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."
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.
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."
I looks like she was sitting in her den, actually. A family photo, more of less. The flag was added, the colors of her digital camo fatigues were contrast enhanced, and the the name and rank on the fatigues were cleared up and smoothed out, presumably for better readability.
Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
Certainly it would take all of the fun out of the thread to actually read the story and see the original photo.
I read the internet for the articles.
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?
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?
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.
404. Not your lucky day.
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?
funny, to me the biggest difference is her face, she's made to look about 20 years younger than she looks on the original.
MP3 Search Engine
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.
Not *your* lucky day, opens fine for us.
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.
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.
You don't even have to read the story. Just click on the "before and after comparison" link. Two photos, side by side, without having to read anything. (There is a caption at the bottom, but I'm fairly sure you can get by without reading it...)
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
Looking at the edited photo, I have to wonder how they found out that it didn't come right out of the camera like that. I mean, I've seen quite a few 'shops in my time, and I got nothing. *cough*
Check out my sysadmin blog!
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.
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.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
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
Yeah, my first thought was "how long did it take them to work that one out?"
So crappy it seems to come from a cellphone
-- dnl
Why do you keep saying AFP when you mean AP? Do you have some problem with the French?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So it makes a perfect story link for slashdotters. We cal all go there and not read TFA, just look at the pretty (*cough*) pictures
-- dnl
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.
It seems I am not lucky either
-- dnl
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).
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
... 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.
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.
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.
You do know the likes of the CIA, DoD etc. can make a gigapixel photo from an original photo of just a few pixels, right?
You see it in all the movies.
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.
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)
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.
That's exactly what I thought. It would take a serious amount of work to improve the resolution by hand.
I have to assume that the "original" was actually a poor resolution copy they were able to get their hands on later, not the actual original. Otherwise, I want to hire the guy who can retouch pictures to that degree of accuracy and clarity!
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.
I read the internet for the articles.
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.
I would say the largest difference, is that the DoD invented the technology we see in CSI all the time! The altered photo seems at least triple the resolution! ...
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
LOL, I have to agree... I wonder why it counts against their policy when the photo is so obviously doctored, and in such a way that it just doesn't really matter. I mean, is it really important whether the stupid flag background is added before or after the actual exposure?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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
This website present the two photographs side by side. The photographers removed the fencepost appearing to stick out of her head.
There is a time difference of 25 years between the two photographs. The original one was publish in 1970. The second
one was Photoshopped in 1995.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
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
Yes, my thought exactly.
I've been doing Photoshop work for years, played with a number of fractal algorithms, used such "miracle" filters as greycstoration, and I've never seen anything like this.
I don't believe that the "before" picture is accurate at all. I think it has already been degraded from the original, and the "after" more closely represents the quality of the source image.
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.
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
If you don't draw the line at "no photo alterations, even if they're just cosmetic", where do you draw it?
'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.
I'd draw the line at "is this even real". If someone photoshops a zebra into a picture of the savannah then that's obviously unacceptable. But playing with contrast and white balance and changing the background (not the subject) instead of bothering to buy a real flag, then that's fine.
Also she doesn't look younger at all. It's the same image; the one on the left is so horribly degraded that she looks older than she is.
The point of cutting out photo alterations, even cosmetics, is to prevent people from confusing truth and fabrication, no matter how small. If you can show me someone who would have been confused by this mall photobooth backdrop I'd love to meet them.
If they added extra medals, maybe an impressive book on the desk, maybe made her teeth whiter these are all subtle alteration designed to make you believe the image they're trying to sell. That flag backdrop is less convincing than if they had photoshopped her into nazi germany riding a unicorn.
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?
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you don't draw the line at "no photo alterations, even if they're just cosmetic", where do you draw it?
Generally I agree, but this amounts to a portrait. It's not a "news" or "editorial" photo, it's more of a "publicity" photo. And those are *always* altered and *always* run by news organizations anyway. For example, this is Newsday - you think that photo of Bush came out of the camera looking exactly like that? No, it's been retouched like all portraits have - not so obviously, but still, it's not "unaltered". The wrinkles have been softened, blemishes edited out, etc.
The only difference here is that this general didn't get up and formally pose in front of a background, somebody made it for her afterwards. Maybe she didn't have time - she's a general in wartime, after all.
I did not see this as an issue. The Occamist in me told me right away that the picture on the left has simply been scaled down from the original high-res (presumably on file somewhere in Pentagon).
They are too similar in my opinion to be two different photos of the "same pose".
How about if someone shops out a civilian in front of a soldier firing his rifle so that it looks like he's just firing it at enemies in the distance?
I hate printers.
Well, the AP draws the line per source. If the source is the US .gov, anything they find out about is immediately struck with a nice lengthy article. If it can be used to discredit the US .gov, it stays until a dull roar collects about the photoshop.
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.
Photoshop might be the shizzle, but it can't do that. No one's that good.
There's a higher-quality original out there that was used to construct the fake. Through various workings the AP managed to get a hold of a very low res version. Probably a thumbnail of some sort. My guess would be that the DoD got lazy and didn't scrub the metadata and left the original JPEG thumbnail from the camera in the file. I've had that issue before myself.
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
There is a big difference, integrity-wise, between altering contract/color balance and cutting out/pasting in content. However, I would consider "cosmetic" photoshopped liposuction to be cutting out content.
Look at her uniform (particularly the nametag): you can see that the unaltered copy they got is actually a lower-quality version. Therefore, I think some of the stuff that makes her look older is actually JPEG artifacts, not actual age spots etc.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
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?
He's sitting in front of flag, but the incompetent idiot who did the Photoshopping made him look like woman. I guess they didn't think anyone would notice.
The simplest answer is most likely the correct answer. The unaltered photo is what was "leaked", and it is simply at a reduced resolution. AFP already had the "official" high-quality picture, which was hi-res.
Better known as 318230.
It made me laugh. I call funny not Flamebait
If this were really happening, what would you think?
I don't think the original is really the original. It's a low rez shot with a LOT of compression artifacts. Looks like someone took a picture of the real picture with their cell phone or something. Extrapolating to what the original would actually look like, it doesn't look like they did much manipulation except contrast adjustment, white balance and a really obvious cut and paste job.
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!
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".
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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.
oh, they must have used highly advanced software to detect the minute discrepancies between lighting angles. it must have taken a team of experts several weeks to uncover the fraud.
this seems like typical nationalistic BS, but it's really not any worse than the kind of stuff you see in magazines or the kind of audience manipulation TV networks like Fox and CNN do on a regular basis. i'd be more worried about Army psy-ops "interning" at CNN or NPR.
Now you know why the symbol for female is a mirror.
The second one was actually airbrushed in the early 70s, but published in 1995 inadvertently.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Worst.
Photoshop.
Ever.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
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!"
Do you think the DoD helpfully distributed before and after versions in full resolution? Fairly obviously someone at AP got suspicious and snooped around, perhaps found the original version on a web page -- "original" in content, but obviously a low resolution copy.
But as for "increase resolution", you can fake a little. Try Image/Image size, then a bit of unsharp mask. Then careful cloning, brush, etc. if you have the time.
But portraits are inherently doctored! When you see a portrait - shopped or not - it has about as much credibility as an oil painting.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
When readers see a shopped photo, how are they going to know whether the changes were significant or not? Even trivial changes have the potential to damage credibility. In this case, I don't understand what led them to have to modify it anyway. The US Army couldn't find an *actual* flag to put behind a 4-star general? And it looks like all they had was a camera phone. If you care enough to 'shop it, why not just find a real camera and take a decent picture?
Yeah, its obviously been faked. But why would they do such a bad job? Unless, they want us to think that is representative of their photoshopping skills. So later when they really need a fake photo to pass for real, people will think its real because its not an obvious fake like this one. Or at lest, it will cause enough people to suspend disbelief just long enough for it to matter.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
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
...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.
All theory is gray
I would not have a problem with exposure, contrast, brightness etc. But editing a backdrop and touch ups? No way. Supposing a high ranking general had been injured - would you allow them to touch up a portrait to hide the fact? How about altering the backdrop so it looks as if, say, they were in a war zone on one particular day when instead they were back in Washington having a break?
Its true that the potential for abuse is rather limited but it is certainly not zero.
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?
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
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
Supposing a high ranking general had been injured - would you allow them to touch up a portrait to hide the fact?
You mean like, to remove a scar? They do that today with traditional photography.
Anything that is allowed with makeup should be allowed with Photoshop.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
404'd on mine, changed the ".JPG" to ".jpg" on a hunch, and it worked.
Your browser's address bar seems to be case insensitive, while some of the others here are not. Out of curiosity, what are you using? IE? Safari?
FF3 here.
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.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
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.
Funny, I've never seen that "increase resolution" button in photoshop before.
There are ways to increase resolution through various interpolation techniques. Genuine Fractals is popular among photographers shooting stock images.
Rationalizing an image as Photoshopped is easy, but try it in real life!
http://xkcd.com/331/
An object at rest cannot be stopped!
You mean MS. July is photoshopped?!
*crushed*
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Well, it appears to be a political barrier. I recall several dozen instances over the last couple years of AP and Reuters photojournalists and/or editors altering photos of the fighting in Israel and Iraq.
For instance:
AP, Reuters, etc. alters photos of Lebanon war
There's a lot more out there of this kind of thing. If it's not altered photographs, it's lying captions or inaccurate information in the articles when it comes to "political" topics which
Which is more dishonest: using photographs which have been altered to improve the appearance of the subject (such as a media headshot as this photo is) or changing something which matters? Or, for that matter, favoring ugly, angry, or stupid looking photos of politicians your organization has ideological differences with, while using favorable photography of those you prefer?
Plenty of evidence there of the AP behaving badly - not just "using" altered photos, but seemingly encouraging it when it suits their political agenda. (In the above cases, that agenda appears to be "destroy Israel".)
The reason they make such a big deal about something like this general's photo is (at least) two fold:
1) They want to provide a smoke screen for when they make photo alterations themselves/use altered photos from their journalists unknowingly.
2) They want to penalize the military (due to ideological differences, apparently)
The AP hasn't been a serious, honest news organization to any significant degree since shortly after World War II. Or, if you prefer not using moral platitudes, they were at least not attacking their own culture and country(s).
The AP, or any other news organization for that matter, taking the Army to task for this is beyond asinine, given their recent (past 10-years) record.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yep. Odds are that it was a candid photo and she, liking how she looked in the photo, told someone to "fix the photo up and use it as my publicity headshot".
The AP then probably asked her office for a photo of the General. The General's office then provided said photo.
This kind of thing likely happens daily, and the AP is only making bones because it's something they can sell articles about. You know, slow news period - after the election and before anything else actually happening, and all. Plus, controversial topic (female General), so it garners bonus news points.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Yep.
As for the flag in the background... have you ever NOT seen a portrait of someone in the military, in uniform, which was not staged in front of a flag (either before or after the photo was taken)?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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.
If changing the background is okay with you, then lets not photoshop a zebra into the savannah but instead photoshop a picture of a zebra in a zoo and put a savannah background in. :)
- Tempestdata
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.
But portraits are inherently doctored! When you see a portrait - shopped or not - it has about as much credibility as an oil painting.
There's a large distinction between adjusting the physical lighting and completely fictionalizing the image.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
> But why would they do such a bad job?
Because they didn't figure it was a big deal and weren't going to spend a lot of time on it? No need for conspiracy theories.
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
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.
I overlaid the two images and had a peek. I'm convinced that these are both grandchildren of one photo (i.e. NOT two different photos with different poses), but I'm not convinced that the first photo was turned into the second one. There is definitely a different source image for the second one. Besides the higher level of artifacts, the images are of different scales and even slightly different aspect ratios. It actually looks a little bit like two different people scanned the same photo. Very close, but dissimilar under scrutiny. Also, there do not appear to be any JPEG artifacts in common between the two images. (note: I didn't look very closely at this, I just went with the blatantly obivous 8x8 blocks.)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Oh, there's always a need for conspiracy theories. Always. It makes life more fun.
Now why would anyone try to discourage us from looking at a relatively minor conspiracy theory? Hesoid, must be working for them. By discouraging us from looking into this one he's really hoping that we will focus all of our energies into figuring this one out, thus diverting our eyes from the larger conspiracy. We're on to something big here. Really Big!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Anything that is allowed with makeup should be allowed with Photoshop.
I can use makeup to make someone look like Freddy Krueger. Should I be allowed to doctor a photo in the same vein, and present that as the actual person?
Honestly, this "zero tolerance" stuff hardly ever seems to work out because reality is not binary.
This isn't about fooling people, or about what rational, objective line to draw between acceptable and unacceptable alteration. It's about journalistic integrity. I realize many news outlets make a mockery of the term, but that's what this policy is about. Their readers need to be able to trust their journalism. It doesn't matter if the idea of the photo is unchanged, or (as people who seem to think a background change is OK must think) that the photo now better serves its intended purpose. None of that matters if you can't trust the photo as real.
This is key. I'm not a journalist, I've never been to journalism school. But if there is one absolute ideal every journalist must follow, I imagine it would have to be along the lines of "you cannot change the facts". Contrast, white balance, sharpening, noise/dust filter, etc. None of these change the facts of the photo. They are merely part of the inherent technical steps for processing photos. These processes do not alter the facts. It's more like spell- and grammar-checking of an article.
Changing a background changes a fact. Adding smoke changes a fact. Adjusting the white balance does not change a fact. Applying a sharpness filter does not change a fact. Moving a pyramid changes a fact. Removing a blemish or changing make-up colors changes a fact.
You might reasonably argue that changing some facts are inconsequential. For example, removing a wrinkle or skin blemish, or even removing an obstacle (say, a tree branch in front of your subject). The problem here is that you've changed a fact, and the rule of "never change a fact" is broken, and to some extent, trust is broken. Once you do that, you introduce doubt into your journalism, which is the one unforgivable sin. It's better to never alter the facts, even if sometimes this means you must have a slightly less appealing photo, than it is to have a better photo, but place doubt into the minds of your readers. You have to run with the facts (photos) that you have. Not the facts (photos) you wish you had.
The lighting of the portrait and flag are different.
The flag shows obvious light source from upper left.
The person, naturally, is more straight on to reduce shadows.
Also, the edited photo is probably closer to the original -- the 'plain non-edited' is of obviously inferior quality meant for web publishing. The 'edited' photo is of actual print quality right from the camera...simply with backdrop changed.
They submitted a print quality portrait to the newspapers? Stunning.
Quite obvious when looking at it.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
>I, like many others here, spotted the fact that this portrait was photoshopped (poorly) at a glance. Wait, what? Seriously?
Are you sure you aren't just saying you saw through this? Because in all honesty had I seen the edited picture by itself, I would not have known in the slightest that it was photoshopped. I guess you can tell it's shooped because of the pixels and all the shooping you've done.
Personally, I'm actually wondering if the AP is trying to misrepresent this story, because I did not know it was possible to photoshop a terribly pixellated image into a nice crisp clear one so easily. Perhaps with a dedicated team of people spending many man-hours to do it... I have the feeling the only thing actually 'photoshopped' into this image is the flag in the background. The AP looks to have taken the original, made it a smaller resolution, and then blew it up in size to make it very obviously pixellated to further contrast the difference between the photos.
But if that is actually the case, then how the hell is the AP any different than the DoD? In fact, I'd say it's even worse if the AP is doing something like that.
Anything that is allowed with makeup should be allowed with Photoshop.
No, there is a difference because with makeup the person in the photo is at least aware of what is happening (even if they do not agree with it). With digital effects they can do it without the subject of the photo being aware or giving consent.
I also imagine that it is easier to spot foul play if all localised digital adjustments are unacceptable.
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.
No. And you shouldn't be able to apply makeup to someone so that they look like Freddy Krueger and submit that as the actual person, either. Use the same criteria.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I agree with you, except that portraiture is never about facts - it's about making someone look as pleasant as possible while still retaining a likeness. There's no "journalistic integrity" associated with a portrait, because there's no journalism involved. It doesn't matter if they add a backdrop or not because this isn't photojournalism - it's a simple stock portrait.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You raise a good point about the subject being aware of it. But first I'd say that I wonder how much of a problem this is - subjects having their pictures unwillingly altered. And second I'd wonder why the AP cared about this potential problem anyway? It has nothing to do with journalistic integrity since these aren't photo journalism shots... they are portraiture.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
If you're calling what was done to this image "completely fictionalizing" it, you need to have your perspective adjusted.
And the brethren went away edified.
Portraits are not only staged. Photoshopping is normal. It used to be airbrushing, but that's almost never done anymore. Take a good, close look at most HS yearbook portraits, especially if they're "senior pictures".
The AP is having a hissy-fit over something that's perfectly routine. It's virtually certain that any portrait photo they've ever used has been similarly doctored. I wonder what else is going on.
And the brethren went away edified.
Either way the AP did a crappy job of making their point here.
True, but I don't blame them for not wanting to be the medium for social engineering
There's one problem with allowing exceptions in portraits: it has the potential to hurt AP's credibility.
You're kidding right? AP lost most of its cred years ago my friend. It's the most left slanted print news org on the face of the earth. Ok, maybe they're tied with the NYT, but it's a close race. I still put AP in front because they try their damndest to hide their leftist slant. But they still fail. NYT is in your face with their slant. To me, this makes AP more dangerous. The terms Manchurian Candidate and 'sleeper' come to mind. This, and the fact that AP claims to be a news org, whereas the NYT is much more of an opinion piece paper these days.
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.
If you're calling what was done to this image "completely fictionalizing" it, you need to have your perspective adjusted.
No, I wasn't. Physical Lighting = Portrait. Completely fictionalizing it = Oil Painting. I've read your other posts and I think we agree, actually.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Good point. But who really cares whether shes in an office of in front of a flag? It doesn't really matter. And ah to heck with it, I'd be fine with a zoo zebra shopped onto a savannah; if you can't tell what's the difference?
Except, and this is the sort of thing I was talking about when I said one could come up with reasonable exceptions, it's part of a news story, not simply a portrait. The reader has to be able to trust the entirety of a news story.
I agree that, as a portrait, it really doesn't matter. But as a part of a news story, I'd be concerned that they think any factual alterations are OK. I know that if they draw the line at "all factual alterations", I can place a high deal of trust in their reporting. On the other hand, if their line is anywhere else, I'm going to have to always be more cautious about what I take as reporting vs what I take as fiction. Multiply this by all the different news organizations, and not always knowing where a particular story is from, and the problem is compounded.
[portraits are] about making someone look as pleasant as possible while still retaining a likeness
I fully disagree with this. Portraits are about showing a particular person's face. Whether the intent is to make them look best or worst, funniest or saddest, most ideal or most realistic, most stately or most common, etc. is up to the artist/photographer. As a consumer of news, I'd rather see people shown as they are, not as they can best (or worst, or whatever else) appear.
Most simply put, however, it's unacceptable for a news organization to present any such photoshopping unless it's clearly marked as such, and even then, there needs to be a reason, such as no other photo is available.
No, there are not. There are ways to use fancy linear algebra like genuine fractals or lanczos to get more pixels out of your image without making it look absolutely horrible. What they will not do is increase the resolved detail of the image. The data simply isn't there to find.
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.
This is a little more than "touching up" photos here.
Yeah, I'll admit that my senior photo was touched up significantly (I was covered with zits and the photographer who took my photo did an *amazing* job of cleaning that up), but it still isn't the same thing as photo-shopping a background.
Then again, this is something that the television news broadcasters are doing without hardly a second thought. How many "virtual stages" did you see with the election results shows this past year... with the "reporters" standing in front of basically a green screen? That is the proper analogy here, including journalists that are supposedly delivering "legitimate news" in the same way that the AP claims to be doing.
Not that the AP really counts for much integrity any more, but at least it is a start.
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
How is editing to make something look more beautiful than it is not deceptive?
I fully disagree with this. Portraits are about showing a particular person's face. Whether the intent is to make them look best or worst, funniest or saddest, most ideal or most realistic, most stately or most common, etc. is up to the artist/photographer.
You are right - my definition is too restrictive. But you're fighting a losing battle if you are looking for "real" portraits. Only a few people are brave enough to have their real, blemished self presented as a portrait.
I agree that tampered photos - and this includes traditional portraits in my mind - should be flagged. If there's a fake background in a traditional photo, I think this should be disclosed.
An aside - HDTV news anchors are really creepy with their airbrushed makeup and pore-less faces.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
mine is FF3 on Windows, both JPG & jpg open fine, strange
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?
Yeah, FF3 on Vista on mine (ugh, no choice, no XP drivers for my laptop, I boot to Ubuntu when I do real work).
Very strange. Just did it again to double check, and it had the same behavior. So odd.
Why do you need to alter photos for the media? If you want an altered photo of the general on the DoD's website, that's fine by me. But the AP doesn't want to be distributing fabrications of any type, and there's no reason not to just send in a REAL photo of the general.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Because sometimes they just want to run a "file photo" of a person next to the story, but that's sort of taking the argument in a new direction - fact is they have already decided to host non-photo journalism photos.
My contention is that a photoshopped version of the general is not inherently any less "real" than a general wearing makeup and standing in front of a backdrop.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Oh, good. I misread you then.
And the brethren went away edified.
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.