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.
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.
jerryc41 wrote:
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.
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??
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.
As my British friends would ask, "Who care?"
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.
revhen
Loc: By the beautiful Hudson
This s..t is one of the costs of being British royalty. It can literally kill you.
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?
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
Well said. Now, nuff said!!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.