|
|
Post by Fenris on Mar 12, 2024 17:12:55 GMT
BBC last night were hypothesising that it was one of these "merge in camera" apps (probably phone camera) that takes a burst and then merges the individual frames for a "best result" viewed at 5x3" on a screen in bright sunlight. Looking at the EXIF data it shows it was edited in Photoshop. Also the errors in the photo aren't the sort you get from the merge in camera. Very definite bad Photoshop skills. |
|
|
|
Photoshop
Mar 12, 2024 17:24:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by zou on Mar 12, 2024 17:24:18 GMT
The issue is simply that a photograph was submitted to press/photo agencies which clearly did not meet their standards on image authenticity. Those agencies' reputations are on the line, so really THEY should have looked more closely before distributing. Yes, but when the photo is supplied directly by the Royal account one would expect it to have been authenticated before it was actually submitted. Also... it was an incredibly shuddy bit of photoshopping*. The errors jumped out at first sighting and the agencies should've spotted it and asked questions before accepting it. * by someone who is supposed to be a professional quality photographer Well, what about the royals screams "trustworthy"?  |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 12, 2024 17:36:33 GMT
BBC last night were hypothesising that it was one of these "merge in camera" apps (probably phone camera) that takes a burst and then merges the individual frames for a "best result" viewed at 5x3" on a screen in bright sunlight. Looking at the EXIF data it shows it was edited in Photoshop. Also the errors in the photo aren't the sort you get from the merge in camera. Very definite bad Photoshop skills. I was referring to what BBC had said, I'd never heard of merge in camera. The examples I saw looked like application of the healing tool in lightroom when it has made a poor choice of sample. I assume photoshop can do better. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 12, 2024 21:13:48 GMT
Looking at the EXIF data it shows it was edited in Photoshop. Also the errors in the photo aren't the sort you get from the merge in camera. Very definite bad Photoshop skills. I was referring to what BBC had said, I'd never heard of merge in camera. The examples I saw looked like application of the healing tool in lightroom when it has made a poor choice of sample. I assume photoshop can do better. Only in the hands of a skilled operator |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Mar 12, 2024 22:59:28 GMT
Looking at the EXIF data it shows it was edited in Photoshop. Also the errors in the photo aren't the sort you get from the merge in camera. Very definite bad Photoshop skills. I was referring to what BBC had said, I'd never heard of merge in camera. The examples I saw looked like application of the healing tool in lightroom when it has made a poor choice of sample. I assume photoshop can do better. The adverts make it look pretty good anyway.... |
|
|
|
Post by Kath on Mar 13, 2024 8:23:59 GMT
I believe the camera was a Canon 5D Mk4 which in so far as I know, doesn't have photo-merge abilities unless it's for HDR purposes.
I also imagine that the reason for the edit was that they couldn't get all three kids looking in the right direction/smiling/with their eyes open at the same time. I'd bet they picked the frame where the two boys were looking like they were vaguely behaving and attempted to paste in the little girl to create a harmonious family shot. I've done it before. With one autistic child in the family I never managed to get everyone looking towards me at once!
The consipiracy theorists are all trying to make out that it's Catherine who has been photoshopped because she's secretly at death's door or something. That is clearly not what happened.
I'm not sure that what was essentially a 'Happy Mother's Day' photograph needed to have the same rigorous criteria applied to it as, for example, a documentary shot of what's happening in Gaza/Ukraine/Haiti might need to have. If we want to be picky about these things, the shot that Harry and Megan released showing them with Archie had obviously been 'photoshopped' because it was black and white. Nobody seemed to mind that.(Let's ignore the fact that Megan had quite obviously replaced her blurred face with a sharp one, no matter who they paid to say it hadn't happened.)
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 13, 2024 8:35:51 GMT
I believe the camera was a Canon 5D Mk4 which in so far as I know, doesn't have photo-merge abilities unless it's for HDR purposes. I also imagine that the reason for the edit was that they couldn't get all three kids looking in the right direction/smiling/with their eyes open at the same time. I'd bet they picked the frame where the two boys were looking like they were vaguely behaving and attempted to paste in the little girl to create a harmonious family shot. I've done it before. With one autistic child in the family I never managed to get everyone looking towards me at once! The consipiracy theorists are all trying to make out that it's Catherine who has been photoshopped because she's secretly at death's door or something. That is clearly not what happened. I'm not sure that what was essentially a 'Happy Mother's Day' photograph needed to have the same rigorous criteria applied to it as, for example, a documentary shot of what's happening in Gaza/Ukraine/Haiti might need to have. If we want to be picky about these things, the shot that Harry and Megan released showing them with Archie had obviously been 'photoshopped' because it was black and white. Nobody seemed to mind that.(Let's ignore the fact that Megan had quite obviously replaced her blurred face with a sharp one, no matter who they paid to say it hadn't happened.) I was thinking, from the "map" of 17 correction points reported by The Times yesterday that the children must have been out playing and gotten all dirty so that the editing attempts were mostly to clone out the muck! Then of course once you start along that route the more you seek the more you find. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 13, 2024 9:00:03 GMT
The thing is, it's set a bar by which all photos will be judged, fewer tidied corrections vs absolutely awful unaltered images...
|
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 13, 2024 13:11:31 GMT
Presumably the issue is because of the rules of the relevant agency re the submittion of altered images. Possibly they used a news agency rather than a publicity agency. Still strikes me a right royal incompetence - if they cannot successfully put out an idealised familly photo without it all going tits up...
|
|
|
|
Post by Fenris on Mar 13, 2024 13:32:57 GMT
Presumably the issue is because of the rules of the relevant agency re the summation of altered images. Possibly they used a news agency rather than a publicity agency. This. Exactly. If they had submitted it just as a publicity image rather than a documentary image there wouldn't have been a problem. It would've still been ridiculed because of the editing. |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Mar 13, 2024 14:03:31 GMT
Presumably the issue is because of the rules of the relevant agency re the submittion of altered images. Possibly they used a news agency rather than a publicity agency. Still strikes me a right royal incompetence - if they cannot successfully put out an idealised familly photo without it all going tits up...  |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Mar 13, 2024 17:32:36 GMT
In dubious taste Private Eye have edited Prince Andrew into the photograph.
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Mar 13, 2024 17:55:14 GMT
In dubious taste Private Eye have edited Prince Andrew into the photograph. Ah, but is he inappropriately touching a princess? |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 13, 2024 18:02:41 GMT
In dubious taste Private Eye have edited Prince Andrew into the photograph. Ah, but is he inappropriately touching a princess? I didn't see any Austin cars |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 13, 2024 18:12:56 GMT
Ah, but is he inappropriately touching a princess? I didn't see any Austin cars A reference which is an oldie but goodie.  |
|
