The "Royals" Thread

[thirdcrank]

The image editing broke enough guidance for the agencies it was released through, guidance designed to prevent deception and fake images. Then why did they refuse to release the original? There were a lot of edits done way beyond colour/crop adjustments almost to the point where it would appear to potentially be a montage.

If there were nothing to hide why hide something? It's not the original edits as much as the refusal to release the original which strongly suggests there is deception going on.

Ian

I don't feel under any obligation to explain any of this but I do feel that the suggestion that this was part of some plot to deceive the public is bordering on the absurd. eg In what way does this image serve to deceive anybody? I mean "deceive" in the sense of a dishonest depiction.

There is the strong possibility of deception due to the fact that once the unacceptable editing was found the Royals refused to release the original and thus why? If there was nothing to hide, why hide it so obvious assumption is that there is something to hide (or we'd have seen the original and there would be no story beyond commenting on her editing skills)

There is good reason to release the original as the fake (as classified by the agencies) was apparently released to quiet down rumours about her doing badly. But refusal to release the original has (apparently) made the rumours even stronger. Release the original and they'd achieve what the set out to do but refuse to release the original and it make the situation even worse, opposite to their intent. Makes no sense unless there is deception.

Ian

I have nothing to add.

[toontra]

This stuff matters. We need to have faith in the veracity of information we are fed by those in positions of authority (I include the royals in that category).

Prince Andrew would never have been held to account were it not for the picture showing him in a compromising position, which contradicted his story of never having met Virginia Giuffre. BTW experts have determined that particular image wasn't edited. So history would have played out entirely differently - on the basis of a single image.

And that's why reputable press organisations won't touch "dodgy" pictures (despite what mattheus thinks )

[thirdcrank]

This stuff matters. We need to have faith in the voracity of information we are fed by those in positions of authority (I include the royals in that category).

Prince Andrew would never have been held to account were it not for the picture showing him in a compromising position, which contradicted his story of never having met Virginia Giuffre. BTW experts have determined that particular image wasn't edited.

And that's why reputable press organisations won't touch "dodgy" pictures (despite what mattheus thinks :wink: )

Just to show I'm paying attention, I'll mention that I think you meant to write "veracity."

[toontra]

Just to show I'm paying attention, I'll mention that I think you meant to write "veracity."

Indeed

[Pebble]

Indeed. It's really playing the public for fools. Middleton is saying she edited the photo herself. I would suggest that's a lie. There isn't just one edit - there are numerous, some relatively sophisticated and some clumsy, either done manually or by AI. I simply don't believe she had the time, knowledge-base or inclination to have done this.

As you say that raises a whole host of issues - all varyingly grades of bad for the royal's standing. No-one likes being lied to.

Why ? I believe she has had quite an interest in photography for many years, and I would guess she has plenty of time and resources to spend on whatever hobby she chooses. Modern photoshoping is not that difficult, even I can manage it - I guess many f the pictures of my bike have been edited to some extent.

She's a young women wanting to look at her best, and there is nothing remotely unusual in that. I wish her well.

These bleating newspapers seem quite happy to run adverts and stories with celebs that will be editted beyond our imagination, but that must be alright?

If you want to pick on someone, have a pop at Katie here, could this be the 345th time she has been caught without a licence?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... rance.html
No one seems to be complaining that her appearance and photos may have been altered, a lot

[mattheus]

In what way does this image serve to deceive anybody? I mean "deceive" in the sense of a dishonest depiction.

Who has suggested that?

Thanks

Jonathan

Just start re-readng this thread from 1:21pm!

[thirdcrank]

Kate's original photo released. In the circumstances I would have edited it too. :shock:

I thought this post made my point more eloquently than anything I might have said, but it seems you have to look back at it to see rjb's point.

[toontra]

If you want to pick on someone, have a pop at Katie here, could this be the 345th time she has been caught without a licence?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... rance.html
No one seems to be complaining that her appearance and photos may have been altered, a lot

Forgive me for not wanting to click on a link to the (Kate-worshiping, Megan-demonising) Daily Mail, but I assume you're referring to Katie Price. Not sure how that relates to what we're talking about.

[thirdcrank]

I was born towards the end of WWII and was thus socialised into a certain view of the royal family and in particular the queen. One of the big events of my youth was the Aberfan Disaster. In particular, I remember that while the top men at the National Coal Board - eg Robens - were trying to dismiss the events from the remoteness of London, the queen went in person, a visit which included the rudimentary improvised mortuary.

No photoshopping etc in those days so no suggestions IIRC that it was somehow fiddled but she went and in person.

[Bonefishblues]

Fairly or not she was criticised for delaying her visit for 8 days though.

[rjb]

And in the same vein, Teresa May should have gone to Grenfell the day after the fire. She was conspicuous by her absence in my opinion.

[pwa]

Fairly or not she was criticised for delaying her visit for 8 days though.

A daft criticism, I have always thought. During that first week, unless she turned up with a spade and ready to dig, what was she going to do, except hinder proceedings? I have never heard serious criticism of her, here in S Wales, for that delay. All the serious criticism was directed at the Coal Board, for allowing the disaster to happen, and the Labour Government for clawing back funds raised for the community in the aftermath.

[Vorpal]

A few posts have been removed from this thread. Please argue nicely, folks

[mattheus]

Fairly or not she was criticised for delaying her visit for 8 days though.

A daft criticism, I have always thought. During that first week, unless she turned up with a spade and ready to dig, what was she going to do, except hinder proceedings? I have never heard serious criticism of her, here in S Wales, for that delay. All the serious criticism was directed at the Coal Board, for allowing the disaster to happen, and the Labour Government for clawing back funds raised for the community in the aftermath.

That sounds about right.

Good to know that fake outrage has been deployed for over 50 years (and counting ... )!

[PedallingSquares]

I can't believe:-
(A) People are really that bothered.
(B) Naive enough to think that the 'Royals' don't allow their images to be touched up.