Who??
Photoshop errors have been a thing for 25 years. They’ve been found in major magazines and social media. BoredPanda has articles with lists of silly photoshop fails.
I don’t see why Kate Middleton’s error is note worthy. Certainly not to this extent.
Its so ridiculous that most of these articles don’t acknowledge how many people use Photoshop and make errors.
She doesn’t need this stress so soon after major surgery.
It is being discussed here.
You wouldn’t get that.
You’d get “Sick Kate still looks better than Megan” headlines.
OMG, they photoshopped their pictures again?
Truly a tempest in a teapot.
I’d rather news agencies put a little more effort into this duty when it comes to endlessly repeating lies spewed by hateful right wing politicians than worrying about family snapshots made public by famous people.
Another Doper firmly in the “nunya” camp. Magpie that I am, I’m fascinated by the spectacle of the monarchy, but only so far. William and Kate have always presented themselves, and seem like, decent human beings - I’ve said before that flying search-and-rescue missions for the RAF means that William is an asset to his nation, even if he were simply Bill Sykes from Croydon. Whatever health issues she’s going through, I wish her and her family the best. And that’s where my interest ends.
Yeah, it might even be that there was a photo shoot and for whatever reason, none of the photos were particularly great, and someone said ‘hey, don’t worry, I can fix it’. It doesn’t even have to be that she looked haggard or anything - all it would take is for the photos to be substandard for some reason; such as the kids’ faces are fully lit, Kate’s face is in shade, and the easiest fix was to use a library picture.
I think the AP and AFP are pretty good about reporting the straight news, so I have no problem with that.
The only place I’ve heard talk about any of this hubbub is here, to be honest. Maybe it’s a big story and I need to get out more, but all I know about it is what I’ve seen in the couple of threads I’ve seen it mentioned in.
I don’t think anything about her. This thread is the only time I’ve seen her name recently.
Same here. To me there is nothing more inane and worthless as news about the British royals. Well, maybe that and celebrity news. It’s like “The Real Royals of Kensington Palace.” But on the upside it takes up some shelf space from our political news between pharmaceutical ads for toenail fungus and avoiding life-theatening infections of the perineum, so there’s that.
When you combine ludicrous obsession with the royals with pandemic era conspiracy-mongering, this is what you get.
It wasn’t even an issue about her supposed body shape. It’s that the slapshot photo editing put in extra things that weren’t supposed to be there. There’s an extra pair of hands cuddling two of her children on the outside, where her own hands are in front of her. It was made to look like the child behind her was the source of those extra hands, but he’d have to have 6 ft long arms to achieve that.
There’s also spots where there’s a diagonal platform in the background, but the edge isn’t straight. Sections of it extend further than the rest. There’s also points where some sort of sharpen filter was used for underarms that wound up artefacting the background. It looked like something a beginner at Photoshop would produce, thinking they had to use every edit feature possible.
Phone image editing uses AI to turn faces slightly more towards the camera, but it seldom takes into account the lighting settings. The original face has light bouncing off certain areas, and when they’re redirected while the rest of the photo is static, it looks weird and muddied. Seems like the Royals would have access to professional studios to dress up their images, but this looks DIY, which isn’t always a good thing.
Most likely answer to me: She’s at home but not looking or feeling her best. Maybe she’s lost weight in recovery, or she wasn’t feeling well enough to get the full makeup-and-wardrobe thing, so she photoshopped in a picture of herself that she likes. No big whoop unless it’s hiding a serious medical issue.
I don’t buy that at all. This photo was published as basically “a proof of life”. Why she decided to stay out of the public eye after the op is nobody’s business, and I personally couldn’t care less. But to choose to publish an obviously completely fake photo as way to say “hey nothing to see here, look here’s a photo of the princess looking hale and healthy”, that’s kinda batshiat. Like it wasn’t just touched up, it was released as the first photo of the Princess since last year, when in fact it was nothing of the sort it was an obvious collage of a photo from years earlier.
Even then I probably wouldn’t have really cared if they’d have given an excuse like this (basically the “blame it on the intern” approach), I wouldn’t have brought it but it wouldn’t seem completely extraordinary either. But they then decided to publish an clearly unbelievable excuse that the Princess was dabbling with Photoshop and threw it together herself. That’s just crazy. Even if it is all just spectacularly bad PR, it is once in a lifetime catastrophically bad PR that people will be talking about for decades, from the most famous richest people in the world whose only job is PR. Like shooting yourself in the foot doesn’t cover how bad this is, we need a new metaphor to describe it.
Because A: its not an “error” (it was released by the palace as “the first photo of the princess since December of last year” that was in fact a crude collage of a photo of her from years earlier. That’s not an error, nobody released this by mistake thinking it was real.) and B: its absolutely not her error, the suggestion that the Princess of Wales is dabbling in photoshop while recovering from surgery, is frankly bonkers.
That photo was in this book, which is a worthy coffee table book (if it’s still being published):
The editing of the photo was mentioned. It’s been a while since I saw the book, but I don’t remember them mentioning much controversy.
42 years ago (in 1982), National Geographic magazine ran an altered cover photo of the Egyptian pyramids, causing a huge controversy.
Do you have a source for this? I’ve seen quite a lot of coverage of this whole situation, and I’ve never seen this idea that there is no recent photograph at all.
They absolutely are not (hence the whole “kill notice” thing). And the actual people responsible for publicity for the palace, who are some of the the most senior PR professionals on the planet who deal the with the press agencies as the main part of the job, absolutely know that.
That seems likely. But she didn’t need to release any photo, so this feels like an unforced error to me.
And if she wants to do a non-photo “proof of life”, she could do a short audio interview with a friendly member of the press where something recent is mentioned. Or something. I’m sure there are ways other than photoshopping old images to suggest she is still alive and well-enough.
The link in the OP is pretty compelling, here is non-Twitter version:
I mean it could be a fake (by using an edited version of either the vogue photo or the palace’s photo, so they match) but the fact multiple people have tried it (and no one has pointed out “hey these people used a fake photo”) is a smoking gun as far as I’m concerned.