In the news today....

[noddy]

All she did was post a photo, even if it was altered, it was an image she liked.

Yes, but it is altered to disguise evidence that our monarchs descend from a family of giant newts.

 

[Greg]

So, let me get this right.

Mum, who has been ill (and note this; not generating news for the tabloids, etc., !!!) posts a happy Mothers Day photo of herself and her children.

.....and overly entitled arrogant arseholes decide that it's FAKE !!!! and NEWSWORTHY !!!!! and stir up shit.


Yeah, that's news.

Leave the woman alone; she clearly loves her family, is clearly loved by them. All she did was post a photo, even if it was altered, it was an image she liked.

End of.

It adds to the slow but consistent decline of their relevancy.

 

[Saint-Just]

So, let me get this right.

Mum, who has been ill (and note this; not generating news for the tabloids, etc., !!!) posts a happy Mothers Day photo of herself and her children.

.....and overly entitled arrogant arseholes decide that it's FAKE !!!! and NEWSWORTHY !!!!! and stir up shit.


Yeah, that's news.

Leave the woman alone; she clearly loves her family, is clearly loved by them. All she did was post a photo, even if it was altered, it was an image she liked.

End of.

Not sure that on reflection I agree.

Yours was my first reaction: I was completely bemused for this to even make the news, let alone be the main feature of the day.

Then I thought about it a bit more. We are talking about news agencies here. They have been supplied a photo that has been altered. Because we assume the matter is trivial, our initial reaction is to let it go. But where would you set the limit for a news agency?
Of course, the Royals communication department could have supplied both the original and the altered photo, and asked that the altered one was the preferred version (for reasons that would have been obvious to the AFP and Reuters of this world; but the Palace not only didn't do that, they pointedly refused to supply the original when confronted. Which is either a hissy fit ("Do you know who you're talking to?") or the reason behind the alteration is not so trivial. I personally believe the former. But the Windsors are not doing themselves any favours.

 

[Greg]

It has many of the common failures of AI generated imagery as well.

I agree, this just fuels the fire of all the speculation around them.

 

[Beachlover]

 

[MaC]

Honestly, if it were me, and someone shimfed and demanded the 'original'....that I had altered to make something I found more pleasing; I'd tell them to bugger off. At least the Windsor's were polite about it, and if they just ignore the issue going forward, fair enough.
It's no one else's business, it's a family photograph.
Altered like a million other family photographs in this day and age of digital data and manipulation thereof.

 

[Saint-Just]

Honestly, if it were me, and someone shimfed and demanded the 'original'....that I had altered to make something I found more pleasing; I'd tell them to bugger off. At least the Windsor's were polite about it, and if they just ignore the issue going forward, fair enough.
It's no one else's business, it's a family photograph.
Altered like a million other family photographs in this day and age of digital data and manipulation thereof.

You would indeed, but ask yourself why you would need to supply your photo in the first place, other than to friends and family?

Then ask yourself why Windsor inc. supplied the picture to the news agencies. This is the difference: They want it published because it is what keeps them relevant, popular and justifies what they are, what they own and what they earn.

 

[Greg]

Honestly, if it were me, and someone shimfed and demanded the 'original'....that I had altered to make something I found more pleasing; I'd tell them to bugger off. At least the Windsor's were polite about it, and if they just ignore the issue going forward, fair enough.
It's no one else's business, it's a family photograph.
Altered like a million other family photographs in this day and age of digital data and manipulation thereof.

You are typically quite strident in your support for the Royals.

They're not you, it's a family photograph released to the press in the face of mounting scrutiny. I don't think you (or them, really) can have it both ways.

 

[MaC]

You would indeed, but ask yourself why you would need to supply your photo in the first place, other than to friends and family?

Then ask yourself why Windsor inc. supplied the picture to the news agencies. This is the difference: They want it published because it is what keeps them relevant, popular and justifies what they are, what they own and what they earn.

I thought the agreement was that so many photos would be provided while the children were underaged so that they weren't constantly paparazzied.

Is that what's irking the detractors ? that the photos they're getting are 'ideal' and not something they can rip apart ?.....I mind the paps teasing one of the Beckham's infants to give the fingers while being carried on parent's shoulder....yeah, they're full of courtesy and kindness and respect those folks, aren't they ? not.

 

[MaC]

You are typically quite strident in your support for the Royals.

They're not you, it's a family photograph released to the press in the face of mounting scrutiny. I don't think you (or them, really) can have it both ways.

Ehm, no, I am a royalist (with a small r) in as much as I look with total unabashed horror on the presidencies of other countries.
I think that's a nightmare, tbh.

I am whole heartedly family orientated though; and I have no respect for those who gaslight, who jealously and spitefully bite and nip and tear....I often think that it says more about them than the people they're trying to shred.....

 

[ElThomsono]

I reckon William's lamped her, broke her necklace.

 

[Saint-Just]

I thought the agreement was that so many photos would be provided while the children were underaged so that they weren't constantly paparazzied.

Is that what's irking the detractors ? that the photos they're getting are 'ideal' and not something they can rip apart ?.....I mind the paps teasing one of the Beckham's infants to give the fingers while being carried on parent's shoulder....yeah, they're full of courtesy and kindness and respect those folks, aren't they ? not.

The reason they supply the photos are their own, whether it results from a « gentleman » agreement with the press (hence the quote marks) or a more general communication with the public.

If the photo had been on the Palace’s website (or the PoW’s) it would be different for me.

Here they supplied news organisations with a doctored photo. Don’t you understand how unacceptable that can be for them? Regardless of being royalist, republican, anarchist or any other -ist you can think of: publishing doctored photos is a breach of their ethics especially if they cannot signal it was doctored (and why: if they had given the original photo and had chosen smiling faces on others that would be fine. If she looked really shit and unwell on the original that would be a very different story).

 

[MaC]

Modern photographs are virtually all doctored. Whether it's simply adjusting colour, to blurring out extraneous background detail, to actually photoshopping in other people.

It's normal, it's commonplace, it's nothing nefarious, it's simply 'presentation'.

I think anyone in the public limelight would do it, after all 'warts and all' only really suits Hallowe'en, and hardly Mother's Day.

 

[BorderReiver]

Honestly, if it were me, and someone shimfed and demanded the 'original'....that I had altered to make something I found more pleasing; I'd tell them to bugger off. At least the Windsor's were polite about it, and if they just ignore the issue going forward, fair enough.
It's no one else's business, it's a family photograph.
Altered like a million other family photographs in this day and age of digital data and manipulation thereof.

But it wasn't a "family photo" it was a brand promotion and should have been fully kosher. The papers didn't sneak in and steal it after all.

 

[MaC]

I saw a Family photograph. Thought they looked happy.

That was it.

I truly do not see how anyone could even try to look for something sinister, sneaky, or otherwise bad/bad/bad about such a photo.

Well, not unless their noses were out of joint that nothing they'll ever photograph will get such an audience.

 

[Beachlover]

Anyone remember the on-going genocide, 30p Lee or the ten million pound "pot black" donor real news stories that Sunak et al are covering up?
No, of course not as this pointless shite is filling the airwaves and social media....

 

[Saint-Just]

We all see only what we want to see.

 

[MaC]

We all see only what we want to see.

I sometimes think too many people only 'see' what social media/tabloids tell them to see.

 

[Saint-Just]

I sometimes think too many people only 'see' what social media/tabloids tell them to see.

That is not wrong. But in this case it’s the genuine media, and you’re critical because they « killed » (I think it’s the term they use) a photo that did not meet their standards of authenticity.

 

[Stew]

13 Leaked Photoshops Of Kate Middleton That The Palace 100% Does NOT Want You To See

I. Need. Answers.

www.buzzfeed.com

 

[Greg]

That is not wrong. But in this case it’s the genuine media, and you’re critical because they « killed » (I think it’s the term they use) a photo that did not meet their standards of authenticity.

They're just jealous, apparently.

 

[MaC]

That is not wrong. But in this case it’s the genuine media, and you’re critical because they « killed » (I think it’s the term they use) a photo that did not meet their standards of authenticity.

They can do what they like the photo, but honestly I think most folks don't care about the medjia's nose out of joint protestations.

It was a happy looking family photo. Sort of summed them up. I hope Mum is recovering well, because even with help they're her kids and she obviously cares for her family, and that takes engagement and energy, and hopefully good health.

I'd wish that on any young family, regardless of their social 'position'.

 

[Saint-Just]

That’s all fine and good Mary, but that is not the issue. I don’t care much about them but wish them no ills either so yes, happy family and taking care of her kids, all good.

But you started your diatribe calling news agencies « entitled arseholes » because they « had decided it was fake » (it is) and « newsworthy » (that’s their job).

Now this has nothing to do with posting a photo of a happy family anymore. It is likely that the raised hand salute photo was also considered showing a happy family at the time; it’s only with the benefit of hindsight that it looks so awkward now.

For what it’s worth I believe it’s a goof rather than anything sinister. It’s a botched job of someone dabbling with AI photo editing, and taking into their hands matters for which they already pay pros to deal with. You and I could have done that mistake if we suddenly hit the news and needed a family photo. We’re normal people.
They don’t have that luxury. By all means they can have their own family album, but keep it to themselves: their private moments are already few and far between. And if they like their own photo so much they want to share it and hit the news with it (and they know it will), at least make sure whoever forwards the photo does his job and checks it’s fit to print.

 

[MaC]

That’s all fine and good Mary, but that is not the issue. I don’t care much about them but wish them no ills either so yes, happy family and taking care of her kids, all good.

But you started your diatribe calling news agencies « entitled arseholes » because they « had decided it was fake » (it is) and « newsworthy » (that’s their job).

Now this has nothing to do with posting a photo of a happy family anymore. It is likely that the raised hand salute photo was also considered showing a happy family at the time; it’s only with the benefit of hindsight that it looks so awkward now.

For what it’s worth I believe it’s a goof rather than anything sinister. It’s a botched job of someone dabbling with AI photo editing, and taking into their hands matters for which they already pay pros to deal with. You and I could have done that mistake if we suddenly hit the news and needed a family photo. We’re normal people.
They don’t have that luxury. By all means they can have their own family album, but keep it to themselves: their private moments are already few and far between. And if they like their own photo so much they want to share it and hit the news with it (and they know it will), at least make sure whoever forwards the photo does his job and checks it’s fit to print.

I am friends with a professional photographer.
He is quite open about it. All digital data is just that, and it is routinely manipulated to present a pleasing image.

He never, ever, gives his raw data. Not even to the people who pay him for a finished product. There is no point, it's simply his baseline.

That's what the entitled arseholes are demanding.
It's none of their business.
They were given a photo to use, without copyright, free, gratis....and guess what? they're claiming it's not valid, not real.....uhuh.
Non story.

It's a Mum and her children, a happy photograph on Mother's Day.

All this brouhaha is just bile and spite and entitement...and they aren't entitled to anything other than the photo they were given.

Note; given, not charged for......unlike agency photos.

 

[CaptainBeaky]

Anyone remember the on-going genocide, 30p Lee or the ten million pound "pot black" donor real news stories that Sunak et al are covering up?
No, of course not as this pointless shite is filling the airwaves and social media....

It's just another dead cat to divert attention away from the important stuff.
Stops people noticing what is actually happening and turning up on the doorstep with pitchforks and flaming torches to register their disapproval.