Re: Another look at the Last photo

by JRP 14.04.16 12:14

canada12 wrote:Good morning.
I used the high res version of the LP, as posted by Gestalt:
You may see the entire picture by right clicking on it.

I enlarged it by about 400% on a Mac, using Photoshop. I enhanced the colours. If you have a computer with excellent resolution, as a Mac has (which is why graphic designers love Macs), you will easily see the pattern, and if you enhance the colours, you will see it just as I did.

If you have a PC with a graphics program that doesn't have as good resolution as a Mac does, then your observation of the pattern may not be as precise as someone with a computer which has a better graphics.

I stand by my original posting.

Thank you.

PS - it would be really excellent if PeterMac were to contact me directly, since I did email him privately with this information and invited him to write back. This information has, of course, also been passed along to Operation Grange and the PJ. I'm satisfied that it will be dealt with, and if it is deemed not relevant by them, I'm happy to have made the effort.

@canada12 Did you save this high res image to your Mac?
If so that will cause more artifacts to appear on your version than what appear by simply just viewing the image on line.
It's possible we are looking at 2 different versions of the same photo. Ours live, yours a saved copy.
Every save and reissue adds more degradation.

I will save it to my Mac later today and have a good look, I'll post back any findings or discrepancies.

by Verdi 14.04.16 12:26

This subject would appear to be a non-starter. The three items of hair adornment are clearly completely different, except perhaps for a similarity of colour. No surprise there as everything about Madeleine was pink.

The poolside picture is some kind of band thing.
The disgusting make-up picture looks like a little bow type thing
The picture with ice-cream cone and/or stick is a clip type thing.

Besides, Kate McCann seemed to have a thing about hair frippery. There can even be seen a pink hair clip on the brim of the sunhat worn by Amelie at the poolside..

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 News-graphics-2007-_645125a

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 News-graphics-2007-_645125a

by kaz 14.04.16 12:33

Verdi wrote:Does the type of hair adornment used by Madeleine have any significance?

Well yes, actually. Anything Kate mentions in her book has significance. Some people on the forum suggest that the photos where Madeleine wears hair decoration are linked so the fact whether they are easily removed or not does have a bearing. The devil IS in the detail!

by Doug D 14.04.16 12:35

canada12:

Please can you put up a link to the short video from which you have taken the shot of MM in the patterned blouse, as I can't find it.

Thanks

by canada12 14.04.16 12:38

Doug D wrote:canada12:

Please can you put up a link to the short video from which you have taken the shot of MM in the patterned blouse, as I can't find it.

Thanks

It wasn't taken from a short video.
It's here:
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

Scroll down the page until you find it. :-)

by Verdi 14.04.16 12:48

@canada12 wrote: I used the high res version of the LP, as posted by Gestalt

Where is that please - on this forum? According to the member's profile, s/he has never posted.

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?

The enlarged image of Madeleine posted up-thread by Get'emGoncalo is a good example.

by Doug D 14.04.16 13:40

Thanks Canada 12.

Do you think it could be the same top as as in this one? Similar white patch behind the bottle to that in ‘your’ photo. Short sleeves with bit of ribbon. One sleeve more hitched up than the other one.

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 Sun9511mbm2

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 Sun9511mbm2

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 0-mmc

Verdi,

The high def. last photo from mcCannfiles at:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lastphotohighres2.jpg&target=tlx_picw30p

shows as 3072 x 2304 the same as the

VERY HIGH QUALITY PHOTO OF MADELEINE'S LAST PHOTOGRAPH SIZE(3072x2304) Originally posted on 3As by TheKTPHorg then reposted by gestalt from 3As

HIGH RES IMAGE OF
LAST PHOTOS 3072 X 2304

From canada12’s link above to:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

At one time, there was a good enough quality posting of one of the photos that could be blown right up to individual pixel size. I thought it was this one, but it may have been the playground (Raj Balu) one, or one of the others.

by **Jill Havern** 14.04.16 13:57

canada12 wrote:PS - it would be really excellent if PeterMac were to contact me directly, since I did email him privately with this information and invited him to write back. This information has, of course, also been passed along to Operation Grange and the PJ. I'm satisfied that it will be dealt with, and if it is deemed not relevant by them, I'm happy to have made the effort.

PeterMac does use a mac.

I sent him my two versions that I posted here this morning and he replied saying:

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 Pm10

by Verdi 14.04.16 14:11

Doug D wrote:Thanks Canada 12.

Do you think it could be the same top as as in this one? Similar white patch behind the bottle to that in ‘your’ photo. Short sleeves with bit of ribbon. One sleeve more hitched up than the other one.

Verdi,

The high def. last photo from mcCannfiles at:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/lastphotohighres2.jpg&target=tlx_picw30p

shows as 3072 x 2304 the same as the

VERY HIGH QUALITY PHOTO OF MADELEINE'S LAST PHOTOGRAPH SIZE(3072x2304) Originally posted on 3As by TheKTPHorg then reposted by gestalt from 3As
HIGH RES IMAGE OF
LAST PHOTOS 3072 X 2304

From canada12’s link above to:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

At one time, there was a good enough quality posting of one of the photos that could be blown right up to individual pixel size. I thought it was this one, but it may have been the playground (Raj Balu) one, or one of the others.

thanks for taking the time but I'm really none the wiser. I now recall seeing the image posted by canada12 but the only visible aspect is an enlargement of Gerry McCann's mug and the area to his right.

Forgetting that for a moment (I only wanted to see the high resolution for comparison) - can you answer 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?

by Verdi 14.04.16 14:14

"Get'emGoncalo: PeterMac does use a mac.

So he does big grin

!

by **Jill Havern** 14.04.16 14:15

Verdi wrote:"Get'emGoncalo: PeterMac does use a mac.

So he does !

Not that kind of mac!

by kaz 14.04.16 14:28

Apologies if this has been discussed before but in the high def version of the LP supplied by Doug D ( PAGE 21) what is that black line in between Amelie's body and arm? Before anyone kicks off, I am allowed to ........................... merely ask....................aren't I ?

by Verdi 14.04.16 14:29

kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:Does the type of hair adornment used by Madeleine have any significance?
Well yes, actually. Anything Kate mentions in her book has significance. Some people on the forum suggest that the photos where Madeleine wears hair decoration are linked so the fact whether they are easily removed or not does have a bearing. The devil IS in the detail!

OK, fair enough! I've had my say so I'll now stand back and watch, with interest, how the discussion developments.

by skyrocket 14.04.16 14:34

@DougD - you're spot on with that I would say, as def looks like the same top i.e. pyjama. Enlarge MBM's right eye in that photo - looks like 2 'coloboma' lines at 6 o'clock + a section of lower eye lid passing infront of one and behind the second.

by pendragon2007 14.04.16 15:47

Just an observation for all you experts to consider. I took the highest definition "Last Photo" I could find. I enlarged it 800x but could not get the same pattern effect shown in earlier post. I was just about to close program when I noticed a pattern on the underside of Madeleines hat. I clipped that part of the photo and increased the contrast to show up the pattern and placed it beside a clip of the pattern obtained by the colour enhancement shown in previous post. The clips are below for your opinions. My opinion is that it may be possible that the overhead direct sunlight may have caused a faint projection of the pattern on the underside of Madeleine's hat. The enhanced pattern shadow on her shoulder looks similar to the pattern under the upturned edge of the hat. To me it appeared as if the patterned area covered the underside of the whole brim of the hat. I just wondered if it was possible that the enhancement procedure had highlighted the previously unseen projection. No doubt you folks will examine this and I would welcome your opinions.

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 Patter10

Another look at the Last photo - Page 21 Patter10

by joyce1938 14.04.16 16:51

Have a feeling Maddie's sunhat was of the type you could wear plain one side and the other inside flowered. So choice of what to wear it with? That just seems to be just what we needed to explain. joyce1938

by JRP 14.04.16 16:52

I said earlier that I would download the Last Photo to my Mac and have a good look to see what I could find around Maddies left shoulder and chin area.
I downloaded the high res image on SiteBuilder from the link given on this thread.
It was saved and opened in Photoshop.

I have lightened it, and darkened it, I have put it through "curves", adjusted it's exposure levels, altered the colour balance and I cannot replicate that pattern found in canada12's version... so very sorry I can't help solve the reason it appears.

What I did notice though, is the EXIF file says this image on SiteBuilder named "lastphothighres2" has the following dimensions
3072 x 2304 pixels at 180dpi

Now the Canon A630 which is named as the camera in the EXIF does produce images at 180dpi... so that is good news.
But, the Canon A630 does not produce photographs at 3072 x 2304.

The camera has 4 choices of image quality, and the owner can change between whichever they want.
The highest resolution is 3264 x 2448, and there is a choice of 3 lower res settings, which would enable more photos to fit on the SD card.
The Mc's obviously went for the highest resolution to give the best image quality, as most of us would I guess.

As said, this image isn't 3264 x 2448, it is 3072 x 2304 pixels, which means it has been cropped. 237 pixels are missing from it's width and 144 off its height.
The EXIF doesn't mention any saving in Photoshop, so the crop could have been made in the camera, that's the most likely reason the crop isn't stored as an amendment in the EXIF.

A link provides a review of the Canon A630, and shows it's image dimensions, just in case you want to check out what I'm saying.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8359904678/canona630640

by **Jill Havern** 14.04.16 19:14

JRP

It was a Canon A 620 which has exactly the right aspect ratio . . .

Camera Model Name Canon PowerShot A620
Modify Date 2007:05:24 17:41:22
11 months, 22 days, 23 hours, 3 minutes, 2 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Related Image Height 2,304
Related Image Width 3,072

by kaz 14.04.16 19:22

I think 'Pendragon' is right and it's a reflection of the sunhat's inner lining. The little pink flower is even repeated on the hat. What I do find interesting though is that Canada 12's thoughts were initially dismissed with all those clever technological photographic terms when in actual fact he/she had spotted something no one else had. Maybe some of the older ( as in , been around the forum longer ) are giving short shrift to theories that they find unacceptable instead of listening and checking them out for themselves. No one and I repeat ................no one...................on here has all the answers and to have a fixed inflexible idea of what DID happen to Madeleine is pretty stupid. I know there are people on this forum who have seen the same old arguments and unanswered questions going round and round for nine years now and it must be exhausting but the truth will out one day. Love to you all. Just my thought for the night before I sign off!

by **Jill Havern** 14.04.16 19:41

I sent pendragon's post to Peter and he said:

Yes, I saw that.
Reflection of underside of hat onto shiny (sweaty) skin.

Possible I suppose. It might need further research,
BUT
IMPOSSIBLE on 3/5/7 when there was no sun, and it was freezing cold. Even Kate says so ! And the weather reports and other people's photos are very clear
So it is all very interesting but takes us no further.

The photo was not taken on 3/5/7.

Which was the only thing we were trying to prove.
Peter

by Liz Eagles 14.04.16 20:51

It seems to me that some people will go to the nth degree to demonstrate their belief the last photo was photoshopped and this brings with it all forms of wild theories, when the real crux of the matter is was it taken on Thursday 3rd May 2007? It's as simple as that.

PeterMac has gone to the trouble of having the photograph assessed by experts and they have declared the photo to be genuine. No-one as far as I know has taken the photo to experts who declare it's not genuine.

However much the discussion goes round in circles by amateurs, however well intentioned they might or might not be, there's nothing declared by an expert to support the beliefs of those in camp photoshop.

It really is that simple.

Just my opinion of course.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.04.16 22:09

kaz wrote:I think 'pendragon' is right and it's a reflection of the sunhat's inner lining. The little pink flower is even repeated on the hat. What I do find interesting though is that canada12's thoughts were initially dismissed with all those clever technological photographic terms when in actual fact he/she had spotted something no one else had. Maybe some of the older ( as in, been around the forum longer ) are giving short shrift to theories that they find unacceptable instead of listening and checking them out for themselves. No one and I repeat...no one...on here has all the answers and to have a fixed inflexible idea of what DID happen to Madeleine is pretty stupid. I know there are people on this forum who have seen the same old arguments and unanswered questions going round and round for nine years now and it must be exhausting but the truth will out one day. Love to you all. Just my thought for the night before I sign off!

@ kaz

If we go back for a moment to what canada12 said when she was quoted by NickE on Monday on this forum, there was absolutely no mistaking her conclusion, She was plain:

QUOTE canada12

"My conclusion? Madeleine's head was photoshopped onto the body in the Last Photo".

UNQUOTE

I stepped in to this thread to point out forcefully that all that canada12 had said was no real evidence at all of photoshopping. I stand by the various experts who are unanimous in stating that the Last Photo was not photoshopped, and for very good reasons that they have explained. I therefore go by the evidence, as always in this case.

Even if 'pendragon was right' (and I don't think he is) about the alleged pattern marks on the shadowed area of Madeleine's neck being "a reflection of the sunhat's inner lining", this still doesn't support the claim that the Last Photo was photoshopped.

Unless credible evidence is presented to this forum that it has been photoshopped - then we must go with the experts, that's how evidence works. One of the forum's tasks has been to sift good evidence from poor evidence. That's how we make progress. Opinions need to be supported with evidence.

So far as the claim that the patterns on the shaded area of the neck are a reflection of the patterned part of the sunhat, I do not see for the life of me how that could work - physically. B

Besides that, as I showed, the same pattern as canada12 claimed to have noted was also visible (on canada12's method of enlargements) on parts of her face, lips and even tongue as well. How does that work? It clearly suggests an artifact of some kind, not 'reflections'.

I think your choice of words: "all those clever technological photographic terms" was unfortunate.

Artifacts are produced by digital photography and can be enhanced by enlargements in ways that in turn, may be significantly affected by which programs are being used and which photo is being used as the source.

These are facts.

This is not people trying to be 'clever'. It is experts sharing their expertise.

Let us please listen to them.

by Verdi 14.04.16 23:18

@ 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!

by Verdi 14.04.16 23:25

I challenge anyone to go out in the midday sun, accompanied by Noel Coward if it feels right, wearing a cotton sunhat with flowery brim - take a friend and digital camera with you but be sure the neighbours aren't watching - come back and tell me truthfully backed by photographic evidence (preferably not photo-shopped) that the flowery pattern of the sunhat brim is reflected on the skin of your neck or shoulder.

No cheating..

by Richard IV 14.04.16 23:52

Isn`t it rather a coincidence that these so called `digital artefacts` are exactly the same as a dress she was wearing in a separate photograph? Less likely IMO that these artefacts stem from the tiny bit of hat brim. The artefacts are more like the pattern on the dress in the separate photo.