Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Army alters Woman General's Photo

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:03 PM
Original message
Army alters Woman General's Photo


Row over altered US Army photo

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 (AP) news agency subsequently suspended the use of US Department of Defence photos.

A Department of Defence spokeswoman insisted that the photo had not violated army policy.

Ms Dunwoody, the highest ranking US female military officer, was recently promoted to become a four-star general.

In an original photo of her, she appears to be sitting at a desk with a bookshelf behind her.

The altered photo, distributed by the army and initially sent by AP to its clients around the world, shows Gen Dunwoody against a background of the Stars and Stripes.

When the digital alteration was discovered, AP immediately withdrew the photo and began an investigation.

AP says that adjusting photos and other imagery, even for aesthetic reasons, damages the credibility of the information distributed by the military to news organisations and the public.

"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.

Mr Lyon said AP was developing procedures to protect against further occurrences and, once those steps were in place, it would consider lifting its ban on the use of US Department of Defence photos. He said AP was also discussing the problem with the military.

Colonel Cathy Abbott, chief of the US Army's media relations division, said the Dunwoody photo did not violate army policy that prohibited the editing of an image to misrepresent the facts or change the circumstances of an event.

She added that she did not know who changed the photo or which office released it.

"We're not misrepresenting her," Col Abbott said. "The image is still clearly Gen Dunwoody."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7738342.stm


Photoshop addiction
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. Lame, but I do like the altered one better. Bright, shiny, and patriotic like FOX news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amdezurik Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. my guess is, and that is all it is, a guess
is that whoever did the retouching ( fairly standard for portraits) on her face and uniform saw the bookcase in the background would take forever to clean-up so just tossed a standard background in to make his/her life easier
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Fewer wrinkles too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It's more Fun With Photoshop
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
17. And since this is not an ad, but a news story, it's totally inappropriate and deceitful. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FtWayneBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Yes,
the altered one makes her look younger - and heavier!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe they'll end up enlarging her boobs and giving her a J-lo ass? Sheesh! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
5. FFS! What's wrong with the real-life version? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. Like, the AP photo editor didn't notice? Please.
That pic is SO photoshopped, she looks like a mannequin in front of that flag.

And even the flag doesn't look natural.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
connecticut yankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. They changed a lot more than the background
Her entire complexion has been cleaned up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leeroysphitz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't get the controversy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Well, you have to WANT to be outraged. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. The controversy is with the lie that this is an actual photograph.
It's the difference between this:



and this:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Neither do I.
If I made it big, I'd hope they'd fix the photo if the one they were going to use was that bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wow! A before and after, and they didn't have to do anything physically to her!
This is such bullshit. The Pentagon Progandabureau.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:27 PM
Response to Original message
12. I still think this is a non-issue, really.
Big deal: they used a different background, tweaked the colors to give her more of a brownish glow, and apparently smoothed out a few wrinkles. Somehow, doing this to an existing photo digitally is more dishonest than doing the exact same thing in a regular glamour shot? They could have produced more or less the same photo with an hour's work by a makeup pro and a photographer. Big whoop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. She's a general.
Which I'm guessing means she's been in the service for a while.

Whatever happened to the photo they took of her when she first started?

Oh, wait, here ya go ...



Now, what's wrong with using that one instead?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Hold the phone ...
Maybe they wanted one of her in her fatigues?



Why not use that one?

Oh, what about an action shot?



Hey, New York Times, how about one of her saluting?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
24. Alright, so where does the tin foil hat come in?
What nefarious purpose does the military accomplish by using this photo instead of any of the others?

Except that maybe, in all those other photos, she's clearly wearing the insiginia of a lower officer, not her recent upgrade to four stars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 01:28 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Perhaps this particular Pentagon doesn't have any non-injured photographers?
Or perhaps, this particular Pentagon isn't really organized and figured there would be no problem trying to pull off a crappy photoshop job because no one would question them, or think anything is wrong with not being able to get a photograph of a recently-promoted four-star general.

Even if that photograph had her in a uniform of her previous rank.

Or perhaps, this particular Pentagon could only afford to have a photoshopper who only knew how to change backgrounds but not how to CROP a photo.





It was a stupid decision and everyone knows it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. Crikey, I can Photoshop better than that...maybe I should enlist eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. They probably didn't want to use the one of her taken by those Hollywood types ...
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 11:10 PM by ColbertWatcher


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hobarticus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Oh sweet jaysus....even I'm not that shameless!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-20-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. And, why not? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 10:30 PM
Response to Original message
15. It makes her look like her makeup artist works at a funeral home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-19-08 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. "I'm a general, Jim, not a model!!"
Edited on Wed Nov-19-08 11:25 PM by Herdin_Cats
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC