Regional
Kate Middleton’s edited Mother’s Day photo, explained by an expert
All the reasons the doctored Mother’s Day image doesn’t make sense, and the absurd reason it does.
Over the past few days, weâve all come to learn that the only thing more suspicious than a missing princess is a poorly edited photo of that princess. All the worse if itâs accompanied by a note allegedly written by the MIA monarch herself, saying she casually dabbles in Adobe Photoshop and got lost in the moment.
âLike many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing,â Catherine âKateâ Middleton, a.k.a. the Princess of Wales, apparently wrote on social media Monday, personally apologizing for doctoring an official photo of herself with her children. The photo, posted for Motherâs Day in the UK, first drew attention from suspicious royal watchers online, whose doubts were confirmed when the AP issued a âphoto killâ for the image, declaring it manipulated. âI wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused.â
The photo, the apology, the cheeky opening line, the image of Kate fiddling around with layers and smudge tools on Photoshop â itâs enough to be a royal scandal on its own. Posting a photo that news outlets felt the need to kill â an occurrence thatâs basically unheard of â felt like such a flub on the royal familyâs part that it drew even more attention to the image.
But the thing is that Kate hasnât been seen in public since reportedly undergoing abdominal surgery in January, and her disappearance from public view has created a massive conspiracy theory with speculations ranging from a more-serious-than-reported medical procedure to rumors about Prince William cheating to speculation about the succession plan and King Charlesâs cancer diagnosis.
The photo of Kate and her kids was supposed to squash those rumors, but the poor editing has only drawn more attention to the situation and the idea that the royal family is covering something up.
What exactly is weird about the photo? What is the editing hiding? And arenât there people who do this type of thing for the royal family?
In an attempt to find some clarity, I spoke with Adam Griffin, a Los Angeles-based professional photographer who has experience with retouching and capturing private events. We combed over the photograph and went through all of the flubs, from how strange Kateâs hair is to the wonky way shadows fall and patterns disappear, that make the image look like an amateur retouched it. And as Griffin points out, as strange and illogical as Kateâs apology is, itâs one of the only ways to make sense of this entire saga.
Our conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Thereâs a bit of a Streisand effect going on, right? Or at least an unforced error. If there was no photo, the story would be that itâs been a long time since Kate has been photographed or seen in public. But now thereâs this botched photo and it seems like a coverup.
It is 100 percent a Streisand effect situation because posting a photo that was that egregiously Photoshopped? Amateur sleuths were able to point out all of the flaws in it, get it trending, and it made all the gossip magazines and websites. It almost would have been better not to do anything and say something like âThe Princess of Wales is still recovering from surgery, sheâs choosing to stay out of the spotlight until sheâs feeling well. But sheâs wishing everyone a Happy Motherâs Day.â
That could have been fine, or even post an old photo â a photo of her with the kids with a message like that, saying that sheâs spending the day with her kids but sheâs choosing to stay out of the public light. It was completely an unforced error.
Adam, you sent me a diagram â a marked-up version of the original photo, noting the things that stand out to you as retouching. Can you tell me what youâre seeing here?
I wanted to do my own sleuthing. First off, that right hand [marked as A], for some reason, is out of focus and blurry. Thereâs no reason for that considering itâs a static photo. The only reason that a [real] photo would have any kind of blur to it would be if there was motion with a slower shutter speed, in which case something else would be blurred â it wouldnât just be one hand.
Or it was something that was retouched and done poorly. One of the hallmarks of event photography is that youâre always capturing movement. Thereâs ways to capture movement at a certain shutter speed and above where youâre not going to have a hand moving that looks like that. It looks like sheâs stroking Prince Louisâs side, but sheâs clearly not doing that because sheâs completely immobile everywhere else.
Itâs also weird because everyoneâs just sitting down and sitting still.
Everybody else is sitting down, nothing else is out of focus. Prince Louis is not out of focus, thereâs nothing about his sweater that is showing the same kind of blurry movement. Itâs just that area right around her hand, like the hand was put there.
If you go to B, that was the one that everybody picked up on right away. Princess Charlotteâs sweater â thereâs a chunk of it missing. Itâs clearly been clone-stamped to restitch that area where the Princess of Wales is holding on to her. Obviously, you also notice that Kateâs not wearing her wedding ring â and itâs a very noticeable wedding ring.
We all know the story of Princess Diana getting it, so for her wedding hand to be missing a giant sapphire ring, [that] itself would have been very weird. But the fact that itâs coupled with all the weird Photoshop retouching, it sent me down a rabbit hole again, even just trying to figure out if that was really her hand or somebody else that the kids were posing with.
Princess Charlotteâs wrist looks a bit weird, like itâs almost a little broken from all the photo manipulation happening.
You can see that thereâs something else in the background. Itâs not her tights. It almost looks like itâs the sleeve of the sweater that Kate is wearing with something else directly underneath it. Thereâs something else directly in that kind of triangle of space, and thatâs also where a chunk of Charlotteâs sweater is missing. It just makes no sense.
Like I said, it did send me on a deep dive on the Princess of Walesâs hand just to make sure. It does look like it is her hand. So whatever weird Photoshop manipulation they did, I donât think itâs a body double.
Itâs weird that one hand â a hand that appears to be Kateâs real hand â is completely in focus but the other one isnât. How does that happen?
One thing that I keep coming back to, because of how weirdly everybodyâs transplanted into the photo, is that I think it seems like Kateâs in the photo with all three kids, but that itâs possible sheâs not actually holding them. Her hands could have been Photoshopped in to make it seem like she was, and itâs more likely that the hand part is from something else.
The way that Iâm constructing the photo in my head, and obviously this is unverified because I wasnât there, it seems like they took an opportunity to take a photo to dispel the rumors surrounding Kate.
But maybe it wasnât a flattering photo, and because sheâs still recovering, she might not have actually been able to pose with the kids other than sitting in a chair and they tried to make it be more warm and comforting.
And maybe they put her hands around the kids and put a better âfaceâ on Kate. I do think four people sat for this photo, in this location, wherever this is, outside. But it seems like everything about Kate other than her legs and what sheâs wearing is Photoshopped in.
Thereâs a whole separate TikTok rumor that this is an old photo that got re-transplanted. But if you look at all of the ways the kids are sitting on the chair, and all the shadows under their feet and the way that their bodies are in a grouping, it all looks very natural, the shadows look very natural, thatâs very hard to contrive to just place a subject into a new setting.
It almost sounds like a mystery. Four people sat for the photo, but somethingâs off and Kate and her face seems like ⦠uncanny valley or something?
C, D, and E are all the reasons this is not the face from the [actual] photo â itâs from a different photo of her, maybe an older one. Because her hair in C is extremely blurry and has no drop shadow behind it. For how close it is to Georgeâs arm, it should have a much deeper shadow directly behind her hair.
Also, Kate Middleton has better hair than whatever is happening in this photo!
Much better! One of the qualities that we know about Kate is that sheâs this very beautiful girl-next-door, natural-looking person. She has great hair.
One of the tells that Kate Middleton is pregnant is that her hair changes! This woman pays a lot of attention to how her hair looks at all times. Itâs always perfect, and in the parts youâve circled, itâs looking off.
Her hair is very strange there. And then if you go down to D, you can zoom in on it, you can see that the zipper of her jacket is misaligned. If you follow the line of her zipper all the way down to below where Georgeâs hands are wrapped around her, itâs obviously a stitch of like how they put her head onto her neck.
And then E, the same thing: Somethingâs going on with Charlotteâs hair. Itâs been erased. Itâs just chopped off right there as it overlays with Kateâs hair and it makes no sense. You can even see the texture of the sweater, the edge of the red sweater that Charlotteâs wearing, itâs very blurry.
The texture of her sweater in E looks completely different. That print just stops.
It just stopped because they werenât able to replicate it. Somebody very amateur was clone stamping [a Photoshop tool that copies one set of pixels and allows you to place them into another area] and heal tooling [a Photoshop tool that allows users to fix small imperfections] all the way up the arm to try to stitch in Charlotte superimposed on Kate. Like I said, itâs what makes me think that all these people posed for the photo or some iteration of this photo, but it wasnât all four people posing exactly in this manner.
Can we talk about F? Louisâs sweater looks blurry and disjointed. Itâs like whatâs happening with Charlotteâs sweater. It doesnât really make sense that the print would be that distorted.
Look at the prints and the beige parts [of Louisâs sweater], notice how thereâs one single vertical line that runs through those kinds of curlicue heart shapes. Thereâs also two vertical strokes, and where the horizontal stroke moves through it, itâs not on the same level â it forms this weird extra shape that shouldnât be there.
If you look at [Louisâs] opposite sleeve, itâs the exact same pattern. Thereâs no weird misalignment on the sleeve closest to George. And then moving down to G, this is like where itâs really noticeably Photoshopped. Thereâs something when they superimpose this portion of Louis that that circled area of the concrete slab that passes on has like a bump in it that shouldnât be there. The white area of the doorframe or the wall is clearly not stitched in correctly because itâs not aligned.
Then the tile right next to Louisâs right foot has clearly been Photoshopped because you can see the duplicate of the tile.
The last thing I would say is if you were to zoom in really closely to everybodyâs eyes, you can see that the catch light is in the same place on everybodyâs eyes, but the one on Kateâs is slightly different. The one on Kate seems extremely crisp and small.
You mean where the light is hitting her in her eyeball?
A catch light in somebodyâs eye is that spot of white that makes it look like thereâs a light in somebodyâs eye. Photographers are very intentional with both daylight and artificial studio light with making sure that there is a natural-looking catch light. Kateâs catch light is very nice and very natural looking, but it doesnât look like itâs the same shape or the same size as the kids. It makes me wonder if the whole face was Photoshopped in and or just her eyes are Photoshopped in.
Her eyes also look much crisper than Georgeâs and everybody elseâs. Georgeâs you canât even see, like thereâs a lack of depth. Hers are very crystal clear, almost kind of creepy compared to her kids where the light is there, but itâs just less focused.
Right, and even if you were to go side to side and look at Charlotteâs eyes and then Louisâs eyes, you can see that there is a difference in the catch light. It creates this weird anomaly where itâs almost like all of them were photographed in the exact same spot and then stitched into one photo. But there are some noticeably missing shadows from some spots where you would assume if they were posing together, like Louisâs left arm holding on to the chair.
It could be that this is some kind of iteration of the actual photo â like maybe they took 12 different photos. Some had the kids all together, some didnât. And maybe they just started grabbing elements. I donât know. But whoever Photoshopped it did a very poor job.
I want to ask you about that. Youâre an event photographer and retouching is part of your job. Regular peopleâs wedding photos are edited and retouched. This kind of bungle, hack job, mistake â whatever you want to call it â is almost unheard of when it comes to a celebrity releasing their own photos.
It is absurd on its face for the Princess of Wales, with the annual budgets that they have from the government and from all of their personal wealth, that she has to be Photoshopping her own photos for an official release on the Kensington Palace account.
The only reason I could think of that would back up what Kate was saying in that statement â that sheâs the one who was messing around and editing it herself â is if they didnât want to risk the chance of somebody else having access to the original photo and they didnât want to go through the labor of an NDA and then possibly having it be leaked anyway because of all of the brouhaha with her being âmissing.â
Just to spell it out, a possible absurd reason why these people didnât use their loads of money, their photographers, and their endless amount of resources is that they didnât want to risk an original photo of Kate getting leaked.
To release a photo thatâs retouched like this, so poorly, wouldnât really make sense to me as a professional photographer, unless they didnât want somebody else to have access to the photos.
You would think that the royal family would have vetted the person that they would hire to do something like that and that they would have a shortlist of photographers and editors and contractors for hire that have signed NDAs that they have a long-standing relationship with.
Thatâs kind of like what Queen Elizabeth was known for. She had the same photographers at Windsor, she had the same photographers at Buckingham Palace, like when she was on tour and anywhere in her professional schedule. She had the same photographers she always worked with because they gave consistent results and let her have things to release to the public without having to go through the rigmarole of finding a new person and vetting them.
Well, like any celebrity who releases any photo has a team thatâs taking and retouching photos for them and has those people signing NDAs. We would have so many more unflattering photos of celebrities if celebs werenât strict about the people in charge of Photoshopping their photos.
From personal experience, I have done private events, and had to sign an NDA for where the photos donât see the light of day. Iâm not allowed to release any of them to the public. They got edited by me and sent directly by me to the client, along with the raw files in case they wanted to do their own editing later on. And I had to sign my life away, under penalty and multiple things.
Like thereâs no way that Tree Paine is letting un-Photoshopped photos of Taylor Swift out into the world that are not approved. Thereâs not just random personal photos of Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift floating around.
You would imagine that the Princess of Wales, the soon-to-be queen, would have the same resources if not better, and have people at her disposal who have signed NDAs.
You know, Kate had abdominal surgery, and potentially a more significant surgery than theyâre reporting. And I would imagine her recovery has been rough. Thereâs so many reasons why she would possibly look unflattering post-op. So Iâm not surprised that they donât want to show the original. But it might be such an unflattering original that they were willing to risk going the amateur route for releasing this image. But that they hired an amateur and paid them money for this? That is the most illogical explanation to me.
Maybe it was pro bono. Maybe they were trying to save money! You just want to believe that theyâre much more competent than what actually happened.
I think that is kind of why it is fueling the rumors that much more because of all the people to have a flub like this, you would think it wouldnât be the next in line to the royal throne. They have all the resources at their disposal and they donât make missteps like that.
Weâve talked about the Streisand effect. How much harder is it going to be for Kate now? How much more scrutiny is the royal family going to be under because of this photo?
I think, short of Kate coming out and being seen actively in public life again â being photographed at a normal press event or being caught on video â itâs just throwing gasoline onto the fire. Iâm sure itâll die down eventually once it seems like everything is back to the status quo, but until then everyoneâs going to be going over every photo coming from the royal family with a fine-tooth comb.