Royal photoshopping
-
- Thread starter Lee Rust
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
- Status
whynot ? It's fun. some people just take pictures to have material for PS work. I'm more a TOpaz AI guy myself;no alterations, just optimiztions!
I assumed famous people had a team behind them and an approval process before posting anything....Those seem like such oddly specific edits, though...what the heck could she have been trying to do by moving her daughters' hand one mm to the left? 
To me, it looked like she just shrunk the size of the cuff of the sweater. Perhaps it's a bit stretched and didn't look prim enough.
Leave her alone. She seems to be a very nice person w/o all the BS that goes with celebrity. Not some drama queen (no pun intended) with an axe to grind.
MattKing
Moderator
I find the screw-up quite refreshing. A set of extremely unimportant but very common amateur errors in a family snapshot, not caught or eliminated by the "professionals".
I assumed famous people had a team behind them and an approval process before posting anything....Those seem like such oddly specific edits, though...what the heck could she have been trying to do by moving her daughters' hand one mm to the left?
Yes but there were other alterations that BBC "Verify" found. Verify refers to that part of the BBC which tries to examine any news or pictures for how genuine they might be
The Palace apparently has refused to release the original photo. This may be the "least said soonest mended" approach that the Palace has consistently maintained
pentaxuser
Oh wow, you're really optimistic... I wish I could look at it like that.
I'm afraid it's the 'professionals' who did this in an attempt to quiet down the debate about what Kate's been up to lately. Apparently they released a photo to create the impression that everything is A-OK in the royal household - which as far as we can tell might very well be the case, but this Photoshop mishap does draw the whole thing into doubt.
Yes that's the problem as I see it as well. However the claim seem to be that the Princess made the changes although it was the Prince of Wales who was the photographer or so it was claimed
pentaxuser
pentaxuser
There's also this:
www.theguardian.com
Ben Jennings on the Princess of Wales’s photo-editing skills – cartoon
The Princess of Wales has apologised for an editing error that led to an official photograph of her and her three children being recalled
It's not news and she is a PJ, no different than millions of other images posted on social media.
An exception being the photo was picked up by the Associated Press, which has a no-manipulation-allowed policy (or a "we don't think it's been manipulated" policy).
The wires pick up all kinds of photos from non professionals who are not PJs, it was put out by the Royals as publicity not news.
Could that be the same BBC who put up a photograph of a demonstrator being attacked by a police man with a truncheon? Forgetting to mention that they had cropped the lower half of the picture out?
The full picture showed the demonstrator holding a six foot wooden pole at waist level battering the policeman.
Ouch!
It's not photojournalism; a picture of news. It's a family picture prettied up so it should be legitimate as an edited family picture. Did she remove any zits?
By right, yes. But, factually, Royal "publicity" is "news" in Britain - and in a large portion of the Commonwealth. She doesn't need to be a photojournalist for the photo to be picked up, once it's released.
I think the whole thing is silly.
Kids are laughing this time to give the best illusion everything is good. Propaganda is interesting, its becoming more and more elaborate and harder to distinguish. Lies are everywhere.
Will give something for the magazines to talk about, getting harder and harder to sell.
Will give something for the magazines to talk about, getting harder and harder to sell.
I agree here. The very fact of the photoshopping raises more questions that the picture was intended to address.
All pretty amateur and unnecessary.
I wish her no harm, but I am completely disinterested in royal gossip/news. I am interested in the times the family have acted behind the scenes to protect their own interests, which pictures like this are intended to be a part of covering up.
What does PJ mean? If it means a photo journalist then that's news to me
Thanks
pentaxuser
I left out not a, then edited, but the edit somehow disappeared.
I don't care. Looks like she and her kids are well. I wouldn't trade places with any of them, well maybe the little boy. 
- Status
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |