Today my mother-in-law texted me to say, “Can’t trust any photo.” Why? Kate Middleton.

The stunning admission that Kate Middleton edited a photo of her and her children has sent shockwaves around the world and undermined the already dwindling trust in the still image.

As an amateur photographer herself, I imagine Kate would be sad about all this.

Is This the Moment All Trust in Photographs Evaporated?

The popularity and endurance of the royal family can’t be understated. Therefore, the concession that they released a doctored photo really is huge and it means that people like my mother-in-law are now fully aware that photos can’t inherently be trusted.

It’s hard to disagree. Putting out edited photos has become par for the course for many celebrities. But as my colleague Jeremy Gray points out, “there’s something quite different about this instance of image manipulation compared to other celeb portraits.”

When Khloe Kardashian posts an edited picture of her kid on Instagram, it is not also given to The Associated Press (AP) who circulate it to the world’s media.

The doctored image forced the AP to put out a rare “kill notice” on the picture. The agency’s tagline is “Advancing the power of facts, globally.” The photo they put out yesterday was advancing lies, globally.

Will the AP and other huge agencies like Getty, Reuters, and AFP, now have to scrutinize future pictures released by the royal family? You would imagine so.

What is going on with Kate Middleton is currently a mystery. Before the misleading image was released yesterday, the Princess hadn’t been seen in public since December.

But whatever drama is happening inside the walls of Kensington Palace, a huge blow has just been dealt to the idea of the photograph because if Kate Middleton has the audacity to put out a manipulated image, anyone does.

We Desperately Need a System

If only there was some sort of provenance system that could provide irrefutable evidence that a photo is genuine and not digitally altered.

Luckily there is one coming in. If William, Prince of Wales (who allegedly took the photo) had used the Leica M11-P to capture the Mother’s Day snap then we would be able to use the Content Credentials system to see what edits have been made. Soon, Nikon, Canon, and Sony will have their own systems in place.

However, both parties — the image taker and the image receiver — must fully opt-in to use this system effectively. Content Credentials is not designed to be a universal fake image detector; it is a program for news organizations such as AP to be able to chart the history of a photo so it can be better trusted.

It means that, for now at least, we live in a world where photos can’t be believed because supposedly venerable institutions such as the British royal family are putting out doctored photos of themselves.

What’s next? The Pope releasing a picture of himself wearing a puffer jacket?

Scientists have photographed a never-before-seen deep-sea worm species that moves just like a “living magic carpet.”

Scientists discovered the new species of the deep-sea worm living near an underwater methane seep some 30 miles (50km) off the Pacific coast of Costa Rica.

Methane seeps are parts of the seafloor where the powerful greenhouse gas methane escapes from rocks or sediment on the seafloor in the form of bubbles.

In a study published last week in scientific journal PLOS ONE, the researchers reveal how the deep-sea worm species, which has now been formally named “Pectinereis strickrotti,” was first spotted during a dive at a depth of 3,280 feet (1,000 meters) in the HOV Alvin submersible back in 2009.

“When we first saw it, we immediately starting asking what it was. A vertebrate? Some strange fish? We had this blurry image and that was it, but we were very intrigued,” Alvin’s lead pilot Bruce Strickrott tells PopSci.

“That’s how it is down there. You see things for one minute, they’re gone, and then you talk about it.”

‘Almost Like a Living Magic Carpet’

However, the team saw the species again when they returned to the Costa Rican methane seeps in 2018.

On their second encounter, Strickrott described how the deep-sea worms had a sinuous swimming technique that reminded them of a fantastical magic carpet.

“They swim slowly, but when he really wanted to move, he started to undulate almost like a living magic carpet,” Strickrott explains.

Using a five-chambered vacuum canister device that Alvin’s lead pilot Bruce Strickrott called the “slurp gun,” the team carefully collected several specimens and enough photos and video to formally describe the new species.

According to PopSci, the team has discovered that Pectinereis strickrotti is about four inches long. Its elongated body is flanked by a row of feathery, gill-tipped appendages called parapodia — which help it swim in a wavy pattern reminiscent of a magic carpet.

The worms are blind, owing to the total darkness that they experience 3,280 feet under the ocean. The team believes that Pectinereis strickrotti likely has a keen sense of smell and touch to navigate the inky black ocean.

Pectinereis strickrotti also boasts impressively large jaws. However, it still remains a mystery what these deep-sea worms exactly eat.

 
Image credits: All photos by Ekin Tilic.

On Monday, Kate Middleton apologized for editing a family photo that was released to news wires to mark Mother’s Day in the United Kingdom. The move came hours after Associated Press, AFP, and Reuters, pulled the photo, saying it had been altered in violations of their photography standards.

“Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing,” read a statement posted to the Prince and Princess of Wales’s social media accounts. “I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused.”

But Middleton’s Mother’s Day picture is not the first royal family photo to come under scrutiny.

Last year, the family’s 2023 holiday season portrait generated tabloid buzz because it looks like five-year-old Prince Louis was missing a middle finger. Even Saturday Night Live poked fun at it, with “Weekend Update” anchor Colin Jost joking, “Meghan Markle said she has a finger they can use if they need it.”

Royal family photos have occasionally been criticized for looking too staged. In 2015, BuzzFeed zeroed in on baby Princess Charlotte’s smile, which appeared forced, and speculated whether the photo had been edited. And in April 2023, tech CEO Christopher Bouzy—who appears in the Netflix docuseries about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle—argued a photo that Kate Middleton took of the Queen Elizabeth and eight of her grandchildren at Balmoral shortly before the monarch passed away had to have been photoshopped—but didn’t criticize it. As he put it, per the Daily Mail, “It isn’t easy to get the perfect photo with 10 children. It appears they took multiple shots and then edited the photo to make it perfect. I would’ve done the same.’

There was a hairy situation in 2014 involving a balding Prince William. Tabloids questioned whether a photo on the cover of Vanity Fair taken with Kate Middleton and baby Prince George at Sydney’s Taronga zoo had been enhanced to make it look like he had more hair than he actually did. The publication had to respond, denying that it used any special effects to give William more hair, but clarified, “We gave the image a poster-like palette. We added some shadow to Prince William to make the white type more legible, and to place more emphasis on Prince George.”

There has been a heightened curiosity about Middleton’s welfare since Kensington Palace announced in January that she had abdominal surgery and was taking a break from public appearances until after Easter. The controversial Mother’s Day 2024 photo is the first picture the royal family has released of Middleton since her procedure. And questions about her whereabouts will only continue until she resumes public duties.

An edited photograph of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her family that several news agencies have since pulled for evidence of manipulation raises a thorny question: In an age when digital editing tools are more widespread and easier than ever to use, what even is a photo anymore?

From camera stabilization to advanced, AI-driven image filters and other tools, it has never been simpler to create stunning, high-quality images using basic consumer hardware. Smartphone makers and app developers increasingly promote this technology as helpful for creators and everyday users.

But it also introduces fresh opportunities for even the well-intentioned to misdirect viewers.

The image released Sunday by Kensington Palace shows the Princess of Wales surrounded by her children and appears intended to put to rest speculation about her health. But outlets including Agence France-Presse, Reuters and the Associated Press pointed to a misaligned sleeve and hand as evidence the photo had been doctored. (CNN is continuing to use the photo, appropriately captioned to reflect the debate around its authenticity.)

In a statement, Kate acknowledged that she used an editing tool or tools to alter the image.

“Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing,” she said, apologizing for any confusion the photo may have caused.

The princess did not say what changes she made to the photo or what tools were used.

Although celebrities have altered photos with editing tools for years, images taken of the royal family have a historical importance and are expected to be authentic.

The use of image editing to present a false narrative goes back almost to the dawn of photography itself. Many older fake images, however, required the use of niche techniques or specialized knowledge of photography that wasn’t available to the public.

More recently, programs such as Adobe Photoshop allow editors to make changes to photos; some may be minor, editorially acceptable adjustments. But these tools can also be used to manipulate certain parts of an image, such as making things disappear or extending the background of a photo with just a few clicks. But the high cost and complexity of the software still presented some barriers to entry.

Today, much of the technical work of editing an image is done completely automatically. When users select “portrait mode” from a list of camera options, running in the background are sophisticated sensors that calculate how far away objects are, enabling features like Apple’s Focus Point, which lets users change which parts of an image are stylistically blurred — even after the photo has been taken.

Meanwhile, Google’s “Best Take” software in the Google Pixel 8 and 8 Pro smartphones uses AI for photos taken close together and creates a blended image aimed to capture everyone’s best expressions (i.e. no blinking).

There are three types of photo manipulation, according to Ramesh Raskar, an associate professor at MIT Media Lab who’s worked on special photography and images projects for Apple and Facebook over the years: appearance, where the tones or lighting may change; geometric, which involves moving around subjects or objects; and generative AI, a more recent concept that allows users to write text prompts that generate completely new images.

He said Kate’s picture appeared to have both appearance and geometric changes, and was likely not AI-generated.

“The manipulation in this image is very unique,” he said, noting changes that impacted the placement of her children’s clothing. “It’s unlikely that it was ever one single image. A photo editing app probably introduced these errors.”

He said he believes the “subtle” edits were done very finely, potentially with a third-party app or editing software such as Photoshop, versus using built-in smartphone tools.

He noted that similar errors can occur if a user starts splicing and merging different images together. “It all comes from real pieces of photos, but it’s more like a collage.”

But even Photoshop is becoming less complex to use with the introduction of generative-AI tools being added directly to the software.

Although Kate’s errors are apparent, Raskar said it will soon become harder to identify the authenticity of images. Image tools with generative AI will allow so much more than photo manipulation because people will be able to create images from completely new scenarios.

For example, an AI tool user in theory would be able to request and receive a picture of the royal, wearing a blue sweater and sitting on chair with her arms around her children, in seconds – without it ever occurring in real life.

Reece Hayden, a senior analyst at tech research firm ABI Research, said he believes the public will become increasingly skeptical and aware that images can be “faked” or “altered” in the months ahead.

As AI images hit the mainstream, it will open up more discussions around transparency and the need to regulate usage so news outlets and the public can better spot AI-generated and augmented images, he said.

Although AI image watermarks already being implemented on certain platforms, mandating that will be a challenge, Hayden said.

“Our expectation, for the medium term at least, is that ‘watermarks’ will not be forced but governments will rely on both business and users to add them in to bring transparency,” he said.