Kate Middleton's Mother's Day photo appears manipulated?

What a strange episode. I assume whoever was responsible for this is now regretting it.
 
Photographs of royalty have always been manipulated going right back to Queen Victoria people just weren't so aware of it
The Princess of Wales has been through major surgery and still she gets hounded for not being in the public eye, we all know that the minute she appears she will be hounded by the press etc.
It was mentioned on the news this morning that perhaps her husband is trying to avoid the same situation his mother was put in by the press.
I'm sure she will be back when she is ready, let's leave her alone and allow her to recover with her family
 
Last edited:
www.bbc.co.uk

Kate photo withdrawn by five news agencies amid 'manipulation' concerns

The Associated Press said it has noted "an inconsistency in the alignment" of Princess Charlotte’s hand.
www.bbc.co.uk

www.bbc.co.uk

Kate picture heats up royal rumours instead of quelling public curiosity

Details of the Princess of Wales's Mother's Day image are being pored over as agencies withdraw the photo.
www.bbc.co.uk

Firstly, and I guess we’ll never know for sure, has the image been manipulated or not. Seems unlikely to me.

Presumably the exif has been stripped out? Do photo agencies accept photos that have no exif data?

With all of the published images out there that have clearly been ‘shopped, it seems a little odd that this one has been singled out for scrutiny. Oh wait! Everyone (apparently) wants the juice on how Kate is doing and what medical condition she’s had treatment for. But that can’t be the reason for trying to discredit this image now can it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a thread on twitter going through a load of the manipulations.

Tree foliage was also pointed out as potentially inconsistent with the 'taken last week'.

If AP etc have pulled it then it's suspect.
 
I'm so out of touch with phone photo technology that I didn't know about a phone doing a composite image.

When the photo was released I thought the tree looked as if it has too many leaves for the shot to have been taken recently. Admittedly I can't identify the tree but it looks a bit like an apple tree to me.

I can't see any reason why the suggested manipulation would be done deliberately but there is the possibility that the shot is not a recent one.

People in the public eye are often subject to increased interest from some and from those who want to know I can sort of see their interest, but also recognise Kate and William might not want to say the nature of Kate's condition and treatment. It was a bit of bad luck that her need for medical treatment was very close in time to the Palace being open about Charles having cancer.

Dave
 
It isn't a news photo, and as far as I can see nobody is claiming that the photo misrepresents the facts, i.e. nobody is claiming that either she or any of the children weren't in the original photo - so why should we care whether the photo has been retouched or not?

Even if the photo wasn't taken as recently as it appears to have been taken, the woman is known to be ill, perhaps she didn't feel up to having her photo taken that day, which is her business and not ours.
 
If you fail to give the agency the originals so they pull it then there's something going on.
 
Garry Edwards said:
It isn't a news photo, and as far as I can see nobody is claiming that the photo misrepresents the facts, i.e. nobody is claiming that either she or any of the children weren't in the original photo - so why should we care whether the photo has been retouched or not?

Even if the photo wasn't taken as recently as it appears to have been taken, the woman is known to be ill, perhaps she didn't feel up to having her photo taken that day, which is her business and not ours.
Click to expand...

Associated Press, AFP and Reuters care because it appears to breach their policy on acceptable image manipulation

They cannot continue to distribute the image because of that, the same as any other photo that does not conform to their policies

That is what is happening here
 
I've never seen such a shoddy ps work anywhere on a major publication. There are numerous faults everywhere. I counted at least 10 in just a couple of minutes. Terrible work. What kind of idiot do they employ and how much did they get paid for this?
 
and this is why the royals usually get a Pro to do their images rather than do selfies, William.
 
Just read that Kate has posted an apology on X... I haven't looked for it but this is what one news site is quoting her as saying...

"Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing."

As there are health issues and a family involved I hope this strange affair hasn't caused them too much additional upset.
 
Threads merged and tidied
 
woof woof said:
Just read that Kate has posted an apology on X... I haven't looked for it but this is what one news site is quoting her as saying...

"Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing."

As there are health issues and a family involved I hope this strange affair hasn't caused them too much additional upset.
Click to expand...
It was on the BBC news feed too.

Yes, the news/photo agencies hold themselves and their sources to the highest standards(?) but this is a family photograph not a 'news' photograph.

IMO where they source such imagery for widespread distribution surely it makes sense to declare that it is outside their normal scrutiny. If not, why publish it in the first place!

PS does anyone know(for sure) where it first appeared......was it on the Princess of Wales own social media stream and used from there by the agencies?
 
Last edited:
Why are such stories seen more as "in the public interest" than "the public are interested".
 
The Prince of Wales takes a snap of his wife and kids. His wife photoshops the left hand of their daughter. The “media” go into meltdown. You couldn’t make it up.
 
andrewc said:
I think you'll find its not a selfie - its a someone-elsie !
Click to expand...
woof woof said:
Just read that Kate has posted an apology on X... I haven't looked for it but this is what one news site is quoting her as saying...

"Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing."

As there are health issues and a family involved I hope this strange affair hasn't caused them too much additional upset.
Click to expand...
I stand by my suggestion that she/he might do well to keep their amateur images in an album rather than publish them, to avoid the risk of this sort of attention.
 
does look a bit odd when all the silly mistakes are added up
can't see a reason for it myself i did wonder if the whole picture was made up from scraps but i think that would
be way to risky to release, maybe just a few random tool presses on the auto tidy up and sharpen function?
 
velocette said:
Who cares?
Click to expand...

What you're overlooking is the 'trust' factor.

I'm going to assume, never a good thing to do, that their PR people weren't aware of the editing. The reason for the photo was to alleviate the pressure they have come under regarding the lack of information in two areas. The health of Kate, leading to all manner of speculation and why William has missed events, the most important one being his absence from the memorial service for his godfather,King Constantine 11 of Greece, in which he was scheduled to deliver a eulogy or a reading. The Palace (Kensington) issued a statement that William wasn't going to attend because of "personal reasons". There was another issue re Kate,too. She is Colonel of the Irish Guards, the regiment trooping its colour this year..June 8th and,as such,she would review the regiment. Tickets were being sold stating this until Kate's representatives..ie "Kensington Palace," told them to stop and ticking them off saying that they will decide if she's attending or not, not the army.

So..in an effort to counter all the speculation re Kate, in particular, they send a happy, smiling family photo to the press agencies that has been edited or, as the more cynical would describe..manipulated. It was such an important message to get across that the sensible thing to do was to just get one of their regular pro. photographers in to get the best shot, which I see Lindsay suggested As we're all, to one degree or another, photographers, we know to 'look round' the scene, to check everything is ok. .It was also extremely naiive of Kate to think she could edit a photo that was going to be seen around the world that wasn't going to be closely scrutinised. You only have to look on here at some of critique regarding someone's efforts to edit without saying they've done this that or the other. Egg on face comes to mind..I don''t mean the basics..exposure, NR, sharpening..that's the norm but why are those steps behind the right knee of Louis not aligned ? Was he 'added' ? ...probably not but it sows doubt. Some on here have mentioned out-of season tree foliage, too. It raises all sorts of speculation..the very thing they issued the photo to quell.
 
AshleyC said:
And what the hell are Louis's fingers doing
Click to expand...
That really is strange. Have a go and see if you can do that. He's moved his middle finger not over his index finger, which you can probably just about do, I was able to do that, but to the finger on the other side, next to the little finger. I can't barely raise my middle finger to do that..Lol.
 
There's the problem. A Canon lens. :LOL:

Analysis of the image's metadata - data about the photo image - shows that the picture was taken with a digital camera using a Canon lens.
It was saved twice on photo editing software Adobe Photoshop, using an Apple Mac computer. But we do not know if both of these versions were saved on the same device.
The first version was saved on 8 March at 21:54 GMT, and the second was saved on 9 March at 09:39.
Metadata in the Reuters version of the picture does not include any information about Photoshop saves, and says the version was created at 11:34 on 10 March.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Princess of Wales: How might have Kate's photo been altered?

BBC Verify looks at how the photo might have been altered after photo agencies pulled the image.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Last edited:
JohnC6 said:
That really is strange. Have a go and see if you can do that. He's moved his middle finger not over his index finger, which you can probably just about do, I was able to do that, but to the finger on the other side, next to the little finger. I can't barely raise my middle finger to do that..Lol.
Click to expand...


At a guess, he's a few decades younger than you! Mrs Nod (who is still a few decades younger than you but several older than Louis!) can move her fingers into that position without using her other hand to manipulate them.
 
JohnC6 said:
That really is strange. Have a go and see if you can do that. He's moved his middle finger not over his index finger, which you can probably just about do, I was able to do that, but to the finger on the other side, next to the little finger. I can't barely raise my middle finger to do that..Lol.
Click to expand...
I dont see anything strange with his fingers I can do that and Im in my mid sixtys.
 
Nod said:
At a guess, he's a few decades younger than you! Mrs Nod (who is still a few decades younger than you but several older than Louis!) can move her fingers into that position without using her other hand to manipulate them.
Click to expand...

I don't have any movement issues but if you say it's down to ageing I'll go with that. I don't recall ever being able to do that,.though..lol. Some people are really flexible with their limbs.Well, 'luthy' (Noel) has just said he can do it.
 
Last edited:
Mrs Nod is still under 60 (but is a Yoga teacher!) I can get my left middle finger over my ring finger (by moving it with my right hand!) but it's not comfortable there and my right ring finger would complain loudly and painfully if I tried it with my right hand!!!
 
I genuinely think the situation is an entirely innocent one, just inadvertently made to look incredibly dodgy.

I would also lay some blame at the feet of the picture agencies who should have given the image more than a cursory glance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top