I didn’t think it looked like Kate in the Windsor Farm either. Everyone has talked about her being on steroids, but perhaps she has a lot of weight lose, which is altering her face a a bit…
That seems unlikely. They’ve never heard of such American things as “fumbles” and “touchdowns”. But they might admit they’ve been bowled a bit of a googly.
6 Likes
Now I’m looking at Queen Elizabeth’s birthday pic with all the grandkids. I do see where her tartan skirt has been altered at the left where it’s laying on the couch, with the obvious line extending upwards. I just read another article article where they are suggesting one or some of the kids have been edited in the photo.
When I first read about the editing, I went to look and I thought Louis looked odd, as if he had been edited in. Then I read about that possibility and went to look again. He does have a weird outline, plus the sunlight is hitting everyone’s hair on the different side of him. Plus, all the kids have their arms or hands on the sofa, and he does not. I’m not saying that couldn’t in and of itself be a possibility, but his personality alone, plus all the other kids doing it, says to me he was added in.
I think the bad editing of the POW photos is a reason for professional photographers and editing. That know the whys and hows of what is printable in the media
I’m sure the princess imagines herself as an expert but she’s not. And this is how you get in trouble.
2 Likes
CNN reports that there may have been as many as 19 alterations to the Queen’s birthday photo!
Some very odd ones. Why?!?
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/19/europe/kate-royals-altered-photo-queen-gbr-intl/index.html
1 Like
Things that make you go hmmmm.
From the article: “The image in question had an editor’s note placed on it while under review and that note has now been removed with no issues found,” a Getty Images spokesperson told USA TODAY on Wednesday.
First, attention, concerning photoshopping was directed toward Misan Harriman and his photo announcing H/M were expecting their second child…but I did learn a lot about jacaranda trees. Then it was pivoted to Chris Allerton and Archie’s christening photos. They’ve both been refuted.
As news consumers I hope people start questioning who or what benefits from these unfounded allegations.
It’s also important to note how so many “news” outlets ran with both of these stories without first verifying if the photos were actually manipulated…like Kate’s Mom day photo and the one with the Queen.
4 Likes
We photoshop family pictures every time. In a big group there is always someone who blinked, who turned their head, who moved their arm. My sister does most of it, she has a good program but I doubt it would stand up to scrutiny like the royals’ portraits got. I didn’t see anything nefarious, with three young kids it’s the easiest way to get a great picture.
7 Likes
How the Windsor women became human shields. NYT gift article. This didn’t start with Kate!
4 Likes
For everyone saying that they edit/photoshop their own family photos all the time and don’t see anything wrong with the palace doing this to their photos, there is a big difference between editing your own personal photos versus editing ones released to newspapers to be printed as news.
18 Likes
I don’t think general editing is a big deal as long as they aren’t adding people who weren’t there or creating an entire fake photo.
8 Likes
I think that staged family portraits from the royal family are not hard news (so removing red-eye or such is fine, even if it wouldn’t be fine for a regular news story). But the photo of Queen Elizabeth doesn’t just look as though they were picking and choosing from a set of shots taken at the same time but someone was blinking. From the lighting on some of the people (that is completely different than lighting of people around them), it seems possible that some people were added in to the photos who may not have actually been there. So although I think there’s a more lenient standard for soft news like royal family picts, it’s not that lenient.
2 Likes
Interesting. I wonder whether that is an attractive salary for that job? No clue!
1 Like
Salaries for jobs with the Royal Family traditionally have been on the low side. It’s balanced by prestige; you put it on your resume and go to the private sector in a couple of years.
5 Likes
The only people that could actually live on 25k pounds/year in London are those that are independently wealthy or recently graduated university students who share flats. This position is most certainly not intended for anyone with any sort of valuable experience 
12 Likes
Wow, I can’t imagine trying to live in that low salary unless you’re living in the basement of your folks’ place. That sounds pretty low to me.
Really! Back in the early 90s, an engineering company in Texas asked DH and me to head up an office in London. They offered us each 30k pounds ($38,000) as an annual salary. Looking at the cost of living even back then, we said we would need more. They replied that they couldn’t give us more because that’s what British engineers made. So we turned down the opportunity.
3 Likes
Perhaps they are looking for a trust fund baby (with a townhouse gifted to them) to take the job… looking more for prestige than salary.
4 Likes
No wonder we are where we are today with this situation! For that salary maybe a newbie is slacking. 
5 Likes
Off with his head!
WashPo gift link
1 Like