I wondered whether he was talking about the description of photo, not the photo, which is correct in the ALSJ. It is clearly not the CSM it's the SIV-B, and when you look at it in the context of the rest of the magazine it obviously couldn't be.
The Apollo Image Atlas has it described as 'Earth', and this is because that's what it says in the original Photography Index. One mistake transcribing notes compounded by another one.
What he's talking about is what happens when you adjust the levels in the image (rather than just the brightness):
It's this kind of sloppy editing to improve the look of the images that is what sends these idiots frothing at the mouth. They forget that the original images have been out there long before Photoshop was invented, and other scans (like the Apollo Image Atlas one) don't show this.
