The two statements speak of completely different things. They don't contradict each other. That does not make them both true, though.
PixelPin: this product apparently replaces the password by the selection of four positions on a picture. This means that you choose a picture, and your "password" is the sequence of coordinates for four points you choose on the picture.
Since users cannot be relied upon to always click on the exact same pixel, especially since they claim support for touch screens, one must assume that the pixel selection is kind of fuzzy. If we suppose a full-screen picture on a smartphone, we can hope for, say, 200 possible selection points in the picture (it is as if the click from the user fell on a 20x10 grid). The implementation must do something smart to avoid threshold effects (when the user chooses a selection point which is close to the boundary between two grid elements).
Four selection points then means 2004 possible "passwords", i.e. an entropy of a bit more than 30 bits. While this is not bad, as far as passwords go, this is not exactly the most robust password ever. An important point to make is that human users are unlikely to choose "really random" points on the picture. As the example on the page shows, human users will click on the cat's nose, not on a random place in the back wall, if only to be able to click again on it at the next login attempt. I seriously doubt that in real conditions, human users would achieve enough randomness in their selection to defeat brute force attacks.
The PixelPin company claims that using a user-chosen picture makes it easier for users to remember their points; that I am ready to believe. They talk about the Picture Superiority Effect, a pompous name for the fact that humans are apes and apes are very visual animal -- primates have had good vision for about 50 millions of years, while writing is human-only and no older than about 6000 years. It is no surprise that human memory groks pictures efficiently. Our ancestors were highly trained to remember how a lion looks like (let's say that the career of those who could not remember that was, on average, shorter).
Overall, I find the claims of PixelPin a bit bold, quite possibly outrageous. The idea is interesting, though.
The picture in certificates is something else. A certificate is about binding an identity with a public key. A picture could be thought as part of the identity.
The people at Kleopatra states that they don't want to support pictures for several reasons, among which the idea that photos give a "false sense of security". What they mean is that a photo is a reasonable part of the identity of a person only insofar as the issuing CA checked that the photo was really that of the target person. This seems dubious, unless the issuing CA took the photo itself. Right now, with certificates as they are used today, photos in certificate are merely advertising; they are pictures of what the certificate holder would like to look like, and not pictures of the key owner as he really is.
Briefly said, pictures in certificates tend to give users warm fuzzy feelings about some assumed enhanced security (by analogy with ID tags and passports, mostly), but these feelings are largely unsubstantiated. Kleopatra developers feel it their duty to protect users against such things, hence the absence of support. (Or possibly they were just lazy and did not want to implement the support for pictures.)
This is completely different from what pictures are used in PixelPin. PixelPin is about pictures as support for human memory. Kleopatra is talking about pictures as part of the physical identity.