Prince George: First Official Photos - August 22, 2013

[blauerengel]

Prince George: First Official Photos Released 22 August 2013

I was surprised that pictures taken against the sun could look that nice (I was always told not to do so)-they are not perfect-polished images,but Catherine,William and George look relaxed and happy in the pictures!

I did not know that Mario Testino took those images of Q.Rania and her children,they are not overwhelming...
Mario Testino is probably more comfortable with taking pictures of fashionable couture and grown-up people.

The pictures of CP Victoria-Daniel-Estelle were looking cute and professional, I do not know who took them,but I am absolutely adoring the photographs Something similar in style would be great for the official portraits of little Prince George and his family!

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Amongst others......
I recall clearly that Princess Mary takes her own pictures of her children which is released on their respective birthdays.

Now King WA has taken snaps of his daughters to be released, and at the time I did not think they were great, but they are taken without pressure on the child to pose.

Even Prince Bertie took pictures of what is now QEII and we enjoy those to this day...

I think it is brilliant that photos are taken by family to be released. They not meant to be enlarged to great size, to be framed or placed in a gallery for posterity. No, they for us to enjoy, and we should do just that. They did not have to release any photos at all; but sure they thought the public would enjoy seeing them in the relaxed mode of family!

Sadly, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't!!! Time for most of us to grow up, stop throwing stones at them and just enjoy... Life would be much happier for all!

Cannot speak for the pictures taken by WA, because I can't remember if I have seen them before. However, the difference between the pictures taken by Michael Middleton and say, the ones taken by Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is that the majority of the pictures taken by the latter are actually good pictures. Some of them I could even mistake for professional taken pictures.

Yes, it's a nice little detail that Michael took the pictures, but as sweet as it is, that doesn't change the fact that they aren't pictures of particularly good quality. I wouldn't have minded Michael taking the pictures if they were actaully good, as I said, it's a nice detail.

 

[cinrit]

It is basic photography to not set up the subjects with the sun behind them - a child can understand that and is able to take appropriately staged photos - and I am talking about 5 year olds with their mobile phone cameras so if you are under 5 then you are forgiven for not being able to pose a family group in the right way to take a photo.

I don't know anyone who would take photos as bad as this who would even consider showing them to anyone.

I teach at a K - 12 school (ages 4 - 18) and all our kids can take better photos than that - and you should see the scathing critiques that the Year 3's currently studying photography as part of their 'art' course made of these photos. It was their lesson this week - they were each given copies of the photos and allowed to point out the 'good and bad' techniques - there were no 'goods' as the kids felt that were all appalling photos.

This seems awfully harsh, and a little mean-spirited, to me. Are your students that well-versed in the art of photography that they can critique, or are they simply reflecting your attitude toward them, and criticizing in order to make the teacher happy? Do you criticize every photo in your family's photo album, tossing out the ones that don't look professional? Or is it only the Cambridges? I mean, really, we were told that the pictures would be family photos ... should we have expected something more than what we were told? They're not so bad ... actually, they're not bad at all. They're just not professional.

 

[AdmirerUS]

Well maybe those 5 year olds can give Mario Testino some pointers, because this photo he took of Queen Rania and her children (for Vanity Fair 2008) is pretty bad.

http://mylusciouslife.com/wp-conten...en-queen-rania-of-jordan-by-mario-testino.jpg

As for the Cambridge photos, I really like them and don't think they're as bad as some are trying to make them out to be.

Thanks for my second laugh of the day. When Testino does it, it's ART!

It's overwhelmingly funny (odd funny) to me that so many people are finding so many reasons to be deeply offended by the release of the family photos. Above all, I am sure they did not mean to offend anyone by releasing them.

 

[Molly2101]

I like that Michael took the photos as it does add a personal touch and it makes the family feel much more relaxed. Edward and Sophie chose Andrew to take Louise's photo's as they felt it would be much more relaxed, and they even managed to get the Queen to sit with them for one.

I do think the photos could have been more "personal", in the sense that they do all look quite formal. Lady Louise's first photos taken at Sandringham by Prince Andrew were much nicer I feel. This was simply because we had photos of the parents looking at each other smiling. The one of Edward holding little Louise who is looking up at him is especially lovely. This was of course Edward and Sophie's choice, whereas William and Catherine may have preferred more formal posed photos. I am sure we will see plenty of lovely family photos of the Cambridge's in the future.

 

[Dman]

HRH Prince George of Cambridge is 1 month old today.

 

[Ladyelena]

I think they beautiful pictures. Not often do you see William touching Catherine so intmately and naturally. Nicely done.

 

[Isabella Park]

HRH Prince George of Cambridge is 1 month old today.

Oh, time goes fly.
Baby George must be growing up very handsome guy.

 

[miche]

Mary's photos didn't look like professionals to me, they look like family photos.
All these criticism of Michael Middleton's photos remind me of the criticism at another forums of Mary's every time she take photos of her children on their birthdays :/

 

[Dman]

Funny thing with the criticism, suddenly everyone becomes a professional photographer and start pointing out how this should've been done and how this person should've sat, lol.

It was nice and happy family pictures taken by a new grandfather, who is an amateur behind the camera. Just like his daughter and other members of the royal family.

 

[Andolini]

Oh, yes. Definitely sarcasm.

Unless you happen to have a good camera that you want to randomly give to me. I wouldn't be opposed to that.

LOL I like your sense of humor!!!

 

[Andolini]

Mary's photos didn't look like professionals to me, they look like family photos.
All these criticism of Michael Middleton's photos remind me of the criticism at another forums of Mary's every time she take photos of her children on their birthdays :/

Everyone is a critic I suppose. People have a right not to like these pics, but when it veers into the ridiculous it's just too much. My grandpa was an immigrant Italian, and he took many, many photos, some worse than these and I treasure them forever. It's a family photo, and saying people who cannot take pics or need "basic photography" lessons should not have a camera is frankly extremely offensive. Good Lord, lighten up people. (Not you by the way )

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I can't understand why some people said that you can't see William & Catherine and George clearly in the pictures. I see them clear as day, although I think up close pictures of George will be provided at the Christening.

Same for me. These were just fun, casual photos the Cambridges released out of courtesy and generosity but geez...I bet they wish they hadn't!

 

[Warren]

As the photos were publicly released we can reproduce them here.
Here's one...

​

 

[Dman]

That's a beautiful picture of the Cambridge's. I just love that photo, can't say it enough.

 

[Warren]

And another...

Prince George of Cambridge

​

 

[Andolini]

And another...

Prince George of Cambridge

​

Thank you - what a cutie pie!!!!!!! So happy William has his own family

 

[Andolini]

I think they are so lovely and endearing and the baby is clearly seen so I cannot understand the brouhaha. It's a nice, warm and loving family photo. And they look exhausted, the poor dears, I remember those days!!!!

 

[Baroness of Books]

If they want to release family snaps then they need to release good ones or expect to be panned. It isn't hard to take good photos - it isn't that they are posed family photos that is at issue but the fact that they decided to release such bad photos - badly positioned, badly lit, badly balanced etc. As they are supposed to be photos of George it would have been nice if he had been the centre of the pictures rather than have him on the side as an extra to the central image of the photos. William should have been on the other side of Kate so that George was in the centre for instance but as it is Kate is the centre of the photo not George and we already have 1000s of pictures of her.

I agree and had mentioned this as well in a prior post that George should have been in the center between William and Kate as the focus of the pictures if these were going to be released to the media. This is a very similar pose to the departure from the hospital where George was bundled up as well, really not different in composition. We're seeing the baby in the exact side position, again bundled although his head isn't as much covered, and most people want to see a closeup which I thought was the objective of these releases. Actually, a solo shot of the baby would have made a nice trio to these pictures. The cropped closeup is nice, but that's to satisfy those who want to see him more than his parents. And I have no objection at all to seeing him sleep; I'll expect to see his antics later on for the camera as he gets more alert.

 

[Andolini]

I agree and had mentioned this as well in a prior post that George should have been in the center between William and Kate as the focus of the pictures if these were going to be released to the media. This is a very similar pose to the departure from the hospital where George was bundled up as well, really not different in composition. We're seeing the baby in the exact side position, again bundled although his head isn't as much covered, and people want to see a closeup which I thought was the objective of these releases. Actually, a solo shot of the baby would have made a nice trio to these pictures. The cropped closeup is nice, but that's to satisfy those who want to see him more than his parents. And I have no objection at all to seeing him sleep; I'll expect to see his antics later on for the camera as he gets more alert.

My mom had a saying - no matter how many people are in a picture with a baby, you will always and automatically see the baby first. They are kind of hard to miss

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Thanks for my second laugh of the day. When Testino does it, it's ART!

It's overwhelmingly funny (odd funny) to me that so many people are finding so many reasons to be deeply offended by the release of the family photos. Above all, I am sure they did not mean to offend anyone by releasing them.

I'm sure they didn't mean to offend...feels like they just decided to throw us any old bone. I'm not bothered either way, but the photos are family photos, not official photos. I'll bide my time and this disappointment will pass. Not a big deal, really.

 

[Baroness of Books]

My mom had a saying - no matter how many people are in a picture with a baby, you will always and automatically see the baby first. They are kind of hard to miss

Naturally that's so, but it would have been nice to see a closeup. These are charming shots for a family album, not for official photos. But it's no tempest in a teapot for me.

 

[Andolini]

Naturally that's so; I just didn't expect to have to look closely to see this baby's features.

What features? He has 2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 hands and you cannot force a baby to perform or open his eyes at command. The kid is a month old - I'm pretty sure there will be countless photos of him "showing his features". He is a NEWBORN

 

[Baroness of Books]

I didn't realize he was a newborn! Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Argie]

What features? He has 2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 hands and you cannot force a baby to perform or open his eyes at command. The kid is a month old - I'm pretty sure there will be countless photos of him "showing his features". He is a NEWBORN

This thread turns funny at certain points.

I can actually distinguish the baby's features. I believe I recognize his daddy's nose and mouth and what looks to be a red birthmark on his lower right cheek.
And the parents look a little tired. And the pics aren't that bad as some say.

 

[Andolini]

I didn't realize he was a newborn! Thank you for pointing that out.

what I meant was newborns cannot be expected to do anything on schedule or at the will of a photographer.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I never said that a baby would perform at will and didn't expect it. As I said, I don't even mind that he's asleep and expect antics as he gets more alert; I was just curious to see more of his face, that's all, hence a better-positioned closeup would have been nice for official pix since the world is going ga-ga over this baby. Again, these are charming family photos for the personal album.

And I'm now retiring from the tempest in a teapot du jour since this is taking a strange turn indeed.

Great shot of Lupo, BTW; he looks adorable.

 

[Grandma828]

Thank goodness no one saw my family pictures. Most of the people on here would have had a stroke.

 

[Andolini]

Thank goodness no one saw my family pictures. Most of the people on here would have had a stroke.

 

[ladongas]

Other than the picture of the family leaving the hospital, does anyone know/recall at what age the first pictures of William were released? Were there pictures of him at the same age as George is here? (Or of Harry)?