Kate's "boobs"

Lynton

Lynton

awkward customer
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,606
Name
Lynton (yes really!)
Edit My Images
No
Ok, if you've been in front of a tv the last 48 hour's you'll know the story...

and if you haven't... here's a very brief synopsis. Kate (Duchess of Cambridge) went topless at a private Chateau and pics were taken"

Ok,

The photographer was approx 1 km away on a public road.

My question is, just WHAT lens did he have to get the pics?
 
The story in the Times quoted someone (can't remember exactly who) saying a 500mm lens and a 2x TC. Not sure how much that is opinion as opposed to factual truth!
 
Nod said:
At least (from her POV) they won't be knee warmers when she gets older!
Click to expand...

I dunno. You'd be surprised what ten years of biscuit eating will do. ;)
 
B cup? Look fine to me :D

Either the photographer was digiscoping from the position the daily wail said he claimed he was at or he was a lot closer than stated. Heavily cropped images as well.

As for a security risk? That's just the magazine looking to deflect criticism. A mile is a long way for an accurate shot
 
Presumably there would be staff and protection officers where she was. Does she float about with her kit off in view of them, I wonder.
 
I tried out my 500mm with a 2x convertor yesterday on a crop body (effective 1600mm). Results were unbelievable!! I was looking at Peregrine falcons (not at other royal birds) but at one point I did turn the camera to a cliftop path which was easilly more than a km away. I could not believe just how much detail could be made out. So much so, I'd suggest the French pap was using a handheld russian lens from ebay or a fieldscope without a support.:eek:
 
FourRingCircus said:
I tried out my 500mm with a 2x convertor yesterday on a crop body (effective 1600mm).
Click to expand...

You got 1600mm field of view maybe but not 1600mm magnification.
 
Steep said:
You got 1600mm field of view maybe but not 1600mm magnification.
Click to expand...
I understand this and was being 'simplistic' about it.;)

Still a hell of a magnification for the image produced and I reckon the three old ladies I shot who were sat on a bench over a km away would have been much more recognisable than KM in her pictures. Fortunately, the OAP's didn't have their baps out!!!:eek::lol:
 
FourRingCircus said:
I understand this and was being 'simplistic' about it.;)

Still a hell of a magnification for the image produced and I reckon the three old ladies I shot who were sat on a bench over a km away would have been much more recognisable than KM in her pictures. Fortunately, the OAP's didn't have their baps out!!!:eek::lol:
Click to expand...

Maybe you mistook them for kneecaps :)
 
arclight said:
Presumably there would be staff and protection officers where she was. Does she float about with her kit off in view of them, I wonder.
Click to expand...
I had a friend who was a PC who spent some time on royal protection duties. He told me that he had to spend some time guarding the late Princess Margaret, when she was younger and very 'active'. According to him, he saw all sorts of things that normally only happen behind closed doors...

He was once told that he had to watch her to ensure her safety, but that he mustn't look at her:nono:
 
Byker28i said:
A mile is a long way for an accurate shot
Click to expand...

Assuming you're talking ballistics and not photographics, then no, it's not that far. You'd have to be bloody good, but it's more than doable.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I had a friend who was a PC who spent some time on royal protection duties. He told me that he had to spend some time guarding the late Princess Margaret, when she was younger and very 'active'. According to him, he saw all sorts of things that normally only happen behind closed doors...

He was once told that he had to watch her to ensure her safety, but that he mustn't look at her:nono:
Click to expand...

There are lots of stories about her that would raise eyebrows.

Interesting that "mustn't look at her" thing.
I once got my hands on an old railway staff instruction manual. I think it was LMS and dated around 1900.
In it there were rules for what station staff (company servants, they were called) were required to do when the Royal Train was scheduled to pass through a station. The staff had to be on the platform in time for the passage of the train and stand to attention with their backs to the train. :rules:
 
FourRingCircus said:
I understand this and was being 'simplistic' about it.;)

Still a hell of a magnification for the image produced and I reckon the three old ladies I shot who were sat on a bench over a km away would have been much more recognisable than KM in her pictures. Fortunately, the OAP's didn't have their baps out!!!:eek::lol:
Click to expand...

Couldn't have been using a mirror lens or it would have been doughnuts rather than baps. :bonk:
 
Byker28i said:
.

As for a security risk? That's just the magazine looking to deflect criticism. A mile is a long way for an accurate shot
Click to expand...

Probably a routine shot for a trained sniper, a dedicated sniper rifle is actually accurate out to around 1.8 km, and the images were supposedly taken from 1 km away.
 
So the 36MP of the D800 has a use after all then?

500mm with a 2x T/C cropped down and still giving a publishable print size. :lol:
 
It's been made light of here so far but on a more serious note I hope the pap hangs his head in shame. There's a line between celebrity pictures and outright perversion and pictures at 1km away cross the line by about 999.5m! As for the comments on the Kate, i've seen far less offensive comments about 'models' pulled up in the past.

Let's just say I'm not happy to call myself a photographer right now!
 
What really worries me is Harry goes on holiday - nude pics, Kate goes on holiday - topless pics.

Charles and Camila are due to go away next week.....:gag::D
 
Flash In The Pan said:
What really worries me is Harry goes on holiday - nude pics, Kate goes on holiday - topless pics.

Charles and Camila are due to go away next week.....:gag::D
Click to expand...

When does The Queen go on holiday? :exit:
 
Can't be a easy shot if your giggling and trying to hold the camera still :D
 
ChrisMClark said:
Assuming you're talking ballistics and not photographics, then no, it's not that far. You'd have to be bloody good, but it's more than doable.
Click to expand...

Oh I know what's required ;) but if I was a terrorist I doubt It would be a trained sniper team, more likely a van with some sort of multiple mortar device. However as I said before, I believe the security risk angle is nearly to deflect criticism away from the photographer/publisher.
 
Seriously guys...all you can do is giggle about the size of her boobs? :shrug:
 
All just a storm in a B cup.
 
Dave1 said:
Probably a routine shot for a trained sniper, a dedicated sniper rifle is actually accurate out to around 1.8 km, and the images were supposedly taken from 1 km away.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the real elephant in the room.
 
TriggerHappy said:
It's been made light of here so far but on a more serious note I hope the pap hangs his head in shame. There's a line between celebrity pictures and outright perversion and pictures at 1km away cross the line by about 999.5m! As for the comments on the Kate, i've seen far less offensive comments about 'models' pulled up in the past.

Let's just say I'm not happy to call myself a photographer right now!
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Blame the magazines not the photographer, if they didn't buy them they wouldn't get taken

It's a touchy subject when the future queens boobs are on the front page but it's his/her job, taking that picture could mean a huge payout , how much did that guy get for the first picture of dodi and di on that boat

I don't blame the guy taking the picture, it's the magazines that want nailing to the wall, how many googled the pictures, how's that any different to buying the magazine
 
on the other thread mark (demlion) said top end canon with a 800mm (presumably the sigmonster as canon don't make an 800mm) and a 2xtc - and then some fairly hefty cropping.

Ive no idea whether that was what was used or just speculation - but an outfit like that is what customs and excise use to get incriminating shots of drug deals at a similar range
 
wack61 said:
Blame the magazines not the photographer, if they didn't buy them they wouldn't get taken

It's a touchy subject when the future queens boobs are on the front page but it's his/her job, taking that picture could mean a huge payout , how much did that guy get for the first picture of dodi and di on that boat

I don't blame the guy taking the picture, it's the magazines that want nailing to the wall, how many googled the pictures, how's that any different to buying the magazine
Click to expand...

so which is worse Raping or reading about it?
 
wack61 said:
it's the magazines that want nailing to the wall,
Click to expand...

but are more likely to get stuck to the bedroom ceiling :coat: :lol:

to be fair I'd say the real blame rests withthe consumer who buys that kind of crap - the magazines only print it because it sells , if joe public didnt buy it there'd be no market for these sort of shots and paps would have o find something else to do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top