Another look at the Last photo

Verdi wrote:@ DougD

Apologies, my question..

I ask because I'm having difficulty understanding how so many photographs reproduced on the web, including this forum, appear perfect to the naked eye yet others do not.  How does that fit in with the current theory about compression artifacts and copy degradation?

..should have been asked of JPR, not you!

 
I would guess the good ones are near 1st generation, and the bad ones are copies of copies.
Even the high res version we are using has digital artifacts literally everywhere. If you make it larger, they begin to show.

Google "digital artifacts" there's lots of info on how they are formed.

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:@ DougD

Apologies, my question..

I ask because I'm having difficulty understanding how so many photographs reproduced on the web, including this forum, appear perfect to the naked eye yet others do not.  How does that fit in with the current theory about compression artifacts and copy degradation?

..should have been asked of JPR, not you!

 
I would guess the good ones are near 1st generation, and the bad ones are copies of copies.
Even the high res version we are using has digital artifacts literally everywhere. If you make it larger, they begin to show.

Google "digital artifacts" there's lots of info on how they are formed.

Appreciated but how exactly do you define a copy? 

Say by way of example, I copy the image of the last photograph from the mccannfiles or gerrymccannsblog and subsequently send a copy here there and everywhere.  Would you classify that as a copy of a copy of a copy?

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:@ DougD

Apologies, my question..

I ask because I'm having difficulty understanding how so many photographs reproduced on the web, including this forum, appear perfect to the naked eye yet others do not.  How does that fit in with the current theory about compression artifacts and copy degradation?

..should have been asked of JPR, not you!!

 
I would guess the good ones are near 1st generation, and the bad ones are copies of copies.
Even the high res version we are using has digital artifacts literally everywhere. If you make it larger, they begin to show.

Google "digital artifacts" there's lots of info on how they are formed.

Appreciated but how exactly do you define a copy? 

Say by way of example, I copy the image of the last photograph from the mccannfiles or gerrymccannsblog and subsequently send a copy here there and everywhere.  Would you classify that as a copy of a copy of a copy?

No, Let's say you copy a high res version from the Internet, save it to your PC and distribute it to 20 websites, that would be just one copy.
But then I come along, and instead of using the high res file, I copy one you distributed, I have a copy of a copy.
I publish the copy of a copy to the Internet,  and someone copies that version and so it continues. Each time this occurred there would be a quality drop.

You can copy without losing information.

However, digital images lose information every time the resolution is changed or the compression ratio or the format.

If you resize it (magnify or shrink), change it's format (JPEG to PNG) or cut and paste, crop it you have an inferior version. 

Information is always lost... or new information added - the app guesses what should be there in attempt to retain sharpness, colour.

All this creates image artifacts.. like "what's wrong with Gerry's teeth", "ghost dogs" under chairs and images of Justin Beiber on Kates thumb if you squint your eyes and turn the image 90 degrees.

This knowledge never stops people wading in silly stuff though.

Further to my previous post I have to say that unless someone comes up with provable evidence to the contrary then I tend to agree with those who believe the photo was NOT photoshopped. (Meaning that the actual image has NOT been edited), What on earth would be the logic of leaving the experts the chance of proving it has been photoshopped when a simple to do edit of the Exif data is all that's needed. What is so important about this image is that it has been provided as the "Last Photo" main point of proof that Madeleine was alive and happy at 14:39 on 3rd May 2007.  In order to prove the Exif data has been edited we would need posession of the original storage medium (cameras internal memory/SD card - on whichever the image was stored) and from that we could look at the original image and importantly the place that image has in the cameras auto photo number sequencing. As far as I am aware none of the photos supplied so far have been on their original storage medium so none of this is provable. Even the weather evidence is not proof as it could be claimed that on 3rd May at approx14:39 the sun came out long enough for this photo to be taken. We need to do better if we want to challenge the status quo and there is need to focus on what can be proved beyond doubt or we spend valuable time proving a theory that although may be correct does not bring us nearer the truth. If we can knock a theory down you can bet the opposition can do the same. It would be easy to say everyone is wasting their time BUT the work everyone has contributed whether positive or negative is so important in the evidence process. We need to prove which evidence is wrong as well as that which is right.
One other point I would make is that when people read other posts they should check they have carefully read and fully understood the information/theory postulated. In my last post I suggested  " that the overhead direct sunlight may have caused a faint projection of the pattern on the underside of Madeleine's hat" (on to Madeleines shoulder (I should have added this in the original for clarity)).  What I did NOT say was  that the overhead direct sunlight may have caused a faint REFLECTION of the pattern on the underside of Madeleine's hat. Several people have exchanged projection with reflection in their posts. There is a difference between reflection (the act of reflecting, as in casting back a light or heat, mirroring, or giving back or showing an image; the state of being reflected in this way) and projection (the act of reproducing on a surface, by optical means, a remote image on a film, slide, etc). The reason I put the idea forward was because I have seen a coloured pattern on an awning project on to the surface of a white table in bright sunlight. (grasping at straws springs to mind).
The point I make is not so much which is correct, but that the argument does not make any progress towards proving the photo is a true un-photoshopped, un-edited Exif, version of the original since we have no access to the original/s and I don't see the McCann camp passing them over for inspection anytime soon - if they still exist. However going through the process does seem necessary in order to make an informed decision on validity of evidence.
                                                                                  Don't forget :- THE TRUTH IS STILL OUT THERE   (The X Files)

I'm probably the person who confused matters by using the term 'reflection' as opposed to 'projection.' Apologies. I have a very  simple mind. For me,  Pendragon's theory supported the fact that the LP was NOT photoshopped. The way I saw it, the white hat was an reversible accessory to the pretty T shirt  ( it even has a similar pink flower on it and  possibly  identical lining ) but on THIS occasion Madeleine was wearing it with the pretty pink dress at the poolside. It was a reversible hat from what I can see and the white side  aesthetically  matched the pink dress. See, Kate does think about these things! I actually DON'T  think the photo is photoshopped and that it WAS taken on the Sunday though IMO no way is it a normal  spontaneous family photoshoot.

BlueBag wrote:You can copy without losing information.

However, digital images lose information every time the resolution is changed or the compression ratio or the format.

If you resize it (magnify or shrink), change it's format (JPEG to PNG) or cut and paste, crop it you have an inferior version. 

Information is always lost... or new information added - the app guesses what should be there in attempt to retain sharpness, colour.

All this creates image artifacts.. like "what's wrong with Gerry's teeth", "ghost dogs" under chairs and images of Justin Beiber on Kates thumb if you squint your eyes and turn the image 90 degrees.

This knowledge never stops people wading in silly stuff though.

If it's silly to one person it may not be silly to another. If it's silly, let it be debated and dismissed in a proper fashion rather than would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being  called, 'silly.' After all we certainly have the TIME  to examine every avenue thoroughly . We've had nearly nine years and STILL counting.........!

kaz wrote:

BlueBag wrote:You can copy without losing information.

However, digital images lose information every time the resolution is changed or the compression ratio or the format.

If you resize it (magnify or shrink), change it's format (JPEG to PNG) or cut and paste, crop it you have an inferior version. 

Information is always lost... or new information added - the app guesses what should be there in attempt to retain sharpness, colour.

All this creates image artifacts.. like "what's wrong with Gerry's teeth", "ghost dogs" under chairs and images of Justin Beiber on Kates thumb if you squint your eyes and turn the image 90 degrees.

This knowledge never stops people wading in silly stuff though.

If it's silly to one person it may not be silly to another. If it's silly, let it be debated and dismissed in a proper fashion rather than would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being  called, 'silly.' After all we certainly have the TIME  to examine every avenue thoroughly . We've had nearly nine years and STILL counting.........!

Bluebag is merely pointing out the somewhat barmy posts of missbeetle and is attempting I believe to protect this forum from being viewed as somewhere any basket case can come to spout drivel.

Now I know my response is going to freak out the 'we're all entitled to post anything we like and have it discussed in a friendly fashion' but remember that people who have been on the forum for a long time have seen every conceivable tactic used to discredit it - not least with the photo threads.

As for 'would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being called silly'  it's also another well known disruption tactic which often ends up with the big flounce and a big whinge on other forums. Oh yes, we've seen it all here and some of us are understandably weathered.

Bluebag is not only entitled to his/her opinion but bear in mind it comes from years of being a member of the forum and a healthy respect for its reputation and dignity - and of course dignity afforded to Madeleine McCann.

Now I don't want to interrupt this thread a moment longer but please bear in mind that photo threads attract all sorts of meddlesome disruptors who pounce upon the opportunity to take things to silliness. So please don't knock Bluebag's opinion. I agree with Bluebag's stance - no doubt I'll be in for some flack for that comment.

Getting back to the photo thread, no-one has proved the photograph to be photoshopped. No-one has the original. Pendragon has made an outstanding post upthread along the lines of if there isn't access to the original photo, its point of origin, its position in order of other photos on an SD card, then everything else is conjecture.

Just my opinion of course.

aquila wrote:


Getting back to the photo thread, no-one has proved the photograph to be photoshopped. No-one has the original. Pendragon has made an outstanding post upthread along the lines of if there isn't access to the original photo, its point of origin, its position in order of other photos on an SD card, then everything else is conjecture.

Just my opinion of course.

As simple minded as I am, the above is obvious even to me. 
One could additionally say. Madeleine is missing.  Apart from the evidence the rest is conjecture. Well............yeees.......... but that doesn't ( and shouldn't )  stop anyone coming up with possible theories does it?
Now I DO understand your wanting to 'protect' the site from deliberate saboteurs but just lately many a post that doesn't correlate with what appears to be the official line seems to get old raspberry from certain quarters. Maybe it's my imagination . Perhaps  it's time for me  to take a break   from posting for a while and instead  just read the excellent incisive  posts from other contributors.

kaz wrote:

Perhaps it's time for me  to take a break from posting for a while and instead just read the excellent incisive posts from other contributors.

Not at all.

The problem we have is a simple one; I think no-one on this thread nmow thinks there is any evidence at all that Madeleine's head was photoshopped on to the Last Photo from another photo of her.

What has led to this really unnecessary debate is the posting on Monday of canada12's view that it was photoshopped on to the Last Photo. The evidence she thought she had produced in support has, however, been comprehensively demolished.

But the debate has been useful because of the many contributions on here from photographers who know about such things who have educated us all most helpfully about the multiple ways in which digital 'artifacts' can be produced.

There are `some people who have been posting for a long time` that I accept and some that I don`t.  The posts that are rude immediately get rejected; the posts that are respectful get my attention.  It`s as simple as that.

aquila wrote:

As for 'would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being called silly'  it's also another well known disruption tactic which often ends up with the big flounce and a big whinge on other forums. Oh yes, we've seen it all here and some of us are understandably weathered.

The nail.. the head.

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:@ DougD

Apologies, my question..

I ask because I'm having difficulty understanding how so many photographs reproduced on the web, including this forum, appear perfect to the naked eye yet others do not.  How does that fit in with the current theory about compression artifacts and copy degradation?

..should have been asked of JPR, not you!!

 
I would guess the good ones are near 1st generation, and the bad ones are copies of copies.
Even the high res version we are using has digital artifacts literally everywhere. If you make it larger, they begin to show.

Google "digital artifacts" there's lots of info on how they are formed.

Appreciated but how exactly do you define a copy? 

Say by way of example, I copy the image of the last photograph from the mccannfiles or gerrymccannsblog and subsequently send a copy here there and everywhere.  Would you classify that as a copy of a copy of a copy?

No, Let's say you copy a high res version from the Internet, save it to your PC and distribute it to 20 websites, that would be just one copy.
But then I come along, and instead of using the high res file, I copy one you distributed, I have a copy of a copy.
I publish the copy of a copy to the Internet,  and someone copies that version and so it continues. Each time this occurred there would be a quality drop.

That's roughly what I was getting at, although perhaps not worded very well - I tried to keep it simple in the hope of a simple answer.  I take exception to experts who can't explain themselves without using technical jargon - a diluted form of arrogance methinks.  In the words of Albert Einstein....
'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough' - dem's my sentiments!

So, in short, the photographs reproduced thousands of times across cyberspace could have been round the block and back and in need of a full 20,000 mile service.  This brings me back to my original point - why are some photographs we see, of excellent resolution, whilst others very poor resolution irrespective of how many times they've been passed around.  Through my eyes this rather negates your expert opinion.

@pendragon wrote:  In my last post I suggested  " that the overhead direct sunlight may have caused a faint projection of the pattern on the underside of Madeleine's hat" (on to Madeleines shoulder (I should have added this in the original for clarity)).  What I did NOT say was  that the overhead direct sunlight may have caused a faint REFLECTION of the pattern on the underside of Madeleine's hat. Several people have exchanged projection with reflection in their posts..

Guilty as charged, I did use the word reflection.  I knew at the time the use of the word wasn't technically correct - c'est la vie ! 
Projection v. reflection - totally different technically but the gist of my comment remains intact.

aquila wrote:

kaz wrote:

BlueBag wrote:You can copy without losing information.

However, digital images lose information every time the resolution is changed or the compression ratio or the format.

If you resize it (magnify or shrink), change it's format (JPEG to PNG) or cut and paste, crop it you have an inferior version. 

Information is always lost... or new information added - the app guesses what should be there in attempt to retain sharpness, colour.

All this creates image artifacts.. like "what's wrong with Gerry's teeth", "ghost dogs" under chairs and images of Justin Beiber on Kates thumb if you squint your eyes and turn the image 90 degrees.

This knowledge never stops people wading in silly stuff though.

If it's silly to one person it may not be silly to another. If it's silly, let it be debated and dismissed in a proper fashion rather than would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being  called, 'silly.' After all we certainly have the TIME  to examine every avenue thoroughly . We've had nearly nine years and STILL counting.........!

Bluebag is merely pointing out the somewhat barmy posts of missbeetle and is attempting I believe to protect this forum from being viewed as somewhere any basket case can come to spout drivel.

Now I know my response is going to freak out the 'we're all entitled to post anything we like and have it discussed in a friendly fashion' but remember that people who have been on the forum for a long time have seen every conceivable tactic used to discredit it - not least with the photo threads.

As for 'would be contributors being intimidated into offering nothing rather than being called silly'  it's also another well known disruption tactic which often ends up with the big flounce and a big whinge on other forums. Oh yes, we've seen it all here and some of us are understandably weathered.

Bluebag is not only entitled to his/her opinion but bear in mind it comes from years of being a member of the forum and a healthy respect for its reputation and dignity - and of course dignity afforded to Madeleine McCann.

Now I don't want to interrupt this thread a moment longer but please bear in mind that photo threads attract all sorts of meddlesome disruptors who pounce upon the opportunity to take things to silliness. So please don't knock Bluebag's opinion. I agree with Bluebag's stance - no doubt I'll be in for some flack for that comment.

Getting back to the photo thread, no-one has proved the photograph to be photoshopped. No-one has the original. Pendragon has made an outstanding post upthread along the lines of if there isn't access to the original photo, its point of origin, its position in order of other photos on an SD card, then everything else is conjecture.

Just my opinion of course.

.... and a well grounded opinion, if I might add.

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:@ DougD

Apologies, my question..

I ask because I'm having difficulty understanding how so many photographs reproduced on the web, including this forum, appear perfect to the naked eye yet others do not.  How does that fit in with the current theory about compression artifacts and copy degradation?

..should have been asked of JPR, not you!!

 
I would guess the good ones are near 1st generation, and the bad ones are copies of copies.
Even the high res version we are using has digital artifacts literally everywhere. If you make it larger, they begin to show.

Google "digital artifacts" there's lots of info on how they are formed.

Appreciated but how exactly do you define a copy? 

Say by way of example, I copy the image of the last photograph from the mccannfiles or gerrymccannsblog and subsequently send a copy here there and everywhere.  Would you classify that as a copy of a copy of a copy?

No, Let's say you copy a high res version from the Internet, save it to your PC and distribute it to 20 websites, that would be just one copy.
But then I come along, and instead of using the high res file, I copy one you distributed, I have a copy of a copy.
I publish the copy of a copy to the Internet,  and someone copies that version and so it continues. Each time this occurred there would be a quality drop.

That's roughly what I was getting at, although perhaps not worded very well - I tried to keep it simple in the hope of a simple answer.  I take exception to experts who can't explain themselves without using technical jargon - a diluted form of arrogance methinks.  In the words of Albert Einstein....
'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough' - dem's my sentiments!

So, in short, the photographs reproduced thousands of times across cyberspace could have been round the block and back and in need of a full 20,000 mile service.  This brings me back to my original point - why are some photographs we see, of excellent resolution, whilst others very poor resolution irrespective of how many times they've been passed around.  Through my eyes this rather negates your expert opinion.

Some images will have been resized and saved and republished more than others. 
My opinion was that the pattern found by canada12 was caused by digital artifacts,  not through the remnance of photoshopping.
I've explained why as best as I can, if you don't understand the words used, then Google digital artifacts and draw your own conclusions.

I've seen so many weather reports with regards to the last photo. Unless there are absolutely NO photographs taken on 3rd May 2007 by any other holidaymaker to show their own holiday snaps in a bit of sunshine on that day then I am circumspect about the weather details that come from historical data from a weather station.

There must surely be photographs of Thursday 3rd May 2007 which other holidaymakers have that prove the weather was nice that day/or a bit of cloud broke through the skies at around lunchtime - where those other holidaymaker's photographs are is anyone's guess. Ask Woolfall, the alleged harvester of photographs.

I can only say that in my experience of living abroad (in Crete) it could be rainy and windy half a mile down the road and perfectly sunny where I was sitting. An historical weather record doesn't prove anything to me as it has no definitive fact that the weather prevents the last photo from being taken on the day in question.

What is needed is corroborative evidence of other holidaymakers' photographs taken on the day of 3rd May 2007. Everything else is speculation.

Just my opinion.

kaz wrote:

aquila wrote:


Getting back to the photo thread, no-one has proved the photograph to be photoshopped. No-one has the original. Pendragon has made an outstanding post upthread along the lines of if there isn't access to the original photo, its point of origin, its position in order of other photos on an SD card, then everything else is conjecture.

Just my opinion of course.

As simple minded as I am, the above is obvious even to me. 
One could additionally say. Madeleine is missing.  Apart from the evidence the rest is conjecture. Well............yeees.......... but that doesn't ( and shouldn't )  stop anyone coming up with possible theories does it?
Now I DO understand your wanting to 'protect' the site from deliberate saboteurs but just lately many a post that doesn't correlate with what appears to be the official line seems to get old raspberry from certain quarters. Maybe it's my imagination . Perhaps  it's time for me  to take a break   from posting for a while and instead  just read the excellent incisive  posts from other contributors.

The problem here is I think kaz, a few members of the forum think they have exclusive right to their own little niche where they can expound their theories about photographs, specifically and generally, without challenge.   Theories not founded on evidence, technical expertise nor informed opinion but based on nothing but nonsense (for the want of a better word) and a rampant imagination.  That's not how it works - on an open forum you must expect opposition.

This doesn't further the cause, it only adds as a distraction from more important relevant issues.  More to the point, it's playing right into the hands of all those critics out there with a mission to destroy the credibility of the forum by spreading malicious gossip about tin-foil hats, nutjobs, conspiracy theorists - their words, not mine.  They are watching 24/7, make no mistake.

aquila wrote:I've seen so many weather reports with regards to the last photo. Unless there are absolutely NO photographs taken on 3rd May 2007 by any other holidaymaker to show their own holiday snaps in a bit of sunshine on that day then I am circumspect about the weather details that come from historical data from a weather station.

There must surely be photographs of Thursday 3rd May 2007 which other holidaymakers have that prove the weather was nice that day/or a bit of cloud broke through the skies at around lunchtime - where those other holidaymaker's photographs are is anyone's guess. Ask Woolfall, the alleged harvester of photographs.

I can only say that in my experience of living abroad (in Crete) it could be rainy and windy half a mile down the road and perfectly sunny where I was sitting. An historical weather record doesn't prove anything to me as it has no definitive fact that the weather prevents the last photo from being taken on the day in question.

What is needed is corroborative evidence of other holidaymakers' photographs taken on the day of 3rd May 2007. Everything else is speculation.

Just my opinion.

 And mine !

@aquilla wrote:    Ask Woolfall, the alleged harvester of photographs.

More to the point, ask Jim Gamble who made a public plea for all holdaymakers to send their holiday photographs to the CEOP for analysis - allegedly!  Wonder what happened to  them, prior to being burned or locked in a safe place for the next 100 years.

@JRP wrote:  Some images will have been resized and saved and republished more than others. 
My opinion was that the pattern found by canada12 was caused by digital artifacts,  not through the remnance of photoshopping.
I've explained why as best as I can, if you don't understand the words used, then Google digital artifacts and draw your own conclusions.

Yes, I can just about grasp the meaning of a collection of words but that aside,  I wasn't questioning your opinion about canada12's theory per se.

Your reply as regards reproduced images confirms my thoughts on the subject, unknown territory - another theory bites the dust!

I did a quality check of the photo copy that "Canada12" used (gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg) and this one,(lastphotohighres2.jpg) and the results was the same for both of them when I used "FotoForensics".

What I understand from this is that both saved copies are of very high quality.

NickE wrote:What I understand from this is that both saved copies are of very high quality.

You can copy a low quality picture and save as high quality.

Yes I know it's a hard subject to get your head around but most people haven't a clue about digital images - they think magnifying digital images is like a magnifying glass on an analogue image (it's not.. oh no).

Some people know a lot about digital images and are just like stirring the brown stuff for a laugh or more sinister reasons.

In several posts people (including me) have mentioned editing the Exif data in the "First Photo". Those of you with Windows desktop/Laptop and possibly some windows tablets can try this out for yourselves. I not sure if Macs have same facility. The purpose of this post is to show how simple it is to do and to show that it is extremly difficult to prove once the originals cannot be accessed. The cameras and memory media from all involved should have been collected and bagged & tagged as evidence and only examined by the authorities in forensic conditions. By the time the investigators realised this it was already too late. So we can examine what evidence we have 'till the cows come home but we cannot PROVE anything. So for
How to edit Exif data in Windows Explorer
(The uploaded screenshots are of the example photo and the Properties windows - apologies for the darker shot but I had to take photo of that bit as everytime I moved mouse to do clip while viewing the calendar it disappeared.) Feel free to download this photo and Properties window clips if you wish to use it to try your own edit of date.
In windows Explorer / My computer / My PC, navigate to where you have stored photos from your camera. (It is important to use Windows Explorer via My Computer etc. as some photo software may not have the same editing feature   In any view (e.g. Extra Large, Large, Medium, Small Icons, List, Details etc. - You can select and change these in the View Menu at top of explorer window) - select your photo with a single RIGHT mouse click (RIGHT button if on laptop).  That will display "photo name/number auto generated by camera when you took photo at the top of the now opened Properties window.  Then:-
1 LEFT mouse click on the "Details" tab - and below is the Exif data for that photo.
2 Scroll down a little using the scroll bar on right until you see "Date Taken" this field shows date and time photo was taken.
3 Single left mouse click to highlight Date Taken in blue
4 MOVE mouse pointer to hover over the date - the date field will turn white and empty and a down arrow will appear at right end of field.
5 Single LEFT click on down arrow without moving pointer out of the date field. A dropdown calendar will appear.
6  Change to a new DATE using the calender or you can type a new date directly into the date/time field - Then left click the "Apply" bottom right of properties window - make sure you keep same date format e.g. dd/mm/yyyy if your camera is setup for English Language/date format. Note: the time cannot be edited in this manner and is preserved.
7 Now you have set new date but preserved original time scroll down until you see " Name". You can highlight this box BUT NOT edit it. This field contains the auto name/numbering system from the camera
8 Single LEFT click the OK box at the bottom of Properties window and your photo has the new date BUT it preserves the original time taken.
NOTE most digital cameras will communicate with computer via USB - normally used for recharging and uploading your photos. In most cases the photos can be edited in camera directly from the computer without having to remove SD card or upload them from cameras internal memory. You will notice that some fields cannot be edited in this manner but it is possible using more sophisticated software. What we need to take account of here though is how easy it is to change the date and keep the time on a photo. Now where have I seen that done before???  This can be done in 3 minutes once you know its possible. Just think how many photos you could change in 3 weeks.
For this example I have uploaded a photo from a holiday in Ireland in August 2000 but it now shows I took it 16/04/2016 19:36.  All I needed was a Windows computer and the photo. I could of course then transfer the photo back to the camera. I tried it and it worked. Now just in case you decide to check the weather in SW Ireland on 16/04/2016 at 19:36, I am going to claim the sun came out just long enough for me to get this photo. The fact that I'm in Britain and writing this now (16/04/2016 16:06) would be unknown to you as would the changed date. Unless you could get your hands on the original camera memory SD card and check to see the date and times on the preceeding and following photos and thereby determine if the auto name/number and dates taken is preserved throughout the sequence, you won't ever be able to challenge my story. To stop you doing this I have arranged for some "friends" to transfer all the photos to a couple of DVDs. I've only transfered the ones I dont mind you seeing in colour and the rest I have edited with a program that enables me to produce a charcoal effect to make them virtually un-useable. The original SD card has been incinerated and any incriminating photos copied and deposited in a safe place - Fort Knox. Now where have I seen that tried before???
                                                                         Dont forget :-     THE TRUTH IS STILL OUT THERE   (The X Files).

In my previous post regarding Exif data editing I uploaded a photo which now shows that the photo was taken on 16/04/2016 at 19:36. Dis-regarding that I told you I had changed the date, I did something with this photo which, as far I know, the McCann team did not do with their photos. This would immediately cause a detective to know I had been telling lies. What did I do that gave the game away?  I leave it to all you detectives out there to work out what I did.
                                                                                Dont forget :-     THE TRUTH IS STILL OUT THERE   (The X Files).