Well rumors are always true. So I can’t wait to see those.
Depends on what you mean by “film.” For the most part digital took over news photography a decade ago. By and large digital has all but replaced 35mm photography. 35mm slide film is roughly a 25 megapixel equivalent. Now that high pro cameras are in the 100 megapixel range, virtually no one is using 35mm slide film any more, especially given the forgiving nature of RAW digital formats. For example under or over exposing 2 to 3 stops can be fixed in post when using a digital format. With film, the image would be lost. For a paparazzi who may not have the ability to quickly adjust on the fly, this make digital an attractive choice. And my guess is that these images are most likely originally digital.
However for some applications, notably landscape, a large film format like 4 x 5" is still frequently used. But even for that digital is taking over.
I have read that in several of the topless pictures she is smoking cigarettes but that the magazine declined to run them because that’s just too shocking.
Their reaction still should have been “BFD.”
“We’re sorry your honor, we are no longer in possession of the original electrons”.
Regardless of all this legal tomfoolery, I hope my Royal collectibles of this momentous event will still be produced. I’ve ordered the Franklin Mint commemorative set, consisting of two very small jugs.
She has responsibilities to do what? Not sunbathe?
Have you taken a look at where the photographer was situated?
Now, I’ve never gotten the appeal of sunbathing topless - the last places I want exposed to the sun are my milky white boobs and sun-sensitive nipples - but I can’t imagine what royal protocol expressly forbids getting half-naked with your husband in an isolated area on a patio, in a country where many many people hang out topless on public beaches.
Except for one thing – Prince William’s mother was killed by paparazzi. It sounds melodramatic, but on a very personal level, the Duke and Duchess want to make it clear that no matter how much fun they’re having, they have a right not to be hounded by photographers. Paparazzi gonna paparazzi – until someone gets killed.
Any chance that by demanding the originals it puts the onus on the magazine to prevent copyright abuse by others? I could see how that might be a deterent.
I feel bad for her, she shouldn’t have to worry about some smuck a half mile away, if that’s not a crime, it should be.
Having said that, I’m dying to see a headline that reads ‘Cry Havoc, and let slip the royal puppies.’
Prince William’s mother was killed by a drunk driver who lost control of a speeding car.
Who was being hounded by paparazzi. In any case, Prince William holds them responsible:
He wasn’t speeding* for lulz. He was doing it because he was being pursued by the papparazi.
That the paps may have been tipped off by Dodi’s dad is another thing…
*I hate it when people say there’s a problem with speeding. There are very many problems with driving too quickly and very few with exceeding arbitary speed limits, but I will use the word here for simplicity, having registered my complaint
Sounds to me (mildly disinterested American observer) that both the drunk driver and the hounding paparazzi contributed to the crash and resulting death. Maybe it could have been avoided if one or the other had been sober or non-hounding, and probably it would have been avoided if both had been sober and non-hounding.
That said, I can entirely understand where Prince William is coming from with how he feels about the Paparazzi. Under the circumstances, I’d probably hate them too. As an amateur photographer, I generally find the whole bunch of them creepy and mildly embarrassing.
Or (c), both!
No, it isn’t.
Last month, Kodak announced the end of its film manufacturing, except for Hollywood-type movie makers, demonstrating once more that Kodak being out of touch is the understatement of the decade, even after bankruptcy. Fuji, too, has dropped a bunch of colour films. Soon there’ll be nothing left but Ilford black-and-white.
Show me a paparazzo or a newspaper photog shooting film and I’ll show you some guy driving a '52 Crosley station wagon with a card reading “Press” stuck in his hat band.
It is still going to be a while before aerial mapping is completely digital for less than satellite altitudes as 9.5 inch wide film with 9X9 negative areas are hard to replace and the equipment to store full color images at a picture every 2-3 seconds x 500 pictures takes some serious high tech gear. Read $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Lazar & RADAR is getting there also but for the Ansil Adams types and the warm / real feeling picture guys, digital is still not up top snuff, rightly or wrongly in their opinion.
Probably rightly, in that example. But where will they get that film when stocks run out? Is it Kodak? I doubt Fuji would have bothered with that stuff.
I love film — I have a Nikkormat, three Nikon lenses, a 50mm, a 105 and a 28, and a Vivitar 200 — but it cost me something like $30 last month to shoot eight 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 colour shots with a 1930 Kodak Brownie II and 120 Kodak Porta 160 film, with eight prints and the images burned to CD. Three seventy-five a shot.
Whether 120 or 35mm, a roll of film is around eight bucks and change in my locale, plus tax, and I can imagine Kodak’s going sky high the rarer it becomes.
It would have cost me nothing had I shot digital (except for printing one or all on my inkjet, which I didn’t), and thanks to a $14.95 surprisingly sophisticated photo-editing app, Pixelmator, I saved at least $5,000 by not buying a colour-photo lab. 
(And hundreds more from not buying Photoshop. 
)
And I had to wait four days to see the results, three of which are awful anyway.
Those high prices — even ignoring the soaring costs of consumables such as chemicals and paper — and the excellence now afforded by even cheap digital cameras, never mind such high-end equipment like digital Hasselblads, and it’s no wonder film has joined the legions of the undead, still breathing mostly because of hobbyists.
That judge (to keep the thread on subject) is an idiot, unless the ruling has some other tactical advantage.
Also, paparazzi take *lots *of pictures. Cost aside, a photographer who has to stop and reload every 15 seconds is at a severe disadvantage.
Who cares if she’s topless or not? The real issue is why isn’t she pregnant yet. They’ve been married over a year and she has no other job. Pop out an heir already.