AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo 622
djupedal notes a story up at the BBC about the Associated Press's suspension of the use of Department of Defense photos after a photo of General Ann Dunwoody was found to have been altered (before and after comparison). "The Pentagon has become embroiled in a row after the US Army released a photo of a general to the media which was found to have been digitally altered. Ann Dunwoody was shown in front of the US flag but it later emerged that this background had been added. The Associated Press news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defense photos. 'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image,' said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography."
Unadultered Alterations (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unadultered Alterations (Score:4, Insightful)
Gosh, the DoD and White House pay for news all the time. They pay for commentators, pundits, and so on. Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.
The flag 'shop was amusing. I though they might give her bigger [censored by the US Department of Homeland Security]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which commentators, pundits and so on? Left wing, right wing, balanced?
If you actually had evidence of this, it would be a huge story. But you don't. So you're nothing but a mindless droning troll.
I often wonder how posts like this get modded "insightful" when they should be modded incitement.
Re:Unadultered Alterations (Score:4, Informative)
Right wing, mostly. See the links below.
Indeed, it has [salon.com] been [corpwatch.org] big news [prwatch.org] when evidence [dod.mil] came to light concerning the programs under which the Bush Administration, including the DoD, was paying pundits and news analysts to promote administration programs, or otherwise buying [nytimes.com] the news.
If GP didn't (which I suspect is not the case), the web certainly does, including evidence directly from the horse's mouth at the DoD link above.
I would be careful throwing around insults like that, especially when you clearly don't know much about the subject and are just assuming that the person to whom you are responding to is wrong because of your own ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, by "pundits, commentators and so on" you mean one case. Got it.
and "still is" isn't quite accurate either, I totally forgot about it. And most idiots never even knew about it. I'm sure it is "huge" in the leftwing blogosphere like "theleftcoaster".
You need to get outside your bubble. It isn't nearly the story the left wanted it to be. Nobody cares, really!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your tax dollars at work in the propaganda war.
Propaganda's an important part of war. I'm no more against the propaganda portion than the "collateral damage" portion. It's not like, "Well, it's one thing when they kill a bunch of people - but they've really crossed the line with that MISLEADING PHOTO!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Damn, you're so dumb you don't know that AP is not the same as AFP and I'm so nice I didn't even notice.
My eyes, they burn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My eyes, they burn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My eyes, they burn! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's automatic. Post any photo that's known to have been photoshopped and someone will always say how bad it is. It's guaranteed. The effect works even with pictures that have not been altered.
Re:My eyes, they burn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My eyes, they burn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of the book Photon - Thieves of Light, based on Lasertag... there was a scene where the protagonist was explaining fictional movies to some alien, and him being shocked, because in his culture, video depictions are strictly reserved for factual account of real events, and creating illusions is a severely punishable crime.
Wish I lived in such a culture.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For $DEITYs sake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
But it's not being used as a logo. It's being used to identify a person.
"For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image," said Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography.
You know, if the army is "promoting" her, in a literal and figurative sense, would it have been so hard to send someone around with a camera and take a decent picture of her in front of a flag?
Photoshoppery from my government, even if it's just to make our leadership appear more endearing to the masses, is a bad habit at the very least.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, there is no such thing as an "accurate" portrait of a person. Factors such as lighting, the background, the time of day, how they have their hair styled at the moment, whether or not they're wearing makeup, their specific physical condition at the moment of the photo, the quality of the camera, etc. all play a major role in how any given photograph of a person looks.
If the AP really is going to take such a ludicrous "zero tolerance" policy, then they had better just stop accepting outside ph
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference between setting up a stage with a flag on it and getting her to sit there for a photograph, and getting her to sit in her office for a photo and adding the flag later?
The main difference is the assumption of consent from the subject.
If the person was photographed in front of the flag, then anyone receiving a copy of the photo can assume that the subject consented to being photographed in front of the flag. If the flag was digitally added after the fact, the recipient of the photo cannot make that assumption.
In this particular case, it's unlikely that the subject would have objected to being photographed in front of a flag, but that's not really the point. The point is that if this image is allowed, what other retouched images could be allowed? Here's a portrait shot of the general in front of a flag. Here she is holding a copy of the Koran. Here she is shaking Osama Bin Laden's hand. Oh sure, we retouched it a little, but it's okay. We just wanted to show her in a particular setting. There's nothing wrong with that, as it's just a portrait, not a description of events.
If the subject would not have consented to the photograph being physically staged as such, then it's not necessarily an accurate representation of that person. So, even though this particular case is pretty minor (at least, most of us think it is, but there may be others who disagree), and even though my last example was somewhat exaggerated to make the point, the best way to eliminate this kind of subjective judgement of each photograph is to simply ban any and all modified images.
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about this logically. She is from the military. They are primarily liberals. Therefore they ~HATE the military.
Fuck you.
No, seriously, fuck you.
I am a liberal. I am a veteran. Most of my family and friends are also liberals, and many of them are also veterans. Those of us who are veterans are proud of our service, and those who aren't are proud of us for having served. None of us hate the military.
I am a Democrat, and I among my fellow Democrats I do not encounter hatred of the military. What I encounter is respect for my service and -- frequently -- the bond of meeting a fellow vet, who is also proud of having served, as well as a committment to cleaning up the mess that conservative chickenhawks have made of the country over the last eight years. You know, the people who "support the troops," but God forbid they or their kids should ever actually serve a day in uniform or hear a shot fired in anger.
Liberals hate the military? In many cases, we are the military. See, one of the great things about the military is that it's pretty much a cross-section of the country. Liberal and conservative and libertarian, black and white and Asian and Hispanic, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist and Hindu and every other religion you can think of -- you will find all of these, in every possible combination, serving America. Which is, when you come right down to it, a pretty liberal phenomenon in itself.
You, I expect, have lived your entire life surrounded by people pretty much just like you, and you're perfectly happy in your little comfort bubble where "the troops" are heroic abstractions doing heroic things far, far away. I.e., a conservative chickenhawk, just like your heroes Bush and Cheney. Don't worry, you can keep doing that. People like me, and people unlike me, who can put their differences aside to agree on a common goal, will keep on defending your right to be a self-righteous asshole, however little you deserve it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fuck you too, AC.
I started out in the infantry. 11B, you know what that is? Then I went medical and served in Daddy Bush's war. In other words, I've done as much real soldiering as anyone -- and probably a hell of a lot more than you or GPP, whose "knowledge" of combat probably comes from sitting on your fat asses playing FPSs and munching Doritos.
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Insightful)
This comment is spot-on. If the AP is cracking down on the DoD for this, they also need to crack down on PR firms that issue retouched photos of celebrities.
I think I would agree with the AP if the background they added made it look like she was in the field or something. That would have been a gross misrepresentation of the facts. This was just a headshot. The only people who should be upset at the retouching are people interested in dating the General.
And let's not forget the AP probably would have whined (albeit, not publicly) had the DoD issued the original, grainy photo with the cluttered background.
Re:For $DEITYs sake (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That is the difference between PR agencies, an admittedly biased source working for their client, and AP, a supposedly unbiased wire service passing on original news material to media companies to use as they see fit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It really isn't that much different than flying the general to the fanciest New York salon, fixing her all up, taking her to the best photographer, and snapping a beautiful picture (other than cost).
You are spot-on. They might as well have a rule against makeup and artificial backdrops. How about exposure tricks, lens filters, lighting tricks, or use of films that render richer-than-life colors? This photo would have cost a pretty penny if done traditionally, and I'm glad that the defense department is this cheap.
The AP should have an exclusion in their rules for portraits and other "puff" photos. At worst, mark it with a little flag that says "retouched" in the database for historical purposes - but I
yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember Zombietime? [zombietime.com]
Re:yeah... (Score:5, Informative)
Also dont forget Reuters [zombietime.com] doing the exact same thing.
Making an example (Score:5, Interesting)
It's good that they're taking a firm stance and everything, but are they absolutely confident that none of their other pictures are photoshopped? Not everybody who doctors image is a clueless muppet [blogspot.com].
I hate to say this (Score:5, Insightful)
But I think it's AP that are being rather pathetic on this one.
Such a mountain is being made out of a molehill with this story. Certainly if it was like the most recent Israel/Lebanon war where Reuters and co. had been daft enough to fall for doctored photos of Lebanon to make it look like the damage was worse than it was it'd be one thing but here we're talking about a picture of a member of the US military having her picture changed from standing in front of her office wall, to standing in front of a US flag. That really has absolutely no propaganda value whatsoever, I can't imagine even the most over the top patriotic American shouting "OMG SHES IN FRONT OF A US FLAG FUCK YEAH!" at the excitement of seeing the picture in question.
I'm not sure if it's AP's fault for it being blown out of proportion or whether they simply followed protocol on a hardline rule of no doctored photos no matter how harmless (although that has implications of it's own, hardly any photo is a raw image now without at least automatic alterations by cameras) or whether the fault lies at the feet of other media organisations.
When I saw this originally on the BBC the other day I have to admit it's arguably the most pointless slow-news day excuse for a story I'd seen in a while.
You hit the nail on the head (Score:5, Insightful)
The AP is making a mountain out of a molehill because they are trying to remove the stain on their industry that they are other so called leaders have put there. As such they need to exaggerate even the silliest of things and scream like a schoolyard brat "see see see"
I gave up long ago believing anything from Reuters when it came to stories involving Israel and for that matter the entire Middle East. They just lost their right to be trusted.
Re:You hit the nail on the head (Score:5, Insightful)
AP and Reuters have more to worry about than just photos. Their so-called "journalism" is just as fake and altered as they claim these photos to be. The difference is that the pentagon's photo alteration are the equivelent of correcting grammer and using different, but synonmous words.
In order to rise to the level of fraud AP and Reuters typically exhibit in their journalism, the Pentagon would have had to put a mustache on her and make her a minority of some kind.
Re:You hit the nail on the head (Score:4, Interesting)
It's also a convenient way of throwing up a smokescreen.
Making a lot of hoo-ha about an obviously manipulated photo leads you to believe in their integrity. Which then allows them to slip far more subtly doctored and 'serious' photos through the net.
Now where's my tinfoil hat?
Re:I hate to say this (Score:4, Insightful)
If the DoD wanted to provide a photo of the general in front of a flag, then they should have submitted a photo of her taken in front of a flag. [army.mil]
Re:I hate to say this (Score:5, Insightful)
The US and US flags (Score:3, Insightful)
To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree). Are the majority of the population so bad at geography that they have to see a flag to know what country they're in? Or would people assume that General Ann Dunwoody is Canadian or (gasp!) French if it wasn't for the flag in the background?
Re:The US and US flags (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an American and don't understand it myself; it seems like it's gotten more pronounced over the last decade or so.
All I can offer as an explanation is that, as school children, many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance, which really seems quite flag-centric.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands...."
Re:The US and US flags (Score:5, Insightful)
many of us began each day saying the pledge of allegiance
Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. In the UK, you won't see hardly any flags. Maybe on a few government buildings etc. It's seen as rather tasteless, rather low-brow. Duh, me Tarzan, me light fire, me wave flag.
Re:The US and US flags (Score:4, Interesting)
You should take a trip to Northern Ireland.
Of course, the 'me wave flag' still applies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing is, many other flags have also been fought and died over; pretty much the entire reason flags came into existence was so that soldiers could identify their units on the battlefield, and there's a good reason that color-bearer was both one of the most honored and one of the most dangerous positions in any army. The idea of "rallying 'round the flag" in a literal sense died sometime in late 1914, along with a hell of a lot of brave, doomed young men trying to do exactly that, but the symbolism rema
Re:The US and US flags (Score:5, Insightful)
Which also I find quite bizarre. Talk about indoctrination from an early age. But I also find the obsession in the US with flags a little disturbing. (...)
Traditionally there wasn't really much to hold US citizens together. They came from a hodge-podge of different nations and subscribed to a hodge-podge of different religions that were often at odds with one another. One might have hoped that they would resort to their Constitution in order to create a nucleus to unite around but perhaps that document is just too heavy on points one can disagree with. So they used a symbol that is devoid of any meaning other than the one each individual puts their for himself: their colours.
The statesmen that once set out to create a national identify for my own country, Norway, learned this from the US and made us the no.2 flag-wavers of the free world. Absent anything else of much use, what united Norway and what set us apart from our Swedish overlords was our colours.
Most other established nations have hundreds and hundreds of years of culture to use as social binding agent. The US did/does not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the flag was supposed to be on fire. I believe the idea was that flag-waving is such primitive behaviour that it might be thought more appropriate to people who have only just discovered how to use fire.
Re:The US and US flags (Score:5, Funny)
You spent 10 years defending a flag?? Couldn't you have just let the enemy have it and make a new one?
Re:The US and US flags (Score:4, Interesting)
To defend the flag? Not the Republic, not the Constitution, not 'We the People', not liberty or equality, but the flag?
That's dangerous. Flags are whores; they'll flutter for anybody who sticks a pole up them. Anyone can wave a flag; it's no guarantee that they're worth defending. If your allegiance is only to the flag, and not to anything really worth fighting for, then sooner or later you'll find yourself supporting someone truly loathsome just because they're the ones waving that flag.
Re:The US and US flags (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me hit you with a clue stick, I spent 10 years of my life defending that flag. Millions of Americans have fought, died or served to defend that flag as well, it certainly deserves it's prominence.
Interesting. When I was in the military I was defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Now, I know what you're getting at, but the flag isn't important - the republic, for which it stands, is the important part. Ask yourself this... If you were forced to evacuate your position and had to choose between running and grabbing the flag, or grabbing someone that was wounded, which would it be? I hope it's the wounded guy. If it isn't, I'm glad I never served with you. What's my point? That a single person is more important than a flag because the flag is just a symbol. An important one, perhaps. But still just a piece of cloth that you can replace for $50 (for a nice one).
This is a military person (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually its common for business execs to have their logo in their picture so why wouldn't a General or even regular soldier have a flag in theirs? Sorry if it offends but many of us are actually very proud of our country, its heritage, and as such don't see reason to not celebrate it which can mean having the flag visible.
I guess its different elsewhere but we surrounded ourselves with the symbols of our freedom when we split from England, notice all the flags pictured then and the importance of some in song?
You did highlight the major difference though, we don't have to do it but we do so out of our own free will. Because of that we may seem excessive but there should never be anything wrong with such pride in one's country.
It would be more embarrassing to me to live somewhere where I would not feel comfortable showing it
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).
Oh yes it is the same thing. They've equated patriotism with flag-bearing and equated being upatriotic with terrorism. So stupid people smother themselves in flags.
A quote:
"I'm the only person in my neighborhood with a McCain sign and an American flag"
by which this guy meant that Obama supporters are terrorists. See?
What the flag means. (Score:5, Informative)
To most (non-american) people that's just plain bizarre. Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state, but obvously it's not quite the same thing here (since americans spam their surroundings with US flags by their own free will, not by a state decree).
You have to understand that the US has a history very different than that of European nations, in that we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom. That fight was symbolized from the very beginning by the flag, whose image was used to unite the disparate colonies behind a single goal of American freedom. That flag was commissioned by George Washington, who realized that a nation and an army needed a common identity if the war for independece was to be won. Realize that, prior to that point, America was just 13 colonies. The flag was used to make them a nation.
Because of that, the flag itself has become a symbol of freedom and the fight for it. That's why our national anthem is a poem written about the flag (in the War of 1812). That's why most lasting image of WWII (for Americans) is four soldiers lifting the flag at Iwo Jima. I could go on...
As such, particularly for the military, the flag represents both who you are and what you're fighting for. Because Americans fought for their freedom and to create our very existence as a separate entity from a colonial power, our flag means a whole hell of a lot more to us than it probably does for most countries.
You always take for granted that for which you didn't have to struggle. Americans have been taught about that struggle and what it means, and many of us refuse to take freedom for granted.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
. . . we defined our very existence by fighting for our freedom.
It would be interesting to compare flag behavior in the States to other nations that have fought revolutions in the last few hundred years, e.g. France, Finland, Russia, China, Cuba, Romania.
It might help us answer whether that 232-year old revolution is the explanation of the way flags are used in the States today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure how well you understand European history. Countries such as France, The UK, Germany, Spain and most others you see today haven't always been single entities and almost all European countries are an amalgamation of smaller countries/states who have been forced one way or another to get together for the greater good in exactly the same way the US has.
For example the Union Jack is an amalgamation of elements from the English, Scottish, Welsh & Irish flags representing the participation of each
Because Americans are a Polity, not a Volk (Score:5, Interesting)
Few other nations (perhaps Canada) can credibly claim this. France similiarly claims to base its nationalaity on political ideas and common citizenship, but ethnicity and 'being French' seems to still be very important to them (although they deny it).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Few other nations (perhaps Canada)can credibly claim this
It's interesting. My wife, (born in the US, lived there till her late 20s when we married, we now have a daughter who is a dual cit) when she was dating me commented on the differences between the US and Canada said that she thought that Canadians were less patriotic then the Americans. I responded that we have a different type of patriotism, more quiet, and we don't feel the need to rub it in other people's faces.
She now lives here and is consideri
Re:The US and US flags (Score:5, Interesting)
why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags? [...] Outside the USA, you'll only see it in dictatorships that tries to whip up unity/loyalty for to state
I think that's wrong. In Paris there flag poles on the street that serve no other purpose than to wave the French flag around. In Germany, following the last Euro cup, many people kept the German flags they had been displaying during the competition on their houses and cars (following a very long history of flag-taboo in that country, granted). In some neighbourhoods of my hometown of Montreal, hundreds of people display the Quebec flag on their porch for no other reason that affirm their patriotism.
I think we all have a natural tendency to notice flags much more when they have a negative connotation to us. Nationalist Quebecers notice Canadian flags everywhere but Quebec flags are invisible to them. Many people outside the US don't associate very positive thoughts to the Star-Spangled Banner, and the slight irritation it causes makes them notice it more.
And the picture we're discussing here is a military picture. Of course they're going to pose in front of their flag.
Just my $0.02 of course. Maybe the flag/capita ratio is indeed higher in the States than other countries, but I think that's the sort of domain where we're all heavily biased in what we notice and what we don't, so until I see actual figures I'll keep an eyebrow raised.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It also stipulates that every citizen must keep a flag draped over their shoulders at all times.
You can wear it as a muffler or scarf, the ever popular but still stylish cape, or even a neckerchief. My pastor wore one as his liturgical vestment last Sunday.
holy Crazy Eddie! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not Surprised (Score:5, Informative)
I served in the Army for 7+ years. Three years of which in a PAO (Public Affairs Office), that handles press releases, photo's, etc. Most people have this idea that there is this all encompassing control in the Army, as well as a focused strategy of deception. Believe me.. there isn't, they aren't that smart (like most companies we all work for).
This picture is photoshopped badly because just like any small shop in the civilian world, some SPC or PFC got a request for a photo of Gen Whats Herface, thought it would be "cool" to use this new app on my computer. He then shows the photo to the Captain(or Major) who is the "Manager" of the office... He's technically a dud (like most Managers) and thinks it's awesome. So they hand it over.
Point is, don't forgot the U.S. Army isn't unlike most Corporations when it comes to things other than "War (Training, etc."), they have bad manager's, are poorly run, make mistakes... I've personally NEVER seen a case where they were trying to cover something up, or lie, and I was working during the Cuban Camp setups in Central America (sh!t hit the fan with that one). Nobody even thought about lying or being deceptive, there was just this idea that you just don't do it, because we're soldiers, it's a black eye when the truth does come out, and it always does. (Now, when it comes to Operational Information, ie War. that is different. You don't have press releases that will tell the enemy 'Hey we'll be there next Friday, act surprised')
On the flipside, when deceptive things happen or poor photoshop jobs are released, it's usually poor decisions by LOCAL offices or commands. It's not an all encompassing strategy.
Just my personal experience :-)
Re:Not Surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, from my experience I would almost expect things to have gone the other direction from what you lay out. The Captain/Major says "We need a photo of Gen Whosits, but she is too busy for us. Go dig up a picture of her and make it look like a nice handout picture". Given that you can walk into almost any government building and see pictures of the entire chain of command for that organization all the way up to the President, and almost every one of those photos are identical with the person sitting in front of a flag with perfect lighting etc... My guess it was downward directed because the Gen was too busy to actually stop to have one of these pictures done so they found an existing picture and turned it into one of these.
For all their college education so many of the stupid ideas come from the officers...poor enlisted folk just get blamed for the execution of such goofball ideas.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Military tried to kick him out.
The populace gave him the highest job in the land.
Listening to the populace blame the military and call them stupid...priceless.
Sharpening (Score:4, Insightful)
Forget the background, how did they add so much sharpness to the blurry original?
Is it actually possible to get such a big improvement, or is the left picture just a blurry reproduction of a sharper original?
If there is a tool that can do that, I'd have some pics myself I would want to touch up.
Re:Sharpening (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sharpening (Score:4, Insightful)
If makes me wonder where the original came from. It is obviously not the original unless it was taken with a cell phone. If the AP wants people to take them seriously they need to pick better battles. Dissing a promo shot and making it "news" is pretty lame.
Overblown and then some (Score:5, Interesting)
If the AP really has a policy regarding altered images then they did the right thing.
But the reality of this situation is probably that someone needed a press-suitable head shot of the General, snapped a quick pic in her office and edited in a background. They also appear to have smoothed out her face, but that is part of a professional portrait photo these days.
The exact same image would likely have been fine if it had been done at the local Wal*mart portrait place in front of a flag backdrop and the guy there had blurred the focus a little to have a similar effect on her face.
There are photos that are fact reporting, and there are photos that are PR head shots. This is a PR head shot, and nobody should think that it in any way reflects reality.
My boss, a low-level director at my company, had a head shot done recently for PR reasons. I barely recognize him in it.
I feel sorry for General Dunwoody in this; she was just made the first US female 4-star general three days ago, and now she has to put up with this stupidity.
The AP has a WONDERFUL track record... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet changing a stock head shot background from an office to a flag, and touching up skin is a hideous travesty of judgment. Glad to know the AP has standards!
AP Get a Clue! (Score:3, Interesting)
This photo of the General looks like it was a quick snap from a cell phone then altered to make it presentable as a public relations head shot. The AP is so far out of line on this they border on being absurd.
To me it looks like the kooks at the AP were searching hard for a reason to deny the DoD access to the media. They have more than once rejected the DoD versions of a story claiming "bias" when they openly welcome stories from those with a real bias (aka terrorists) against the DoD or U.S. Government.
For me the AP had lost all credibility ages ago.
In Response (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Funny)
Reading TFA we'd know HE is a SHE (Score:4, Insightful)
It is a clear case of "for publicity use" photo cleared for use by someone who has no sense of the "documentary value and purpose" of photos.
I've personally done greater "truthcrimes" for various aging local singers and celebrities.
Not to mention all those thousands of yearbook photos that needed "touching up".
BTW... I'm a bit confused by the photos.
While the left one (supposedly original) is highly degraded - the right one (polished version) has the exact same uniform.
The UCP digital camouflage pattern is identical as well as all the creases.
Now... Maybe someone on CSI (Miami) could "enhance" the left image to look like the right one, but not in the real world.
Sooo.. keeping that in mind, shadows around the left photo's head also appear kinda fake.
As if they were cut/pasted from somewhere else, with some feathering used in the selection.
As if someone took photo A of a perfectly looking blank uniform, and photo B of the general's face, and merged them into photos C (sitting in the office, hard at work) and D (posing in front of a flag, being patriotic).
Re:Reading TFA we'd know HE is a SHE (Score:4, Interesting)
What end publishers may do is their choice, but AP as a wire service intends to pass on originals. If they didn't draw a pretty hard line on this, then you could get multi-generation changes as each user "improves" the picture slightly before passing it on. AP intends to provide "raw" news without opinions, and "original" photos without touchup. What their customers do, whether politically or aesthetically, with the information AP provides is the customers business.
I think the "before" picture has been passed through a relatively high compression *since* being used to create the after, thus producing the colour shift and the artefacts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a time when I believed that. But you know what they say: 99% honorable behavior makes it possible to cheat 1% of the time without anyone suspecting.
The event that made me realize that AP is doing this, is their coverage of the recent school shooting which was halted by a student who wen
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Insightful)
funny, to me the biggest difference is her face, she's made to look about 20 years younger than she looks on the original.
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Funny)
Looking at the edited photo, I have to wonder how they found out that it didn't come right out of the camera like that. I mean, I've seen quite a few 'shops in my time, and I got nothing. *cough*
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, my first thought was "how long did it take them to work that one out?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
oh, they must have used highly advanced software [wired.com] to detect the minute discrepancies between lighting angles. it must have taken a team of experts several weeks to uncover the fraud.
this seems like typical nationalistic BS, but it's really not any worse than the kind of stuff you see in magazines or the kind of audience manipulation TV networks like Fox and CNN do on a regular basis. i'd be more worried about Army psy-ops "interning" at CNN [counterpunch.org] or NPR [interesting-people.org].
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't draw the line at "no photo alterations, even if they're just cosmetic", where do you draw it?
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Informative)
If they added extra medals, maybe an impressive book on the desk, maybe made her teeth whiter these are all subtle alteration designed to make you believe the image they're trying to sell. That flag backdrop is less convincing than if they had photoshopped her into nazi germany riding a unicorn.
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy. Make an exception for portraiture, and allow any analogs to traditional photographic techniques. Request an original for archival purposes.
Some allowable analogs:
exposure tricks = brightness/contrast settings
lens filters = soften/blur/color adjustments
backdrop = cut and paste background
makeup = touchup tools
For instance, you would not allow a fake war backdrop in traditional photography to dramatize a "real" photo - and nor should you allow a fake war scene to be pasted in using Photoshop. A portrait, on the other hand, would involve lighting tricks, exposure tricks, a fake background, and makeup. Adding these after the fact is no different and no more misleading.
On the other hand, pouring fake blood on a body should be disallowed whether the blood is real or Photoshopped. Adding smoke to a scene should be disallowed whether you open a can of smoke in front of the camera or add it digitally. Faking police brutality should be disallowed whether you dress up as an officer and pretend to beat up a protester for a real camera, or alter an image digitally. Etc...
All that said, it should be noted when a photograph has been staged/edited. A simple flag or some descriptive text would do nicely. Honesty and disclosure are more important than whether the photons are all "original".
Honestly, this "zero tolerance" stuff hardly ever seems to work out because reality is not binary.
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one problem with allowing exceptions in portraits: it has the potential to hurt AP's credibility.
I, like many others here, spotted the fact that this portrait was photoshopped (poorly) at a glance. If I saw the photo being used in a news article, I would become aware that the AP is using Photoshopped images in their news articles. Being unaware of the official policy that allows exemptions specifically for portraits, I would begin to wonder where else photoshopping is occurring in AP news images. My level of trust in the AP would drop significantly.
So, how does the AP address that issue and ensure that people trust them? They say "don't touch up your photos, period".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But portraits are inherently doctored!
No, portraits are inherently staged.
The important distinction is that you know who stages a photo, but you don't know who doctors a photo. If the photo was staged to put the general in front of a flag, you know that both the photographer and the general were involved and consented to the photo being staged as such. But with a photo that has been doctored, you don't know who did it, or whether anyone actually involved with the photo had any say in its doctoring. Therefore, you can't be sure that it's a valid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...it should be noted when a photograph has been staged/edited...
It seems to me that the main criterion should be, if there is an intent to deceive the viewer. Editing to deceive is different than editing to enhance or beautify.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think the original is really the original. It's a low rez shot with a LOT of compression artifacts. Looks like someone took a picture of the real picture with their cell phone or something. Extrapolating to what the original would actually look like, it doesn't look like they did much manipulation except contrast adjustment, white balance and a really obvious cut and paste job.
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Enhance 224 to 176. Enhance, stop. Move in, stop. Pull out, track right, stop. Center in, pull back. Stop. Track 45 right. Stop. Center and stop. Enhance 34 to 36. Pan right and pull back. Stop. Enhance 34 to 46. Pull back. Wait a minute, go right, stop. Enhance 57 to 19. Track 45 left. Stop. Enhance 15 to 23. Give me a hard copy right there.
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that looks like a standard issue high ranking military officer's office.
Basically, it is a crappy picture of her sitting in her office.
Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of? (Score:4, Insightful)
The "before" picture doesn't look like a 1st gen photo. Looks like they obtained the original via a lossy format, like a camera phone or something of that sort. Heavy artifacting. Compare her hair in the two pictures for the most striking difference. So probably the only real change made was alteration of the background.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to assume that the "original" was actually a poor resolution copy they were able to get their hands on later, not the actual original. Otherwise, I want to hire the guy who can retouch pictures to that degree of accuracy and clarity!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Photoshop might be the shizzle, but it can't do that. No one's that good.
There's a higher-quality original out there that was used to construct the fake. Through various workings the AP managed to get a hold of a very low res version. Probably a thumbnail of some sort. My guess would be that the DoD got lazy and didn't scrub the metadata and left the original JPEG thumbnail from the camera in the file. I've had that issue before myself.
Re:Oh no, not a flag!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
But this example is clearly out of bounds!
Maybe if they had included a few live people draped with sheets to simulate corpses, or perhaps a live person being carried as though he were dead in the background the AP would have been OK with it. But a fake flag? Oh, no. That's right out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Couldn't we focus more on some of the outright fraud shots of the last several years carried by media operators trying to make the soldiers in Iraq look bad?
No? Okay. I thought I would just ask.
Their policy covers both. Or are you just trolling?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
DA = Department of the Army
100% agree (Score:5, Insightful)
If the photograph had been doctored to hide something or to give a wrong impression it would have been different. If I was going on a blind date with her, then yeah there might be a problem - but this is clearly just simple marketing.
The clearly rendered US flag and dodgy edging around her hair are just too obvious for this to reflect anything sinister. Maybe the photograph could have been rejected, and reminder of policy sent - but blocking them? that's just nuts.
This is someone trying to score political points and has nothing to do with integrity.
Re:100% agree (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably a good idea to keep top officials incidental information from leaking (like from the background of a photograph).
Remember that famous picture of the couple on the couch and the not so well hidden bottle of "anal lube" on the table nearby? Imagine that, only with some sort of tip that gives someone the last bit they need to go and do X (kill troops, distract a general because they kidnap the dog, etc.).
It's quite obviously an inserted background. Not an attempt to fool.
AND the image on the left is a compressed jpg for the web (and whomever did it did a shitty job at it) so there are lots of spots that are not "clean up" but rather "idiot writing the story doesn't understand compression" artifacts.
Yea, doctoring photos that are supposed to convey an event is bad, but doctoring one that is just supposed to remind you who the heck we are talking about is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in the military. Stand back, people: I'll tell you what happened.
Colonel Fuckwit: Airman, we need a better picture of Gen Doodles for some newspaper crap. All I can find is this shitty ID card photo saved on the S:\ drive.
-next day-
Senior Airman Dropout: That's the only photo I could find, too. Gen Doodles is in Egypt/Iraq/Florida right now so I just kind of, you know, fixed this shitty photo and put in a new background. It'll work fine.
Col Fuckwit: Perfect. [walks down hall to Gen Tard's office]
Col Fuc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Especially considering all the fake photos AP has accepted from its Palestinian office (cloned smoke clouds, same dead kid used in several photographs, etc.). Honestly, AP has no credibility on the issue of altered photos.
Re:AP doesn't use altered images? Riiiight... (Score:4, Insightful)
If anything it shows why they have to be so strict, as a news agency they are doing business on the accuracy of their information.
Re:This isn't new (Score:4, Interesting)
This website present the two photographs side by side [tripod.com]. The photographers removed the fencepost appearing to stick out of her head.
There is a time difference of 25 years between the two photographs. The original one was publish in 1970. The second
one was Photoshopped in 1995.