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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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

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.

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: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: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".