Digital metadata reveals truth behind Princess’s Photoshopped picture

File that shows date and location of photographs proves two different images were merged

‘Perhaps there was something that they didn’t like on the hand or sleeve, so they airbrushed it’

‘What you would be worried about is if Kate had been digitally inserted’

THE digital fingerprint of the Princess of Wales’s family photograph suggests that she merged multiple images using Photoshop.

Analysis of data embedded in the image indicates that a copy and paste function was used, most likely in the section featuring her face.

The method appears to be confirmed by the clear horizontal line stretching across the Princess’s chest, albeit not exactly in line.

The “metadata” suggests that the photograph was taken on Friday at Adelaide Cottage, the family’s Windsor home. The first edit was made at 9.54pm that evening, with the second at 9.39am on Saturday morning.

Data show that the image was saved in Adobe Photoshop, the photo editing application, twice on an Apple Mac. The photograph was taken on a Canon 5D mark IV, which retails at £2,929.99, using a Canon 50mm lens, which is priced at £1,629.99. The Prince of Wales took the photograph.

The photograph’s various inconsistencies were highlighted repeatedly by social media users.

The most obvious error concerned Princess Charlotte’s wrist, part of which appeared to be missing.

Others commented that the Princess was not wearing her wedding ring.

Meanwhile, her zip was not aligned on her jacket and her right hand, tucked around Prince Louis’s waist, was blurred and inconsistent with the rest of the image.

Prince’s Louis’s unusual fingers also drew attention and the patio step behind him appeared out of line.

His little finger on his left hand appeared longer than his index finger and that the wall he was leaning on was blurry in several places.

Many onlookers questioned why the tree in the background was covered in green leaves in mid-march.

Suspicions were also raised about the Princess’s and her daughter’s hair.

Onlookers claimed that part of the Princess’s hair was blurred but that Prince George’s jumper behind it was not.

Others added that Charlotte’s hair ended abruptly on her right shoulder and dipped in unnaturally further down, and that the corner of her skirt appeared unusually straight.

Dr Hany Farid, a professor of computer sciences at the University of California Berkeley, told The Telegraph that the issue with Princess Charlotte’s sleeve looked like a “bad Photoshop job”.

“I clearly see what is being referenced here, with respect to her sleeve. It looks like a bad Photoshop job,” he

said. “I know we talk a lot about AI lately but it is still possible to use traditional photo-editing tools,” he added.

“What you would be worried about here is if Kate wasn’t in this photo and had been digitally inserted. This would be a dramatic manipulation.”

There is no evidence to suggest that the Princess has been inserted into the photograph.

Dr Farid added: “You see her hands around the kids on both sides, you see her hair is touching the boy. The contact between her and the boy is very good.

“There are two likely stories. Perhaps there was something they didn’t like on the girl’s hand or sleeve, so they airbrushed it and did a bad job.”

Jake Moore, a former digital forensics officer for Dorset Police who now works as a global cyber security adviser for internet security company ESET, said that clues of editing would lie in the lighting and direction of shadows in any picture.

He told The Telegraph: “The clues would lie in the lighting on the face, in the light and shade and the shadows. In a true image, the shadows will all be in the same direction as the light.

“For example, if in one image of four people, the light is all coming from one direction, the shadows will all match.”