HRH Kate out and about with her family, Sunday

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

This indeed is great news!!!!!!

I'm very pleased to see her in good health!!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/royals/26750949/princess-kate-windsor-farm-shop-william/

That is untrue. It found that the composite was created on Friday and one element of the picture was - possibly the patio shot, who knows - but that at least 6 other images were used to construct the rest.

@smilesy
@Mymilkshakebringsallthepapstomycar

🤣🤣🤣

Thanks for the entertainment today. You make a good team.

My brain actually hurts now though. I’m glad to be going to work for a time out 😂

Link to this proof that the whole picture was a made up composite of different images, I don’t see any reports of this in MSM.

Go on then, typical bearist, running off to your job at the zoo no doubt, where it’s all lock em up and throw away the key. Paddington never had a chance with your sort.

I am reporting you for accusing me of being a dog shagger and nit infested. Dogs aren’t my type, although they are probably yours.

Have a good day at work, I hope you don’t slip on any banana skins unless there are 2000 tourists all watching and recording.

Last word is mine, yah boo sucks ner nernie ner ner.

(😘it’s been fun, seriously have a good day at work)

@BigWillyLittleTodger

Samora Bennett-Gager, an expert in photo retouching, identified multiple signs of image manipulation. The edges of Charlotte’s legs, he said, were unnaturally soft, suggesting that the background around them had been shifted. Catherine’s hand on the waist of her youngest son, Louis, is blurry, which he said could indicate that the image was taken from a separate frame of the shoot.
Taken together, Mr. Bennett-Gager said, the changes suggested that the photo was a composite drawn from multiple images rather than a single image smoothed out with a Photoshop program.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/11/world/europe/kate-middleton-photo-princess-wales.html

this link
https://www.vox.com/culture/24098724/kate-middleton-editing-photo-explained talks about the light doesn't catch Kate's eyes in the same way as it does the children.
you can see that the catch light is in the same place on everybody’s eyes, but the one on Kate’s is slightly different. The one on Kate seems extremely crisp and small.
A catch light in somebody’s eye is that spot of white that makes it look like there’s a light in somebody’s eye. Photographers are very intentional with both daylight and artificial studio light with making sure that there is a natural-looking catch light. Kate’s catch light is very nice and very natural looking, but it doesn’t look like it’s the same shape or the same size as the kids. It makes me wonder if the whole face was Photoshopped in and or just her eyes are Photoshopped in.
Her eyes also look much crisper than George’s and everybody else’s. George’s you can’t even see, like there’s a lack of depth. Hers are very crystal clear, almost kind of creepy compared to her kids where the light is there, but it’s just less focused.
Right, and even if you were to go side to side and look at Charlotte’s eyes and then Louis’s eyes, you can see that there is a difference in the catch light. It creates this weird anomaly where it’s almost like all of them were photographed in the exact same spot and then stitched into one photo. But there are some noticeably missing shadows from some spots where you would assume if they were posing together, like Louis’s left arm holding on to the chair.

I'm not pretending I understand this , though there have been posts on other threads by people who do and perhaps they can clarify.
This article cites multiple frames but whether that means all from one photo or not ,I don't know.
But I've not seen any confirmation of the actual date it was taken.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/11/the-sleeve-the-hand-the-knee-the-royal-photos-telltale-signs-of-editing

Thanks, can’t open the first link and the second is just an opinion piece, I thought it had actually been proved publicly that the whole picture was completely made up rather than edited, I see it hasn’t.

It makes me wonder if the whole face was Photoshopped in and or just her eyes are Photoshopped in.

”wondering” doesn’t count as solid evidence.

For it to have been pulled it has to be more than a little photoshopped.

@BigWillyLittleTodger
It makes me wonder if the whole face was Photoshopped in and or just her eyes are Photoshopped in. To be clear ,that quote is from one the articles linked to .It's not fro a mn poster.

And yes ,using the word "wonder" is not the same as saying "there is proof that " .
It's just someone discussing an idea ,giving reasons why the idea has entered their head,but just wondering not claiming proof .

Any photoshopping is not allowed, not even red eye removal so to claim it has to have been heavily edited to be pulled is incorrect.

Yes I realise it’s not from a MN poster and is just the “wonderings” of an alleged professional (sorry I have no idea who she is)

There are posters claiming on here that the photo was a composite, I was asking for clarification that this has actually been proved but I see it hasn’t, just peoples opinions and not factual evidence.

BWT ,I've copied a pertinent part of the article that you can't open,it provides some info as to why somone might conclude the image of Kate's eyes comes from a different picture.
You said that you hadn't seen any reports on SMS re the pic being made up of composites .But of course there are plenty of reports .
Most of what we read are "opinion pieces" ,so long as credible reasons are given for the opinions I don't see that they should be dismissed out of hand .

Can you link to an article proving that the photo was taken on a specific day ?

😂Pretty glad @smilesy has gone to work, I was running out of Crazy!

BWT the extract I quoted discussed the light and how it affects the captured image of the eye. And that Kates eyes and that of her children's are different.
This might make you wonder if more than one picture was used .

an alleged professional (sorry I have no idea who she is)
Presumably you have knowledge of professionals in this line of work (analysing photos ) a list of names in your head on which this person's name doesn't appear and this is why you use the word "alleged" and explain that you don't know them?

As I’ve said repeatedly, you have provided opinion pieces, it has not been announced or proved that the photo is a complete composite mock up which has been claimed on here, that is what I was questioning, if it was it would be the lead story on the BBC. People can have opinions but opinions are not facts.

Why do you want me to link an article proving the photo was taken on a specific day? Where have I made any claims on when it was taken?

What are you talking about?

Why do you want me to link an article proving the photo was taken on a specific day?because it's much debated .

Where have I made any claims on when it was taken? where have I said that you did ?

Why ask me for for it then! Look it up yourself if you are so interested!

I'm going to pinch your responses BTW ,very handy if I ever find myself unable to answer a question or don't want to concede that SMS has written about something ,when I've said that I hadn't seen any such reports .

"I can't open the link "
"it's just an opinion piece "
and my fav ,the all purpose "What are you are talking about "

More garbled incoherent nonsense I see.

I don't think asking someone for a link breaks any guidelines ?
has it always to be done in an adversarial way -You said such and such ,where's the link ?
I asked because I wondered if you had one .Simple .No need to make a drama out of it .

Oh ,another for my list of handy non responses

"I can't open the link "
"it's just an opinion piece "
and my fav ,the all purpose "What are you are talking about "
and now "More garbled incoherent nonsense I see.¬
marvellous,keep the pithy comments up BTW.

It depends. Celebrity photos can be photoshopped by the photographer, and royal Christmas cards etc. This became a news pic so there are strict rules, I’m just not convinced it would have been killed over a solitary red eye in the circs, and we know there are many fails not just one. There are now other royal pics on the table as potentially photoshopped. There’s an uncertain interface between celebrity and news which is probably why the RF comms team thought photoshopping would be acceptable in the first place.