Madame Royale
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Messages
- 3,977
- City
- Melbourne & Sydney
- Country
- Australia
Worthy of a prospective 'Princess Consort' (?)
Well done! I guess your starting point was Meryl Streep at the Oscars!Worthy of a prospective 'Princess Consort' (?)
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?
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 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
however when Camilla wore it, it resembled the first picture. I've never actually seen a real picture of it with the Cullinans.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
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.RoyalMess said:I believe the second one is photoshopped.
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.
IT IS A PHOTOSHOP.So the second version isn't a photoshop after all;
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.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?
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 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.
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!