Photoshopping Royal Tiaras and Jewels 2


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Worthy of a prospective 'Princess Consort' (?)

coronation3.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: It had a certain appeal to it, an appeal that I think would suit Camilla. The gold, although not usually a colour I'd work with, would suit the occasion of a coronation; infact it was one of the most popular colours worn to the coronation of our current monarch (go figure).
 
I have two pictures of this tiara only that it's been adjusted I was wondering when this change was made and it's the same right?
 

Attachments

  • image-1890386781.jpg
    image-1890386781.jpg
    174.7 KB · Views: 411
  • image-207446765.jpg
    image-207446765.jpg
    142.5 KB · Views: 321
Grandduchess24 said:
I have two pictures of this tiara only that it's been adjusted I was wondering when this change was made and it's the same right?

I believe it was Queen Mary who adapted the tiara to be able to wear Cullinan III & IV with it. But someone who knows more will chime in
 
I have two pictures of this tiara only that it's been adjusted I was wondering when this change was made and it's the same right?

I believe it was Queen Mary who adapted the tiara to be able to wear Cullinan III & IV with it. But someone who knows more will chime in

Thats correct, the tiara was adapted by Queen Mary to wear with the Cullinan's. In its original form, it had the Cambridge emeralds as spikes on top, these were subsequiently adapted to be used with the Grand Duchess Vladamir tiara.
 
muriel said:
I believe it was Queen Mary who adapted the tiara to be able to wear Cullinan III & IV with it. But someone who knows more will chime in
however when Camilla wore it, it resembled the first picture. I've never actually seen a real picture of it with the Cullinans.

RoyalMess said:
I believe the second one is photoshopped.
I'm almost positive the second picture is a photoshop. There is a distinct line in the background (upper left)- usually a blatant sign of a photoshop. Secondly, look at the shadow under the tiara- there is no shadow from the cullinans, which would be very prominent if they were really a part of the tiara (especially cullinan III, mounted at the top). It's probably a good representation, but it's probably not real.

Personally I prefer the tiara without the Cullinans. Then again, from what I've read about Queen Mary, she wasn't one to pass up an opportunity to wear as many jewels as possible!
 
Last edited:
The second picture may well be a photoshop, as the tiara has not housed the Cullinans since the 1920s, if I am not mistaken.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I much prefer the original version, anyway. As much as I love the Cullinans, I don't like how they're displayed in the photoshop.
 
Funnily enough, I was just reading another royal website and low and behold, there was a picture of Queen Mary wearing the Delhi Durbar with the Cullinans!

Apparently she used both stones, and just the square Cullinan IV, at different times. As I said in my earlier post, Queen Mary seemed to prefer dripping in jewels- I would too if I had access to a collection like that!
 
So the second version isn't a photoshop after all; I still prefer the tiara in its present form, but I'd be wearing the Cullinans in other ways.
 
I much prefer the original version, anyway. As much as I love the Cullinans, I don't like how they're displayed in the photoshop.

The actual "original" version had the Cambridge emeralds as spikes, and was used for the Durbar in 1911.
 
So the second version isn't a photoshop after all;
IT IS A PHOTOSHOP.
The first image in post #907 is a scan of the Delhi Durbar diadem in its current form from Geoffrey Munn's "Tiaras: A History of Splendour".
The second is a photoshop of that scanned image.

The photoshop is based on one of the many versions of the diadem (with & without emeralds, with & without various Cullinans, with & without upper and some lower middle lattice work) as worn by Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth [the Queen Mother] at different times.

v thumbnails

1. ORIGINAL: Queen Mary wearing the version with the Cullinans III & IV.
2. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cullinans III & IV.
3. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cullinan V.
4. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cambridge Emeralds and Cullinan IV.
 

Attachments

  • Delhi Durbar Cullinans III & IV.jpg
    Delhi Durbar Cullinans III & IV.jpg
    28.2 KB · Views: 592
  • Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cullinans III & IV.jpg
    Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cullinans III & IV.jpg
    87.1 KB · Views: 1,543
  • Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cullinan V.jpg
    Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cullinan V.jpg
    48.3 KB · Views: 1,567
  • Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cambridge Emeralds & Cullinan IV.jpg
    Delhi Durbar Tiara with Cambridge Emeralds & Cullinan IV.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 1,384
Last edited:
Isn't there a picture of QM wearing C I & II? I am assuming that she want able to have there removed from the CJs to have the picture taken. They were substancially larger than III & IV. If the chips went from QM to QE II, was the QE the QM ever allowed to wear them? When QM was done up, she must have needed the whale bone corsets just to keep her upright. The weight of all that jewelry must have been unbelievable.
 
Well, now I'm utterly confused. Warren, why is the second image a photoshop of the tiara with the Cullinans when the first photo is of Queen Mary wearing the identical tiara with the gems?

And I had meant by the original version the first photo of the tiara in Grandduchess' post, the current version, so sorry for any confusion.
 
Well, now I'm utterly confused. Warren, why is the second image a photoshop of the tiara with the Cullinans when the first photo is of Queen Mary wearing the identical tiara with the gems?
The photoshop referred to is an image scanned from a book where separate images of the two Cullinans have been overlaid with computer software to produce a composite.

The addition of elements to an original photograph makes the resulting image an artificial replication; it is not a photograph of the real thing, no matter how close in appearance to the original it may be. The photo of Queen Mary wearing that version of the Delhi Durbar diadem is genuine, authentic and the real deal. The photoshopped image is not.

It is necessary to differentiate between photoshopped images and original photographs because more than once photoshopped images posted on the internet (including here at TRF) have reappeared at a later date with claims of being authentic photographs. This impacts the accuracy, reliability and credibility of the historical record of which these Forums form a part. It is therefore vitally important that photographs which have been digitally altered by software programs including Photoshop are clearly identified as such.
 
1. ORIGINAL: Queen Mary wearing the version with the Cullinans III & IV.
2. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cullinans III & IV.
3. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cullinan V.
4. PHOTOSHOP: with the Cambridge Emeralds and Cullinan IV.

The tiara with Cullinans III and IV, as well as the Cambridge Emeralds is just overwhelming; I much prefer the current design.
The version with the Cullinan V is very nice though.
 
The photoshop referred to is an image scanned from a book where separate images of the two Cullinans have been overlaid with computer software to produce a composite.

The addition of elements to an original photograph makes the resulting image an artificial replication; it is not a photograph of the real thing, no matter how close in appearance to the original it may be. The photo of Queen Mary wearing that version of the Delhi Durbar diadem is genuine, authentic and the real deal. The photoshopped image is not.

It is necessary to differentiate between photoshopped images and original photographs because more than once photoshopped images posted on the internet (including here at TRF) have reappeared at a later date with claims of being authentic photographs. This impacts the accuracy, reliability and credibility of the historical record of which these Forums form a part. It is therefore vitally important that photographs which have been digitally altered by software programs including Photoshop are clearly identified as such.

Thanks a lot for the explanation, Warren.:flowers:
 
* The Queen Alexandrine fringe tiara
* Queen Margrethe's pearls
* Earrings, pendant and bracelet from the ruby parure
* The stomacher from the Crown pearl and ruby suite.


mrya.jpg
 
Last edited:
Beautiful work; the fringe tiara looks stunning and I like the ruby pendant suspended from the necklace. The stomacher is magnificent.
 
Funnily enough, I was just reading another royal website and low and behold, there was a picture of Queen Mary wearing the Delhi Durbar with the Cullinans!

Apparently she used both stones, and just the square Cullinan IV, at different times. As I said in my earlier post, Queen Mary seemed to prefer dripping in jewels- I would too if I had access to a collection like that!

That's over the top even by Queen Mary standards!
 
* Cartier tiara
* Diamond collet necklaces
* Diamond earrings
* Fluer de lys brooch


mrya111m-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Amazing work, Madame Royale! You really do have a way with photoshop. :)
Really like Cartier tiara on Letizia; it suits her face and hairstyle. The diamond collet gives a very Queen Mary-ish finish.
 
* Württemberg wedding tiara
* Sapphire parure pendant and stomacher/brooch
* Queen Beatrix strand of pearls
* Pearl earrings

maxima1.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom