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."
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.
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?
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.
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
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!
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.
Especially considering all the fake photos AP has accepted from its Palestinian office (cloned smoke clouds, same dead kid used in several photographs, etc.). Honestly, AP has no credibility on the issue of altered photos.
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?
And rightfully so. Do not forget that the US military is the single most powerful organisation in the world. Thankfully it's full of our friends.
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.
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.
Militaries are a necessary evil. Not some magical honour brigade as they're characterised in the US.
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.
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
Yeah, my first thought was "how long did it take them to work that one out?"
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!
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
My wife is a photographer and according to her with today's digital photography it is common to use a green screen background for portrait shots and the digitally add in the desired background. If the AP really objects to this they are NUTS!
This photo of the General looks like it was a quick snap from a cell phone then altered to make it presentable as a public relations head shot. The AP is so far out of line on this they border on being absurd.
To me it looks like the kooks at the AP were searching hard for a reason to deny the DoD access to the media. They have more than once rejected the DoD versions of a story claiming "bias" when they openly welcome stories from those with a real bias (aka terrorists) against the DoD or U.S. Government.
For me the AP had lost all credibility ages ago.
In response, the military has issued a new, official photo of Gen. Dunwoody. But again, it looks like they may have photoshopped it. If you look closely, you'll notice some differences between the before and after pictures.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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
If you don't draw the line at "no photo alterations, even if they're just cosmetic", where do you draw it?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
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