The Queen's editing

[Akira]

If I remember correctly, a vampire isn't reflected in the mirror.   

Almass' analysis is a bitter food for thought.

I feel all of three images in the linked article lifeless...

[elsa hoffmann]

One can not dispute that this image will please many people - and I am sure Queenie included.
Everyone has his or her own style - and if this is Annie's style - its artistic license and so be it.
What isn't good style is the poor editing.

Almass is correct - its not bad lighting.
I don't however agree that her photography fell apart here (maybe she just was a bit lazy but who knows...)  - for me it's seriously more a case of the editing falling apart.
The picture frames in the "mirror" are totally skewed - in my opinion - I wouldn't deliver work like that in a hurry....
My feeling is the mirror showed a mass of crap which had to be edited out.
I didn't notice the foot - good point.
Frank - I doubt if this is a painted backdrop.. see pics below
Børge - I specifically didn't post my comments as I wanted to see what YOU guys see. It's called "interaction" 
Andrea - I certainly don't hate the pic - lots I like about it - which is why I looked closer to see what was going on...
Believe me - not many on NG would have pulled this off. Firstly not many are family /portrait photographers - and secondly we have no idea how challenging the shoot was. We don't even know if they were so un-cooperative that more than one image had to be pasted together to get a decent result. We just don't know.

1.   See the picture frame how it goes around the head of the boy - thats patched / edited in afterwords to eliminate what was there. no frame goes around a head in the background...

2.  The chair back comes through the hair? impossible without PS

3.  The Candelabra  has a hole in it at the side and the frame has a huge mark which is also clearly due to editing.

Also - boy in red shorts has something peculiar between his knees.
It might not be mirrors - but glass. (which also reflects)

Quite possible that the Palace staff has their own ideas about where the pic should be taken yada yada yada - we will never know.
Or someone said - lets shoot and fix up the f*ck ups in PS. who knows

[Almass]

.......... for me it's seriously more a case of the editing falling apart.
........

At this level of photography or at any level, the responsibility of releasing a pic is first with the photographer. The PR people decide later based on the pic and other considerations whether to publish or not.

What I am saying is that the responsibility is directly Leybowitz's and not the editor or the colorist or the pastor....etc.

She is the photographer and it is her name on the pic. There is no chance in hell for her to defer the responsibility.

Leybowitz simply did not deliver at this level and proved to be incapable to deliver at such level.
This is not acceptable for someone of her stature. Questions on her photography are now being asked.

She can't light, she can't direct, she can't edit. Oh, she knows where the shutter button is on a PhasOne.

[Fons Baerken]

The girl with the handbag is precious, the greenish colourcast gives the scene a submerged feel.

[Frank Fremerey]

I would not light a scene with hard shadows / gloden reflectors on the left and diffuse slightly underexposed
on the right.

I would not allow reflected green from surfaces in the room to cast color onto the scene. What has black cloth
been invented for?

Almass. Many of your comments are to the point. Thank you.

I like the model interaction. These guys look concentrated. Up to the task.

[BW]

  I wouldn't dear to judge these photos quality based on the small jpegs presented on the web. But I guess its because I`m a Leibowitz fanboy and I dont know jack shit about Photoshop. I know that I like the scenes, the poses and the overall look of the pictures. I respect that other have different opinions. I have seen far worse examples of royal portraits, that actually have produced a public outcry.

If the editing is beyond rescue on these small jpegs, think about how it will look on the large prints that certainly are going to produced from this shoot? Do you think a professional photographer of this caliber will risk his/her career on the kind of bad judgement you imply? And do you think the queen actually gives a shit about a few distorted lines in an old mirror? If I get to be 90, my only demand for the official pictures would be that they are not high resolution 3D

[Frank Fremerey]

Borge

I think if the editing / esp the clone stamp work can be seen in small size how much worse must it look on full size?

I love Leibowitz too, but this picture sucks big time.

[Tom Hook]

I have enjoyed all who commented on this portrait, most particularly Almass and Elsa. It has been a teachable moment for me leading to questions about post-processing versus getting in right on set and in camera. Being someone who is woefully inadequate in dealing with the former, I am constrained by my need to achieve the latter. Needless to say, many of my photos end up on the cutting room floor.

My thoughts on the photo is Leibowitz was trying for something painterly approaching classical European portraiture which forced her hand and gives the final result of an artifact out of place and time except perhaps for the kid with his hands in his pocket (there be a modern-day Viscount). It is not really contemporary and certainly not an antique, but to my eye basically an affectation.

John Geerts comes close to how I feel about it, and here I paraphrase: the picture has the “odeur of a waxworks museum”.

[Andrea B.]

I think y'all are really hard to please!!
OK, I get the technical errors pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?
Above Edit: 27 Apr 2016

I looked at this and thought it a charming, informal family portrait - well, "informal" given the context of Windsor palace. However strange it may seem to most of us, this is Grandma's home to those people. So yes it would appear classical & European & somewhat 19th century. But that's how they live. What would be truly strange would be to see such a group posed on the sofa of the typical tract home in the suburbs. Or all sitting on a studio bench with some kind of swirly muted backdrop.

I had the impression this photograph was the shot taken just after everyone relaxed a little bit from the first formal shot while waiting for the second formal shot. So right after that first formal pose, the little girl picks up Grandma's purse. The baby kicks up the edge of her dress. The oldest boy, relieved the first formal shot is over, puts his hands in his pockets. The little girl beside the queen leans forward. The two children on the right aren't quite sure what's happening so they are looking expectantly. No one appears lifeless. There are such a variety of expressions, pensive, expectant, uncertain, happy. There's the queen in a pink cardigan, so casual, no crown. She looks real for once, like a great-grandmother who is trying to hold a wiggly great-grandchild.

Oh well.

[Almass]

I think y'all are really hard to please!!
OK, I get the pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?

This is not nitpicking but genuine critique and assessment.

This pic is the official pic released to the media and there are too many flagrant mistakes to count and I do not have the time to keep looking. It is all very well to elevate a photographer to excellence and it makes the fall even harder.
Leibovitz diva attitude is a common attitude among similar photographers where they loose track of their photography and think that all they need to do is click the shutter. You have no idea how commercial shoots at this level are made. Every single detail is planned in advance and it is not planned by the photographer but by whomever commercial entity who hires the photographer.
These big name photographers are not hired for their type of photography but hired for their name and the PR that ensues.

This is the Queen and the future King "Prince George of Cambridge" (God Bless) with her. Princess Charlotte face is blurred. All faces are soft except the Queen's face which has been sharpened. They have retouched the Queen face and softened all others. This is a cardinal mistake in retouching. All faces should have the same and seamless treatment.
It is the penultimate photo for generations and we are not discussing the location or pose but the photographic rendering.

There are too many inconsistencies in this pic and I would say that this pic is a composite.........done badly.
The big boy liquified head, his stance, clothes and looking away from the camera leaves many question marks.
You will note in the following pics which are at a higher res, that the position of his foot on the carpet is awkward unless he either have a bad foot or it is a composite. (BTW you can see 2 lights in the catchlights).
He is looking away and beyond the camera in comparison with the other people's eyes.




















I noticed another mistake in the mirror pic for your enjoyment.......

[elsa hoffmann]

thank you Almass - you explain it a lot better than I do. You got it spot on.

OK, I get the pick-nitting. But who's to say that the PS errors won't be fixed before family prints are made?

Andrea - You think that?

This is not about nit picking for me. It is about learning. I learn from comments too. Annie Leibovitz has made more money and is more famous than any one of us. Like her or not, is not the issue. It's not a popularity contest.

[PeterN]

Thank you for posting this Elsa and thanks everyone - especially Almass - for a thorough analysis. I learned a lot from it (what to be aware of when taking a (group) portrait).
I noticed the distortion, the porcelain (although not the word thank you Almass) faces and liquified face of the boy but that was about it.
It makes me wonder why it was published and why it was so heavily processed. To make up for bad lighting and careless preparation? I can't imagine that would happen for a photo of the Royal family. So - after reading the analysis -, for a moment I thought it was fabricated in PS but apparently it is an official photo. Or maybe it was just because they like it this way. ;-)
As said, I learned a lot, also about my own preferences.
Thank you.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thank you Almass. Very good teardown.

[MFloyd]

Nearly all remarks are to the point.  I am not a Leibowitz fan.  Nevertheless, the pictures are excellent, if not outstanding.

[Andrea B.]

Ok, points above well made.
And I rescind my pick-nitting comment to be replaced with "I get the technical errors".

There is no question that I look at photographs like this with a naive eye for technical details. I just read the photo for the impressions and feelings it gave me. Presented with a naturescape, I could pick out everything wrong with it technically. Presented with the Queenie and the lovely children my mind goes elsewhere. "-)

I enjoy the discussion.