UK Royal Baby Photos

http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/uk-33035006

I think these are pretty good photos. It is claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge (the mother) took them herself. I was talking with a friend and we were sceptical about that.

So what does the POTN think of these shots and the authenticity of the claim that the mother took them?

Why woukd you skeptical? Nothing you cant do with an I phone and a room with large windows.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17587553
Why woukd you skeptical? Nothing you cant do with an I phone and a room with large windows.

Yep. I've got tons of similar photos and I'm not a pro. Its also possible that she had help post-processing them. Its not like any of us have seen full-resolution files so who knows. Either way, she has a beautiful family.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17587553
Why woukd you skeptical? Nothing you cant do with an I phone and a room with large windows.

You can't take those photos with a phone imo. The dof is too shallow.

magwai wrote in post #17587535
http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/uk-33035006

I think these are pretty good photos. It is claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge (the mother) took them herself. I was talking with a friend and we were sceptical about that.

So what does the POTN think of these shots and the authenticity of the claim that the mother took them?

So, are all the photos that you claim to be yours taken by you or someone else?

She has a degree in art, if I'm not mistaken, so she knows good light and composition if nothing else.

Are all the books, songs etc created by celebrities done without help from experts?

So what do people think about the actual photos? I would be interested to hear an analysis from those people who know more about portrait photography and lighting.

magwai wrote in post #17587535
http://www.bbc.co.uk/n​ews/uk-33035006

I think these are pretty good photos. It is claimed that the Duchess of Cambridge (the mother) took them herself. I was talking with a friend and we were sceptical about that.

So what does the POTN think of these shots and the authenticity of the claim that the mother took them?

magwai wrote in post #17588389
Are all the books, songs etc created by celebrities done without help from experts?

I really don't understand the logic of your argument. Just because she is a royal princess living in a posh palace funded by the tax-payer doesn't mean that she is totally incapable of doing anything for herself. Next you will be telling us that someone else dropped the sprog for her.

If Mrs Miggins at No 47 had posted some pictures of her kids would you have started the thread?

magwai wrote in post #17588393
So what do people think about the actual photos? I would be interested to hear an analysis from those people who know more about portrait photography and lighting.

Honestly I think they are mediocre photos. The cute subjects make them compelling but photographically I dont see anything particularly compelling. They seem to be lit by a large window.

Mediocre? I don't think so. They're quite lovely. As for being lit by a window, mother nature does make the best light, you know.

Kates degree:

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/arthisto​ry/about/overview/

IMHO it is no shock they are publishing photos Kate's taken. It is key to the Royal family that they are seen as approachable, as normal, this fits in with that. When I saw them I commented to my wife that they looked perfectly competant if a little middle of the road, in fact ideally suited for public consumption, they need to earn deference and this is one more way to do that.

I'm certain she'll have a decent camera, and any £500 aps-c camera can take photos of this quality, they can also easily afford top of the line DSLRs with every lens canon or nikon make.

Additionally I've noticed that US photos seem to be subtly different to UK ones, I can't put my finger on it but that's my impression... perhaps it's the light, ours is generally bluer, softer and produces less saturated colours... I have a few californian, north aftrican and italian pics and the light is quite different compared to Blighty.

rfdesigner wrote in post #17589189
Additionally I've noticed that US photos seem to be subtly different to UK ones, I can't put my finger on it but that's my impression... perhaps it's the light, ours is generally bluer, softer and produces less saturated colours... I have a few californian, north aftrican and italian pics and the light is quite different compared to Blighty.

I'm guessing its mostly latitude. Were Great Britain on this side of the Atlantic, even the southern tip of Cornwall would still be north of most Canadians. Los Angeles is at about the same latitude as Lebanon or Casablanca.

50% latitude, 50% moisture..

rfdesigner wrote in post #17589189
Kates degree:

https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/arthisto​ry/about/overview/

IMHO it is no shock they are publishing photos Kate's taken. It is key to the Royal family that they are seen as approachable, as normal, this fits in with that. When I saw them I commented to my wife that they looked perfectly competant if a little middle of the road, in fact ideally suited for public consumption, they need to earn deference and this is one more way to do that.

I'm certain she'll have a decent camera, and any £500 aps-c camera can take photos of this quality, they can also easily afford top of the line DSLRs with every lens canon or nikon make.

Additionally I've noticed that US photos seem to be subtly different to UK ones, I can't put my finger on it but that's my impression... perhaps it's the light, ours is generally bluer, softer and produces less saturated colours... I have a few californian, north aftrican and italian pics and the light is quite different compared to Blighty.

I read somewhere that she used a Canon 5D Mark II.

As for the photos, I like them. They might not be "technically" perfect but who cares. They are photos of kids taken by a proud and loving mother, not a Vogue cover shoot.