Re: 'The Last Photo': The key questions

by ROSA 18.06.11 21:29

i dont think that photo is linked to the pool side photo i have seen this one many times but no link to the other

by ROSA 20.06.11 4:26

Angelique wrote:In answer to the OP

IMO this has been discussed widely - I believe it is an amalgamation of images - none of the characters are really there. It has been discussed on another forum suggesting we look at the wall behind the group at the flowering shrub. For me this conclusive - this shrub apparently would not be flowering at the time the McCanns were on holiday at the OC.

The bead is missing - I think I recall that maybe someone suggested asking Kate to produce it because if she was readying Madeleine for bed would she have removed it and if so - where is it.

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 8:20

Look, here is an enlargement of the bit to the side of madeleine's head:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You CANNOT do this in photoshop. The strands of hair over the background cannot be reproduced like that. You would have hard line edges and obvious artefacts of the digital painting needed, it is not possible in photoshop to achieve this result.

by pauline 20.06.11 8:41

C.Edwards wrote:Look, here is an enlargement of the bit to the side of madeleine's head:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You CANNOT do this in photoshop. The strands of hair over the background cannot be reproduced like that. You would have hard line edges and obvious artefacts of the digital painting needed, it is not possible in photoshop to achieve this result.

Folks, I think the photos issue has been over analysed.

C.Edwards has expertise in this area, and has from time to time pointed out the flaws in the enthusiasm of some posters. Listen to him/her. What does 'C' stand for?

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 9:02

pauline wrote:
C.Edwards has expertise in this area, and has from time to time pointed out the flaws in the enthusiasm of some posters. Listen to him/her. What does 'C' stand for?

Thanks Pauline. I'm not able to say with 100% certainty that I'm right, but I do work with photoshop as part of my job and I've got in excess of 10 years of experience of that and similar programmes, so it's one of the few things I'm able to speak with a bit of authority on.

Neither "C" nor "Edwards" are actually my name... it's a long story. Anyhow, I'm a bit wary of the stalking nutters from PFA2 so let's just use "Dan" if c.edwards is too formal ;-)

by Guest 20.06.11 9:18

C.Edwards wrote:Look, here is an enlargement of the bit to the side of madeleine's head:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

You CANNOT do this in photoshop. The strands of hair over the background cannot be reproduced like that. You would have hard line edges and obvious artefacts of the digital painting needed, it is not possible in photoshop to achieve this result.

Tell me C. Edwards. Why is the wall level with the mouth fairly sharp, yet the wall level with the forehead at the top of the picture out of focus?

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 9:24

Stella wrote:

Tell me C. Edwards. Why is the wall level with the mouth fairly sharp, yet the wall level with the forehead at the top of the picture out of focus?

Hi Stella. I think it's two things. One it's a bit of an optical illusion as the cracks in the stonework make the eye believe it's sharper than it really is. The focal length of the camera means it keeps all the depth of field "fairly" much in focus but the wall is definitely a bit out of focus overall. The "fringing effect" that you're seeing on top of the wall is a common problem with cheap-ish or not very good quality digital cameras and is at its worst at distinct borders between colours. At that point you have a creamy stone colour right next to a vivid green and the way that jpeg image information is compressed for storage leads to less definition in areas such as these. Again, it's exactly in line with how I would expect the image to look. A good digital slr with a good lens would not cause such fringing effects.

by Guest 20.06.11 9:50

Thank you CE for that explanation. Many years ago I used to work with a photographic company and witnessed with my very own eyes how pictures were developed and printed by hand, to produce the best quality for the likes of the publishing industry and graphic designers. Oh my, how the photographic industry has changed. Arh.....the good ol'days. Then we moved onto computers and the use of Quark and Photoshop became the norm, which helped to speed things up, but we lost a lot of quality where people scanned everything in. Some people became very good at photo manipulation, which to the untrained eye can be very convincing. But there is always something that is never quite right. Something that gives the game away and it's not always the IT experts fought.

To the best of my knowledge, Madeleine had a classic hair cut in the style of a 'bob'. You know the one. The hair is all one length all the way round, with a fringe that is also one length, which is level with or just above the eyebrows. But if you look closer at Madeleine's hair in the photo you enlarged (and thanks for that), what you now see is that she has a sort of new fringe that is way below her eyebrows and more on par with her lower eye lid. Which is not in keeping with the 'bob' hair style that she had.

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 10:19

Stella wrote:To the best of my knowledge, Madeleine had a classic hair cut in the style of a 'bob'. You know the one. The hair is all one length all the way round, with a fringe that is also one length, which is level with or just above the eyebrows. But if you look closer at Madeleine's hair in the photo you enlarged (and thanks for that), what you now see is that she has a sort of new fringe that is way below her eyebrows and more on par with her lower eye lid. Which is not in keeping with the 'bob' hair style that she had.

Well, I'm no hairstylist, but coming to conclusions about hair/fringe length when a sun hat has been wedged on is probably not the best method in this case! Hair is one of the hardest things to photoshop, precisely because of the strands involved. There is no sign at all of any manipulation to Madeleine's hair there.

by Guest 20.06.11 10:25

You could "wedge on" as much hat as you like CE, but you could never bring up hair at shoulder length to look like a fringe.

Madeleine's fringe as seen in other photo's that week, did not sit below her bottom eye lid.

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 10:29

Stella wrote:You could "wedge on" as much hat as you like CE, but you could never bring up hair at shoulder length to look like a fringe.

Madeleine's fringe as seen in other photo's that week, did not sit below her bottom eye lid.

Yeah but look at her posture, she's doing the "shrug and grin" - my little girls did this loads in their pictures at this age, it's a common kind of mugging for photos that kids that are mucking about/playing up/semi-embarassed do. Look at Amelie's shoulders for comparison, relaxed and down... move her shoulders up, lean her forward and bingo, "longer" hair. All I'm saying is that the picture ain't photoshopped in my opinion. I may be wrong, I'm commenting as I have some expertise in the field. That's all. ;-)

by Guest 20.06.11 10:39

It is good that people with varying expertise join in debate here CE and I can understand perfectly what you are saying about the strands of hair. But when something like the length of someone's fringe comes into question, however much you shrug your shoulders, it would not alter the length of a fringe by that much. I am female with a fringe, trust me. It is this and the many other examples, just like the reflection in Gerry's sunglasses, that leads many people to question the validity of all of the photographs we have been supplied.

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 10:45

Stella wrote:It is good that people with varying expertise join in debate here CE and I can understand perfectly what you are saying about the strands of hair. But when something like the length of someone's fringe comes into question, however much you shrug your shoulders, it would not alter the length of a fringe by that much. I am female with a fringe, trust me. It is this and the many other examples, just like the reflection in Gerry's sunglasses, that leads many people to question the validity of all of the photographs we have been supplied.

Well, as I said, I'm no hairstylist ;-) I think that this photo is WAAAAAAAAAAY overanalysed, however. People are seeing all sorts of things that "shouldn't" or "couldn't" be there and yet there is no concrete evidence for these beliefs, just a feeling/opinion. I already spoke about the 90 degree reflection thing on Gerry's glasses about 15 pages back. I may be wrong, but if I was photoshopping a picture to the incredible level this has been done if it is a photoshop then I'm not going to make a daft mistake with the sunglasses reflection!

by *~Melody~* 20.06.11 10:50

You have to admit c.edwards that you get a much friendlier debate on this forum than over at PFA2 eh? :wink4:

by Hilary 20.06.11 11:07

I agree, the first (poolside) photo has been over analysed - I would say (once again) that it looks untouched apart from the small area containing the hair bead/band and half inch area beneath it where the hair shade differs markedly and which appears to have been copied and pasted in from a different photograph. Even there, one has to stop and wonder what the point of such an alteration might be. I recall Kate McCann speaking about having 'carefully removed a bead' from Madeleine's hair on the night she disappeared, but have no suggestions as to how such a small detail might merit anyone interfering with the last known photo of a missing child. It may just be coincidence that Kate spoke of a bead while the bead area of the photograph looks to have been pasted in. The bead hangs in thin air, unattached to any lock. C Edwards considered opinion (presented as fact) is that the bead is not photoshopped, but hangs on an unseen plait - an interesting claim - but it still looks unattached and photoshopped to me.

Forum users will continue to have no way of knowing the date on which the photograph was taken so ongoing speculation on that subject can only prove fruitless. It may have been hot and cold, sunny and overcast, and the flowers may well have been in bloom during May, but only forensic investigators with access to the McCann cameras and computers could (possibly) establish the date. It is such a good photograph, it seems the sort to have already been shared with family or friends had it been taken on an earlier holiday, as some speculate - if that were so, it would soon have become more widely known that it was an older photograph than was being claimed, given the inevitability of someone in the family leaving the print on the mantelpiece or showing the snap to someone else. Even if it had not been seen by anyone outside the family it's quite likely that someone within the family, or a friend, would have given that information to the police by now. Sensibly, it does seem most likely that the photo was taken during the holiday even though Madeleine does look younger in that photograph than in some others; without knowing a child personally it is impossible to do anything but speculate as to her precise age - big happy smiles do tend to have the effect of making a person, adult or child, look younger. She does look very small and dainty compared to some of the other photos from that holiday, but that may just be the effect of the clothing - in the other pictures she is wearing loose play clothing which has the effect of making her seem bigger alongside the picture of her bare-armed in a sun dress.

I recall it being said on the DM forum nearer the beginning of the investigation, that Kate McCann had commented on the tennis court photo being Gerry McCann's favourite picture of Madeleine; someone commented that it was not taken during that holiday, but during an earlier holiday in Ireland, and that the McCanns had never claimed it was taken during the Portugal holiday, it was just a mistaken assumption people had made. That is so much hearsay, I don't know the truth of it, but am just putting out a reminder of earlier ruminations regarding that photo and the claimed differences in the tennis courts - the point being, nobody but the family actually knows, and we can only choose to believe whatever takes our fancy - it proves nothing and helps in no way at all.

The problem with the more desperate theories regarding the photo is that they do undermine the credibility of the discussion/forum and to the more casual observer, give the impression of it being populated by obsessive individuals who just want their theories to fit, regardless of how unlikely a theory might be - it's not unlike watching someone bashing in the wrong pieces in order to complete a jigsaw by any unreasonable means. One wonders why some do it, if the intention is not to discredit the forum and obscure anyone's more reasoned observations under masses of spurious material.

by Guest 20.06.11 11:09

Yes Melody, that's something that I really appreciate on this forum. I would like to thank Dan (alias C Edwards) for his patience which must have been sorely tried at times!

by C.Edwards 20.06.11 12:03

*~Melody~* wrote:You have to admit c.edwards that you get a much friendlier debate on this forum than over at PFA2 eh? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I certainly spend less time fighting off accusations of being "Me" (also on this forum), spudgun, chris.hatton (my sister), zodiac, logicman and god knows who else...

Yes, much friendlier. Although some of the posters on there came across as surprisingly polite. Jayelles and DCB2 to name but two.

ETA: to add to the list of names, I recall I was accused of also being John Blacksmith, Tony Bennett and, I think, Dr. Martin Roberts at various points!

by Guest 20.06.11 12:09

C.Edwards wrote:
Well, as I said, I'm no hairstylist ;-)

I think that this photo is WAAAAAAAAAAY overanalysed, however. People are seeing all sorts of things that "shouldn't" or "couldn't" be there and yet there is no concrete evidence for these beliefs, just a feeling/opinion.
I think you will find that a visual observation from a photograph of someone's hair length would be seen as proof of how something looked at that time. It is not a feeling.

I already spoke about the 90 degree reflection thing on Gerry's glasses about 15 pages back. I may be wrong, but if I was photoshopping a picture to the incredible level this has been done if it is a photoshop then I'm not going to make a daft mistake with the sunglasses reflection!
You as a person might not make that same mistake CE, but from what we have seen someone obviously has.

The art of Photoshopping is not just about how good someone is with the program (a tool). Some people are more observant, more intelligent and more meticulous than others. A strand of hair in the right place does not mean it has not been photoshopped. It could just mean that someone has taken the time and a lot of effort to be more attentive, in that specific area. In fact, as you pointed out, that is one of the main things people look out for when assessing if something has been photoshopped or not. As such, someone could have cloned a stray hair and inserted it here and there, just to make it look more authentic.

by Guest 20.06.11 12:22

Hilary wrote:

The problem with the more desperate theories regarding the photo is that they do undermine the credibility of the discussion/forum and to the more casual observer, give the impression of it being populated by obsessive individuals who just want their theories to fit, regardless of how unlikely a theory might be

Interesting !! But the only desperate thing I've come across over the last 4 years, is for some individuals not wishing to discuss anything, but more interested in putting other posters down. As for making something "fit", maybe we should ask the McCann's, when there is no evidence whatsoever of an abduction, we have to all make it "fit" in with their belief that there was.

by Guest 20.06.11 12:28

C.Edwards wrote:
*~Melody~* wrote:You have to admit c.edwards that you get a much friendlier debate on this forum than over at PFA2 eh? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I certainly spend less time fighting off accusations of being "Me" (also on this forum), spudgun, chris.hatton (my sister), zodiac, logicman and god knows who else...

Yes, much friendlier. Although some of the posters on there came across as surprisingly polite. Jayelles and DCB2 to name but two.

ETA: to add to the list of names, I recall I was accused of also being John Blacksmith, Tony Bennett and, I think, Dr. Martin Roberts at various points!

Well C.Edward. I have no idea why anyone would confuse you with all of the above. As you are nothing like any of them. But now that you have thoroughly covered this area yet again, can we now put an end to this please?

To be honest, I really don't think anyone on this forum is evenly remotely interested in what goes on, on these other sites.

by pauline 20.06.11 12:51

A very good post Hilary and welcome to this site.

A friend of mine has accused me of making the facts fit what I now believe, that the Mccann's are not telling the truth and there was no abduction.

My friend has read the Vanished book by Danny Collins and read newspaper reports and seen TV news coverage. She has not tried any of the various sites or read any of the police files or the books questioning the McCanns. She believes the McCanns were incredibly wrong to leave their children alone, and were very unlucky in the short time frame available to lose their daughter. She believes the Vanished hypothesis that Madeleine wandered out of the unlocked patio door looking for her parents and was picked up by a passing scumbag.

I'm now trying harder to look at the facts as far as we know them to interpret the implications not from either a pro or anti McCann perspective. I have to say I do sometimes see obsessiveness in some postings. Though to be fair, isn't it sometimes obsessive people, whoultimately lead us to the truth because they will not give up?

by ROSA 20.06.11 22:43

The black line between the 2 sisters in the pool photo is very odd and only exists there no where else another reason to be suspicious of the photo
The Photos are very important
The McCanns claim the pool photo is the Last Photo but only weeks later why ? they focus on a much younger image of Madeleine with the big eyes darker hair a old photo from home showing the coloboma [i]fleck if they really wanted people to find M wouldnt the real last photos of her be more important?
The pool photo and tennis the McCanns claim as her last taken PDL in both photos she is smiling and you cant see her eyes very well
They want the world to LOOK and focus on the image Kate also uses on her Book cover but in her book the Last Photo does not exist why is the pool photo not in her book? and she is seen in a recnt photo holding the same old photo satnding with the 2 other women who hold age progression photos of their missing children does Kate not want to show the world what 8 year old Madeleines looks like so the world can find her ?
It would seem that from the start in May 2007 the McCanns only wanted to show a old photo of their missing daughter and had no interest in the last photos

by Gillyspot 20.06.11 23:06

I hate to say this but I agree with C. Edwards in that the picture looks entirely genuine.

During my working life I spend quite a lot of my time messing around with photographs on Adobe CS and unless someone is an expert beyond my experience they would have a job to modify this picture to suit their requirements.

The only thing I can say regarding this being the "last picture" is was it actually taken on this day or earlier.

To add or remove a person from this picture would be a massive undertaking and I wouldn't be able to do it, because my computer doesnt have the facility to zoom and make sure that every little hair from that person was added using Adobe Photoshop as once you zoom in it becomes blurry and therefore obvious that it wasn't in the original picture. I am sure there are more professional programs on the market now that may be able to eliminate this but were they in 2007?

by ROSA 21.06.11 1:29

ROSA wrote:The black line between the 2 sisters in the pool photo is very odd and only exists there no where else another reason to be suspicious of the photo
The Photos are very important
The McCanns claim the pool photo is the Last Photo but only weeks later why ? they focus on a much younger image of Madeleine with the big eyes darker hair a old photo from home showing the coloboma [i]fleck if they really wanted people to find M wouldnt the real last photos of her be more important?
The pool photo and tennis the McCanns claim as her last taken PDL in both photos she is smiling and you cant see her eyes very well
They want the world to LOOK and focus on the image Kate also uses on her Book cover but in her book the Last Photo does not exist why is the pool photo not in her book? and she is seen in a recnt photo holding the same old photo satnding with the 2 other women who hold age progression photos of their missing children does Kate not want to show the world what 8 year old Madeleines looks like so the world can find her ?
It would seem that from the start in May 2007 the McCanns only wanted to show a old photo of their missing daughter and had no interest in the last photos

Was it really taken at 1.29pm/2.29pm on Thursday 3 May?
Was Madeleine alive on the 3 May? if she died before that date what does that mean who then is the girl in the photo? is it a old photo of madeleine or a different child
Why does Kate say she carefully removed the hairbead re Madeleines bath is it to avoid being asked to produce a hairbead full of hair strands? and to link the photo to the bathtime she claims was on the 3rd u would find lots of hair strands in hairbead elastics and hairbrush
Again if Maddie died before the 3rd May 2007 how can the photo be taken on 1.29pm/2.29pm on Thursday 3 May???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

by Angelique 21.06.11 2:42

ROSA

I did actually want to discuss this photo yet again and in particular the black line. But I was thinking the debate was over.

Is it possible that Madeleine is the original picture but taken a year earlier. Then Gerry and Amelie slotted in complete with the black line from another picture in another area though why they needed Gerry and Amelie is debatable unless Madelien was sitting with someone who wasn't with them in 2007. It would be easier to slot Gerry and Amelie in and send them back behind Madeleine which would explain the black line nicely.