Re: Another look at the Last photo

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 Guest 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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 Guest 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 Guest 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.

by JRP 15.04.16 0:18

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.

by Guest 15.04.16 0:30

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?

by JRP 15.04.16 8:26

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.

by Guest 15.04.16 9:07

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.

by pendragon2007 15.04.16 9:21

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)

by kaz 15.04.16 9:59

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.

by kaz 15.04.16 10:08

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.........!

by Liz Eagles 15.04.16 10:37

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.

by kaz 15.04.16 11:03

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.04.16 11:23

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.

by Richard IV 15.04.16 11:34

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.

by Guest 15.04.16 11:59

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.

by Guest 15.04.16 12:12

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.

by Guest 15.04.16 12:36

@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 smilie

!
Projection v. reflection - totally different technically but the gist of my comment remains intact.

by Guest 15.04.16 12:44

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.