Google AI
The Times Australia

Times Media Advertising

Yes, Kate Middleton’s photo was doctored. But so are a lot of images we see today

  • Written by: T.J. Thomson, Senior Lecturer in Visual Communication & Digital Media, RMIT University
Yes, Kate Middleton’s photo was doctored. But so are a lot of images we see today

Rumours and conspiracies have been swirling[1] following the abdominal surgery and long recovery period of Catherine, Princess of Wales, earlier this year. They intensified on Monday when Kensington Palace released a photo of the princess with her three children.

The photo had clear signs of tampering, and international wire services withdrew the image[2] amid concerns around manipulation. The princess later apologised for any confusion[3] and said she had “experimented with editing” as many amateur photographers do.

Image editing is extremely common these days, and not all of it is for nefarious purposes. However, in an age of rampant misinformation, how can we stay vigilant around suspicious images?

What happened with the royal photo?

A close look reveals at least eight inconsistencies with the image.

Two of these relate to unnatural blur. Catherine’s right hand is unnaturally blurred, even though her left hand is sharp and at the same distance from the camera. The left side of Catherine’s hair is also unnaturally blurred, while the right side of her hair is sharp.

These types of edits are usually made with a blur tool that softens pixels. It is often used to make the background of an image less distracting or to smooth rough patches of texture.

At least eight logical inconsistencies exist in the doctored image the Prince and Princess of Wales posted on social media. Photo by the Prince of Wales/Chart by T.J. Thomson[4]

Five of the edits appear to use the “clone stamp” tool. This is a Photoshop tool that takes part of the same or a different image and “stamps” it onto another part.

You can see this with the repeated pattern on Louis’s (on the left) sweater and the tile on the ground. You can also see it with the step behind Louis’s legs and on Charlotte’s hair and sleeve. The zipper on Catherine’s jacket also doesn’t line up.

The most charitable interpretation is that the princess was trying to remove distracting or unflattering elements. But the artefacts could also point to multiple images being blended together. This could either be to try to show the best version of each person (for example, with a smiling face and open eyes), or for another purpose.

How common are image edits?

Image editing is increasingly common as both photography and editing are increasingly becoming more automated.

This sometimes happens without you even knowing.

Take HDR (high dynamic range) images, for example. Point your iPhone or equivalent at a beautiful sunset and watch it capture the scene from the brightest highlights to the darkest shadows. What happens here is your camera makes multiple images and automatically stitches them together to make an image with a wider range of contrast[5].

While face-smoothing or teeth-whitening filters are nothing new, some smartphone camera apps apply them without being prompted. Newer technology like Google’s “Best Take” feature[6] can even combine the best attributes of multiple images to ensure everyone’s eyes are open and faces are smiling in group shots.

On social media, it seems everyone tries to show themselves in their best light, which is partially why so few of the photos on our camera rolls[7] make it onto our social media feeds. It is also why we often edit our photos to show our best sides.

But in other contexts, such as press photography, the rules are much stricter[8]. The Associated Press, for example, bans all edits beyond simple crops, colour adjustments, and “minor adjustments” that “restore the authentic nature of the photograph”.

Read more: Three images that show wartime photographs can have greater impact than the written word[9]

Professional photojournalists haven’t always gotten it right, though. While the majority of lens-based news workers adhere to ethical guidelines like those published by the National Press Photographers Association[10], others have let deadline pressures, competition and the desire for exceptional imagery cloud their judgement.

One such example was in 2017, when British photojournalist Souvid Datta admitted to visually plagiarising[11] another photographer’s work within his own composition.

Concerns around false or misleading visual information are at an all-time high, given advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI)[12]. In fact, this year the World Economic Forum named the risk of misinformation and disinformation as the world’s greatest short-term threat[13]. It placed this above armed conflict and natural disasters.

What to do if you’re unsure about an image you’ve found online

It can be hard to keep up with the more than 3 billion photos[14] that are shared each day.

But, for the ones that matter, we owe it to ourselves to slow down, zoom in and ask ourselves a few simple questions[15]:

1. Who made or shared the image? This can give clues about reliability and the purpose of making or sharing the image.

2. What’s the evidence? Can you find another version of the image, for example, using a reverse-image search engine[16]?

3. What do trusted sources say? Consult resources like AAP FactCheck[17] or AFP Fact Check[18] to see if authoritative sources have already weighed in.

Read more: Deepfakes: How to empower youth to fight the threat of misinformation and disinformation[19]

References

  1. ^ swirling (www.nytimes.com)
  2. ^ withdrew the image (apnews.com)
  3. ^ apologised for any confusion (twitter.com)
  4. ^ Photo by the Prince of Wales/Chart by T.J. Thomson (www.instagram.com)
  5. ^ with a wider range of contrast (www.adobe.com)
  6. ^ feature (blog.google)
  7. ^ camera rolls (www.tandfonline.com)
  8. ^ rules are much stricter (www.ap.org)
  9. ^ Three images that show wartime photographs can have greater impact than the written word (theconversation.com)
  10. ^ National Press Photographers Association (nppa.org)
  11. ^ visually plagiarising (time.com)
  12. ^ generative artificial intelligence (AI) (theconversation.com)
  13. ^ short-term threat (www.weforum.org)
  14. ^ 3 billion photos (theconversation.com)
  15. ^ questions (www.aap.com.au)
  16. ^ reverse-image search engine (tineye.com)
  17. ^ AAP FactCheck (www.aap.com.au)
  18. ^ AFP Fact Check (factcheck.afp.com)
  19. ^ Deepfakes: How to empower youth to fight the threat of misinformation and disinformation (theconversation.com)

Read more https://theconversation.com/yes-kate-middletons-photo-was-doctored-but-so-are-a-lot-of-images-we-see-today-225553

Times Magazine

Why Australian Enterprises Are Rethinking Their Core Communication Technologies

The corporate landscape in Australia has undergone a permanent structural shift over the past few ...

Road safety risk: New data reveals almost 2 in 3 Australian drivers are letting car maintenance slide as cost of living pressures bite

Australians are putting off vehicle maintenance and new research released on the eve of National R...

Woodroffe footy club BBQ legend crowned in national Bunnings search

Bunnings has found its latest community hero, naming Brent Tanner from Darwin Buffaloes Football C...

VoltX Energy expands into Victoria & ACT to meet surging home battery demand

Leading Australian energy solutions provider VoltX Energy and premier sponsor of the NRL Manly Wa...

Victorian Drivers To Receive 20% Rego Rebate From June 1 In Major Cost-Of-Living Measure

Victorian motorists will begin receiving significant registration savings from June 1 as the Allan...

How Australian Businesses Are Using AI To Cut Costs And Improve Efficiency

Artificial intelligence was once viewed by many small business owners as something futuristic, exp...

Quickest Way of Getting Rid of Your Old Cars in Brisbane?

If you are done searching for a practical solution for quickly getting rid of your old car, this w...

The Human Supplement Craze Has Officially Gone to the Dogs (Literally)

Australians’ appetite for supplements is no longer limited to their own vitamin cabinets. New reta...

AI Guilt: It’s Real — But it is irrational

Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming one of the most powerful tools ever made available to ...

The Times Features

Breakfast: step up to something new at home

Australians have long loved the traditional breakfast of bacon, eggs and toast, but in an era of r...

The battle that changed the war: how Ukraine’s stand at…

When historians eventually examine the defining moments of the war in Ukraine, they may conclude t...

The Great Indoors: Commune Group Has Every Reason To Ge…

From Ramen Nights To $15 Pho And Midweek Set Menus, Commune's Southside Venues This Winter Tokyo Ti...

Why Australians need to rethink new apartments after th…

As the Federal Government pushes to accelerate housing supply and incentivise new residential deve...

SpaceX goes public: how Australians can invest in Elon …

One of the most anticipated share market listings in history is about to take place, with Elon Mus...

Property markets react to budget signals before laws ar…

Australia’s property market has already begun reacting to the federal budget announcements despite...

The evolution of bread in Australia: from basic staple …

For generations, bread was one of the simplest and most affordable foods in Australia. A loaf sat...

Australian football fan Forest Robinson scores a Champi…

A solo competition trip to Budapest became a night in Heineken’s Skybox and pitchside celebrations a...

Why fit matters more than fashion

Fashion changes constantly. Colours come and go. Trends rise and disappear. One year oversized cl...