When I saw this centerpiece on the front page of the San Diego Union-Tribune, I immediately thought of the original post made by Professor Keith. Her post, made on November 25, was about a controversial photo of a three-star general in salute that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Like this photo, the crop was through the face of the subject. However, I believe there are distinct differences between the two that need to be noted.

First of all, that was a Veteran's Day piece, so right off the bat the highest respect should be considered when featuring a military officer in a photo. This centerpiece doesn't have to worry about that because this is an article about corporal punishment (physical punishment of military personnel in training).

Moreover, this soldier's name was not disclosed. This may seem trivial, but it really isn't. By revealing the name of the general in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution piece, they personalized it. By identifying the person in the photo, I believe the photo crop should have been under heavier scrutiny. The photo shown here was of an anonymous person. For all the reader knows, this could just be a model in the studio posing for a shot. Who can really be sure?

Finally, this photo crop is appropriate because it accurately encapsulates the appearance of a drill instructor in the military. The brim held closely over the peering eyes accomplishes this very well. In the other case, there was no good reason to cut the general's photo across the face, aside from the photographer's excuse: "We were trying something different."

To sum up, I thought this "face-cut crop" was acceptable and the one that appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution was not for the reasons I stated above. What do you think? Do you think this crop was more appropriate considering its context? Or do you think are they in the same boat and under no circumstances should a military figure get a "face-cut crop?"