The Last Photo (again)

SashaM wrote:

Having said that, and baring in mind that I'm not a camera or photo expert, but looking at the high resolution version it appears that the grass and path on the left side (as you look at the photo) is blurred compared to the right side:

I don't see that as a problem sasha, because it's the same side that's out of focus. If you take a photo like that your camera focusses in on certain points not everything. What do you think?

AnnaEsse wrote:FFS C.Edwards! Stop taking up our bandwidth with your bleedin' lectures! We don't need them. Any more of this shoite and you're gone! Like a lost fridge!

So.. hang on... when someone else posts a series of pics showing how things are done, it's awesome and brilliant. When I do the same thing (using imgur for hosting, your bandwidth isn't being touched) it's patronising and a lecture? I thought you'd be interested in seeing the process used for the last crop.

So had I actually (as I could have done) posted some fantastical creation showing that there were suspicious parts of the photo, it would have been ok then?

AnnaEsse wrote:FFS C.Edwards! Stop taking up our bandwidth with your bleedin' lectures! We don't need them. Any more of this shoite and you're gone! Like a lost fridge!

.......and sports bag......

kitti wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:FFS C.Edwards! Stop taking up our bandwidth with your bleedin' lectures! We don't need them. Any more of this shoite and you're gone! Like a lost fridge!

.......and sports bag......

.....that you couldn't hide a tennis racket in

pink blanket ever turn up?

Actually Edwards has shown us just how easy it is to copy and paste.....Gerry and Amalie taken OUT and Gerry and Amalie just As easy put IN....



Like I said, the pool pic could off been taken on the first day when Madeleine and Kate McCann went down to the pool on their own.....

kitti wrote:Actually Edwards has shown us just how easy it is to copy and paste.....Gerry and Amalie taken OUT and Gerry and Amalie just As easy put IN....



Like I said, the pool pic could off been taken on the first day when Madeleine and Kate McCann went down to the pool on their own.....

Good point,well made...it could of been issued to the world straight away but no...we get the picture of a young maddie which looked nothing like the 'last photo'...which was issued after Gerry return to GB

I give in... it seems that you only want to hear things that reinforce your views or match your opinions. Whereas there are things I agree with you on, this photo is not one of them. If you want to believe it's photoshopped despite the evidence to the contrary then go ahead. All I was trying to do was bring the realities of photo manipulation to your attention, but it seems that you just want to have a forum where everything posted has to be critical of the McCanns or point to some great conspiracy. I can guarantee you that if Annaesse, for example, suddenly said, "you know what, I've got a brother/mother/aunt/uncle/whatever that does photoshop and they've told me it isn't photoshopped" you'd all be leaping in to agree but because it's naughty C.Edwards who got banned from Haverns so he must be a bad egg (god knows where the Amazon thing came from that Iris posted, I just choose not to post on there anymore, I haven't been banned) you all just want to leap in and chuck abuse.

It's the same on every damn forum. You either have to be 100% pro or 100% anti and if you question the accepted truths on either side, you simply get banned! Great, we all end up getting polarised into one camp or the other and there's no-one left to say, "you know what, I don't believe the story the McCanns and their friends are putting forward, but I equally don't believe some of this nonsense that's being written against them". Everyone just spins the facts/rumours to fit their version of events on both sides of the fence and no-one ever dares question the "accepted truth" on their particular forum as it ends up with them being rounded on by the other members who "truly believe" or whatever.

Go on then, press the ban button so you can feel justified that I'm just a troll.

@C.Edwards Please check your PMs.

C.Edwards wrote:I give in... it seems that you only want to hear things that reinforce your views or match your opinions. Whereas there are things I agree with you on, this photo is not one of them. If you want to believe it's photoshopped despite the evidence to the contrary then go ahead. All I was trying to do was bring the realities of photo manipulation to your attention, but it seems that you just want to have a forum where everything posted has to be critical of the McCanns or point to some great conspiracy. I can guarantee you that if Annaesse, for example, suddenly said, "you know what, I've got a brother/mother/aunt/uncle/whatever that does photoshop and they've told me it isn't photoshopped" you'd all be leaping in to agree but because it's naughty C.Edwards who got banned from Haverns so he must be a bad egg (god knows where the Amazon thing came from that Iris posted, I just choose not to post on there anymore, I haven't been banned) you all just want to leap in and chuck abuse.

It's the same on every damn forum. You either have to be 100% pro or 100% anti and if you question the accepted truths on either side, you simply get banned! Great, we all end up getting polarised into one camp or the other and there's no-one left to say, "you know what, I don't believe the story the McCanns and their friends are putting forward, but I equally don't believe some of this nonsense that's being written against them". Everyone just spins the facts/rumours to fit their version of events on both sides of the fence and no-one ever dares question the "accepted truth" on their particular forum as it ends up with them being rounded on by the other members who "truly believe" or whatever.

Go on then, press the ban button so you can feel justified that I'm just a troll.

Very well said, C. Edwards. I hope you don't get banned.

kitti wrote:Actually Edwards has shown us just how easy it is to copy and paste.....Gerry and Amalie taken OUT and Gerry and Amalie just As easy put IN....



Like I said, the pool pic could off been taken on the first day when Madeleine and Kate McCann went down to the pool on their own.....

except the bougainvillea wasn't in flower and the pink dress was not given to the dogs to track Maddie, in fact nothing was and yet she'd been there a week according to the McCanns.

I hope you don't get banned

.
Me too fwiw...

Ditto. I have found the (On Topic) discussion illuminating.

margaret wrote:

SashaM wrote:

Having said that, and baring in mind that I'm not a camera or photo expert, but looking at the high resolution version it appears that the grass and path on the left side (as you look at the photo) is blurred compared to the right side:

I don't see that as a problem sasha, because it's the same side that's out of focus. If you take a photo like that your camera focusses in on certain points not everything. What do you think?

Thank you Margaret. I did wonder if I was seeing more than is really there...scrap my idea

I've located some photos which I hope will help regards the vegetation in the 'last photo'

The following two shots of Gerry were taken approx 05 April 2009 when he returned to Portugal to film the McCann reconstruction. The plants don’t seem to be in bloom. Does anyone know if it is possible for the flowers to grow and open within one month?





Madeleine in front of a tree – No apparent blooms visible but then this is a cropped photo and may not be telling the whole story:



Two B&W photos taken from the PJ Files on Pamalam's site – the first one is the full version of the above photo; the second is Gerry (swinging Lily Payne?). Unfortunately the shadows make it difficult to tell for sure whether there's an abundance of blooms or not in either of the photos:





I'm sure I've seen the colour version of Madeleine with Lily Payne(?) I can’t seem to find it now – not even among Pamalam’s excellent store of photographs. I'm beginning to think I was dreaming it!

If I'm just confusing the issue rather than helping then please let me know.

C.Edwards wrote:

Lioned wrote:The shadows are all wrong and gerrys only got three fingers.

I believe some of the photo's have been 'enhanced' for sales purposes,ie the Everton shirt and 'Soham' photo.The 'last picture' could have any date they wanted on it,could have been taken anytime,so doesn't mean much really as there is already overwhelming evidence of how the mccanns set about manipulating the whole story.

I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous thing to say. Firstly WHY are the shadows "all wrong" and provide reasoned argument, not just "it's my opinion" as that's not very scientific.

Gerry has only 3 fingers? Are you serious? Have you really looked at the large version of the picture?

In the 'other' picture it looks like he actually has 6 fingers now !

People have said that the 'last' photo maybe wasn't on the camera.

Well according to ALL media outlets it was in camera just 7 hours before 'event'

So have the PJ files got the 'original' downloaded from camera?

Or did Woodfall 'spirit' it away when he went through images to try to find a full face 'image'?

Mr Woolfall has provided the first detailed account by an insider of what happened to the McCanns during the desperate days after Madeleine disappeared. He is an expert in crisis PR at the communications group Bell Pottinger and flew to Portugal as part of the Mark Warner holiday company’s emergency response team on Saturday, May 5. Madeleine vanished on the evening of May 3.

He met the couple for the first time at their new apartment. "They were behaving exactly as I thought someone in that situation would be," Mr Woolfall said. "They had not slept. They were trying to work out what to do that might help generate images of her. They were desperately keen to publicise her face."

The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. "I said to Kate, 'Let's try to identify pictures where her face is visible'. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.

[u]"Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court."[u]

So why didn't he send 'last' photo, as it was in the camera, to be distributed to the media alongside the tennis photo?
Or wasn't it in the camera at all when he looked through it and that's why he couldn't distribute it?

"Laughing in the sunshine, dangling her feet in the swimming pool, this is carefree Madeleine McCann"

http://metro.co.uk/2007/05/24/last-photo-of-madeleine-released-3432587/

matthew wrote:

I hope you don't get banned

.
Me too fwiw...

I don't see anybody here asking for anybody else to get banned. In fact this is one of the very few fora left where all views and opinions can be aired. Provided that posters are polite and respectful and do not resort to ad hominem attacks, when others do not concur with their opinions.

But sadly it seems to be a hallmark of the "pros" that that's exactly what happens. I would just love for some polite and respectful pros to debate properly, and hopefully clear up a lot of issues. But in my experience it's never happened, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

And also in my experience, if a person gets banned or made to feel that they can't post, and this happens in one forum after another, then there's got to be a common denominator. And it isn't the other people on those forums.

"They were desperately keen to publicise her face....."
"I said to Kate, 'Let's try to identify pictures where her face is visible'.

Well in the 'last' photo her face is certainly 'visible' and definitely publicises her 'face' yet the world dosen't get to see it until THREE WEEKS LATER!
24th May 2007.
If people on the 4th May 2007 were given the picture, even a cropped one, of Madeleines 'visible face' from the 'last photo' they might well have KNOWN who to look for!
Instead they got a cutsey photo from a year before!

bit odd isn't it?

so as C Edwards has demonstrated the photo is photoshopped, which essentially is what a lot of people have said. thank you. the other question is why, and that we wont know, because we wont be told.

Step 4: Almost done with clone brush now

All of Amelie and Gerry gone from picture now. Trouble is the wall on the left is too artificial. The cloning process clearly shows in the repeating patterns in the stone. Also the grass line up at the top where it's in front of the tree is a bit samey at the extreme left. Paving stone pattern to the left is also a bit poor.

My last question to Mr Edwards.
As you can see from the 'original' 'last photo' there are some 'weeds' growing at bottom of wall behind Madeleine.
The 'weeds' are vertical, upright.
The 'weeds' are casting a 'shadow on the wall', due to the suns angle on them.

Could Mr Edwards please explain to me the 'absence' of a shadow behind Madeleine herself when she is also upright/vertical same orientation as the weeds and the sun is shining on her at the same angle as the weeds?

Why have the 'weeds' cast a shadow on the wall and yet Madeleine , being much bigger than the weeds, hasn't cast a shadow on the paving behind her?

The suns angle is the same for both, is it not?

Where is Madeleines 'shadow' on the paving?

NO shadow behind Madeleine in 'original' so it hasn't been 'removed/photoshopped' to make picture more 'pleasing'

jeanmonroe wrote:
My last question to Mr Edwards.
As you can see from the 'original' 'last photo' there are some 'weeds' growing at bottom of wall behind Madeleine.
The 'weeds' are vertical, upright.
The 'weeds' are casting a 'shadow on the wall', due to the suns angle on them.

Could Mr Edwards please explain to me the 'absence' of a shadow behind Madeleine herself when she is also upright/vertical same orientation as the weeds and the sun is shining on her at the same angle as the weeds?

Why have the 'weeds' cast a shadow on the wall and yet Madeleine , being much bigger than the weeds, hasn't cast a shadow on the paving behind her?

The suns angle is the same for both, is it not?

Where is Madeleines 'shadow' on the paving?

I could leave this at simply quoting what I said before that if you want to believe it's photoshopped, go ahead. The problem is that in explaining "why" to your questions, I'd have to point out that by asking those questions you've demonstrated that you don't understand how light and shadows work and you would get cross and call me patronising and arrogant or Iris would and Annaesse would tell me off again and threaten me with banning for some reason or other.

Your questions are as incomprehensible to me as if you'd ask why you can't see Gerry's feet in the photograph. I'm sure you're perfectly able to accept the answer, "because they're outside of the image as captured by the camera" and that's the reason why you can't see Madeleine's shadow. The pool is curved, she's not at the same angle as the weeds, the light is not at the angle I think you think it is and the picture still isn't photoshopped.

I have no idea why someone up there ^^^ has said I've demonstrated that the picture is photoshopped? The "last photo" isn't. The "standalone" one is. Obviously.

I know that if i put a big stick and a little stick a few feet apart, in my lawn, both upright, as the sun shines down on them they BOTH cast the same shadow 'angle' on the lawn.

But you would have me believe that two vertical objects cast different shadows when the sun is shining on them from the same orientation.

Oh well, back to school for me then!

ETA.
If i 'replaced' Madeleine with a weed are you seriously telling me that THAT weed would cast not shadow at the same angle as the wall weed?

Curvature of the pool? it's the sun's FIXED orientation on the subjects, Madeleine and the weed, that causes the shadow.
The weeds got one, Madeleine hasn't!

C.Edwards, I can perfectly deal with your boring arrogant posts where you lecture everybody and try to amaze us all with your incomparable expertise. I sense they are important to your self esteem so I just skim through them as quickly as possible insuring simply that you are not disrespecting anyone. Being rude and obnoxious to long time respected posters of this forum is, however, intolerable. And the next time you do it, you will be out of here without further explanation. You registered here a long time ago and barely posted. You did, however, find this forum useful to whine when you got kicked out from elsewhere and from then on you seem to think that you can treat people in a disrespectful patronising way. You can't. This forum is not your stage.

I for one hope this Edwards person doesn't get banned just yet. I find all this photoshopping banter fascinating. If I was Iris and had been verbally attacked, then I might think differently, but for now, I'm enjoying looking at the photoshopped pictures, which "prove" nothing's been photoshoppe. All a bit too clever for me, obviously.

jeanmonroe wrote:I know that if i put a big stick and a little stick a few feet apart, in my lawn, both upright, as the sun shines down on them they BOTH cast the same shadow 'angle' on the lawn.

But you would have me believe that two vertical objects cast different shadows when the sun is shining on them from the same orientation.

Oh well, back to school for me then!

No. You're misinterpreting the picture. Just look at the shadow cast on the wall above the weeds. Where does that come from? Virtually directly overhead. look at the shadow underneath the recliner on the left. Starts almost immediately at the plane of the end of the recliner meaning the sun is very high in the sky. Look at the shadow under the rim of the pool - there is a lip of an inch or two protruding out. Gerry is sitting with his legs well clear of that lip.

You refer to shadows on the wall from the weeds - there's your problem, there aren't any. The weed shadows are invisible at the base of the weeds themselves. If the photo was bigger, you would see a small shadow around Madeleine where she was sitting on the edge of the pool. Likewise you would see shadows on the pool wall under Gerry from his thighs, with the shadows from his knees to his feet being virtually underneath his feet on the bottom of the pool.

Most of the shadow misinterpretation is being done because of the shadow extending under the recliner making it look like the sun is off at an angle to the top left. It's not. You can tell this by the point at which the shadow starts. To me, it's elementary (light) ray tracing and all is perfectly normal and valid. There is nothing wrong with this picture.

dazedandconfused wrote:I for one hope this Edwards person doesn't get banned just yet. I find all this photoshopping banter fascinating. If I was Iris and had been verbally attacked, then I might think differently, but for now, I'm enjoying looking at the photoshopped pictures, which "prove" nothing's been photoshoppe. All a bit too clever for me, obviously.

Read back and see who started it. Iris (and others) have been a lot ruder to me than I have to them.