William is looking straight down the lens at Catherine.
George looks animated, so nice to see him this way.
George looks animated, so nice to see him this way.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I knew I’d seen it somewhere before, they’re ripping off the Very advert.
I don't think conspiracy or photoshop was mentioned?
I don't think conspiracy or photoshop was mentioned?
I simply said nope, they're jumping with the camera angled upwards. No jetpacks
Not a fan of this streamer already, learn to hold it steady at least or don’t bother mate!
streamer?
Sorry wrong thread!
There's probably millions of similar photos worldwide taken since the camera was invented. Perhaps the Very advert was ripping off the first one, likely taken sometime in the last two hundredish years? Goodness knows how many families and generations have similar photos stashed away or on their phones. Children have enjoyed jumping off dunes for centuries.
I hope that you are trying to be funny because it's not really coming across as such, just daft.
Last two hundredish years??? Until well into the 1900s subjects had to remain still for up to an hour in order for the photograph to develop. It's why you rarely/never see people smiling from that time. Never mind 200 years ago, even 100 years ago that was still the case.
Words fail.
It's actually a very (pardon the pun) similar photo and as stated the RF photo gave me deja vu. I mentioned it to my mother earlier and she thought it reminded her of an advert too.
---
Good point, you couldn't possibly have taken action shots years ago.
Frankly it wouldn't surprise me. I'm only surmising obviously, because unlike royalists I don't think I personally know them, but WanK are far to bland to be original.
I'm still chuckling at the idea of action photos from 1824 (even though the original daguerreotype came on the scene in 1839.
So did I tbfOh well, I laughed
And quoting myself to say, the interesting thing about arch royalists is when they have no valid answer they resort to a laughing emoji.
Embarrassing
Actually the first action photo is very famously a series of twelve action photos of a galloping horse taken in 1878, more than a hundred years ago. I knew the photos but just had to check the 19th century date.
The first Kodak camera with film for 100 photos went on sale in 1888; it required to be sent back to the factory for processing but it was certainly available to the more casual if richer consumer as opposed to dedicated photographers whether amateur or professional.
I may have said within the past two hundred years but action photos were taken and the first general public camera available to the casual photographer were both produced over a century ago, NOT within the last hundred years, but 146 years for the first and 136 for the second.
I'm not particularly a royalist but I prefer a constitutional monarchy to several examples of presidents worldwide. I do find it embarrassing when people don't know accurate history though. I also find it risible when people think that a pretty stereotypical family holiday shot is specifically copied from a recent advert.
Last edited:
Well backtracked.
Suggesting an ad campaign inspired by a possibly 200 year old action image (that apparently you can't back up with actual evidence) doesn't scream 'accurate' history to me but what would I know?
But hey, you do you.
I have no dog in the fight and am pretty ambivalent about them all; however it’s brilliant that you said people resort to laughing emojis when they don’t have an answer and then immediately reacted with that when you received a reply.Well backtracked.
Suggesting an ad campaign inspired by a possibly 200 year old action image (that apparently you can't back up with actual evidence) doesn't scream 'accurate' history to me but what would I know?
But hey, you do you.
I think it’s a cute photo. It’s not original, but very few photos are nowadays. They look happy kids and that’s lovely to see in any child.