The light source for the left side photo is front and center (on the head) but the shadow is from the light source of the left side picture and leaves the ear of the left guy shadowed (on his left) on to the photo. The light elements on the right work properly.

The AP should also have long ago adopted a “zero-tolerance policy of adding or subtracting actual content” from the truth. Instead, they’ve shamelessly printed Bushist lies, as has the rest of the MSM.

Missmolly sez: 1. I doubt any mischief or fraud was intended by the Army

Have you ever been in the military, missmolly? Dishonesty is the default mode. Never tell truth when you can spin, lie, or dissemble…mischief/fraus is ALWAYS foremost in the mind of the military…
____________________________________________________________

As a matter of fact, I HAVE served in the military. I was a Navy photographer who served from 1973 to 1979.

I never witnessed dishonesty as being a “default” mode. Most of the people I served with had a genuine love for their country and wanted to do right by it. However, there was a lot of incompetence, a lot of sloppiness, and a lot of resultant butt-covering — the same kind of stuff you find in any incredibly large organization. The butt-covering was generally to disguise administrative sloppiness — not to advance a political agenda.

Which is why I’m guessing that these pictures were the result of sloppiness (somebody got behind in getting pictures taken) and butt-covering (when a picture was needed and not available, photoshopping was employed).

Dishonest? Technically, yes.
Nefarious? Hardly.
Mischief? Not intentionally.
Butt-covering? Yes.
Spinning an agenda? Not even close.

Why are their flag patches backward?
____________________________________________________________

That’s not an error — soldiers really wear them that way. The logic here is that the flags on the shoulders are positioned the way the flag would be if the soldier was carrying it into battle (and in a way, that’s exactly what he/she is doing).

The flag patches are always such that the blue field is in front. Which means that the flag on the left arm appears oriented the proper way, and the flag on the right arm appears backward.

Next time you see a soldier in uniform, take a look.

Couldn’t agree more. Digitally altering the photo is just plain dumb. Even if there were no official personnel file, they obviously had the picture of the lady sitting at the desk , which would have been perfectly good for a picture in the Times.

Even they had altered the file (and apparently they did), it just comes across as a brazen lie, because they could.

Not to mention, what bozo approved the photoshop with the very basic errors on flag placement noted above. The Army is usually rather touchy on the proper display of the flag.

November 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
_______

So is the flag in the background. According to official flag protocol, in vertical display, the blue field must be on the left.

Sheesh, for $484 billion, you’d think the Pentagon could get some better Photoshoppers. There are a few dozen 15-year-olds on SomethingAwful who could do a better job than that.

Have you ever been in the military, missmolly? Dishonesty is the default mode. Never tell truth when you can spin, lie, or dissemble…mischief/fraus is ALWAYS foremost in the mind of the military…

loose lips and all that….

cuz you know, us murkins we like our gen’ruls smooth…

Trust is earned, and our DoD has demonstrated time and again that they cannot be trusted when it comes to releasing information.

But IMO, that sets a very dangerous precedent. MissMolly, you have it exactly right.

Except coffins.

1. I doubt any mischief or fraud was intended by the Army — in both of these cases, I’m sure the photoshopping was done because there was no official file photo in the records for press purposes. It’s a pity AP couldn’t accept such a photo that was digitally altered with a disclaimer saying so — if the important content of the photo (in these cases, the person’s face) was not changed. However, if “zero tolerance” is the AP’s policy, it should be respected.

2. The military simply MUST do a better job of record keeping. In each BUPERS file, there should be an official photograph of that person to be used for press purposes in the event of that person’s death, promotion, or other newsworthy item. The photo is traditionally posed as a portrait shot in uniform in front of a flag (when I was a Navy photographer, I took a lot of pictures like this). When such photos have to be photoshopped, it’s a clear signal that record keeping is sloppy — and that no such picture existed for somebody with the rank of General (who would certainly be in the news more often than most) is inexcusable.

Furthermore, if the military is going to be digitally altering pictures, could they at least find somebody who’s good at it?