Another Royal photo photoshopped

[AdultFemaleWoman]

Another terribly badly photoshopped photo with th Queen

Photo

I thought that the kill notice on the Mother's Day photo was issued because KATE'S FACE was added from 4 years ago.

My understanding is that tweaks are allowed. Total duping is not

From yet another Sussex supporting, RF hating supporter on Twitter. Why are you promoting her views? Perhaps you share them? She takes every opportunity to share hers and you are doing her grubby, mindless work for her.

In her last month's HM was never seen walking, even the last balcony appearance she was standing when the lights went on and was still there when the went off.

In trusted media photos are not allowed to be constructed from multiple images - a picture must show a single moment in time.

Photoshopping out an unwanted aspect or touching up appearance is different to combining multiple images to present an event that never happened.

I disagree this is a non-story, it is important that we can be certain a depicted event did indeed happen.

It all seems to have gone tits up for the royals since The Queen died, well more than normal.

I’d not really been watching or following the news about the photos. I initially felt for KM as we were told she would be recuperating until Easter but as time goes on, I just feel that something is ‘off’.

Portraits and news photos are different things, obviously.

What matters is that what is claimed about an image is accurate.

So, what are all the photoshopped areas?

There's a few issues. As said these are important moments in time and should be historically accurate. Then there was a lot of "the evil Sussexes keeping their children away from the Queen" and "look at the family moments those children are missing out on " Then there's MH charities trying to counteract the false photos on SM. You have to wonder if the royal advisors are just on one long piss take.

This is ridiculous. Basically ALL photos are edited- photo editing is not a new thing, you can edit photos in a darkroom and it was regularly done.
This current royal hysteria is quite frankly bizarre and incredibly nonsensical.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/17/people-question-everything-now-how-kates-photo-scandal-rips-up-the-rules-for-royals-and-the-media

Many mentioned lower down in the article. I wrote in the another thread that the only reason they thought they would get away with the Photoshopped Mothers Day picture was simply because they did it before and never got caught.

There is a difference between brightening up a picture, softening someone's skin tone, cropping out unnecessary background - and adding or taking away people from a photo. The former is acceptable to news agencies, the latter is potentially falsifying information. If the queen wanted a photo of herself with all her great grandchildren for personal reasons and the only way that could happen was using photoshop, fine. If said photo is then released to news agencies as a record of something that happened, even if in fact didn't happen, that's where the issue is.

She was 96 at the age a sudden death isnt really unexpected
My dh,stepdad died suddenly about 18 months ago ,he had come out of hospital after a recent planned operation and sat on the sofa,and just slipped away he was 81.

I wonder if there’s a generational divide here- youngsters wouldn’t dream of posting a photo that hadn’t been tweaked, older posters think it requires professional training and specialist equipment and is therefore conspiracy worthy.

Press standards will have been based on historical accuracy- not about the morality of removing a spot or trimming a stray hair, but adding Putin to a photo he isn’t supposed to be in. They have a hard line to make sure that we don’t edge into fake news.

Editing is not the same thing as fabricating.

Who cares? Are you too stupid to realise that almost every picture of every person that ever appears in any sort of media has been edited? What boring lives people like you must live.

Yep.my Grandparents got married in the 1930,s their "colour" wedding photo was coloured in!

That's nice language for a Monday morning.

I agree with the sentiment of that article. In the age of AI and deep fake we need to trust some sources for authenticity and truth.

I'm.not a royalist but know that there was a lot of fondness for the late Queen but even she had periods where her popularity waned
When Diana died for example a lot of people thought she should have come back London more quickly than she did out of respect
I was watching series of documentaries on ITV x about the Royal family
By all accounts the general public were very against Charles marrying Camilla Circa late 90,s and were very against her ever becoming Queen yet here we are .

Nah, she clung on to see Boris off and then off she popped.

How strange. I saw that photo and immediately said to DH ‘Oh! She is dying’.

interpretations vary…..

Tweaking so that all the children are looking at the camera with their eyes open by combining different shots, in a personal photo released for PR - fine.

Editing in an older version of the future queen's face, at a time when there is concern over her health (i.e. her appearing happy and healthy is news), and she hasn't been seen for a couple of months apart from a pap shot which shows her face looking different to the edited version - very different.

It's disingenuous to ignore the different context of the photos.

And again, Kate should never have felt obliged to release a photo of any kind, but altering to the extent they did isn't ok.

Us too.

It's reasonably likely a nursery class photo will have been edited from multiple shots, but probably only using parts of several photos taken by the photographer on the one day, in the same setting. It would be much more difficult to add in a child who wasn't even there, e.g., using a snap from home.

I know my children's nursery photos were composites from multiple shots (though they didn't really try to hide it - there were children from the morning and afternoon groups all there, who wouldn't have been posing together, and the background had been edited out so it was just the children in a white space if you know the style I mean).

My last secondary school photo from a quarter of a century ago is a composite edited together from at least two photos, so it's hardly a new thing.

The portraits of old - oil paintings and the like - are all "photoshopped" too.
People would have asked the artist to make them look a bit taller/make their nose smaller/not paint every wrinkle.

This isn't a new thing that's come along with new technology. 'Twas forever this. Human beings are a vain people.