Photographic award for the Duchess

Thanks to you Jalima.

Where Kate has been clever is being good enough to take photos of the children quietly without fuss which are good enough for world coverage. I think she is an amazing asset to Royal Family. Definately cream who has ridden to the top.

It's good for the Royal Photographic Society to give her this honorary award, that's all.
It promotes them.
Of course she isn't vacuous.

Lay off Kate. She was old enough and wise enough to know what she was doing marrying Wills, unlike his poor duped mother. Cut her some slack and let her enjoy something that she's good at and is all hers, in an environment that must be suffocating. She does very well and in her public life does a lot of good for charities as do a lot of the royals.

I am not a great fan of them but recognise the sacrifices to their freedom, the good they do. Would any of their detractors on this thread like to take on their lives? Mean spirited at best.

It reminds me of when a young Princess Anne won an Olympic medal and some people said it was only because the Queen bought her a superb house. Absolute rubbish. I don't particularly like her but she is an extremely talented and accomplished horsewoman, as is her daughter. An expensive horse alone does not win Olympic medals. Likewise does the most all singing and dancing camera take good photos. Castigate RPS but leave Kate out of it.

So the RPS wanted a little new year publicity. Poor Kate to rouse so much ire! I am no royalist but given that we have a royal family I see her as an asset to them and the country. As for professional photographers, I paid a lot of money to have one take family portraits or my DS and family and they were dire! My DIL takes beautiful photos of her children, far far better than the professional managed. Kate's photos are lovely. Perhaps if she had a studio and the rest of the paraphernalia they would be even better.

My 9 year old GS deserves an award. He took a digital photo of me and after he'd done things with it - touched up the teeth and hair -it made me look ten years younger. It's now on my screen saver!

Some are royalists, some are not. Come on folks. Let's at least respect others opinions in 2017. Fast going off this website.

having an opinion is one thing NannyMargaret, but being catty about someone who is unable to respond is downright mean.

Stick with this site NannyM. The poor old royal family always gets people going. Check other threads not the political ones though unless you're spoiling for a fight!

That is totally my point AnniFrance. I am startled sometimes by the seeming bitterness of some posters. It is good to discuss things in an intelligent and respectful manner. Keeps the old grey matter brushed up!

I think it's quite intelligent and respectful to expect the same standards of judgement to be used in assessing the photographic work of someone regardless of who she happens to be married to. In fact it is condescending to assess her work on any other basis. She took some nice photos of her children, they were not works of art, they were not groundbreaking, the rest of her work is not consistently excellent, therefore the award is simply because of the person she has married. If she had a vestige of female independence she would tell them to keep it and give her it when she has earned it on her own merits.

As for professional photographers, I paid a lot of money to have one take family portraits or my DS and family and they were dire!
Oh no, what a disappointment.

Try to find a member of the BIPP or read reviews - or go by personal recommendation. Have a look at their website, other photographs which they have done first.

My 9 year old GS deserves an award.
Perhaps a future as a photographer awaits him Indigoblue
My DD won a Brownies photographic competition for the south-east when she was 8 and is now a sought-after professional photographer!

I haven't seen many of Kate's photos so am in no position to judge. In fact I am not in a position to judge anyway although some of my relatives would be.

ps anyone can join the Royal Photographic Society - £120 pa or from £55 for over 65s.
I think my neighbour belongs to it.

It is not like being awarded membership of the Institute of Professional Photographers which is a benchmark.

It is to promote photography and if Kate does that and it encourages people to enjoy this hobby then that can only be a good thing.

You've got my vote!

trisher

Did you read my post 10.26?

A). You did not make reference in your OP that this was an 'Honorary' award, does that not mean anything to you?.

B). The award is a broader picture than her photographic skills and if you read the remit of the Royal Photographic Society it clearly states as such.

'Membership is open to all, irrespective of experience or knowledge. No qualifications are required to join, simply a passion and love for photography or images, its technologies or applications.'

Sorry but I still believe it is the fact she is a member of the Royal Family that has upset some.

"Honorary" or not it makes very little difference. People are awarded honorary degrees and other things for their own achievements.
Certainly she would be entitled to join and be a member of the RPS if she was willing to pay the fee .
However this is a lifetime membership and was given for a few photos of her own children and because she carries a camera sometimes. On that basis almost every mum around her age should be made a member. The only real reason is because she married into the Royal family.

Blimey, does it matter? It's an honorary thing, and it's not affecting anyone else, so why all the unkind comments?

It is because she is a high-profile figure and having her as an honorary member may encourage others to take up photography as a hobby - or even as a career.

If Jennifer Eccles of Framlingham or Sarah Jones of Presteigne took some lovely photos of their children then that wouldn't mean much to anyone who didn't know them however good they are.

Hear Hear NannyM. I am so often disappointed in this site now, there are increasing numbers of "sour grapes" posters. Such a pity.

There is nothing wrong with her photos, they are fine but not exceptional - cameras are very user-friendly now and anyone can achieve photos of the standard she has taken.

I worked darned hard for my LRPS! - perhaps I should just have married a royal and saved myself all that effort!

The royals used to employ pro photographers to do their baby pics and year-end stuff. Given how difficult it is now to make a living from photography, as the world expects everything for free, it would be a humbling act for them to continue to pay a professional to do this job, despite them being able to produce a few nice snaps themselves. (There are tech errors in the ones seen on the above link, poor edge composition etc)

The worst ones so far were those issued for publication by Kate's father IIRC which were simply dreadful and the subject of much rage on photographers' discussion boards.
.

This isn't about being anti royal I did mention the Beckham boy's job with vogue too,its about real talent being overlooked for someone with a famous family when there are literally thousands of young graduates in photography every year whose work is exceptional and who cant get jobs or awards ..simply because they dont have a famous family

There have been professional 'royal' photographers too, Patrick Anson (Lord Lichfield) and Anthony Armstrong-Jones (Earl of Snowdon)

It would be nice if they could use someone who has benefited from the Prince's Trust to train as a photographer.