Photo editing.
Mar 12, 2024 09:11:12 #
Anthony padua wrote:
Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers
Yawn.
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! That someone would alter her own photo out of vanity — is a horror of epic insignificance.
Yes, it matters… a little. Journalists *should* have photo purity standards. But whether their rejection of Kate's photo is newsworthy is another matter. There is plenty of more important news in the world, and they waste our time with trivia like this?
Mar 12, 2024 09:12:55 #
billnikon wrote:
Sorry, I have a life and could care less about folks who are rich beyond my dreams.
And you read on why? 🤔
Mar 12, 2024 09:15:52 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's an image of a happy mom on Mothers' Day with three happy kids, well, that's what they want you to believe ....
And SHE liked it......
Mar 12, 2024 09:18:11 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
It was a family photo with some minor (Facebook quality) editing mistakes. Why all the hoopla?
Exactly. I get and agree with the whole photojournalism thing but she’s not a photojournalist. It’s a family photo. I see why the AP and Reuters pulled it but I don’t see it as a big deal. I don’t think she was trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. Even in most publications there’s a difference in a “news” photo and other types of photos. I’m pretty sure anytime a celebrity’s publicist submits photos of that celebrity to a publication those photos have been edited. Even those headshots that show up next to a reporter’s byline are edited.
Mar 12, 2024 09:31:54 #
Mar 12, 2024 09:32:32 #
burkphoto wrote:
Yawn.
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! That someone would alter her own photo out of vanity — is a horror of epic insignificance.
Yes, it matters… a little. Journalists *should* have photo purity standards. But whether their rejection of Kate's photo is newsworthy is another matter. There is plenty of more important news in the world, and they waste our time with trivia like this?
I am shocked! Shocked, I tell you! That someone would alter her own photo out of vanity — is a horror of epic insignificance.
Yes, it matters… a little. Journalists *should* have photo purity standards. But whether their rejection of Kate's photo is newsworthy is another matter. There is plenty of more important news in the world, and they waste our time with trivia like this?
Oh horrors, the photo had some editing that changed nothing of any importance. The most important issue I reckon is the editor was either careless and didn't care much, or was not very good at editing. Just from the substance of the photo, it seems nothing at all nefarious was intended, PARTICULARY by newspaper standards. Perhaps if she entered a SOOC photo contest, if any exist, but otherwise I agree, YAWN!
My take is that it's great that someone, even a princess, cares enough about photography to spend some time with editing software instead of just snapping pictures like a monkey. My tip to Katy is to blow up her edits to 1-200% or more and get a close look at things she may have missed. All are easily fixed if you care enough to find them. Publishing to Facebook or Instagram seems unimportant I reckon.
Mar 12, 2024 09:35:56 #
EJMcD wrote:
To those who did not know who Kate Middleton is...what planet are you from?
Mar 12, 2024 09:36:51 #
srt101fan wrote:
And you read on why? 🤔
My guess is because he is interested in photography and editing and all that rot.
That's why I "read on" anyway. I too could care less about some princess.
Could be about some faceless hogger and my interest would be the same.
Mar 12, 2024 09:39:31 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-68534289
.
.
After viewing the bbc article one thought comes to mind...bbc is separating ground pepper from fly s---!
Mar 12, 2024 09:41:14 #
I think they made too much of it! Can’t believe how much news coverage it got from all of the media.
It was a family photo meant to give thanks to her supporters on Mother’s Day. Did not require the media to get their knickers twisted.
I have substituted open eyes for closed ones, put a smile where there was a frown for many customers Christmas cards and didn’t think a thing of it.
There are a lot of more important things the media should be focused on. and aside from them? How many people you think actually caught it or saw it?
It was a family photo meant to give thanks to her supporters on Mother’s Day. Did not require the media to get their knickers twisted.
I have substituted open eyes for closed ones, put a smile where there was a frown for many customers Christmas cards and didn’t think a thing of it.
There are a lot of more important things the media should be focused on. and aside from them? How many people you think actually caught it or saw it?
Mar 12, 2024 09:41:28 #
Wow! I am so surprised by the tone of these replies! Besides being a Royal, she is just another amateur photographer, like so many of us here, who likes to take and edit family pictures. Actually, I believe William took the picture.
Unfortunately, she made the mistake of sharing this picture with her amateur editing,. which was pointed out by the AP and other
news agencies.
My heart goes out to her. She has done her job of being a Royal with grace and charm and is a lovely, caring Wife and Mom.
I don't think she deserves all this cruel criticism.
Unfortunately, she made the mistake of sharing this picture with her amateur editing,. which was pointed out by the AP and other
news agencies.
My heart goes out to her. She has done her job of being a Royal with grace and charm and is a lovely, caring Wife and Mom.
I don't think she deserves all this cruel criticism.
Mar 12, 2024 09:46:22 #
Mar 12, 2024 09:46:55 #
Mar 12, 2024 09:51:22 #
Delderby wrote:
So she wanted to do it herself - and why not? The prob has arisen because "the staff" submitted the pic to the media.
Yes..I agree!
Mar 12, 2024 09:52:06 #
EJMcD wrote:
To those who did not know who Kate Middleton is...what planet are you from?
A planet (country) where they don't give a damn about British royalty, because they are not British subjects, perhaps?
As an American, I find it hard to understand why my fellow Americans have such an obsession with royalty.
We don't have a system of royals. We don't have a monarchy. We don't have a realm. It just doesn't matter here. Yet it's such a slow news day at certain journalistic outlets that they have to obsess over some other country's idle rich people.
I know people who sit around reading *Us* and *People* and various tabloids full of idol worship. They know every name of every royal there is. So? What's the point? Oh, it's just interesting?
I'm glad I never developed that interest.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.