I don’t think anyone here mentioned that another photo was shown to be doctored. This is one from August 2022, taken at Balmoral and with the late Queen with some of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I heard somewhere else that Getty Images is now reviewing all photos provided by the palace.
I could see that the recent photo was a casual one perhaps taken by William but this earlier one? Wouldn’t it have been taken by the official photographer?
FWIW, though I don’t follow the British Royals closely, I’ve read a few times in the last years that Kate is a hobby photographer and shot some of the official promo photos herself. Maybe she really also shopped them herself.
Thinking of these as less news photos and more as family photos taken by an avid amateur…
Are the sorts of alterations done much different than what many ambitious amateurs would do to
pictures they would send out for the holidays?
A pattern of this being done by her, including on photos of the queen, would speak her doing this thinking of it that vein, and less of an intent to deceive the public.
Yes, to me that sounds like a plausible explanation, a rather innocuous action without ill intent, blown up by the press for the ever craving for sensational news public.
I’m not sure I agree with that either. More different senses of what these pictures are?
One side considers these perhaps as news photos and understood by all involved to be held up to the standard of unvarnished accuracy of journalism photographs. Another is perhaps essentially sharing curated and ‘shopped family pictures like Christmas card photographs to their very large circle of people who are on that list.
The media may not be so craven this specific time, just at cross purposes regarding what photos released by the royals are?
This is pretty well defined. If the royals post pictures on their social media accounts, there is no expectation that the photos will be untouched. If news orgs pick up those photos from Instagram or whatever, they can share the altered images (according to whatever copyright laws are applicable).
If the royals provide a picture directly to a news organization for distribution, then there absolutely is an expectation that the photo has not been manipulated in any way. It might be a distinction that is lost or seemingly unimportant for us, but the news orgs and the royals definitely understand it.
The altered photo of Kate and the kids was both posted on social media and provided to news orgs. Maybe it was just a mistake to send an altered photo, but if so, it was a massive screwup by people who know better.
Is it though ? I would think that there are different expectations between portraits ( official or not ) and news photos. If a group of royals are photographed just being present at some event , I would expect that not to be manipulated at all. But I expect portraits, even official portraits , to have some retouching - eliminating a pimple or a stray strand of hair in front of the face. Even if the portrait was provided to the news organization .
Whether these went too far is a different issue.
Somebody is apparently more curious than most of the rest of us:
Princess Kate’s private medical records may have been breached at the London Clinic, where she was treated following her abdominal surgery in January.
Double plus uncool.
For my better understanding can you please point me to a link spelling out this policy?
Thanks.
Yes, it really is. These aren’t some loose guidelines where they let things slide. New organizations have clear standards for the photos they publish. For example, from the AP standards:
Minor adjustments to photos are acceptable. These include cropping, dodging and burning, conversion into grayscale, elimination of dust on camera sensors and scratches on scanned negatives or scanned prints and normal toning and color adjustments. These should be limited to those minimally necessary for clear and accurate reproduction and that restore the authentic nature of the photograph. Changes in density, contrast, color and saturation levels that substantially alter the original scene are not acceptable. Backgrounds should not be digitally blurred or eliminated by burning down or by aggressive toning. The removal of “red eye” from photographs is not permissible.
Here’s a summary of photo standards from over 30 news organizations. While many list an exception for portraits to the “don’t stage the scene” rule, there are no exceptions to the prohibition of manipulating photos, even if they are staged portraits.
To be clear, these are not the guidelines I am looking for. These are guidelines for the news organizations, not clear guidelines for the royal family that they clearly know and understand, let alone historically follow.
These are the standards for photos that are to be published by news organizations. If the royals are submitting photos to these news organizations, then they are expected to follow those standards, same as anyone who submits a photo for publication.
Maybe I’m not understanding your question.
Clearly not.
You state that the royals clearly understand that photos submitted by them to news organizations are to meet those criteria. I see no evidence that the royals now or have ever understood that to be the case. The news organizations may assume they do but I’m looking to see a policy of the royals regarding photos released that states such.
Well, I guess maybe the royals have a written policy that says “if you submit photos to AP, you must follow the AP’s policies.” If you need to see that policy before you’ll believe they know the rules, then I won’t be able to help you.
I can certainly believe that the average Joe off the street doesn’t know this rule. I most certainly do not believe that the royals, most of whose duties involve interacting with the press, don’t know it.
Whether they followed this policy in the past is a different question, and I take no stance on that.
I heard a reporter of royal stuff say, on CNN, “Nothing but full transparency will fix this”
I’m not so sure it would.
Well you have? There seems to only be your belief that they must know what news organizations’ rules for what is publishable are and that they accept that it is their responsibility to share only photographs that meet those criteria.
That may be the case. The fact that there seems to be a pattern of behavior of not following those rules however is consistent with either a lack of such knowledge or belief (ignorance or incompetence), or a long standing intent to break rules (malice). I tend to defer to Hanlons Law most often.
I posted that to the King Chuck thread instead of here. It’s not good but not as bad as it seems at first glance. It looks like someone working at the clinic tried to click on something they shouldn’t. Not as bad as an outside hack.
Pretty bad for the employee who did it, though; I’d assume that’s a firing offense, for trying to look at anyone’s records they’re not permitted to, let alone a royal.
It’s probably a criminal offense
Quite possibly: