Re: Tennis Balls Photo - NEW ANALYSIS by Michelle Monk Photography

by **PeterMac** 06.01.19 7:29

Google Image search gives three versions

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The Flickr one may have some EXIF metadata for the poster as a whole.

by crispbee2000 07.01.19 8:40

Excellent points all. So, the pertinent question for me is - is there a version of the photo as it appeared in the initial release via Sky that can be analysed with better than reasonable chance that it represents what was released 09 May and hasn't been saved, re-saved, subsequently manipulated by others of unknown intent with unpredictable consequences. If the anomalies found by Michelle Monk and others could be verified to exist in the original "release" it would go a long way to proving wrong-doing over the claims of the provenance of the photo. As this was a chain email I'm guessing they didn't send a high res image / large attachment? Michelle seems to be working on a larger image than the ones I can find on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 07.01.19 9:54

Neither of these has EXIF attached that I can discover
The PhilomenaTony poster is cropped still further.
Unclear why

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

by crispbee2000 07.01.19 15:54

OK, here's what I'm thinking. If the shot above was taken at face value as an un-modified image there are serious issues with halos and extraneously coloured pixels where they shouldn't be. However, if you over saturate the image you can clearly see larger blocks of pixels clearly indicating that the image has been reduced in size dramatically (much more that 10x I would say). If I take one of my own images at normal digicam size and save it as jpg resizing to about 500x400 pixels I see many of the same types of halo and extraneous pixels and this occurs without any manipulation, other than resizing the image. It's not unreasonable that team McCann would have shrunk the image to send it out via email.

So, unless there's any higher res original image file versions out there to investigate, I don't think that we can conclude anything about this image from a photoshop perspective. Of course all of the other anomalies about dates, weather, skin tan, head body ratios, hair colour etc. are valid and are still to be resolved. Hope this helps.....[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 07.01.19 16:49

I think you are right. We were immensely privileged is having access to the "original" of the Pool Photo with the EXIF metadata intact.
Without the original Tennis Balls photo there is little we can do except discuss

by Guest 09.01.19 8:35

It's nice to see people who understand what jpeg compression does to pictures.

by **HiDeHo** 09.01.19 10:37

Not sure if this is anything worthwhile...

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

I continue to feel that if the line that appears to be a watermark could be established it would help date the photo.

If it is due to cleaning (scheduled for lunchtime AFTER the mini tennis) then why was the court wet during mini tennis when the photo was supposedly taken.

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

by crispbee2000 14.01.19 20:39

If the extract shows the EXIF data then there is something very strange about it. It shows the original date as 5th May 2007 but the time is exactly 00:00:00 - which doesn't look very genuine to me. If the camera date wasn't set it would all be at 00:00, but why ever would the date show and not a time? Where does the data come from? Always suspicious of something with no source.

by Verdi 14.01.19 21:10

What is the reason to suppose the above ^^^ blurred image of some untitled EXIF data relates to the 'tennis ball' image?

Whether you believe the abduction theory happened on the night of 3rd May or whether you believe in an earlier 'disappearance', either way the 5th May doesn't fit the bill. Madeleine was long gone before then so how can there be a photograph of her alive and well on a later date.

I hear you say, that's just the point - it's fake. Well, all I can say to that is the faker wasn't very clever was s/he?

Someone is playing silly buggers methinks bignono

.

This particular image will never prove anything unless it's provenance is ascertained. After nigh on twelve years of pontificating I really don't think that's very likely.

As far as I'm concerned, the important factor is what we do know - not what we don't know. There is a distinct shortage of photographs of Madeleine at or around the Ocean Club - no beach shots; no pool shots; no mini tennis shots; no creche shots; no apartment shots; no Tapas tea shots - it's just not normal. Only a couple of playground shots clearly taken at the beginning of the holiday and the poolside photograph said to have been taken early afternoon on 3rd May 2007. Coincidentally the very day she was said to have disappeared.

What more proof is needed?

by crispbee2000 14.01.19 21:16

It's like searching for the needle in a haystack and the more hay you scoop and throw away some b*****d throws even more hay on top of everything. It would be good to know who was throwing the straw...……. but we can guess where it is coming from.

by Verdi 14.01.19 23:37

by Iscoed1815 24.06.19 16:12

I'm a graphic designer, and use photoshop quite a bit. Yes the photo does look odd, yes there are lot's of artefacts and apparent image distortion in the photo. I would say a lot of these can be explained by continually opening and saving a "jpg" image file. JPG is the standard way most low-mid range digital camera's save their photos, and as far as I know all mobile phones. The trouble with JPG's is that they aren't a "lossless compression" method as opposed to tiffs, PSD etc's.

This means every time that photo is opened, it may ask the user to "save", this will result in another round of compression. A professional when working on a photo, will automatically change the saving method to either Tiff or PSD (photoshops own files) when working on a file. Once the work is done, they may then save as a JPG for storage space or for emailing etc.

If "unknown forces" are at work in this case, I'd like to think they would do a dam sight better job, than the mess that is apparent in the photo. The work that has been carried out on this photo, is not easy, and not really cheap. Anybody capable of doing the work would have a decent setup and I would like to think would do a better job.

It looks very amateurish, which leads to the question, do many amateurs have access to and know how to use PS. Yes there are plenty of amateur photographers who have PS, and the ones I know, would produce better work than what we see in that photo.

by worriedmum 28.06.19 22:02

quote 'If "unknown forces" are at work in this case, I'd like to think they would do a dam sight better job, than the mess that is apparent in the photo. The work that has been carried out on this photo, is not easy, and not really cheap. Anybody capable of doing the work would have a decent setup and I would like to think would do a better job.

It looks very amateurish, which leads to the question, do many amateurs have access to and know how to use PS. Yes there are plenty of amateur photographers who have PS, and the ones I know, would produce better work than what we see in that photo.'

Could you go into more detail about the 'mess' please, iscoed1815 ?

by Iscoed1815 02.07.19 9:08

There appears to be quite a lot of pixillation around certain areas, as I said this could be attributed to constantly saving a JPG version of the file.

Things that don't look right to me are the the hair on the right hand side above her hand, and her hat again on the right hand side at the tip, the colour looks strange and there does appear to be some distortion of the pixels around that area.

Her head position does seem very weird, she seems to be twisting her head at a funny angle, compared to her shoulders, especially as she's using her chin to help hold the balls, I would think she'd would turn her body more.

Her hair on the left above her shoulder appears to be very straight, almost too straight. If I was editing this photo, I wouldn't be happy with such a straight edge.

Another thing that bothers me is the quality, this picture wasn't taken by the same camera as the "pool photo", it looks more like a photo from a 2007 mobile phone. Something that does puzzle me is no one is quite sure who took, but surely the photo must exist on the original device? if it doesn't, why would you delete it, it was one of the last photo's of either your daughter or your friends daughter. Secondly why are there so few photo's of the kids from that holiday, does it imply that the McCanns really didn't spend anytime with them, or there are photo's that have never been made public, which is strange if your trying to find your daughter, surely you'd release everything. And what parent takes just one photo of their kids at a time, surely you "shoot" away and end up with several, some of which you choose to keep, but in this instance "where are they".

by Guest 02.07.19 12:06

I have never seen anything wrong with that picture.

The only issue is who took it and when.

I think we know where it was took.

by Verdi 02.07.19 12:44

This image has already been scrutinized to the ninth degree - again and again and again.

What are we hoping to find this time around? Traces of a wandering bougainvillea passing behind, a stray dog cowering in the shadow, a dried out pooch puddle, floral patterns in the hair, a dangling earlobe, false teeth?

Give me strength.

Log in for more topics