: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.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
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? [...]