This photograph was taken by an Icelandic farmer, delivered to a local newspaper, toned to increase contrast and saturation and then moved by various agencies. We published the version on top until Reuters moved this correction with the version below: "ATTENTION EDITORS - QUALITY REPEAT FOR SIN500 TRANSMITTED ON APRIL 15, 2010 AT APPROXIMATELY 2000 GMT. WE HAVE OBTAINED FROM THE SOURCE THE ORIGINAL FILE OF THIS HANDOUT IMAGE. AN UPDATED, CORRECTLY TONED VERSION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS THIS ADVISORY. WE ARE SORRY FOR ANY INCONVENIENCE CAUSED. REUTERS." We prefer the corrected version from Reuters, and think the first version was a bit heavy-handed, but would not say that the original is a flagrant foul in the world of digital photography toning. What do you think?