Has this photo been edited?

The photo is credited to Frederico D Carvalho, and has a rather odd quality (the stark filter aside). This is (as far as I know) the only photo that's public, where you can actually see where Madeleine would've been standing (in the Tennis balls photo), taken contemporarily, from an angle where the surface could be observed. Only, it takes just one look to notice that the entire area has been blurred. This is a professional so I highly doubt he took and published a bad photo - but at some point between the click of the photo and its publication, someone selectively blurred that area.

Why?

Original photo

Roughly editted to show issues in the photo:


I do ask myself whether I am chasing rainbows looking so closely at that photo, but I can't shake how odd it is. The leaf could be blurry due to perspective (if it was much nearer to the camera than the white flowers/bush), but I can't fathom why the rest is blurred.

Does this seem editted to anyone else, and if so what do we make of it?

It's from his personal blog.

I'll try and contact him then. I'm not sure why he'd post a photo he took himself in obvious poor condition if he's a professional. There's only one, possibly two other photos with similar blurring.




Not sure what to make of it.

Could be. I was assuming he'd post the original, or more specifically the best quality he had, to his blog. I normally see sharpening and square/rectangle compression not blurs.

I've emailed him, will perhaps get some clarity.

I, too, can see bit and pieces of blurring, April 28th and some strange foliage!

I did think for a while there I could seemingly see the outline of Madeleine's face in some bushes -

- possibly - but then I came across a koala up a tree (!), so I'll have a better look in the morning.

Mr Carvalho was kind enough to reply to me and says the photos were taken with his mobile phone, explaining the quality. He also made me aware of a great photo which I've not seen before.

    

Which part don't you follow @Verdi ?

@April28th wrote:Which part don't you follow @Verdi ?

The bit that says 'has this photo been edited'.

Not sure if you're being spurious there, but as a poster I respect a lot here I am going to assume you weren't.

The photo issue has been resolved as I spoke to the photographer personally. The photos were taken with a Motorola phone. I wondered if it had been editted because there was odd blurring in a specific area of the photo, that being the area where Madeleine should've been standing in the 'tennis balls' photo. There are distinctive floor markings in that photo that would've been visible if not for the blurring. I was simply trying to ascertain whether the blurring was artificial or not.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

@April28th wrote:Not sure if you're being spurious there, but as a poster I respect a lot here I am going to assume you weren't.

The photo issue has been resolved as I spoke to the photographer personally. The photos were taken with a Motorola phone. I wondered if it had been editted because there was odd blurring in a specific area of the photo, that being the area where Madeleine should've been standing in the 'tennis balls' photo. There are distinctive floor markings in that photo that would've been visible if not for the blurring. I was simply trying to ascertain whether the blurring was artificial or not.

Hope this clears up the confusion.

Thank you - and for not thinking me full of spuriosity.

On the subject of replies, did you ever get the information you were anticipating from Portugal (the PJ if I remember correctly) after having confirmed your identity?

Yes Verdi - I mentioned in Richard's section (and emailed him) on this. I put in an FOI on the 9th asking that simple question. I remain unwilling to share emails as I am not comfortable with doing so, and I hope the FOI will clear it up. I've hung back from posting in this period of time as I realise my credibility is on the line and I quite accept that.