Slashdot Mirror
AP Suspends DoD Over Altered US Army Photo
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."
I don't know if the FA says what it is (restrictive webfilter here) but can we speculate? Russian flag? Area 51? His giant pet wooly mammoths?
It's a good thing that they're not using altered images anymore, but will this go for touched up photos of celebrities and the like? If not, that for me would be a double-standard.
The alterations of of images transposed from within the confines of allocated semiconductor memory is a travesty of trustworthiness that makes on think of the simpler days of the chemical process for capturing images and storage on layered flexible devices. Those recollections also recoup melancholy days of sipping the Tranya amidst the family on late autumn holidays. One weeps for what this has become.
... and from having seen a lot of 'shops in my time.
Seriously though, that's unacceptable and the AP responded appropriately.
That's not only altered, but altered badly. You'd think the US armed forces could afford to hire a decent graphic designer!
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
"'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."
Methinks I remember some kind of scuffle in the news a while back over an AP photographer altering his photos of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
but you need to draw the line somewhere. If adding 'just a flag' is allowed, then why not adding 'just a gun' or 'just a document'. You have to draw the line somewhere. Plus, once an image is edited, it is no longer a photograph as it does no longer simply capture a moment in time.
This happened quite recently with Kim Jong Il as well http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5101905.ece although his was slightly more of a faked photo than just altering the background and touching up her skin. I personally dont have an objection to the photo of General Ann Dunwoody, It is a much better image to have in the press than the original one, but if we do allow it where do we draw the mark so as to have a completely faked photo like the one of Kim Jong Il. Perhaps we need Team America to sort out this issue!
Yes, but this sounds more like a 'portrait' shot than one intended to carry journalistic content.
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.
It's a promo picture: it's practically a logo. Head and shoulders photo alphablended with a neat background. It's not like they were misleading anyone. Do you think the AP logo on their website is a photo? It's a graphical design rather than photo reportage we're talking about here.
It's quite obvious that it was altered, and it doesn't look like were trying to hide something. What's the big deal.
Because if there's going to be any altering of photos for impact, it damn well is going to be done by the media themselves! Wouldn't want to subvert their authority to alter perception now would we?
Remember Zombietime?
I had a lecture once about altered photos and the media. They shop images
Original
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a999Kent_State_massacre_2050081722-20864.gif
Shopped, before there was shop
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_Z2Bo9vLfJV8/R29OCSaWpGI/AAAAAAAABOg/ocwVYjEXOvo/13+-+Kent+State+Massacre.JPG
I'm guessing people are only starting to care now because that one guy added smoke to some pictures, to make it look like a bombing.
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.
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.
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?
I'm surprised the AP cares considering all of the photoshopped pics they have allowed in the past and this edit just cleans up the pic doesn't alter the content. So apparently the AP only cares when the Army alters pictures not journalists.
Obvious shoop is obvious.
[FUCK BETA]
All considerations aside there always had been picture manipulations to stick to a specific trend - I do remember a picture of my mother during her twenties who had been mocked up to look like as a "Hollywood star" -that was the trend at that moment (around the 50's).
Anyhow apart the fact that the picture here had been doctored to look better the whole setup despicts a massive bad taste, yes she's a general, yes we suspect that she's patriotic but putting a huge american flag behind her...and this way.
It somehow reminds me the naive imagery used by -oh irony- by the islamists or those who make money using islamic images styles (you know those tshirts, posters and flags aren't freebies).
Moreover the perspective is very wrong, the whole image is very wrong looking.
This isn't news, but just points to another obvious fact about the anti-military bias in the press.
Life is not for the lazy.
Could someone please explain this to me, why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags?
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?
Are they really calling a US flag "actual content"?
Talk about chicken salad from chicken shit. That is one hellova good retouch job to get that level of detail from such a poor picture. Must be some secret CIA imaging system...
INSERT INTO comment VALUE('Doh!') WHERE user='you';
That photograph is horrible, both the original and the CGI monstrosity that it spawned. It looks like something you'd see on a Realtor's business card or a Brooklyn electronics shop ad.
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 :-)
Awesome!
It actually took more than 2 seconds for them to notice that the picture was edited? i've seen better photoshops that where with one eye closed, using the trackpad on a laptop.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
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.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
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.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
But is it reasonable to cover both?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The networks 'alter reality' every day during sports broadcasts - the ads you see on stadium walls on TV are often superimposed over the real wall. What you see is not what the guy in the stadium sees.
I don't have any problem with superimposed first down lines, etc, that help you understand the play - I doubt many people mistake those lines for ones that are actually there. But changing the image of something that's happening live and and not being up front about it seems dishonest to me. Without disclosure, it makes me wonder, "What else have they changed?"
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Actually the AFP has absolutely no problems publishing faked pictures. It just depends on who fakes them. If you're killing Jews, you can fake pictures all you want for the AFP. Feels like 1935 all over again :
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/07/milking-it.html
I think there is a difference between altering something in order to change the context of the photo and enhancing the photograph. This is clearly a case of enhancing the photograph to correct the poor lighting and to remove the junk in the background. I think the AP has gone overboard by calling this "altered". If the original photo had her standing in front of a Nazi flag and they changed it to be a US flag, then that would be a different story.
Where can I get me some of that pixelated camo gear?! that shit is awesome!
Hello Pot! This is Mr. Kettle calling!
I have seen photographers alter photo's by adding different lenses to their apparatus. Before digital camera's, they did things during the development. In some digital camera's I can select a frame to go around the person while I take the picture.
So what is alteration and what is not? Taking a picture is already an alteration in my eyes.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Considering how often the AP hilariously augments their stories with badly 'shopped images, it's obvious at least some of them just do a google image search for something that looks like a related press photograph.
Do you think Reuters ever got blacklisted?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Do you have any link? I'm not questioning your memory of the story. But I would be interested to know if the AP retracted the photo and disciplined the photographer once his/her photos had been found to be doctored. Because that would then be consistent with their policy, a photographer can break their rules but their HQ should be able to re-enforce their policies after the event.
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.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I imagine this means the AP will no longer ever show pictures of celebrities...
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 preferred solution is to not have a problem.
you mean,it's no longer a snapshot.
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
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I cannot believe that the US Army does not have stock publicity photos of their generals with the US flag in the background. One would hope that people would be smart enough to use one of them instead of doctoring a photo.
I think it's sort of silly too, however I see more Mexican flags each day that I do American flags. The immigrant community around here is very, very proud of their Mexican flag I guess....They are nearly every bumper, on huge display in many a pick up truck window and I've even seen them flying over the local park for the Sunday soccer/futbol leagues.
Here ya go. The actual news agency was Reuters, not the AP. I think this gaff was the one that broke the camel's back, so to speak, in news agencies using doctored photos.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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).
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Reuters will take it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
AP and most news agencies are worse than worthless. I think the only thing going on here is that somebody tried to pass off such an incredibly LAME Photoshop job that even the AP people couldn't swallow it. (Hair lines are hard to cut & paste convincingly, as this picture shows). There are standards to be kept up when lying to people. If terrible jobs like this are allowed to make it through, then the whole thing falls apart. --I mean, heck, even the people at the AP caught this one, and the LAST place you want people suspecting a lie are those actually working within the news agencies. They have to be the most effectively programmed drones in the fleet, because if too many of them can't be sold and if any of them happens to have a conscience, then you'll start having big problems.
On the benefit side, by running a story on the condemnation of false pictures, the public will nod with approval and feel secure in the *cough* impeccability of the press.
That's my take, anyway. I can't place much fault with the military on this one. It looks like a thoughtless bit of half-baked PR to me.
-FL
I'm by no means a graphic designer but DAMN. Even I can make text look weathered and blend in to fabric. Take a look at the uniform again, looks like someone put a 'better looking' font and blurred out the old or something.
Could be totally wrong, but then like I said I'm no graphics designer.
am i the only one thinking "big deal" so they sharpened the image and added a flag as a background. who gives a fuck?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Actually, I think the incident mentioned by the GP was Reuters not AP. But, that doesn't mean AP doesn't have it's own scandals that I am not aware of or that haven't been discovered.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
To me the biggest difference is the freaking huge flag behind her! Oh, by the way, I fixed the subject on this thread, ok?
-- dnl
Why do you keep saying AFP when you mean AP? Do you have some problem with the French?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Or ever in contact/contract with US or any other military - as far as creative matters are concerned.
Armies of the world cover "graphic design" and other creative missions using "resources available at hand".
Meaning - whichever soldier has, claims that he/she has, or looks like he/she might have experience in the said field.
Most cases that "experience" means "I was in the magazine club in high school" (f-in DTP and photo wizard) or "I put funny captions on cats". (average "expert").
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
As I recall, the AP ran photos of the "new" Iranian missiles being test-launched. Didn't it turn out that the Iranians had photoshopped that one as well? I guess the AP will have to stop using photos from that otherwise reliable source as well.
Flags are important to Americans because they are a common unifying symbol outside of ethnicity. Most modern nation-states are organic ethnically based. In those countries, the nation and the ethnicity are the same (for example Danes and Denmark). Ethnic solidarity defines those nations. A Dane does not have to profess adherance to the King of Denmark or the Danish Idea to be a Dane. He is a Dane because, he is ethnically a Dane. This is not the case in Amercia. America is, by design, a synthetic nation. Our entire national identity is based on adherance to common political ideas and there is no ethnic solidarity. Our national solidarity is based common identification with political ideas and with symbols of those political ideas (the flag, the liberty bell, statue of liberty, etc). Therefore, it is important to have regular socialization with and emphasis on those political symbols and ideas, least baser instincts (like ethnicity) boil up.
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).
Could someone please explain this to me, why does Americans see the need to constantly surround themselves with US flags?
Most don't. You're just seeing a vocal minority. Actually if you want to see a lot of flag waiving travel to Mexico.
Like any other country the US has an uber-patriotic segment of the population. Politicians use it as a way to trumpet how patriotic they are to those who care - and some voters do care. It's just symbolic though and that's hardly unique to the US. What we find odd is things like China's obsession with Mao. Different strokes for different folks I suppose.
... you are talking about?
On the bottom photo (change .JPG in the link to .jpg as someone suggested) there is no added smoke.
There IS a reflection from LAMINATION (or perhaps from glossy paper).
No added smoke.
Are you perhaps referring to THIS?
If so, were you sleeping or "smoking" during the lecture?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
As if the AP is relevant.
And get a proper photo taken.
Like the DoD actually cares, they still have Faux News and talk radio.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
No, it's totally unreasonable.
I, for one, support a more flexible policy along the lines of:
All photos which matter must have no significant alterations beyond basic cleanup and color/contrast adjustment.
However, photos of some stupid shit nobody would care about can have a bunch of unicorns or whatever pasted in there to make them more exciting.
I guess it depends on if that particular "moment in time" is what the AP wants to capture. Fake "reenactments" and staged photo events of "tragedies" in the middle east that are used to support false allegations? Yep, those are apparently capture just the types of "moments in time" that the AP is OK with.
... Seriously, have any of you ever seen the standard Army photo portrait? It's a picture of a Soldier in uniform, from mid-chest on up, in front of an American flag. Most individuals in leadership positions need to have one taken for publication purposes. If she hadn't had the chance to have one of these taken, clearly the intent was to simulate that it was a standard "official" portrait.
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.
But they won't use a DoD photo. LOL. I'm sure that will last a long time. Hopefully the DoD will retaliate and not allow AP to carry official DoD released news.
And here I thought it was "and to the republic for Richard Stands". Thanks for clearing that up. Always wondered who he was.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
The AP are merely instruments of the Make-up and Back-drop Artist Guilds, who are desperate to stop the use of virtual make-up and back-drops by the military industrial complex. They want their slice of the pie too.
been the 'Glamour Shot' treatment, a professional hair and make-up
artist crew to change her image, it would be fine, but the digital
stuff is verboten. What a useless story. Background schmackground.
Ya'll go back to Digg and find a real story.
Suppression of a few paragraph by a governement/private entity ? CENSURE ! Suppression of a few paragraph of a text by a journalist ? EDITORIAL WORK. Editing an image from gov/private entity : BAD ! SUBVERSION! PROPAGANDA ! Edition of a picture by journalist : JOURNALIST EDITIVE WORK !
Since it is a military portrait - its a standard operating procedure.
What else are you going to put behind a soldier to liven up the photo? A mountain of corpses? "I killed all these myself".
Or perhaps a row of latrines? "I've shoveled more shit during me military career than Hercules himself".
A huge pile of guns? "You know... for shootin'".
A spear with scalps on it? "To bad we are killin' mostly Arabs now - I like blonds"
Country's flag (which they salute to each morning and evening and which they carry in the front when marching or storming towards the enemy) and sometimes company or battalion flag on the other hand is so very patriotic without being insulting to the outside observer.
A mountain of dead Japs or Jerries would be kinda inappropriate today, wouldn't it?
Also, that being the military - you might notice that they often have these little flags and coat of arms on their uniforms.
I've heard that those are used for I-DEN-TI-FI-CA-TION.
You know, so you could say "Them there NATO soldiers are 'Mericans, while them over there are Britts." - just by looking at them. From a distance even.
On the other hand - USA citizens are often fed with a larger patriotic spoon than most.
Maybe has something to do with the fact that the USA is actually a bunch of separate states.
Some of which have at least once tried to break away and form "their own USA, with blackjack and hookers".
So, constantly reminding people how bestest in the world their country is and how much they all love it - maybe USA needs 50 times more of that than say... France? Or Andorra.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
My wife is a photographer and according to her with today's digital photography it is common to use a green screen background for portrait shots and the digitally add in the desired background. If the AP really objects to this they are NUTS!
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, the military has issued a new, official photo of Gen. Dunwoody. But again, it looks like they may have photoshopped it. If you look closely, you'll notice some differences between the before and after pictures.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
The policy of no alterations is a simple policy, has unambiguous application, and has very little cost if people adhere to it. Let's face it, the DoD could have gotten a real portrait done for her, since this was an important event. It is perfectly reasonable to have unambiguous rules that serve a good purpose the vast majority of the time. The cost of ambiguity is greater than the cost of having some retake a portrait every now and then. There was photography before Photoshop, you know...
What a clever photoshop job. I'll bet they had to use advanced computational imagery techniques (only available in CSI and 24) to detect this subtle fakery.
Thank God AP was being vigilent.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
I suppose this is AP's way of showing they're not Reuters. :) Which is fine with me, but I think they should have been more clinical about it and not make it out to be an alteration on par with Reuters, or the "Han Shot First" controversy. :) I would like AP/Reuters and so forth to clarify what they mean by "doctored", because the logical conclusion for this sort of zero-tolerance is not to accept airbrushed photos, red-eye removed photos, etc. *shrug* It's just my opinion, but I think there needs to be a place to read the guidelines of what constitutes "doctored" and what does not. (if there is, good show. I'm too lazy to search for it right now.)
It's hard to judge photoshopped images if you're reading newsprint.
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
If they knew it was fake, why publish it? Did they not go back to the DoD and say "Hey, was this photoshopped/altered?" "Yeah?", "We can't publish this, we have a strict policy, 'blah','blah','blah', can we get the unaltered original?"
I just wonder if their idea to not publish their photos will be a benefit for them, if not hurt them. Or will they be willing to publish a DoD picture if they're actually taking it from a different source that the DoD gave it too first? Like, "this DoD picture is from Fox news, which the DoD gave and they published, so we're not at fault if the image was altered."
Or more, did the DoD actually GIVE them the image or did the DoD publish the image, like on their press release, and the AP just picked it up and ran with it, and got pissed later?
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
You don't see newspaper photos done with fisheye lenses - despite how funny that may be.
And there is photography and then there is photojournalism - which is only one branch of photography, and also only one branch of journalism.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
'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. He then added, 'We will, however, of course continue our internal policy of adding or subtracting content from our stories to bring them in line with our various biases.'
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
The weird thing is, all E-7s and above are required to have a special DA photo taken. This lady was a general, of rank somewhere between O-7 and O-10. She should already have a DA photo taken that essentially looks almost exactly the same as this "faked" one in her file. It's possible that the DA photo in her file was really out of date or perhaps even missing, who knows? Paperwork goes missing in the army all the time.
DA = Department of the Army
Why did the DOD not simply have a photoshoot. Would have cost very little to do. Bring in a photographer, set up a flag, sit her down in front of it - click click click.
Would have been a much better photo, no scandal and we'd have some other dumb story to comment on...
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
The Australian Federal Police didn't even exist in 1935, idiot.
Maybe you're confusing them with Agence France (sp?) or even the Associated Press.
Are the unicorns flying, or what? 'Cause that'll bite into journalistic integrity if they are flying.
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
What's the BFD? It's a publicity photo. If they want to stick in a flag and smooth over the face, I couldn't care less. If AP is going to stop running retouched photos, they'll never show stock photo of a politician again. They're pretty much all retouched.
Not that it really makes much difference anyway. AP is already dead.
They might as well be complaining about using fake linseed oil on their buggy-whips. They are no longer a big fish in a little pond, they're a cow in a little pond full of piranha. When every phone has a camera and every citizen has a direct connection to the rest of the world, AP has very little to offer.
Not really. But staff reductions of 10% is. I hope the communist AP goes out of business. Nothing would please me more. I get so sick of their bullshit.
Presumably, photos of spectacular truck collisions that have been doctored is OK. I don't seem to remember hearing about AP cutting off images from NBC News....
And I guess images of faked memos are also perfectly OK because I don't remember the AP cutting off CBS News from submitting images, either.
Wait a minute... OK, I get it now. If it makes a Rebublican, or a business, or the military, look bad it's OK. But if it makes one of the above look good....
Well! We just cannot have that!
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
As part of a new DoD directive, all flags in photographs will be replaced by walkie-talkies.
Carry on.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
On a communications course I was told that most newspaper use AP and Reuters as a "definitive source" or sometime like that.
Most stories require a journalist to have to get two sources before running a story , but AP is considered to be so factually reliable no other source is necessary.
So AP does have a lot to lose if its photo's are becoming unreliable or questionable.
It made me laugh. I call funny not Flamebait
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Wow I can't believe how much I don't care. There's a difference between touching up a photo and adding a cheesy looking American flag in the background and editing a photo to distort facts. The only fact here that was distorted was the quality of the lady's skin.
Call me when someone photoshops in a bunch of fake missiles into their propaganda photos (again).
or else!
Really, everyone loves to rant about how much money is wasted by the government and military, and then you hear complaints about things like this? And for what?
Scenario A: We need a press photo of the new general in front of a big flag. Go hire a photographer, block a few hours on the general's calendar and get all the necessary approvals for the photo from everyone who inevitably will want to throw in their two-cents about how best to do it.
Scenario B: We need a press photo of the new general in front of a big flag. Hey, Bob, here's a nice pic of her from last year, can you photoshop a flag background into it? Should take about an hour or so.
There really is a world of difference between popping out a PR photo of someone so that the newsies can show it in the corner of the screen when they talk about her and touching up a photo of a warehouse to make it look like it's full of nuclear warheads.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Give her a push-up bra while you're doctoring the photo!
'For us, there's a zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content from an image'
Would that they had the same policy on adding or subtracting actual 'content' from stories for political purposes.
Okay, the after was definitely photoshopped to add that background and touch-up her appearance, but the before pic, according to many photo-buffs here seemed to be heavily compressed and degraded from the (probable) original. This has the effect of making her appear much older, washed out, and more "run-down" than she would in a higher quality pic. Therefore, isn't the A.P. really bending this issue even further out of shape by using a photo as the "before" shot that they should know is not actually comparable to the actual original pic?
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
Now you know why the symbol for female is a mirror.
Worst.
Photoshop.
Ever.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
No matter how broad (blind allegiance to authority) or focussed (buy our product), effective mind control uses symbolism to re-enforce the memory of the messages (instructions) in the absence of active message delivery (think golden arches).
This was not a simple 'change of background', folks! It was a totally inept 'youthful-izing' excercise that presented her persona as much more vibrant, youthful, and 'General Officer - like' !! It also was a lie about the technology the photographer used in making the shot! I commend AP in its 'zero tolerance' for this type of deceit. You might disagree with me and find the pic acceptable, but that is not the real issue at all: the issue is simply "can we trust what the DoD or even AP show us?" Without a strict policy such as AP's we could have a news media whose veracity is always to be suspect . For me, that would not be tolerable.
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
This looks like an attempt to upgrade a "snapshot" to a formal portrait.
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.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
While I agree that this looks pretty harmless, what if they alter the portrait to make someone ugly?
That's not hypothetical, either. At least one TV station likes to play with photos of people they hate and doesn't appear to mention that fact.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Pardon my rant, but I'm a professional editorial and commercial photographer with a lot of experience in the news publishing industry.
This is exactly what is wrong with the business these days. Media companies can't make any bloody money because they can't tell stories on their own. There is NO reason to pick up the local paper over hopping onto Yahoo! Google or any other electronic source.
Despite large staffs (even after layoffs in most places) and a broad reach, they rely on everyone else to do their work for them, so they can continue to wallow in the mediocre goal of being all things to all people in the lowest common denominator.
From the AP and National Geographic on down the line to the Buttfuck, Iowa Weekly Register, publications need to get it through their fat fucking skulls that GENERATING highest quality content is far more important both to mission and money than just regurgitating information at the speed of thought.
You know why newspapers can't make money? The bloat it takes to run 84 pages of wire shit, box scores and stock quotes (day old, mind you) around the 12 pages of actual, real content worth reading.
But that's OK. Let them continue to take and publish HAND OUT MATERIAL FROM SOURCES. Then they can sit around the board room jerking each other off about 'multimedia initiatives' for the future while their stock and company eats shit and dies.
Places like Voice of San Diego have their shit together (mostly). Right on to the real, and death to the fakers.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
The "news" business routinely employs practices no different than the altered photo:
1) Press releases - unverified information provided by a news source that is routinely published as "news."
2) Photo Ops - news sources stage phony events that news photographers then photograph and distribute as "news."
3) Collaborative reporting - the news source and the 'journalist' jointly write a "news" story describing some event as "news."
4) Off the record - the news source provides information to the reporter that the reporter agrees not to tell to anyone.
5) Commentary - the media outlet provides 'commentary' that it presents as "news."
The "news" business is so badly compromised by these sorts of routine practices that it has become nothing but a propaganda-for-hire business to whoever is paying the most. The only real source of independent "news" left is word-of-mouth over the internet for whatever that might be worth. Mostly we are all in the dark about everything now.
FROG STEW
....
Step 1. Put frogs in pot
Step 7. Turn up the temperature in the pot just a bit
Step 8. Cue your agent ne provocateur frog to say, "It's just one degree warmer! Stop making a fuss! I barely can feel it! It's nothing compared to all the problems associated with $FOO $BAR and $BAZ. Everything's perfectly fine! Why the sun heats pond water every day and we are all used to that! It's not like we're going to use this water for icecubes anyway," etc.
Step 9. As much as possible encourage your agent actually to believe his own rhetoric.
Step 10. Repeat as necessary. Simmer until done.
$META_SIG_JOKE
If the photograph had been doctored to hide something or to give a wrong impression it would have been different.
I couldn't disagree with you more. As soon as you start to look at what the intent of the person altering (or ordering altered) a photograph is, you have to pass a value judgment over whether that intent was "pure", "righteous", "harmless", or whatever. That's a tricky path we can avoid altogether. What if the next photo is altered by the DoD because it shows soldiers committing a minor, victimless crime? Showing that would only "hurt America and the Army," so we just edit that bit out and reprimand the soldier, right? No thanks.
People generally expect photographs to be accurate, genuine depictions of the subject matter, especially when used in a journalistic context. I completely understand where the AP is coming from here. Their reputation takes a hit for publishing the altered photograph. I wouldn't want any new photos from the DoD until they were willing to commit to genuine, unaltered reproductions either. According to TFA, the Army said this one didn't violate any Army policies. The AP is perfectly reasonable for saying they're not accepting future photographs until the Army has a policy this would violate.
Whenever flags are waved, people get hurt.
to accept any digitally altered photo from Pentagon, for their Photoshop Friday feature.
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/photoshop-phriday/
The way I see it, many of the most famous photos from WW2 were constructed and posed by the photographer. What's the difference between doing that and adding a flag in post-processing? So long as the basic content, which in this case is just a darn personal shot, is correct, who cares?
Heck, is it unacceptable for Ansel Adams to have dodged or burned in the darkroom, or to have used color filters to enhance contrast in the original shot?
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
...so your analogies are Not Scottish.
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 stupidity is on the part of the Pentagon and those who are making excuses for it, not the AP.
Rationalizing an image as Photoshopped is easy, but try it in real life!
http://xkcd.com/331/
An object at rest cannot be stopped!
First, as a retired soldier, I can tell you that the flag is often included even if not originally in the photo. There is probably a reg about it somewhere as a matter of protocol, and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if other photos released by DoD or the services have been similarly doctored. (You'd have thought they'd take a picture with the flag already in it. I know I spent a fair bit of time carting flags around for pictures in my time.)
Second, as a PR function, I doubt the services or DoD want to see grainy pictures being sent out. Was the picture doctored, yes. But as far as I can tell, it was mostly to clean up the image and then add the flag. I'm sure that in the annals of doctored photos this one won't win too many prizes since it is fairly minor. (The improvement is a major one to be sure, but everyone likes to see better photos, right?)
Paraphrasing the bard: Methink the AP doth protest too much.
You can't bend reality to meet your perceptions.
Both photos are altered, you're not telling me that the one on the left is direct RAW from the camera are you? It's frigging awful, very grainy and looks like it was JPEG at 50% quality and then resized and cropped.
The RHS one is too good, they got way more detail in, how did they manage that.
The bit that jars with me is the shadow round the right (ie for an observer) of her head where it's clearly a cut-n-shut.
I'm surprised by how much better her face looks - the original picture (at least as rendered by the BBC) looked really grainy, while the "improved" picture doesn't. It's not just her face, but the whole picture. Do you think they ran some kind of smoothing on it, or is the real problem is something like the BBC expanding/shrinking the document?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I would also be interested in knowing the intent for this photo. Was it something that was more an internal photo, or something that was meant to be used informally? Because as the point has been made this was done badly, but I find it very hard to believe that is being put out as an "official photo". Now it is true that Pentagon policy is never to alter photographs. But can we take a step back, use common sense, and then give them the benefit of the doubt.
Hey if it was adding explosions or increasing the number of planes on a carrier or something along those lines then I would be more inclined to agree with the BBC on this one.
Dunwoody? Done Woody? That must have been a fun last name to grow up with.
As an example, [though not from the AP as far as I know, but a different news agency.] is the following picture of a woman holding up two bullets she claims were fired at her house by American soldiers.
Woman holds up two bullets.
Now for those unfamiliar with firearms - Yes those are indeed two bullets. However, note how pristine and unfired they are. You can see this sort of thing *a lot* in various forms of media if you look for it.
I agree with the point on touching up portraits, but I think whether or not the first, female 5 star general wears makeup is news. If I saw a photo of an office wall where her portrait was hung, I'd expect retouching *and* makeup.
I recall during the recent Lebanon - Israeli war there were a lot of altered images produced by Hezbollah - the famous guy who appeared in many different scenes holding the same apparently dead child that was distributed enthusiastically by AP. Seems that is far more deceitful than making an aging army officer look younger and fresher.
Having a single speed limit is simple and unambiguous, but I'm not keen on people driving through narrow city streets next to schools at 70mph. I'm not keen on driving down the motorway at 25 either. It's not as if the proposed rule is that complicated or ambiguous, at least if the person applying it is of adequate intelligence.
There were manipulations and special effects before photoshop too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> 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. Nah, that won't happen. Just look at what they did to Bush. Oh, wait..
Wow! With standards like that, can I assume that the AP never prints a graduation picture? How about shots for movies? I hear they use green screens, but you don't see then in the images.
You conveniently cut out an important part of my quote: "...and has very little cost if people adhere to it." Your speed limit example is clearly ruled out by that. And you also misunderstood what I meant by the photoshop comment. What I was saying is that you don't NEED to use photoshop to make a background. Just stick the woman in front of a flag and make a proper portrait! It would look better, and you don't have to do any manipulation.
To me, it is so obvious the doctored photo (bright, beautiful, shiny, crisp flag in background) is not the original, that this event is not a big deal. The photo feels like a public relations baseball card, with the poetic license normally granted for PR fluff. Still, to prevent arguments about manipulation, one way to preserve a file, such as a jpeg and its metadata, is to sign it with a voice signature. --Ben
Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas, benjaminwright.us
The "after" photo is so obviously doctored, even without seeing the original, I don't know why the AP is upset. I would have taken one look at it and assumed everyone could tell it was a fake background and called it a publicity photo. Was it published alongside a story that was somehow given more credibility because she's in front of a flag instead of a mantle?
The AP is upset because a photo edit on her picture added a background. Gee...
Since when did the AP start caring about photo edits? I mean they didn't seem to care too much when it's used in middle-east propaganda.
And I think there is a difference between a "news photo" and a pictoral photo of an individual.
*sheesh*
I'll wager that the AP printed numerous photos of Obama and other candidates on such backgrounds.