Re: Another look at the Last photo

by sar 12.01.17 0:26

Nina wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Does anyone else believe the Black/White pics and the greyscale are likely from Paynes camera?

All of them with originals in 'drawers' and scanned or photocopied for release of file pages.

I still have not found the details regarding the Cameras of Gerry McCann, Michael Wright and Foster etc.

Here is one page I havent had chance to study

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm

NALF/1 Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera
NALF/2 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50
NALF/3 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50
Just having a read of the link Lizzy and this hit me, not sure why because it all requires further investigation and I am a large sheet of paper and a pencil type of researcher and not got chance right now, but the dats mention, or lack of did make me go

13. On checking the camera I found that the time and date was not set on the camera and it was recording the time and date as 0000 hours on 01/01/02. This did not change during the examination. None of the pictures SWM/3019/01 to SWM/3019/43 have any created dates recorded. The last written time and date for each of them is recorded as 0000 01/01/02.

14. Last Accessed represents the date the file as last examined. Whether the Last Accessed Date is triggered depends on the nature of the examination. Opening a file will trigger the Last Accessed Date, as will looking at the file properties and browsing the file structure with Windows Explorer. Examining a file on 'write protected media' such as a floppy disk will not trigger this date, neither will examining a file on a compact disk or DVD.

15. Last Written represents the time and date that the contents of the file was last changed. The Last Written date and time is unchanged by the process of copying a file from one drive to another.

16. The creation date and time of the file is usually when it is written to the surface of the disk, subject to the accuracy of the computer clock that was used to perform this task. When this date and time is seen to be after the last written date and time it shows that the files has been transferred from another media.

+1Nina, thank you

by sar 12.01.17 0:43

HiDeHo wrote:Does anyone else believe the Black/White pics and the greyscale are likely from Paynes camera?

All of them with originals in 'drawers' and scanned or photocopied for release of file pages.

I still have not found the details regarding the Cameras of Gerry McCann, Michael Wright and Foster etc.

Here is one page I havent had chance to study

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm

NALF/1 Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera
NALF/2 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50
NALF/3 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50

Hi Hdh,

Who did the Sony Handicam belong to, what footage video or still/s did it take and to whom was it passed over to? Sorry if I am going over old ground. It's late and I'm tired xx

by Spacecowboy 12.01.17 11:08

sar wrote:

Hi Hdh,

Who did the Sony Handicam belong to, what footage video or still/s did it take and to whom was it passed over to? Sorry if I am going over old ground. It's late and I'm tired xx

@ Sar

The Sony Handicam belongs to Nigel Foster, IMO that's the camera featuring a 30 second clip taken in the vicinity of the hotel complex, playground area/pool area/Tapas bar etc etc.

DC Martin:

On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

ID ref Description
NALF/1 Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07

In an email sent to the PJ from Leicestershire Police, there's no mention whatsoever that Nigel Foster owned the Olympus C50 camera, let alone took pictures on it. Nigel Foster only indicated that he had a 30 second video clip taken on the Sony Handicam.

Here's an image of a Sony Handicam:

Another look at the Last photo - Page 33 Sony_newdvdcamcorders

Another look at the Last photo - Page 33 Sony_newdvdcamcorders

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA3_8/03_volume_III_o_apenso_VIII_Page_542.jpg

Leicestershire Police:

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?. She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar.

I wonder why Leicestershire Police even bothered sending that email to the Portuguese Police as they didn't even bother sending them a copy of the 30 second video clip.

They only sent the PJ photographs on a CD from the Olympus C50, and it's unclear who this camera belongs to.

DC Martin:

I examined the data from the two cards and located 43 pictures in the live area of the two cards.

Again no mention of locating a video clip stored one of the two memory cards, only 43 pictures.

IMO Ricardo Paiva assumed the photographs were taken by the Fosters on the Olympus C50 only because of the email the PJ recieved from Leicestershire Police about the video footage

Here's an image of a Olympus C50:

Another look at the Last photo - Page 33 416GG506Y7L

Another look at the Last photo - Page 33 416GG506Y7L

Although the Olympus C50 is a digital camera, you can use it to record video clips. However you can only record a 16 second video clip in HQ-mode (320x240) and a 70 second clip in SQ-mode (160x120). On the Olympus website it states that you can only store video clips totalling 114 secs (1.9 mins) in HQ-mode (320x240) and video clips totalling 453 sec (7.55 mins) in SQ-mode (160x120) on the 32mb memory card. It also enables you to store videos clips totalling 227 sec (3.78 mins) in HQ-mode (320x240) and video clips totalling 908 secs (15.1 mins) [size=13]in SQ-mode (160x120) on the 64mb memory card.[/size] If you can only store a maximum of 7.55 mins video footage on the 32mb memory card and 15.1 mins on the 64mb memory card, then this camera isn't exactly ideal for recording a weeks worth of video footage (28th Apr -5 May) on it is it?

It's unclear whether you can even record a video clip with sound on this camera.

Is sound recording available on the C-50 Zoom?

No, sound recording is not available on the C-50 Zoom camera. The camera does not have a built-in microphone.

http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_support_faqs.asp?id=891#top

Anyway the two memory cards already had 43 photographs stored on them, reducing the maximum amount of video footage (7.55 mins on the 32mb memory card and 15.1 mins on the 64mb card) you'd be able to store on those memory cards even further.

I do believe the Sony Handicam belongs to Nigel Foster, but I'm not convinced the Olympus C50 also belongs to him.

by Doug D 12.01.17 11:24

I think there is a pretty good chance that the Olympus C50 belonged to the Fosters, otherwise there is no reason for the local Southampton expert, DC Martin to have even received it and Leicester would have dealt with it themselves.

The timescale for DC Martin’s inspection makes perfect sense, with the Leicester Police request to Southampton timed at 13.58 on 8^th May.

PC 178 Barham then appears to have hot-footed it round to the Fosters to pick up the video footage as requested (and this is the assumption) presumably identified that they also had taken some camera footage on the Olympus C50, so he took the camera and memory cards as well.

He then delivered them to DC Martin at 21.00 on 8^th May, which again makes sense due to the urgency of the request.

At 8.30 on 9^th May DC Martin delivered the video camera (and presumably the tapes as he did not examine these) to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support, Netley, for examination.

He then examined the camera cards and made his statement, again dated 9^th May.

Logically, but not evidenced, as Southampton had pulled out all the stops to carry out Leicester’s request, the copies and his statement would have been sent to Leicester post-haste.

It makes no sense for them to sit on them, having acted so efficiently.

We do not know about the video footage, which may have taken a bit longer, but as they were not doing anything with it, just copying the footage there is no reason that it should have done.

What does not make sense is Inspector Paiva’s statement being dated 23^rd May, which states this is the day the photos were examined, and then dismissed as irrelevant.

Why did it apparently take Leicester Police two weeks to get them out to Portugal, when everyone else had acted so swiftly and more importantly, were they exactly as copied by the Southampton Police or were they perhaps edited?

If Leicester looked at them and felt them to be irrelevant, why even send them out there?

Inspector Paiva was in Leicester on 15^th May according to GA, so why was he not shown this potentially vital evidence then?

by Verdi 12.01.17 12:35

If I may revert to the witness statement of Stuart William Martin, taken on 9th May 2007. This particular aspect has been omitted from more recent discussion [snipped]..

1. I am employed by Hampshire Constabulary as a Detective Constable and am currently stationed in the Hi-Tech Crime Unit. I hold a Batchelor of Mechanical Engineering and Management degree from Liverpool university
2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

ID ref Description

NALF/1 Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07

NALF/2 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07

NALF/3 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)

On 9th May 2007 at 08.30 I delivered this video camera in the sealed bag number CD 48113 to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination. I conducted no examination of this bag and contents.

4. 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 2) and 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07- 5/5/07 (NALF 3).

On 9th May 2007 I commenced my examination of a sealed plastic bag seal number CD48115 with two exhibit labels attached marked 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 2) and 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 3).

5. This bag contained a power lead and cable, a black camera case which contained an Olympus C50 camera and a memory cad holder which contained one card.
---------

I'll stop there so as to avoid overload.

by Verdi 12.01.17 12:56

Incident History Records

8th May 2007

Email received from Leicestershire police

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?. She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room
-----------

Report on Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

On this date, I can inform that photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed, these referred to photographs taken by the F***** family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007.

Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation.

Portimao, 23rd May 2007.

Inspector Ricardo Paiva
----------

@DougD - Of course PC Barham was just the messenger, I don't think there's any need to put him under the microscope. Leicestershire Constabulary were assigned case coordinators in the UK, I therefore think it safe to assume that the Olympus equipment analyzed by Martin in Hampshire originated directly or indirectly from Leicestershire.

My choice of word was perhaps misleading - I didn't mean Leicestershire Constabulary personally 'delivered' the sealed packages. Semantics pure and simple.

Still no explanation as to why the 'last photograph' and the curious 'tennis court' photograph were not included in the photographs given to the PJ.

by Guest 12.01.17 13:08

Still no explanation as to why the 'last photograph' and the curious 'tennis court' photograph were not included in the photographs given to the PJ.

Because they were already widely available?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.01.17 13:58

BlueBag wrote:
Still no explanation as to why the 'last photograph' and the curious 'tennis court' photograph were not included in the photographs given to the PJ.
Because they were already widely available?

@BlueBag

The 'Last Photo' wasn't released until Thursday 24 May, two days after Gerry McCann's return from his England trip (20 to 22 May) and Philomena McCann's arrival in Praia da Luz the same day.

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

by Guest 12.01.17 15:10

You're right Tony.

Sorry I forgot pool picture was 24th May.

Yes, why wasn't it on the CD?

Should have been one of the PJ questions.

by Verdi 12.01.17 15:51

BlueBag wrote:You're right Tony.

Sorry I forgot pool picture was 24th May.

Yes, why wasn't it on the CD?

Should have been one of the PJ questions.

Ah - maybe not widely available as in the public eye but it could well have been included in the dossier of Madeleine photographs held by close friend Jon Corner. The dossier that was ready and waiting for action on Friday 4th May 2007 - apparently.

I'm not convinced by Kate McCann's claim about what she was doing whilst her husband was upstairs being grilled by the PJ on 10th May 2007. I quote.. "I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before."

Seven days after losing her precious little child, that she thought had ben snatched by a paedophile, she would still be prostrated by grief - surely?
Although it's interesting to note her words 'containing dated photographs of the holiday' - why mention that, it's of no interest to the reader.

by JRP 12.01.17 16:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Still no explanation as to why the 'last photograph' and the curious 'tennis court' photograph were not included in the photographs given to the PJ.
Because they were already widely available?
@BlueBag

The 'Last Photo' wasn't released until Thursday 24 May, two days after Gerry McCann's return from his England trip (20 to 22 May) and Philomena McCann's arrival in Praia da Luz the same day.

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

If you freeze frame the video at 1:09 and look at the top end of the exif document it clearly shows that this info relates to a Photoshop version.
It states
Modify Date: 2007:05:11 09:50:25
Software: Adobe Photoshop 7.0

The image was modified in Photoshop version 7 on 11th May 2007
It was created on 2007:05:05

So, this image was created in Photoshop 7 on 5th May 2007, and modified in some way on 11th May 2007.

Just as a note, this Tennis Balls image is created and modified in Photoshop version 7 while the Last Photo (pool photo) has been saved in Photoshop CS.

Photoshop CS was an upgrade to Photoshop 7, one for which a payment was made.
Do two different versions signify two different sources, or did somebody upgrade versions between 11th May and 24th May?

by Equity 12.01.17 16:40

Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

by JRP 12.01.17 17:28

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

People using Photoshop now, are spoiled because adding and removing people, objects, unwanted items etc is now very very easy, the latest programs detect the edges of what you want to cut out so well.

However, we are talking about 2007 technology, and while that isn't too far in the distant past in terms of years, in terms of photo capture and photo editing technology it's light years away.

Cutting a head, face, or whole person from one photo and pasting to another was a work of art, you had to cut objects/people out by eye, like placing a lasoo around every detail... So when you go on modern courses using modern versions of the latest software, and comment on how easy this kind of thing is, you have no idea of the enormity of the task 10 years back.

I still have a version of Photoshop 7 and compared to the latest version Photoshop CC it's like going bavck to drive a Ford Anglea.

by Doug D 12.01.17 17:34

Verdi:

‘I therefore think it safe to assume that the Olympus equipment analyzed by Martin in Hampshire originated directly or indirectly from Leicestershire’

Surely not, although it makes little difference.

Nigel Foster, wife & 3 year old daughter were booked into OC till 5^th May.

Unlikely, but not impossible of course, that the Leicester Police got hold of his camera & memory cards before lunchtime on 8^th,but not the video cam. If they had they would surely have kept hold and got their own experts to look at them. DC Martin was only the local ‘high-tech’ man for Southampton, which is why the ended up with him. He was not even the right man for video's. Hard to believe Leicester did not have their own unit in 2007. They certainly have now.

In DC Martin’s own words he was ‘request(ed) they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.’ No specialist examination was even requested. That looks like an ‘extra’ kindly supplied by Southampton Police.

The important thing is the ‘NALF’ references to both the videocam & Olympus camera clearly showing they both belonged to the Fosters.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.01.17 17:40

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Snipped...

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-).

@ Equity - Wow! What a hugely helpful and informative post that was - thank you very much for taking the time.

Regarding these bits of your post...

QUOTE

As soon as I received the original high resolution 'Last Photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

REPLY: This has always been a friendly place for anyone who is genuinely here to search for the truth. Those who are genuine will always want to look at all the evidence and hypotheses - and be prepared to prefer good evidence to bad evidence and prefer reasoned hypotheses to wild speculation and unsupportd theories.

Most of those who gave you 'a barrage of unexpected abuse' have long since migrated to another place, where they can discuss all sorts of unevidenced ideas and speculation, untroubled by any worries that their often preposterous theories will ever be challenged

by Verdi 12.01.17 20:22

DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.

by kaz 13.01.17 10:03

Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.

But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

by Equity 13.01.17 11:38

kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.
But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

The black & white images in the PJ files are not scans. They are the result of photocopying a photograph (either colour or black & white). The photocopier can't see any dots to reproduce so just dumps a load of toner on the paper with varying degrees of success.

I'm sure the PJ will hold a master original file containing the original photographs, almost certainly colour. They will have then made copies of the master, unfortunately using a photocopier, producing a less than desirable result.

The modern way would be to scan all the documents to create a PDF record from which copies could be printed.

Photographs that we used to get from the chemist or now print them off ourselves from the machines in supermarkets etc are called 'continuous tone' images. Although nowadays it is a digital process, it still uses proper light sensitive paper so you can't actually see any dots. Images printed off desktop inkjet printers are made up of thousands of tiny dots in a dither pattern - the dot is now so fine that these images would also photocopy quite badly. The only images that would photocopy OK are what are called halftones - they are created using a screen of dots that the photocopier can see and reproduce - hence the expression in printing 'dot for dot'.

Halftones also appear in commercially printed material using a lithographic press - each colour is made from a pattern of dots from the four primary colours Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. If you look at a colour magazine through a magnifying glass you would see a pattern in the shape of a rosette - it's this uniform dot that allows it to be photocopied ok.

A modern photocopier would have scanned the originals (effectively turning them into halftones) and the results would have been much, much clearer.

Unfortunately in this case the PJ used an old photocopier to make duplicates which is why the photos look crap.
.

by Verdi 13.01.17 12:27

The Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral - Chapter 3

THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS SOMETIMES UNOBTAINABLE

We need reliable information. Apart from all the searches already undertaken, we must also examine the photos and films taken by the McCann family and their friends. From amongst the onlookers, these images could help to identify a suspicious-looking individual or someone whose attitude might be suspicious. Trivialised since the general use of computers, photography is a source of information which the investigators know not to neglect: each holiday-maker takes, in general, hundreds of photos. The McCanns and their friends who were in Vila da Luz make all of theirs available to the investigators, but none of those dating from the evening of the disappearance help us to understand what happened.
----------

David Payne rogatory interview - April 2008

1485 "Okay. Did you take any photos on the night at the Tapas bar''

Reply "No I didn't.'

1485 "Did anybody take any photos''

Reply "Err''

1485 "Before Kate obviously raised the alarm.'

Reply "Not that I'm aware of. There wasn't, normally we're quite snap happy but err we've only got a few pictures from the second of May, then the third of May and then you know a few days until err so there wasn't a great deal of pictures being taken err you know obviously there was a few here and there, Jane's quite keen on photography, I know she takes some nice pictures and I'd taken some in the play area on the, the, err the night before and we've also got pictures of the, the afternoon from the beach and from the restaurant and then the play area again and there's some pictures of us playing tennis err with the times on, so you know that's about the last pictures that I can recall. I've got our pictures and I've got Dianne's pictures but I've certainly not seen anybody else's err completely.

1485 "What about the night before' The Wednesday night, did you take any pictures, were any pictures taken then' Or did you see any pictures being taken then''

Reply "In the evening''

1485 "Yeah, because I understand that you stayed later on the Wednesday night.'

Reply "We did, yes, err the pictures that I've got, there are some pictures on one of the evenings and I can't say which evening that was.'

1485 "Your camera should''

Reply "My cameras will have the''

1485 "It'll have''

Reply "It'll have the date on there.'

1485 "Yeah.'

Reply "But I, you know I can't remember which evening, I thought it was earlier on in the week but err but again it wasn't, it wasn't, you know in the evenings wasn't generally camera time, I don't think people were that bothered really in the evening and that taking pictures, it wasn't...'

1485 "Because it would have all pictures of you huddled together and...'

Reply "Well it would yeah.'

1485 "(Inaudible).'

Reply "That was it yeah. I mean as I say there's only like two or three pictures I think we've got from the evening.'
----------

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

by Verdi 13.01.17 12:44

Equity wrote:
If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

I'm not qualified to comment on technical issues but I've often wondered about the validity of Exif Data presented, quite frequently, to add weight to the 'photoshop' theories that attach themselves to just about every Madeleine photograph.

Mainly because the data contains information that one wouldn't expect to see from an original photograph straight from the camera. It's useless to use information to prove a point if you don't understand the technicalities - let's face it, the subject of digital photography is very daunting to the layperson.

Your detailed explanation covering so many points is much appreciated - although I admit some of it is beyond my comprehension. Keep it coming thumbsup

!

by kaz 13.01.17 13:14

Equity wrote:
kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.
But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

The black & white images in the PJ files are not scans. They are the result of photocopying a photograph (either colour or black & white). The photocopier can't see any dots to reproduce so just dumps a load of toner on the paper with varying degrees of success.

I'm sure the PJ will hold a master original file containing the original photographs, almost certainly colour. They will have then made copies of the master, unfortunately using a photocopier, producing a less than desirable result.

The modern way would be to scan all the documents to create a PDF record from which copies could be printed.

Photographs that we used to get from the chemist or now print them off ourselves from the machines in supermarkets etc are called 'continuous tone' images. Although nowadays it is a digital process, it still uses proper light sensitive paper so you can't actually see any dots. Images printed off desktop inkjet printers are made up of thousands of tiny dots in a dither pattern - the dot is now so fine that these images would also photocopy quite badly. The only images that would photocopy OK are what are called halftones - they are created using a screen of dots that the photocopier can see and reproduce - hence the expression in printing 'dot for dot'.

Halftones also appear in commercially printed material using a lithographic press - each colour is made from a pattern of dots from the four primary colours Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. If you look at a colour magazine through a magnifying glass you would see a pattern in the shape of a rosette - it's this uniform dot that allows it to be photocopied ok.

A modern photocopier would have scanned the originals (effectively turning them into halftones) and the results would have been much, much clearer.

Unfortunately in this case the PJ used an old photocopier to make duplicates which is why the photos look crap.
.

Thanks for that. To my primitive brain scan / photocopier it’s all the same although of course it isn’t. Great explanation for a duffer like me. Just one other question . When was the ‘scratching out of eyes’ done to the photographs? After photocopying?

by NickE 18.01.17 22:18

Is it confirmed that the time for the photo was 1:29 and not 2:29?

by kaz 19.01.17 13:58

NickE wrote:Is it confirmed that the time for the photo was 1:29 and not 2:29?

Admittedly it doesn’t take much to confuse me but surely it was either 2.29 or 3.29 in Portugal depending on whether or not the McCanns’ camera ‘s ‘clock’ had been adjusted for Summertime ? Of course though, it could have been ANY time if the camera’s data had been altered

by MayMuse 02.03.17 7:21

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrK9cikjXAQ

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

Great information @Equity, but which photo are you talking about as the last photo has been proven not to be a fake (other than the date taken) and the photo mentioned with the data being discussed ( see above ) is the "tennis photo"?

A little confused, so if you could clarify please.