:sunglasses: 33.3 % :laughing: 66.7 %
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#64091
It's not 'the media' it's the picture agencies. They have much more stringent standards.
And it wasn't edited, it was manipulated. There's a big difference.
Spoonman liked this
User avatar
By Watchman
#64118
I think a lot of that is down to the likes of The Mail etc, whenever a "Royal photo" is released, they love the narrative pf "OOO Kate's took lovely photo's of the kids, isn't she clever"
User avatar
By Andy McDandy
#64125
Of course - it spoils the narrative. After all, if she isn't perfect, that calls into question why we're fawning over her. It also knocks a hole in those "Aaah but they can't answer back" arguments.

She's vaguely skilled with a few creative apps. If she wasn't a princess she'd be doing something in a Hoxton ad agency.
User avatar
By kreuzberger
#64131
The chattering classes, of which we are paid-up members, don't seem to be particularly miffed about this fiasco.

Fact is, an image was released to the media, knowing full-well that it would be the lead news story in the UK and on many a front page overseas. That image, with the weight of a thousand words or more, was an untruth. It didn't happen. It was a lie.

That Kensington Palace has simply shrugged its eyes with a "whatevs" is emblematic of what they think of the truth and the proles beneath them.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité or "...grâce à nos canonniers", as is le mot du jour.
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#64135
Andy McDandy wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2024 5:00 pm If she wasn't a princess she'd be doing something in a Hoxton ad agency.
No chance! Standards much higher than that...
By Youngian
#64144
The royal bit on the side had a public sector role rather than corporate PR.
Sarah Rose Cholmondeley, Marchioness of Cholmondeley, has been widely hailed for her style over the years

The former model, 39, was once a researcher for Conservative MP Michael Gove https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 10472.html
User avatar
By Malcolm Armsteen
#64192
It seems the manipulation was a technique known as focus stacking. I think it may be automatic in the top-range cameras.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... of-editing

The lens used was a 50mm f1.2, which has a very shallow depth of field - the part of the image that is completely in focus is narrow, so that in a single shot an area the back of the subject will be out of focus if the front is sharp. The way round that is to take a series of images at different distances (focal distances) and then compositing them together to make a single, all-in-focus image. That can be done in Photoshop. It's a widespread practice, and as both the royal couple are photographers they would probably know of it.

Nothing sinister.
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]