So what do you think of the Royal photos/

I've just seen the official engagement photos on the Beeb site, and tbh I have seen far better portraits here than those are. They may be by Diana's favourite photog but I don't like them.

The backgrounds are distracting, and whilst the cuddle one is potentially good it looks over exposed, and that window frame growing out of her head is a beginners mistake.

Or am I missing something here?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11976352

I would wonder if they're intended to reinforce the fact that these aren't normal people, at least in the one on the left. Most of us don't have giant gold-leaf encrusted doors about the place, so could it be the modern version of those old paintings showing nobles in their finest clothing and with symbols of their wealth around them?

I think they're nice shots. I like the vertical elements in the background of the shot on the left, and think they provide a framework for the composition rather than being distracting. The right hand shot has a nice candid feel. The background isn't perfect but it's a spontaneous looking image. So while these shots are not the best i've ever seen, they do make the subjects look good (no sign of Will's thinning scalp here!) while looking natural and informal.

They are nice enough shots - if HM Grannie took them with her compact - but no doubt the guy got paid a fortune for them.

I think if someone posted something similar here there would be plenty of C&C, most of it not very complimentary!

Lol! Saucer of milk for Gwyn, someone

Well you pay for the name. A lot of portrait photographers can churn out informal 'bright and breezy' shots where the subjects look both glamorous and very much at-ease... but Mario Testino is one of the photographers they are copying, when they adopt this style.

I think the main problem is that there's too many teeth!!

I agree with you Gwyn- rather disappointing work. At the very least I'd have wanted to have blurred the background in the formal pose, in the left photo; and the background in the right (cuddly) photo is distracting even though it is intentionally over-exposed. It is unfortunate that the pose includes such distracting elements. Extraneous and distractive elements should only be allowed in simple portrait shots like these if they really add to the atmosphere, and that just does not happen in these photos (in my opinion).

Possibly the fact that the pictures as published at that link are heavily cropped, and consequently rather out of context.

I haven't seen them anywhere online yet, but on the TV news tonight, the uncropped versions didn't suffer, IMO, from these composition issues, although I only got a very brief look.

The relatively formal one has a lot more in-context background, and the informal one more of the room, also giving more of the context.

I suspect they're only a couple out of a much more extensive series, chosen for the populist appeal of the expressions, rather than technical perfection. I expect they'll choose other ones for the wall at the Palace.

I actually like them both - especially in the un (or less)-cropped version.

Composition be damned, if you can get expressions as good as that. Particularly the informal one, has the potential to be something of an iconic look, one where a touch of overexposure and imperfect background will pale into insignificance.

The closeup: maybe he forgot to bring his flash with him, and so couldn't compensate for the outdoors being much brighter Definitely don't like it - not a stickler for technical aspects in photos (and not claiming I could do better!) but the massively blown out background ruins the photograph IMHO. Possibly he was trying to make it look 'dreamy' and romantic, but it just looks dreadful.

Quite like the other one though, as far as formal portraits go. Composition was my only nitpick but it seems from above posts that the BBC have cropped both shots - in which case why bother featuring the photographs at all? A picture of a packet of biscuits would have as much to do with the photograph the photographer actually took.

I agree. They are very mediocre photos at best. No imagination.


They should have gone to Olan Mills - HAHAHAHA!!!

Who would want to copy that?

Hey. No surprise, these pictures have also made it to my country now - even uncropped. Uncropped, the formal shot looks better and is a fine portraiture of the couple. I still think it is rather uninspired. I would expect to pay big bucks for someone to come up with something original, not that! But hey, they can afford it and their priorities are probably different from mine. Guess, they are happy to pay for the comfort of having someone they know and trust to be in charge of the session.

The one I saw was full length of the couple, with a lot of the room behind them visible. So this one is still quite heavily cropped.

Coming to a Royal Mail post office soon, I think these will end on commonwealth stamps come next April....

I think it's somewhat creepy that W&C chose a photographer who took the inconic photo of his mother before her death, plus the fact she wears Diana's engagement ring...just reminds me of a first time father going on about their baby just a little bit too often. I have a horrible feeling this wedding is going to be all about Diana.

Good job I'll be in South Africa then...

Not hard to afford stuff when you've got 50-odd million 'subjects' paying for it for you. (/end politics)

Having seen the formal shot uncropped I still like it - it's also refreshing to see an official photographer not slavishly following the rule of thirds to the detriment of the photograph's purpose (Obama's official photo was hopeless composition-wise, though technically first class)