cressida Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, Anna B said: Where would we be without our beloved Royal family as an endless source of gossip and distraction from the important things that are going on... I get your point Anna, and I think all the time of the injustices (atm the Iranian guy) but there has to be a balance or we'd be depressed continually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Just now, cressida said: I get your point Anna, and I think all the time of the injustices (atm the Iranian guy) but there has to be a balance or we'd be depressed continually. You're quite right. With the state of things at the moment we need all the distractions we can get...😕 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRESLEY Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 9 hours ago, Mister M said: Whatever's going on it'll be Meghan's fault I blame Thatcher. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top4719 Posted March 14 Author Share Posted March 14 5 hours ago, pattricia said: The thing is we are all fed up with this overreaction to this family photo. Can they now stop please ! Is there no other important news to report ? Had it been a genuine normal family photo there would have been little reaction except a bit of cooing from the lovers of these people, the fabricated mess that it was has opened up the whole debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Does nobody believe Kate's explanation? -She attempted to improve the picture but was a bit cack-handed? Sounds perfectly plausible to me. I have the same problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top4719 Posted March 15 Author Share Posted March 15 11 hours ago, Anna B said: Does nobody believe Kate's explanation? -She attempted to improve the picture but was a bit cack-handed? Sounds perfectly plausible to me. I have the same problem. No I think that's absolute nonsense, the image of her face had been taken from a magazine article months ago, if you need to go to those lenghts don't publish a photo at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prettytom Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 I can’t drum up the enthusiasm to look at the picture, or chase the rumours around Twitter, but, I am delighted that Kate’s convalescence has replace vaccinology in the mind of our resident conspiracy theorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peak4 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 12 hours ago, Anna B said: Does nobody believe Kate's explanation? -She attempted to improve the picture but was a bit cack-handed? Sounds perfectly plausible to me. I have the same problem. I neither believe, nor disbelieve, the explanation, as I wasn't there and have no insight as to the evidence. One thing that is clear though, is that the photo has been digitally enhanced/manipulated/created (possibly from more than one original.) Digital retouching is fine in a portrait shot, though there are strong arguments about changing a subject's proportions. Artistic licence is also fine, when used in the realms of creative photography, but not news media releases. This photo, although it is a family portrait, was released more as a news item intended to dispel certain stories. Photographs used in the media as news, to ant reputable agency, rightly have a much higher standard of permissible digital manipulation. That's why the various photo agencies put an immediate block on its use, as the manipulation went way beyond their acceptable standards; they have a duty to supply accurate images to their customers. It's pretty much unheard of for a royal press office to release a photo which falls foul of permissible standards for the type of submission, which I presume is why it wasn't thoroughly checked before acceptance. If I supplied a photo for a news item, as opposed to a background for a weather report, I would likely be expected to also supply the out-of-camera image, to prove I'd not materially altered the content. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Top4719 Posted March 15 Author Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, peak4 said: I neither believe, nor disbelieve, the explanation, as I wasn't there and have no insight as to the evidence. One thing that is clear though, is that the photo has been digitally enhanced/manipulated/created (possibly from more than one original.) Digital retouching is fine in a portrait shot, though there are strong arguments about changing a subject's proportions. Artistic licence is also fine, when used in the realms of creative photography, but not news media releases. This photo, although it is a family portrait, was released more as a news item intended to dispel certain stories. Photographs used in the media as news, to ant reputable agency, rightly have a much higher standard of permissible digital manipulation. That's why the various photo agencies put an immediate block on its use, as the manipulation went way beyond their acceptable standards; they have a duty to supply accurate images to their customers. It's pretty much unheard of for a royal press office to release a photo which falls foul of permissible standards for the type of submission, which I presume is why it wasn't thoroughly checked before acceptance. If I supplied a photo for a news item, as opposed to a background for a weather report, I would likely be expected to also supply the out-of-camera image, to prove I'd not materially altered the content. Exactly this, the whole thing is farcical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackey lad Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 4 minutes ago, Top4719 said: Exactly this, the whole thing is farcical. So is the reaction to it all . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts