[ SECRET POST #6284 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6284 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[Kelela]



__________________________________________________



06.



































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 15 secrets from Secret Submission Post #898.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[erinptah]

The fuss is that, if they could've just take a real photo of her with her children, they would have. So...why can't they? And what kind of bizarre situation, and/or PR team stupidity, would make them think "releasing a fake photo" was a better idea than just saying straight-out "look, she's not available for photos right now, back off"?

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt but people don't seem to realize that it could just be a composite of several photos? You know, like they took a bunch because someone wasn't smiling in one pic, and then someone else blinked in the next pic, or one kid had the best smile in photo #2, but the others had the best smile in #5, that kind of thing.

[(Anonymous)]

+1, some cameras give you this option to take a quick burst of photos then combine. They fed into all the conspiracy theories in a dumb way, but the conspiracy theories are in themselves dumb.

[erinptah]

If the royal family's PR department had a bunch of original, unedited shots of Kate being fine and available for photos...surely they would have released literally any of those by now?

There's no reason not to. The point of releasing the shopped version in the first place was "demonstrate to the public that Kate is fine and available for photos," right? Not "demonstrate that our photographers can get one shot where nobody blinked."

[(Anonymous)]

Eh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_complain,_never_explain

I mean, sure, they could just post all the candid shots but that wouldn't really stop people from concocting weirder and weirder theories because they (like you) don't like the simple, boring answer that someone maybe edited their family pic to look better.

[erinptah]

I don't have any theories, and I don't care which answer is true. Subthread OP just asked why there was a fuss if the contents of the picture weren't inherently scandalous, so I told them.

[(Anonymous)]

Original commenter: none of that equals the photo being scandalous or nefarious. It was stupid to release it instead of a picture of her when one of the kids was a baby, or something like that if there was nothing new to share, but stupid does not always equal sinister.