but many of the technical barriers to inappropriate manipulation have all but disappeared with the advent of digital image acquisition, storage, and handling. Adobe Photoshop was introduced in 1990 for Macintosh and in 1992 for personal computers; its widespread application, and the broader acceptance of digital formats during this past decade, have simplified greatly the tasks of image preparation. They also mean that much less skill is needed to manipulate images. Indeed, a common problem arising from digital formats is that many scientists inadvertently manipulate their image data, often in ways that result in the loss of important information, to make their data look as good as possible.