Harry Harrison Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Something of a storm in a teacup but all over the news here today. https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/10/24096762/kate-middleton-edited-photo-royal-family-possible-fake Thankfully resolved now I hope by this rather charming statement from Catherine, Princess of Wales: https://twitter.com/KensingtonRoyal/status/1767135566645092616 "Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C" She is also the Patron of the Royal Photographic Society and often photographs her family for public consumption. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Looks like her PR team were asleep on the job. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 so someone tweaked the family snap! Good grief......... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin L Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Samsung 'Best Take' obviously doesn't live upto the TV advert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 20 minutes ago, Robert M Estall said: so someone tweaked the family snap! Good grief......... If you are going to send your 'family snap' to photo agencies in order to get that 'family snap' used by media outlets around the world then at least have the sense to mention that you may have manipulated it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 17 minutes ago, Lynchpics said: If you are going to send your 'family snap' to photo agencies in order to get that 'family snap' used by media outlets around the world then at least have the sense to mention that you may have manipulated it. I wonder? Did she claim it was a news image? Or was it an aid who submitted it as a recent image. I think the agencies may have jumped the gun on this calling it news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Sultanpepa said: I wonder? Did she claim it was a news image? Or was it an aid who submitted it as a recent image. I think the agencies may have jumped the gun on this calling it news. Was it sent as a hand out? Even if an aid sent it, did they not look at the image before sending it? I also note that the DM are now saying it was shot last week and then edited on Friday and again on Saturday using Photoshop 23.5. Edited March 11 by Lynchpics To correct date photo was taken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 A complete Snafu! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said: A complete Snafu! Yeah, PR team not on top of their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Standfast Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 Just now, Lynchpics said: Yeah, PR team not on top of their job. Emma, Henrietta and Charlotte.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 1 minute ago, Mr Standfast said: Emma, Henrietta and Charlotte.... Might be looking for new jobs as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) 1 hour ago, Lynchpics said: If you are going to send your 'family snap' to photo agencies in order to get that 'family snap' used by media outlets around the world then at least have the sense to mention that you may have manipulated it. AI has been mentioned. It's also extremely serious if AI or any manipulating has occurred. If anyone here did and does that to their photographs it doesn't matter at all. Unfortunately if you're a member of the RF then it's serious because the notion will almost certainly be that anything in the future will not be trusted. Edited March 11 by Gervais Montacute 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 53 minutes ago, Lynchpics said: If you are going to send your 'family snap' to photo agencies in order to get that 'family snap' used by media outlets around the world then at least have the sense to mention that you may have manipulated it. The XTwitter parodies are funnier. Someone used the "After" Jesus head over Midleton's body that some woman had decided also needed restoration in Italy several years ago and turned into Jesus Potato Head. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 33 minutes ago, Gervais Montacute said: AI has been mentioned. It's also extremely serious is AI or and manipulating has occurred. If anyone here did and does that to their photographs it doesn't matter at all. Unfortunately if you're a member of the RF then it's serious because the notion will almost certainly be that anything in the future will not be trusted. Also the reputation of the photo agencies would be damaged if they knowingly licensed manipulated news images 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 The optices on this are terrible. The RF having its own image killed by most of the big agencies, and then the Palace refusing to release the originals..........what would the old Queen make of it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gervais Montacute Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 3 minutes ago, Lynchpics said: Also the reputation of the photo agencies would be damaged if they knowingly licensed manipulated news images Quite and this also puts AI in the spotlight. AI imo could be highly useful for certain applications. But not things like photography, music or any kind of arts. I think that's now even moreso than before is probably going to be a given. Yes, it's already a pet peeve as are the chancers on YouTube wandering around the planet with the latest camera pretending they know about photography. Beware anything that involves rabbiting on about equipment rather than what it's actually for. End of rant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Isaac Greenberg Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 the press must retroactively "kill" any images in which subjects used cosmetics to improve appearances... chant with me, will you...? NO MORE MAKE-UP !! NO! MORE! MAKE-UP! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 (edited) The Royals release an image. If the media had simply reported the facts "here is an image release by the Royals today" then no rules have been broken, it's factually correct, the image is what it is. Or did the Royals release it with a misleading caption? IMO the media is just trying to "kick up a storm" to fill a "vacuum" due to the lack of medical information which the Royals are quite justified in keeping confidential. Mark Edited March 11 by M.Chapman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 11 Share Posted March 11 11 minutes ago, M.Chapman said: The Royals release an image. If the media had simply reported the facts "here is an image release by the Royals today" then no rules have been broken, it's factually correct, the image is what is is. Or did the Royals release it with a misleading caption? IMO the media is just trying to "kick up a storm" to fill a "vacuum" due to the lack of medical information which the Royals are quite justified in keeping confidential. Mark I think the agencies acted when people on social media noticed that the photo seemed 'a bit off'. It would not be a good look for any news photo agency to keep a manipulated image online and available to licence. I would not be surprised if other 'royal' images are being re-looked at again just to make sure that they are not also a 'bit off'. I think the agencies did not expect to receive photoshopped images from the royals and they were caught out, also why would a manipulated image be released by Kensington Palace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 I'm in Nicaragua where people put tanks in Leon's streets wtih Photoshop, took pictures taken in Honuras six years before the riots here and and changed the caption to claim it was a police shooting here (photo is available on Alamy, just no longer to my region).; claimed a Mexican video was of a church burning in Nicaragua (obviously not to anyone who knows Managua), and other stuff. I understan the same thing happened in Rhdesia before it became Zimbabwe with decades old photos of hotel fires claime dto be recent. In this case, the touch ups were not malicious, I don't think. So, it's more British press decide to make something of a young royal's editing attempts. Get rid of them if y9ou don't like them, but some kid trying to spiiffy up a photograph of her family isn't like photoshopping a tank in the second biggest city in Nicaragua as if it was the army attacking peaceful unarmed demonsrators who only has sporting rifles and hand guns to use to defend themselves. The British press seems to have its awful side more than the US equivalents, less than Nicaraguan opposition media. These thing can approach daily with intent to lie. Or you get people talking about the need for prisoners to have quilts and warm clothes in Managua in September, in a masonry prison where heat is a problem and there's only one special air-conditioned cell for connected prisoners. It's allegedly used to torture people with more cold than they're used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 10 hours ago, M.Chapman said: The Royals release an image. If the media had simply reported the facts "here is an image release by the Royals today" then no rules have been broken, it's factually correct, the image is what it is. Or did the Royals release it with a misleading caption? IMO the media is just trying to "kick up a storm" to fill a "vacuum" due to the lack of medical information which the Royals are quite justified in keeping confidential. Mark +1 Staggering that this nonsense was actually the headline topic on the BBC 6pm news last night. It was a family snap, not the D-Day landings. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 1 hour ago, Rebecca Ore said: So, it's more British press decide to make something of a young royal's editing attempts. Many uk national newspapers ran the image, the controversy happened when people on social media spotted the manipulation, the photo agencies then issued a kill order on the photo.The release of this image by the royals was intended to put to rest speculation about her health, it has backfired and actually increased it. As i said it was a huge own goal by their PR team. The photo yesterday of Kate and William in a car leaving Windsor has also increased speculation, we live in a world dominated by social media, once rumours start they are hard to stop. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradleyPhoto Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 If we submitted images to news feed that had been cloned/healed/edited in such a way, it would be unethical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julie Edwards Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 The bottom line... If its on the wire .. if its a press image... and it was released to the press... it has to obey certain rules... rules which I sincerely hope every contributor to the live news feed knows inside out... This text from Associated Press .. Quote No element should be digitally altered except as described below. Minor adjustments to photos are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, elimination of dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints and normal toning and color adjustments. These should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible. From… https://www.ap.org/.../news.../telling-the-story/visuals The bottom line is .. whatever you think about the writings in the press and other methods … there are strict rules on images and the fact is, these rules are abided by and if found out, enforced .. as recent event(s) show… See link: https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/telling-the-story/visuals?fbclid=IwAR2eszIlEIctJx7K43YRdJaQckwV82rdOgPK4NVeEtYu831fHYiC5mjbtDk Furthermore... the BPPA have put out a statement.. https://thebppa.com/content/uploads/240311-statement_from_the_bppa.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2eszIlEIctJx7K43YRdJaQckwV82rdOgPK4NVeEtYu831fHYiC5mjbtDk We live in a free country (unlike some of the people posting above) and are lucky to do so.. One of the cornerstones of that freedom is the freedom of our press. I know the UK press has many issues but the authencity of images published within is not one of them. IF (and its a big IF) our future heads of state decided to mislead the public by issuing a doctored image, it could be read as the thin edge of the wedge on press freedom reporting on the heads of state (as wedge that has already been inserted in other ways....) 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 16 minutes ago, Julie Edwards said: If its on the wire .. if its a press image... and it was released to the press... it has to obey certain rules... rules which I sincerely hope every contributor to the live news feed knows inside out... 100% spot on. 👆 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now