The Last Photo (again)

Without getting into a huge debate about it again (been there, done that on Haverns) I can assure you that the photo hasn't been photoshopped. It is impossible to achieve the effects that some seem to think exist. You only have to zoom in on Madeleine's hair to see that she belongs in that image entirely. When you work with manipulating digital images for a living, you get to know what to look for. That image is fine and hasn't been touched. No, I'm not a troll before anyone goes there, I just know about digital imaging.

Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Edit: The big version of the pic is here:The Big Picture

C.Edwards wrote:Without getting into a huge debate about it again (been there, done that on Haverns) I can assure you that the photo hasn't been photoshopped. It is impossible to achieve the effects that some seem to think exist. You only have to zoom in on Madeleine's hair to see that she belongs in that image entirely. When you work with manipulating digital images for a living, you get to know what to look for. That image is fine and hasn't been touched. No, I'm not a troll before anyone goes there, I just know about digital imaging.

Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Edit: The big version of the pic is here:The Big Picture

Thank you, I've been looking for this one. Very useful.

That picture wasn't taken on may 3rd.


I don't believe she was around on may 3rd.


By saying the picture is authentic is saying that it was taken on may 3rd.



It could, however, off been taken on the sat when Kate McCann said she took a dip into the pool but then why wasn't the picture shown till AFTER Gerry McCann came back from the UK.

tigger wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:Without getting into a huge debate about it again (been there, done that on Haverns) I can assure you that the photo hasn't been photoshopped. It is impossible to achieve the effects that some seem to think exist. You only have to zoom in on Madeleine's hair to see that she belongs in that image entirely. When you work with manipulating digital images for a living, you get to know what to look for. That image is fine and hasn't been touched. No, I'm not a troll before anyone goes there, I just know about digital imaging.

Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Edit: The big version of the pic is here:The Big Picture

Thank you, I've been looking for this one. Very useful.

Me too, thanks very much C.Edwards, just what I was looking for.
And yes tigger, that line on the neck is most peculiar. Look at Amelie's neck how her lines follow the natural curve in circles. Why is Maddie's a strange straight line, I've never seen that on anyone's neck.

kitti wrote:That picture wasn't taken on may 3rd.


I don't believe she was around on may 3rd.


By saying the picture is authentic is saying that it was taken on may 3rd.



It could, however, off been taken on the sat when Kate McCann said she took a dip into the pool but then why wasn't the picture shown till AFTER Gerry McCann came back from the UK.

Your thoughts are not incompatible with what C.Edwards said ............. the EXIF data includes Date & Time stamping.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A tiny piece of Amelie's right arm can be seen if the photo is enlarged - beware you also get an eyeful of Gerry's legs! She has her arm behind her and it just looks a bit odd with the camera angle.

Was there ever a conclusive answer to what is the black line between her left arm and body?

The sleeves are quite narrow, though, and there wouldn't be so much spare fabric to stick out like that I think.

margaret wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A tiny piece of Amelie's right arm can be seen if the photo is enlarged - beware you also get an eyeful of Gerry's legs! She has her arm behind her and it just looks a bit odd with the camera angle.

Was there ever a conclusive answer to what is the black line between her left arm and body?

Yes it's a mark on the floor beside the pool and tells you the depth of the water apparently.

As for the arms you can't see Amelies just as much as you can't Madeleines - the photo looks to be in context to me, no photoshopping.

The BLACK line behind Amelie is NOT a 'depth marker' because there isn't one!
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg
if you draw a vertical line through Madeleines head to the tree behind, in the last photo, you will see she is sitting to the LEFT of a plaque on side of pool,
There is no depth 'marker' anyway to her right and certainly not on the paving surrounding the pool.
Just bad photoshopping.

C.Edwards wrote:Without getting into a huge debate about it again (been there, done that on Haverns) I can assure you that the photo hasn't been photoshopped. It is impossible to achieve the effects that some seem to think exist. You only have to zoom in on Madeleine's hair to see that she belongs in that image entirely. When you work with manipulating digital images for a living, you get to know what to look for. That image is fine and hasn't been touched. No, I'm not a troll before anyone goes there, I just know about digital imaging.

Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether.

Edit: The big version of the pic is here:The Big Picture

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Your thoughts are not incompatible with what C.Edwards said ............. the EXIF data includes Date & Time stamping.

He didn't say that TEIN, unless it's another post l didn't see?

jeanmonroe wrote:

margaret wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A tiny piece of Amelie's right arm can be seen if the photo is enlarged - beware you also get an eyeful of Gerry's legs! She has her arm behind her and it just looks a bit odd with the camera angle.

Was there ever a conclusive answer to what is the black line between her left arm and body?

Yes it's a mark on the floor beside the pool and tells you the depth of the water apparently.

As for the arms you can't see Amelies just as much as you can't Madeleines - the photo looks to be in context to me, no photoshopping.

The BLACK line behind Amelie is NOT a 'depth marker' because there isn't one!
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg
if you draw a vertical line through Madeleines head to the tree behind, in the last photo, you will see she is sitting to the LEFT of a plaque on side of pool,
There is no depth 'marker' anyway to her right and certainly not on the paving surrounding the pool.
Just bad photoshopping.

There is a depth marker in this photo but it's not in the right place for the last photo.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg

ETA: Hang on you've linked the same photo, can't you see the depth marker? It's says 0'90 - 90cm

margaret wrote:

He didn't say that TEIN, unless it's another post l didn't see?

Hello Margaret

C.Edwards said "Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether"


ie. C.Edwards says that the image itself has not been manipulated, but concedes that the EXIF data could have been. As that data included Date/Time info, then it is possible that the photo was taken at a different date/time.


EXIF data is basically all the tags forming part and parcel of a Picture File other than the Image Pixels themselves. It can be manipulated without affecting the Image.


This means that Kitti's hypothesis that the picture was taken earlier than 3 May cannot be discounted.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A tiny piece of Amelie's right arm can be seen if the photo is enlarged - beware you also get an eyeful of Gerry's legs! She has her arm behind her and it just looks a bit odd with the camera angle.

Was there ever a conclusive answer to what is the black line between her left arm and body?

The sleeves are quite narrow, though, and there wouldn't be so much spare fabric to stick out like that I think.

If you blow a higher resolution version up more and enhanced the dark colours - it's then quite clear that the creases in Gerry's shorts continue under the transparent remains of the upper arm of Amelie. The crease of her elbow is also weird.

As Margaret said, bad photoshopping. It's the case in a lot of the photos that came out very early.
The ones that came out early:
Iconic photo
Tennis photo
Everton photo (the one on the banner) (i am convinced the blonder Everton girl isn't Maddie, the photo freaks me out, lengthen her face just a little and she looks like a common or garden barmaid. Dark lines (unusual in a blonde girl and the eyelid has a thickness which is fleshcoloured) (eyeliner?) that confident smile. It's a little woman, not a little girl.
Pool photo
Donegal photos

All published (apart from pool photo) in the first week/10 days.
The Everton photo has obvious links to the iconic photo of the Soham girls.

margaret wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

margaret wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:A tiny piece of Amelie's right arm can be seen if the photo is enlarged - beware you also get an eyeful of Gerry's legs! She has her arm behind her and it just looks a bit odd with the camera angle.

Was there ever a conclusive answer to what is the black line between her left arm and body?

Yes it's a mark on the floor beside the pool and tells you the depth of the water apparently.

As for the arms you can't see Amelies just as much as you can't Madeleines - the photo looks to be in context to me, no photoshopping.

The BLACK line behind Amelie is NOT a 'depth marker' because there isn't one!
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg
if you draw a vertical line through Madeleines head to the tree behind, in the last photo, you will see she is sitting to the LEFT of a plaque on side of pool,
There is no depth 'marker' anyway to her right and certainly not on the paving surrounding the pool.
Just bad photoshopping.

There is a depth marker in this photo but it's not in the right place for the last photo.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg

ETA: Hang on you've linked the same photo, can't you see the depth marker? It's says 0'90 - 90cm

margaret,
thanks for your depth marker photo. I can put two screens up so I laid C.Edwards big picture next to your depth marker one.
The black line by Amelie's left wrist is definitely NOT the depth marker. Maddie's head is just below the trunk of the tree. The star-shaped rock creases to the Maddie's left hand side of her head are the same on your depth marker photo, just at the edge of the white sun-lounger, on its right side.
The position then of the depth marker would be to the left of Maddie's left hand, and NOT between her and her sister.
It has to be bad photo-shopping.
It is also, when comparing the two photos, impossible to see how the pool tiles are so almost horizontal with the square of the picture from left to right, under Gerry's legs, since the pool side is so round. It's as if the photographer would have had to have been standing in the pool, taking a face on photo.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

margaret wrote:

He didn't say that TEIN, unless it's another post l didn't see?

Hello Margaret

C.Edwards said "Whether the EXIF data has been manipulated or not, well that's a different kettle of fish altogether"


ie. C.Edwards says that the image itself has not been manipulated, but concedes that the EXIF data could have been. As that data included Date/Time info, then it is possible that the photo was taken at a different date/time.


EXIF data is basically all the tags forming part and parcel of a Picture File other than the Image Pixels themselves. It can be manipulated without affecting the Image.


This means that Kitti's hypothesis that the picture was taken earlier than 3 May cannot be discounted.

Sorry TEIN, it's me, l thought you wrote what kitti said 'are incompatible' with C.Edwards, now l see you said 'are not incompatible'.

It's me being an idiot.

No worries - I thought it might be to do with what comprises EXIF data.

Note to self: Stop using double-negatives ..................

want the truth wrote:

margaret wrote:
There is a depth marker in this photo but it's not in the right place for the last photo.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/sct3zmstressed%20mother.jpg

ETA: Hang on you've linked the same photo, can't you see the depth marker? It's says 0'90 - 90cm

margaret,
thanks for your depth marker photo. I can put two screens up so I laid C.Edwards big picture next to your depth marker one.
The black line by Amelie's left wrist is definitely NOT the depth marker. Maddie's head is just below the trunk of the tree. The star-shaped rock creases to the Maddie's left hand side of her head are the same on your depth marker photo, just at the edge of the white sun-lounger, on its right side.
The position then of the depth marker would be to the left of Maddie's left hand, and NOT between her and her sister.
It has to be bad photo-shopping.
It is also, when comparing the two photos, impossible to see how the pool tiles are so almost horizontal with the square of the picture from left to right, under Gerry's legs, since the pool side is so round. It's as if the photographer would have had to have been standing in the pool, taking a face on photo.

Hi WTT, yes l said the same, there is one but it's not in the right place. The black/white thing behind Amelie could be a toy or even a piece of card or something, l just don't think it's photoshopped, sorry.

The End Is Nigh wrote: No worries - I thought it might be to do with what comprises EXIF data.

Note to self: Stop using double-negatives ..................

Yes, and l've got to stop speed reading!

I don't believe that Madeleine was photoshopped into that picture. I think that Gerry and Amélie were. Look at the black line under Amélie's arm that has been discussed so often; I am much more interested in the grey patch just below that, right behind her bum. What sort of surface is she sitting on, because it's completely different to all the other surfaces round about.

Also, the scale just looks "wrong"; the sizes of the figures aren't consistent.

And why does the water appear to run vertically in the reflection in Gerry's glasses?

IMO Madeleine looks about the same size as Amelie which considering the age difference is a bit strange. Also I believe that Kate had to say something about taking the bead out of Maddie's hair because the bead is so obvious in the photo. I have always been on the fence about photoshopping but I now am leaning towards the possibility.

Here we go again...

The image in Gerry's glasses appearing to be at right angles isn't. It's the reflection of poolside and water to the right of the photographer i.e. the pool edge running effectively at right angles to Gerry's glasses. The image is slightly distorted due to the curvature of the lens.

The black line behind Amelie could be any one of a number of things including shadow. It's not significant. If anyone was photoshopping an image like this for nefarious purposes they would NOT make such a fundamental error. Likewise with Amelie's "missing arm". It's not missing, it's behind her in a similar posture to Madeleine's. The sleeve of her t-shirt is flared, the angle at which she is sitting is causing the material to fan out slightly. You can see a small part of her arm just to the side of her t-shirt in the same pose as Madeleine's.

Where on earth is this phantom transparent arm that someone (Tigger?) is seeing? It's not there! You're imagining things, honestly! There are water drops there kicked up by Amelie, the refraction patterns are consistent.

I will say it again, it is impossible, not improbable, IMPOSSIBLE that any of the people in that shot were superimposed into the picture. It's immediately obvious when that has happened if you know what you are looking for. I've been working with digital picture editing for over 10 years. I know what to look for. This image is not photoshopped, please trust me on this. Albym's famous "analysis" is almost completely wrong basically. The most famous error being going on about the reflected far edge of the paddling pool being curved not straight without thinking about how convex sunglasses will affect a curved line... (what about the lack of photographer in the reflection too! OMG!)

No, I'm not just saying this to disrupt, or be a troll or because I have an agenda. I don't. I just know how digital imaging works. This continued discussion over imagined inconsistencies in a perfectly normal photo just shows a lack of understanding of how light, shadows and curved surfaces work in partnership with each other.

C.Edwards wrote:Here we go again...

The image in Gerry's glasses appearing to be at right angles isn't. It's the reflection of poolside and water to the right of the photographer i.e. the pool edge running effectively at right angles to Gerry's glasses. The image is slightly distorted due to the curvature of the lens.

The black line behind Amelie could be any one of a number of things including shadow. It's not significant. If anyone was photoshopping an image like this for nefarious purposes they would NOT make such a fundamental error. Likewise with Amelie's "missing arm". It's not missing, it's behind her in a similar posture to Madeleine's. The sleeve of her t-shirt is flared, the angle at which she is sitting is causing the material to fan out slightly. You can see a small part of her arm just to the side of her t-shirt in the same pose as Madeleine's.

Where on earth is this phantom transparent arm that someone (Tigger?) is seeing? It's not there! You're imagining things, honestly! There are water drops there kicked up by Amelie, the refraction patterns are consistent.

I will say it again, it is impossible, not improbable, IMPOSSIBLE that any of the people in that shot were superimposed into the picture. It's immediately obvious when that has happened if you know what you are looking for. I've been working with digital picture editing for over 10 years. I know what to look for. This image is not photoshopped, please trust me on this. Albym's famous "analysis" is almost completely wrong basically. The most famous error being going on about the reflected far edge of the paddling pool being curved not straight without thinking about how convex sunglasses will affect a curved line... (what about the lack of photographer in the reflection too! OMG!)

No, I'm not just saying this to disrupt, or be a troll or because I have an agenda. I don't. I just know how digital imaging works. This continued discussion over imagined inconsistencies in a perfectly normal photo just shows a lack of understanding of how light, shadows and curved surfaces work in partnership with each other.

Well so far, the only person who has mentioned being a troll, having an agenda or disrupting, is you.

And guess what, there are plenty of other people here who have worked with digital imaging, for a considerable number of years, and they are entitled to their opinion as well. That's how this forum works.

i agree. someone, and its probably in an archived post somehwere on this forum, who is an expert on photoshopping gives a whole list of reasons to do with data etc, which shows the photo was photoshopped, and no its wasnt the ne from Pamalam. I wont trust you on what you are saying despite your exhortations C Edwarsds. Many with similar expertise say otherwise.

Iris wrote:

Well so far, the only person who has mentioned being a troll, having an agenda or disrupting, is you.

And guess what, there are plenty of other people here who have worked with digital imaging, for a considerable number of years, and they are entitled to their opinion as well. That's how this forum works.

Are you one of those people Iris? I'd love to hear your theories and practical explanations about how the manipulation of the photo was done. It's an incredible - arguably the world's best - photoshop job if that's what it is.

tanszi wrote:i agree. someone, and its probably in an archived post somehwere on this forum, who is an expert on photoshopping gives a whole list of reasons to do with data etc, which shows the photo was photoshopped, and no its wasnt the ne from Pamalam. I wont trust you on what you are saying despite your exhortations C Edwarsds. Many with similar expertise say otherwise.

Well I'd love to see that post Tanszi. Until then it looks like you simply want to believe it's photoshopped and that's fine - you're entirely entitle to that opinion. And how do you know what my level of expertise is so that you can compare it with others?

C.Edwards wrote:

tanszi wrote:i agree. someone, and its probably in an archived post somehwere on this forum, who is an expert on photoshopping gives a whole list of reasons to do with data etc, which shows the photo was photoshopped, and no its wasnt the ne from Pamalam. I wont trust you on what you are saying despite your exhortations C Edwarsds. Many with similar expertise say otherwise.

Well I'd love to see that post Tanszi. Until then it looks like you simply want to believe it's photoshopped and that's fine - you're entirely entitle to that opinion. And how do you know what my level of expertise is so that you can compare it with others?

C.Edwards, when you were on the Jill Havern forum you will have seen the analysis of the weather preceding 3rd May 2007. The historical meteorological information, showing the temperatures during and preceding the week that the McCanns were present, plus information from local gardeners and hotel owners, show cold weather.
Bougainvillea can only come into full flowering bracts when it has had several (around 5) days, with continuously some 5 hours a day of hot sunshine.
The bougainvillea behind Maddie in the playground picture, just 4 days before the pool photo, is hardly past first shoot stage and certainly nowhere near to flowering.
Since all witness statements, including second-hand statements from Kate's mum, talk of colder than expected weather, rain, such that tennis was canceled, children coming off the beach cold and miserable, then there is no question that the bougainvillea would have been in flower, such that is seen in the purported 3rd May 2007 last photo on the background at the pool.
So, apart from numerous observations from people with and without photo-shopping skills, including people who can see inconsistencies in shadow angle and intensity, how do you explain the full flowering background.
The devil is in the detail. The photo-shopper, concentrating so hard on developing an image that they would hope would seem credible did not look from a gardener, or botanist's point of view and check that the bigger picture did not blow the gaff.
You insist that you are correct and we should believe you. As others have said, there are many expert photo-shoppers who have analysed the photos, and even people without such skills, such as myself, albeit a gardener and botanist who can see errors which defy the verity of the claim that the photo was take on 3rd May 2007.

On jh forum the photo side by side looks convincing to me that the girl was different in the picture frame with cross on it to poolside,she had a bob hairstyle...