Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
Controversial Photo of Kate
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Mar 14, 2024 10:28:32   #
AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio
 
Red6 wrote:
I do not see any extra hands. Four people and 8 hands. Kate's arms are certainly long enough to reach around her children on the left and right.

I think people are making a big thing over next to nothing.


How right you are. Nothing else to do, so let's make a big deal out of Kate modifying her photo. I'd like to know where did they think Kate's hands were if those are not hers.

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 10:29:29   #
AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio
 
apacs1 wrote:
Why can't people mind their own business?




Reply
Mar 14, 2024 10:50:07   #
charles tabb Loc: Richmond VA.
 
insulator wrote:
Looks fine to me except the extra set of hands, who do they belong to?


I don't see an extra set of hands.
4 people 8 hands.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2024 11:00:41   #
Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida
 
Longshadow wrote:
Looks fine to me.
But I don't go looking for hand or clothes "details".
I just enjoy the shot as a whole.



Reply
Mar 14, 2024 13:19:45   #
ecblackiii Loc: Maryland
 
jerryc41 wrote:
This is probably the wrong section, but here goes.

It seems that Kensington Palace released a doctored image of Kate and her kids for English Mother's Day. It was sent to major newspapers to show how Kate was doing after her surgery. The newspapers pulled the picture after they became suspicious that the picture was manipulated. Take a look and see what you think.

One article - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photo-agencies-kate-picture-editing-scandal-b2511726.html
This is probably the wrong section, but here goes.... (show quote)


Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinkering with the trivial aspects of the image, but not with the important features such as the faces. So, what! I suggest the British press focus more on the many more important matters of the world than trying to play "gotcha" with things that don't matter. And spare me the "righteous indignation" that the media displays with such insignificant things when they regularly distort facts to convey their own political messages and biases.

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 13:20:58   #
rcarol
 
ecblackiii wrote:
Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinkering with the trivial aspects of the image, but not with the important features such as the faces. So, what! I suggest the British press focus more on the many more important matters of the world than trying to play "gotcha" with things that don't matter. And spare me the "righteous indignation" that the media displays with such insignificant things when they regularly distort facts to convey their own political messages and biases.
Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinke... (show quote)


Well said!

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 14:31:36   #
NDMarks Loc: Dublin, Ca
 
My only problem with this photo and the problems surrounding it is this - Who the hell cares! Why does the "royal family" attract so much attention? It's not like they have any real power! Don't folks have better things to worry about??

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2024 14:50:18   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
NDMarks wrote:
It's not like they have any real power!


They have real money, and the British taxpayers keep giving them more as well as tax advantages.

But that's their business if they want to keep doing that.

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 15:31:03   #
srt101fan
 
NDMarks wrote:
My only problem with this photo and the problems surrounding it is this - Who the hell cares! Why does the "royal family" attract so much attention? It's not like they have any real power! Don't folks have better things to worry about??


Lotsa people care....

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 16:07:17   #
nervous2 Loc: Provo, Utah
 
As my British friends would ask, "Who care?"

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 16:18:35   #
Flyerace Loc: Mt Pleasant, WI
 
I counted 8 hands. There are four people in the picture, therefore 8 is the right number. Maybe my old eyes aren't able to see as clearly as yours.

Kate admitted she did some adjustments and said she wouldn't do that again. Case closed.

Reply
 
 
Mar 14, 2024 16:29:12   #
revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson
 
This s..t is one of the costs of being British royalty. It can literally kill you.

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 16:38:57   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
ecblackiii wrote:
Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinkering with the trivial aspects of the image, but not with the important features such as the faces. So, what! I suggest the British press focus more on the many more important matters of the world than trying to play "gotcha" with things that don't matter. And spare me the "righteous indignation" that the media displays with such insignificant things when they regularly distort facts to convey their own political messages and biases.
Perhaps there were some minor photographer's tinke... (show quote)


The "trivial" manipulation that was detected is enough to violate photojournalism ethics. We don't know how much more was done that was more skillful. She might have worked on the faces. If the changes were so trivial, why won't they release the original?

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 19:24:49   #
JFBoone
 
kpmac wrote:
This will be filed away in my "Who cares?" archive.


Princess Kate is an amateur photographer. This is well known. So she did some PS, at which she is obviously
not real good.......just like literally millions of amateur photographers. SFW It's goes without saying the
royal family has very accomplished PR and media people. If an in house photographer had done this PS
work we'd never know. The faces were not PSed, just a couple of sleeves and a zipper. Once again, SFW!!
Wonder how often overwrought individuals complain about the advertisements they see in print media being
PSed, (which is about 90%.) It's not like the world is dealing with an PS breaking news image.So IMHO not a big
deal. Period

Reply
Mar 14, 2024 20:18:52   #
NDMarks Loc: Dublin, Ca
 
Well said. Now, nuff said!!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
General Chit-Chat (non-photography talk)
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.