Mr Standfast Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 It was a corporate press release and was rightly judged accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Press reporting that metadata shows image was "snapped" with a Canon 5D IV and 50mm 1.2 Canon lens. Heavy artillery for a family snap. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 21 minutes ago, Joe said: Press reporting that metadata shows image was "snapped" with a Canon 5D IV and 50mm 1.2 Canon lens. Heavy artillery for a family snap. Well.. yes.. but on the other hand, photography is apparently one of The Princess of Wales' hobbies .. and as money isn't exactly a problem for them, she would own and use whatever camera and lens she fancied. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Interesting take from the Guardian and the wider problem with AI images (just shut the pay wall window, you should be able to read it): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/11/princess-of-wales-photo-furore-sensitivity-around-image-doctoring?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Harrison Posted March 12 Author Share Posted March 12 It might have been a bad day for the Kensington Palace PR team but a good one for Canon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nacke Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 My God, With all of the events going on in the world right now, THIS? Looks like The Palace should hire Alamy QC to check images before they send them out..... Chuck 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Estall Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 There are a couple of wars raging, a lot of people are dying and the UK media are fussing about a few tweaked sleeves on a Royal family snap? Let's try to get a grip! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imageplotter Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 This is more than just a bit of tinkering with "family snaps" and it most definitely is not a "charming" apology, whoever may have written it. They can't release the "original" because it is a composite. Beyond the obvious PS mistakes and changes. I don't subscribe to any of the conspiracy theories about the whereabouts of Catherine, but boy has this made it worse than it was to begin with. The Royal Household have got to stop constantly wanting to control their image and put out perfection and fairytales. There have been enough eating disorders in the last few generations of Royals already. KP released images are just the start, the constant stream of DS released free PR images (and their little brothers and sisters issued by the FO, HO and Treasury) are similarly glorifying and the newspapers, aware of their shrinking budgets, lap them up. DS, FO and HO at least have predominantly former wire agency staff doing their pics, but it's less straightforward with the Royal Household. Think of Chris Jackson what you may, but if he had taken that "snap" it wouldn't have gone out to the wires looking like it did. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekVallintine Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 Take the PR team to the Tower of London and "off with their 'eads" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca Ore Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 6 hours ago, BradleyPhoto said: If we submitted images to news feed that had been cloned/healed/edited in such a way, it would be unethical Nicaraguan opposition news outlets are not known to being ethical. Government probably also lies, just not as obviously. Most of their news outlets are "We finished this project" with photos that don't appear to be invented. I just finished reading UK government recently released files on the John Vassall spy case and UK newspapers weren't particularly ethical over that. Poor guy had to explain to the Radcliffe Committee that his suits were off the rack, not custom Savile Row, and he didn't have as many as the newspapers claimed. Also, the press was slanderous about Galbraith. I agree with you, but think just pull the photo and tell Miss Princess not to abuse her position again, first offense. I have TinEye's plugin in my browser. Can't read X-Twitter without it. I'm more concerned with governments or others who have the resources to hire better forgers and have considered journalists to be cheaper than high class hookers (one CIA director's comment). Israelis (official or not) released a forgery of what was claimed to be remains of an incinerated baby. Tin-Eye found the original -- vet looking down at a dog on an examining table. Dog replaced, but all other details were exactly the same, watch on the vet;s wrist, all of it except what was on the examining table. That concerns me far more than some Princess cosplaying a real profession photographer. IF I see doctored or mis-captioned photos, I reply with what TinEye reports. But these seem to get less attention than La Princess messing with the family snapshot. And lies from official sources or from agentes provacatures are far more dangerous if not debunked. News these days is an extreme sport. Yes, Alamy, any good photojournalist, should be better than the propaganda sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynchpics Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 23 minutes ago, Rebecca Ore said: I agree with you, but think just pull the photo and tell Miss Princess not to abuse her position again, first offense. Unfortunately i think this has damaged how images from so called 'trusted sources' will be viewed from now on. The New York Times said "The mothers day photo was supposed to douse speculation about the Princess of Wales health. It did the opposite - and threatened to undermine trust in the Royal Family" I think that is a perfect summing up of what has happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Ashmore Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Lynchpics said: Unfortunately i think this has damaged how images from so called 'trusted sources' will be viewed from now on. The New York Times said "The mothers day photo was supposed to douse speculation about the Princess of Wales health. It did the opposite - and threatened to undermine trust in the Royal Family" I think that is a perfect summing up of what has happened. Yeah.. this is where all the fuss is coming from. I guess the speculation is that someone has created a composite using an older image showing a healthy looking Princess of Wales and combined it with an up-to-date image of the children giving the impression that all is well. The fact that the image is shown to be photoshopped then fuels the conspiracy theories that The Princess of Wales is far from being well. You'd have thought that the speculation would be easily fixed/killed off by The Princess of Wales making a brief appearance in public. But the fact that this also hasn't happened just throws more fuel on the fire. 2 hours ago, Robert M Estall said: There are a couple of wars raging, a lot of people are dying and the UK media are fussing about a few tweaked sleeves on a Royal family snap? Let's try to get a grip! Yes.. but the British press is easily bored and once a story (even if it is a Brutal war that potentially impacts all of us) gets too old (6 months??) then they move on to something else new which will sell a few more newspapers or gain some increased viewing figures. The Christian Horner 'scandal' has probably had far more airtime that it should too. Edited March 12 by Matt Ashmore 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 4 hours ago, Chuck Nacke said: My God, With all of the events going on in the world right now, THIS? Looks like The Palace should hire Alamy QC to check images before they send them out..... Chuck + 1 I'm with you Chuck. Too much pontificating on something so trivial. Typical British media b**ls*** Edited March 12 by Dave Richards added text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Richards Posted March 12 Share Posted March 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Matt Ashmore said: Yeah.. this is where all the fuss is coming from. I guess the speculation is that someone has created a composite using an older image showing a healthy looking Princess of Wales and combined it with an up-to-date image of the children giving the impression that all is well. The fact that the image is shown to be photoshopped then fuels the conspiracy theories that The Princess of Wales is far from being well. You'd have thought that the speculation would be easily fixed/killed off by The Princess of Wales making a brief appearance in public. But the fact that this also hasn't happened just throws more fuel on the fire. Yes.. but the British press is easily bored and once a story (even if it is a Brutal war that potentially impacts all of us) gets too old (6 months??) then they move on to something else new which will sell a few more newspapers or gain some increased viewing figures. The Christian Horner 'scandal' has probably had far more airtime that it should too. Deleted Edited March 12 by Dave Richards 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