Of course it is strictly forbidden. Photos are edited “all the time” (or computer-generated in the first place) for fashion magazine covers, etc., not the newspaper or the courtroom.
I meant the rules are absolutely not different, not that using edited photos wasn’t forbidden BTW
ThelmaLou’s ears prick up. As it were.
Any pics in the book? Asking for a friend.
That’s not a nice way for him to refer to his brother, I’m sure Wills was very cold 
Yes, in the photojournalism community, that is a HUGE deal and grounds for dismissal. You don’t remove anything from a news photo, you don’t add anything to a news photo, you certainly don’t composite anything. Even how you “develop” the photo – if you do what Time Magazine did to make OJ Simpson look more darker and more menacing by increasing the contrast and color of his mug shot was considered journalistically unethical. Feel free to look up the Newsweek vs. Time covers of the same shot. You are supposed to present the photo as true and accurate representation of events, warts and all, distractions and all. You don’t want distractions? You should have moved and framed it differently. If we start allowing that kind of manipulation, where is the line drawn in the other direction? Even framing a shot in a way that distorts the “truth” of what is happening is unethical. I learned this in my late teens. Ethics in journalism and photojournalism was a big thing.
But, yes, you can go down the rabbit hole of “what is truth” are not all images influenced by the framing of the photographer, etc. But the obvious stuff above should remain no-nos in news. Advertising/commercial use, knock yourself out.
In the case of the National Geographic cover photo I mentioned, it’s of three people on camels passing in front of two pyramids. The magazine manipulated the photo to change the position of the pyramids, supposedly because they wanted something that would work better in a portrait orientation and the original photo was landscape. As I said, that was hugely controversial when this happened in 1982 but the photographer pointed out that the three people on camelback were paid by him to ride back and forth until he was able to get the right shot.
And again the people responsible for this were 100% aware of that. The idea this was a bumbling but well meaning princess doing her own photoshop is absurd. We are talking about the most senior PR people on the planet, who’s bread and butter is dealing with press agencies and photojournalists, who absolutely know about this kind of thing.
That’s what makes this noteworthy. I mean what is going on?
Yeah, I glossed past all that. That is odd.
The same technique that led a whole generation to believe Shel Silverstein was Black.
This, mostly. Someone suggested a day or more ago somewhere on the Dope that the surgery was likely a hysterectomy, and that seemed to fit the facts to me.
The thing is, William and Kate are being very much presented as the NEW and YOUNG face of the British monarchy, And they are/were, especially in contrast to the near hundred year old Queen and her 70+ heir.
But time passes. William and Kate are both in their forties, now (I think, can’t be bothered to Google it) and most people, if asked to describe people their age, wouldn’t immediately go with ‘young.’ They’re mature adults.
And for someone in Kate’s role, being young and healthy and fertile and full of energy is part of the expected image. I think for any woman, losing your fertility has a whole lot of emotional baggage. It did for me, when cancer required a hysterectomy. Even though I’d never wanted to bear children, the fact that Wham! It’s no longer an option, ha ha! hit me hard on some level. I could certainly understand Kate not wanting to just face that divide AND have to do it publicly. Fearing that everyone looking at her is thinking ‘she’s past her baby making years’ i.e. old.
On top of that, it had always struck me as odd how FAST she had her three children, given how horrible her pregnancy experiences were known to be. Why not wait a few more years between them for recocery/recuperation? Well, what if she had some other, on-going gynecological problem that would likely become worse as time went by? It was her job to pump out the next generation of Royal Heirs, the near sacred Heir and a Spare. Best she buckle down and get it done ASAP so she have whatever medical intervention would be best for her long term health.
(Actually, if I’d been asked to bet, my guess is that it was some ovarian problem, which might not require a full-on hysterectomy.)
The tummy tuck theory is a non-starter to me, given the timing. TTs aren’t urgent. With King Charles’ got to have been known prostate difficulties and planned surgery looming, they surely would have delayed Kate’s surgery for at least a few months to avoid the pile up. But if she’d suddenly had a major uterine hemorrhage? Yup, no delaying dealing with that.
I had no interest in this until the photo mess, other than laughing at some of the conspiracy theories (she’s dead! She had butt replacement surgery! Affairs, domestic violence, murders!). I mean, there was weirdness before: very long hospital stay, very long recovery with zero public appearances, no pictures of her leaving the hospital from a tabloid press that manages to get pictures of everything, William cancelling events at the last minute then showing up with bruises on his neck. But none of that is really inconsistent with a serious medical issue or other mundane events that are none of our business.
But the photo manipulation is so weird. No one, other than tabloids and people who love conspiracies, was really paying attention. Let that subset yammer about it and make up silly stories all they want, and once Kate is recovered, return to normalcy and everyone forgets about the last three months.
Instead, they publish a fake photo with an obvious lie for an excuse. It makes people think, if they felt like taking this approach was their best option, how terrible must the real story be?
Same here. The speculation about what kind of procedure it was and why the long recovery are of zero interest to me, there is zilch in the public interest about reporting on them (especially here in the states where last time i checked the side that thought the heir to throne’s wife’s reproductive organs should be part of the system of government lost the War of Independence)
Yeah this. I mean even if it is just a massive PR screw up, its such a huge huge screw up by the most senior PR people on the planet. That is a story that is worth reporting in it own right.
This has to be the biggest nothingburger to come along in decades. With everything else that is going on in the world, why does anybody give a royal shit about either this person or a photo of her? First world bullshit.
To be clear while I care, its clearly a form of diversion. This is a fun way of taking my mind off the other news about genocide, war, and the rise of fascism, that has some hilarious memes. This is not a serious matter that effects the geopolitical outlook of the world.
And its not a “nothingburger” its a seriously weird thing to happen, even if in the grand scheme of things its not vitally important for the fate of mankind.
Because with everything else horrible going on in the world a distracting nothing burger seems tasty? Just like why so many of us care about sports, the Oscars, and reality tv?
Question for those more in the know: if this was done by a professional PR team then why is job so freaking amateurish? Heck an AI image generator could have done a better job.
I don’t personally care what her medical issues are and wish her an uneventful recovery; I like others here do find the stupidity of posting a faked picture to be a what!? why?! who thought that was a good idea!? event.
IMO, the issue is not the specifics of what’s happening to the princess or the royal family. The issue is, a photograph intended for the news was faked. That’s an important journalistic issue no matter what the subject of the photo is.
I’m not particularly in the know but it occurs to me that just because you are the most senior and high profile PR team on the planet, it doesn’t mean you are any good at your job (similarly for CEOs, see Musk, Elon 
). Its very possible that this PR team came up dealing with jornos handing over negatives in the smokey back rooms of pubs, and deals with newspaper proprietors over brandy in gentleman’s clubs. They could well be completely out of their depth when it comes to digital photos and the internet.
Fashion magazine cover photos don’t fall under the same scrutiny, but take a look at these cover photos of Jennifer Lopez and tell me which one reproduces her actual skin tone.
I’d just expect that people know to hire good people?
Do celebrity PR release photos generally fall under journalistic guidelines?
The family photo was released for Mother’s Day in the UK. The royal family frequently releases photos for holidays and special occasions.
It seems no different than any other social media post. YMMV
I agree a hard news photo shouldn’t be changed. The image content is the basis for the news.