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."

Comments

My eyes, they burn!

[Chaos Incarnate]

That's not only altered, but altered badly. You'd think the US armed forces could afford to hire a decent graphic designer!

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[ShieldW0lf]

In order to protect the public right to be informed, and in light of the Department of Defenses demonstration that they have no moral qualms about releasing doctored photos, we've decided that we're not going to show you anything they release whatsoever. In order to protect you, the citizen, and your right to be informed. Now, please pay attention as this airbrushed supermodel tells you how wonderful Coke is.

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm staring at it, and I don't even know why you would think it was bad.

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!

[esme]

The original looks bad because it's a low-res version, and the altered version looks better because it's a hi-res version from AP. The bad photoshopping is how completely synthetic the flag looks. It doesn't even look passably real. A decent photoshop would at least use a real picture of a flag with similar lighting to the original photo, so the contrast between the subject and background is so jarring it's obviously been altered.

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell by the pixels.

It's a digital image, so it's entirely pixels. I'm sure you mean something more . . .

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[stewbacca]

Pretty much every enlisted person above the rank of Sergeant has a professional studio portrait to give to the promotion board. I find it impossible to believe that a GENERAL OFFICER doesn't have a good PR photo within email reach--ready to distribute at a moments' notice. This looks like some low ranking private that works for the General emailed their candid camera-phone pic to a news outlet--totally circumventing proper protocol. That's the real travesty here, not the doctored pic.

Re:My eyes, they burn!

[djradon]

The AP's concern isn't the right of the citizen to be informed, it's the threate to their legitimacy as a syndicator of unaltered news photos.

I think the AP is over-reacting. If it were me, I'd suspend them for six months and give them a warning that next time it'll be 20 years. We'll see how the DOD likes the loss of a valuable dissemination outlet.

And since when does the AP circulate supermodel ads for Coke?

Not insightful. I'd give you -1, incoherent.

Re:Oh no, not a flag!!!!

[slmouradian]

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.

For $DEITYs sake

[RMH101]

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.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[Don_dumb]

But this isn't about whether the image is an accurate image of the General.
It is about the integrity of the Associated Press, they have to be strict otherwise people would be calling their photos into question the whole time.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[dsoltesz]

Yeah, I have to agree with this... I think AP is being pissy for pissy's sake. It's a simple portait (possibly because there's no professional portrait available?) intended to do nothing but show what she looks like. And frankly, a professional portrait done in a studio would have been touched up too. This photo is not trying to capture an event or otherwise document anything really at all. I can guess what happened because I've done it -- grab a person in the hall, take a photo of them, Photoshop into a pretty head shot for their web page or whatever.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[kremvax]

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:For $DEITYs sake

[discontinuity]

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

[AlecC]

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:For $DEITYs sake

[TheRaven64]

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? Both are synthetic environments.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[MightyYar]

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 gotta tell you that the billowing flag is a pretty good indication of a non-candid photo!

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[fastest fascist]

And neither, frankly, should be passed on by any reputable news source, as both constitute blatant patriotic propaganda from a state source.

Re:For $DEITYs sake

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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:For $DEITYs sake

[Rary]

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.

Obvioius

[siuengr]

It's quite obvious that it was altered, and it doesn't look like were trying to hide something. What's the big deal.

yeah...

[jav1231]

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 hate to say this

[Xest]

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.

Re:I hate to say this

[AngryNick]

This is a mountain in the eye of most journalists. Photojournalism is no different that journalism...you shouldn't be allowed to screw around with the facts, as mal-composed and uninteresting as they may be. I see little ethical difference between the adding a flag to an image and adding an extra missile. Post-processing to improve the clarity and visibility of the subject (exposure adjustments, dodge and burning, sharpening, cropping) is not the same as adding and subtracting visual facts.

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.

Re:I hate to say this

[ScreamingLordByron]

As a photographer, I have to call B.S. on this. Film or digital, virtual or otherwise, Head shots and other non-journalistic photos are manipulated in a million different ways: choice of lighting, choice of depth of field, use of make-up, use of mocked-up backgrounds, etc. Whether this is done with Photoshop or actual props, lights, make-up, etc. makes no difference. As such the AP's arbitrary choice to apply their policy to non-journalistic shots is ridiculous. People are repeatedly asking: "Where do you draw the line?" The answer is easy (although, like life, not always simple). Retouching of photo-journalistic shots (i.e. pictures that either carry editorial content or are intended to represented an accurate depiction of a reported-upon event or location) should be vigorously guarded from manipulation to the greatest extent possible. Pictures presented for non-editorial (ex. public relations, identification, etc...) purposes need not bear the same scrutiny unless the change is such that it renders the picture clearly deceptive (ex. Portraying a picture of a person 20 years ago as a current shot). Rules are good, but they are not a substitute for sound editorial judgment.

Picture manipulations

[Monkey-some]

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.

Anti-Military

[DigiShaman]

This isn't news, but just points to another obvious fact about the anti-military bias in the press.

Re:Anti-Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Militaries are a necessary evil. Not some magical honour brigade as they're characterised in the US.

The US and US flags

[Zedrick]

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?

Re:The US and US flags

[caluml]

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

[slashkitty]

Oh please, there is plenty of flag waving in other countries. How many people paint their faces or show their colors at sporting events? http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44955000/jpg/_44955514_face_getty_220_300.jpg http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41791000/jpg/_41791514_swedefan_getty.jpg http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/lanci/wc2006/wc2006_it_face-s.jpg

Re:The US and US flags

[meringuoid]

Duh, me English, me not have patriotism. Me not see difference between wave flag and light flag on fire.

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

[Bender0x7D1]

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).

Re:The US and US flags

[bentcd]

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:The US and US flags

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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 remains. There's nothing unique in the history of the Stars and Stripes that explains why it's obsessed over in a way that the Union Jack, les couleurs, etc. aren't.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[jacquesm]

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:Unadultered Alterations

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange how they don't have any issues at all publishing altered photos from Hezbollah :

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/01/hezbollah-busted-re-faking-fake-photos.html

I guess for AFP you can fake pictures all you want, as long as it's politically correct. If you're a palestinian shooting on your fellow countrymen, then shooting at the ambulance with an AK-47, then claiming "Israel did it" and AFP will fake the pictures for you.

If you kill people, you can get away with anything. If the genocide in Sudan succeeds in killing all blacks there, the AFP will personally go down and congratulate the sudanese government on a jihad well done (after that some guy named Zawahiri wants to kill a certain "house nigger" that goes by the name of Obama, google it).

But the message of the press is clear : genocide is okay, it is even great (allahu akbar to be exact) ! If you actually do it. You'll only get accused of genocide if you're NOT actually comitting genocide.

BTW you can fake "chemical" pictures too (google "optical printer" for one of many devices used to do that).

holy Crazy Eddie!

[viridari]

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.

100% agree

[PinkyDead]

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

[jafiwam]

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:100% agree

[greyhueofdoubt]

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 Fuckwit: Here you go, Gen Tard- The photo you wanted. I worked all weekend on it.

Gen Tard: Whatever.

-two weeks later-

Gen Tard: Fuckwit, you're fired from your current job because of your role in this debacle. However, the only available job is a spot in the pentagon in the rank of Brigadier General. Congratulations. Airman Dropout, we're transferring you Yakima. You'll never work in this town again, shithead! And we'll make the new uniform mandatory yet only issue you a rain poncho! HA HA HA!*

[Bow, exit stage left]

-b

True story. Try getting cold-weather gear hear in MN. You'll get a rubberized poncho that cracks at under 10 degrees F...

Sharpening

[F�an�ro]

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

[jmyers]

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.

You hit the nail on the head

[Shivetya]

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

[sycodon]

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've got to be kidding.

[halivar]

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...

[Don_dumb]

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.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[jcr]

Strange how they don't have any issues at all publishing altered photos from Hezbollah

Actually, they do have an issue with it, and they're very embarrassed about getting suckered by the perps. That's why they're so touchy about it now.

-jcr

This is a military person

[Shivetya]

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

They don't have stock publicity photos?

[Ixitar]

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.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[DaveV1.0]

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:Not Surprised

[db32]

I can't for the life of me figure that anti-military nonsense out. How the hell can people maintain 1. The military is a huge evil system hell bent on massive deception and evil lies while also maintaining 2. The military is a bunch of clueless incompetents that don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The only thing I can get out of this is the people trying to maintian this kind of nonsense are actually saying "We are the biggest bunch of braindead morons for being so easily decieved by a bunch of incompentent fools".

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.

Reading TFA we'd know HE is a SHE

[denzacar]

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

[inviolet]

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.

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 went out to his car and retrieved a handgun from his glovebox. The coverage simply said that the perp was "subdued by students", omitting the VERY significant facts about HOW he was subdued.

I knew then that even AP would lie-by-omission in pursuit of a specific political goal.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[TheoMurpse]

Yes, I'm sure that Hezbollah is bribing the AP into publishing shooped photos.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[postbigbang]

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:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[v1]

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:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[davolfman]

Funny, I've never seen that "increase resolution" button in photoshop before. Either the copy they got for comparison is degraded or we're looking at a different picture, possibly composed from multiple images, with the same pose. Either way the AP did a crappy job of making their point here.

Re:Oh no, not a flag!!!!

[baboo_jackal]

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.

But this example is clearly out of bounds! ... 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.

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:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[jandrese]

I was under the impression that someone was given the crappy original and told to make it look nice. They then spent a bunch of hours meticulously touching it up (basically painting over her face with a portrait of her face) and making it look presentable.

Re:Overblown and then some

[Gideon Wells]

It isn't about the editing. I'm a photojournalist, and there are ways around it. It is that it was passed off, seemingly, of it being unedited. Adding and removing stuff is a really finnicky subject in news circles that try to remain trustworthy. Heck, for setup shots I was taught back in school that it is sometimes best just to go for obviously staged. The problem is we are now in an age where anyone can edit photos at a quality only the experts could back in the dark room days, and the experts of today can practically artificially create a "photo" from scratch. Journalism is about trust. News only works if you trust it. Passing off photos like this and now telling the AP begs the question, can the Department of Defense be trusted to not edit the major photos? 'Cause if they do edit the major photos, then your readers aren't going to trust you. If you aren't trusted then you aren't being read/viewed. Unless the DoD told the AP that this was edited, then the AP has every right to suspect the worst of the DoD. If they had, it could have been mentioned in the caption or the AP could have asked either for an original or reshot photo. Sure, I'll likely get some "Fox Noise" sub-comments, but that only goes to highlight my point. Those who watch FNC trust it or are in the field, and want/need to see what they are doing regardless because of their viewership. How many non-journalists who call it "Fox Noise" actually watch it consistently? How many die-hard, right wingers actually watch MSNBC?

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[KevinKnSC]

If you don't draw the line at "no photo alterations, even if they're just cosmetic", where do you draw it?

Re:Because Americans are a Polity, not a Volk

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, tell that to all the hispanics in the USA who are treated like second-class citizens because of their heritage and who get viewed with suspicion by many on a daily basis because they might be illegal immigrants.

A synthetic nation with no unifying ethnicity? Please. That may very well be the theory, but in practice, it's a nation of whites, by whites, and for whites.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[MightyYar]

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:What the flag means.

[CmdrGravy]

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 country in the UK.

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Rary]

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:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[arminw]

...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:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Foo2rama]

I do not see the issue here, this is not a historical photo, or even a photo that documents anything. It is a headshot... They are all Doctored. Think the shots of CEO's they run are not chopped?

Re:So what was he *really* standing in front of?

[Rary]

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 representation of the individual.

If the army wants to distribute a picture of the general in front of a flag, why don't they just take a picture of the general in front of a flag? I'm pretty sure they have one or two of those around somewhere.

Any news source that wants to be treated as credible should expect all portraits to be staged, all other images to be non-staged, and all images, whether portrait or otherwise, to be non-doctored.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[jmorris42]

> Actually, they do have an issue with it, and they're very embarrassed about getting suckered by the perps.

No. Unless they are total tards they didn't need bloggers to tell them those photos were retouched. They were embarrassed they got CAUGHT. Big difference.

And while yes, in a more perfect world they probably should have found the time to get the general in for a proper publicity photo; there is after all a war on so they did what they had to do. The original was a pretty poor photo and the redone pic isn't any different than what they could have shot with a few hours to do it. This isn't a case of lying with a doctored photo.

Re:Unadultered Alterations

[sumdumass]

Actually, he and those blogs are off. The guy's program receive funding for an advertising campaign not to praise the benefits of anything. Most people in the right already championed the No Child Left Behind act because it created competition and demanded results. Other groups received the same funding but nothing was said about them because their pundits weren't already preaching to the choir.

That's ok though, I have long ago learned that it doesn't even have to be believable in order to be adopted by some. It only has to be something they want to believe and any whacked our conspiracy will fly.