A Princess is Born-exhibition '05

[andr]

I guess that the top is transparent because of the angle and the hard light of the flash. I right that the image is lightened alot in the Se og Hor magasin, probably too much. I found this originals at Action Press and Cover and there’s no doubt that the top looks transparent on the pictures.

Originally Posted by fromEU

You say it your self ... "in private"... We don't/can't know. At least not everything:) Just because there isn't any pictures of it, doesn't mean that hasn't happened. Of course it doesn't happen often, but I think the the Royals, especially the scandinavien, meet each other out of the press limelight. They probably have one or two tricks to avoid the press. Frederik has always been known for making good smokescreens for the press, when he wants to have privacy. Frederik and Mary were only photographed once together(driving out of Amalienborg) until the summer 2002. Then they decided themselves to be seen togetheer at a friends wedding. So it is possible:)

If they meet the press would have known, and they has of course spoken too each other at weddings and stuff, but never been on any private visits as far as I know. But they can talk on the phone, send e-mails etc. without the press knowing it.

[Hannelore]

a top doesn't become transparent because of the angle of a camera!

It's indeed not flattering. If you can see it on a photo, you can certainly see it yourself as well. A better choice next time I hope.

[Isabel]

Originally Posted by Hannelore

a top doesn't become transparent because of the angle of a camera!

It's indeed not flattering. If you can see it on a photo, you can certainly see it yourself as well. A better choice next time I hope.

It's not transparent because of the camera angle, but because of the flash of the camera. When Mette-Marit got dressed I am sure that there was no transparency in her home. However, lighting in our private homes and dressing rooms is usually different from that of public lighting. Pair that with strong lighting from flashing cameras and there you have it.

It's like a friend of mine who was always putting on more makeup at work because she thought that she looked awful. Her lighting at home was not nearly as strong as the fluorescent lighting at work. At work, she thought that her face looked like she'd missed a few spots whereas at home, she thought that she looked great when she walked out of the door. It was simply a matter of lighting.

[kwanfan]

Originally Posted by Isabel

It's not transparent because of the camera angle, but because of the flash of the camera. When Mette-Marit got dressed I am sure that there was no transparency in her home. However, lighting in our private homes and dressing rooms is usually different from that of public lighting. Pair that with strong lighting from flashing cameras and there you have it.

It's like a friend of mine who was always putting on more makeup at work because she thought that she looked awful. Her lighting at home was not nearly as strong as the fluorescent lighting at work. At work, she thought that her face looked like she'd missed a few spots whereas at home, she thought that she looked great when she walked out of the door. It was simply a matter of lighting.

IIRC, one of John Kerry's daughters wore a black dress to a red carpet event when he was running for president. It become transparent with all the camera flashes.

[Isabel]

Originally Posted by kwanfan

IIRC, one of John Kerry's daughters wore a black dress to a red carpet event when he was running for president. It become transparent with all the camera flashes.

Yep. I remember that. I think that this is exactly what happened to Mette-Marit here. The top that she is wearing isn't made of the most tightly threaded material, but it is made more like a sweater. It may actually be a lighter sweater than the heavy red one that she is wearing on top, so with that type of threading and material it's really easy for lighting and camera flashes to create a sort of transparency.