"Artistic license". It's got to be kinda stressful to be photographing royalty; you wantto make it look perfect. I think any photographer who really had the courage to snap royals doing everyday things - more to the point, who was allowed to - would be an enormous exception to the general rule.
Nothing wrong with posing and makeup, but to my mind they are there to make the subject look better, not somehow “real”. i.e. it's the talk not the photography I'm talking about.
(Obviously there are counterexamples like the makeup needed to look normal under TV studio lights, but that's not the kind of thing we're talking about here.)
This is a photographer doing the "How can I get the portrait I want?" thing. After all, it can hardly be called subterfuge and media manipulation if Harry came right out and said that it was manually applied dirt..
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Nothing wrong with posing and makeup, but to my mind they are there to make the subject look better, not somehow “real”. i.e. it's the talk not the photography I'm talking about.
(Obviously there are counterexamples like the makeup needed to look normal under TV studio lights, but that's not the kind of thing we're talking about here.)
no subject
no subject