'The Last Photo': The key questions

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I personally don't incline towards the image itself being manipulated, but I do feel that the EXIF data has been modified, which is an extremely simple thing to do.

Also, I feel that a photo such as this is likely to have been taken early in the holiday.  Photograph taking tends to happen early, and once you've got one photo of the family by the pool, you don't need another one.

***
I agree that it's not difficult to change the date on a camera. However, it's a bit like deleting a file on your computer. You don't see it anymore, but the information is still there, until such time it is completely overwritten by other saved information, which can take quite a while as any new file is fragmented on the hard disk. To remove a file completely is expert work ...

So, I would think [hope] that someone in the investigation[s] has taken a serious look at the camera in this respect.

Except that it is only three fifths of the family why did one of their friends take a photo for them "a family photo".

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I personally don't incline towards the image itself being manipulated, but I do feel that the EXIF data has been modified, which is an extremely simple thing to do.

Also, I feel that a photo such as this is likely to have been taken early in the holiday.  Photograph taking tends to happen early, and once you've got one photo of the family by the pool, you don't need another one.

I know very little about photoshopping, so I've deliberately kept away from "altered photograph" threads, with just the very occasional comment. However, I will say that on the pool photograph, Madeleine's skill is very fair for someone who has supposedly been on holiday for nearly a week. It one compares Madeleine's skin tone with that of the tennis photograph, the difference is obvious. Moreover, I know that people can look so different from one photograph to the next, but Madeleine does look a lot younger in the pool photograph compared to the tennis photograph, but that could be just the camera. Nevertheless, the skin tone difference between the tennis and the pool photograph, CANNOT be denied.

dan55 wrote:Except that it is only three fifths of the family why did one of their friends take a photo for them "a family photo".

I don't know what your point is - it's just a photo of the people sat there at the time, taken by whoever it took it at the time.  I've got lots of "family photos" without me in it, because I took them.

dan55 wrote:Except that it is only three fifths of the family why did one of their friends take a photo for them "a family photo".

Good question

Have you seen the CW reconstruct showing a buxom KH-replacement in a black swimming suit run around the pool and throw herself down on Maddies left hand side in order to be photographed with the threesome? 

Makes you wonder why they want to want to inject that picture (KH in swimming suit) into our subliminal consciences (1) and where was Sean (2)

It's one big never ending horse & pony show, IMO

Châtelaine wrote:***
I agree that it's not difficult to change the date on a camera. However, it's a bit like deleting a file on your computer. You don't see it anymore, but the information is still there, until such time it is completely overwritten by other saved information, which can take quite a while as any new file is fragmented on the hard disk. To remove a file completely is expert work ...

So, I would think [hope] that someone in the investigation[s] has taken a serious look at the camera in this respect.

I wasn't talking about changing the camera's date, I meant modification of the EXIF data contained in the image file. If you modify the EXIF data (i.e. the creation date), it is modified and the old data is gone.  It isn't the same as an operating system's file system.

However, the original file could well still be on the card that the file was originally written too.  Copies of that file could also exist on any computer that the file was uploaded to.

Software Engineer here ;-)  The expert work you've mentioned is something I can do, and have done - both removal and salvage.

Oh Danny boy... the tripe, the tripe is pouring...

Ohhhhhh where to begin.

First, let me say that I sincerely admire your near-religious faith in the power of the 'eye of an artist' over the kind of academic scrutiny that would be exclusively admissable in a court of law. If I ever need any advice on a medical condition, I'll certainly go to the voodoo practitioner first.

The problem I have, however, with the principle you work from is simply as follows. First, your observations are in utter defiance of demonstrable fact and you cling to them regardless. This is, in normal circumstances, a clear indication that your eye is either suffering from cataracts or you're Ray Charles. However, these are not normal circumstances and we are on a public forum that you clearly hold some sway over. So we must assume all things fairly. You claim to have an exceptional artist's eye for these things, and like all art I must agree that it is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I can admire a Da Vinci, even a nice Banksy, but if you're an artist then what you're currently appreciating is the equivalent of a Tracy Emin. More alarming is the fact that when numerous individuals who claim to work extensively with Photoshop and in image compositing have corrected you - and more tellingly have all AGREED on where you're going wrong and what could be expected in 'real world' photography and image processing - you claim to be the standout lone voice of expertise. You've not shown anything of a portfolio of any kind to show that you have this magical artistic eye that you claim to have, and the claims and comments you make are in utter contradiction to all reasonable and even common sensical observations about the subject. That's disturbing, given the implications of the allegations you're making and the intricate narrative that you're pushing.

Nonetheless, I'll try to work through your points methodically.

I'll admit to being confused by your comments, I haven't found them in any way coherent or particularly comprehensible. The 'all the way through Madeleine's hat' comment makes me concerned that you haven't a clue what it is that I described in my last post. Add to that the 'light does not travel through solid objects' comment, and I'm even more concerned. First, you don't know what I'm talking about and my elaborating it in the last post doesn't seem to have given you a Danny LaRue. Second, light does, as any good photographer should know, travel through solid objects. Ice springs to mind. Glass leaps out as a possibility. What does become apparent, though, is that your thinking and your understanding of this subject is so - what's the word - linear and sophomoric, that things like angles of incidence, refraction, transmission, omni-directional, directional, ambient and so on don't factor into your understanding of photography. Remind me not to hire you for any shoots. The reason this is pertinent, is because based on what you're claiming in respect of your expertise in judging this image, it is pitiable and alarming that you haven't considered these factors, these 'issues' as it were, before hammering home your pet theory. That really calls into question your committment to narrative over evidence.

OK. Brass tacks...

'Compare the photo.' Fine. Cursory glance, you cannot rule out that the comparison image is not professionally staged until you can verify and publish the source of the image. Second, to be comparitive it would need to be taken in the same place, at the same time of year, with the same angles of sunlight, the same water level in the pool, in similar conditions. Until then, it is as different as chalk and cheese. I can tell you from your comparitive image that the picture was taken with a very high sun, but without knowing the orientation of the scene or location of the shoot I couldn't tell you why, other than that the sun's angle is probably 10-15% out from the subjects, above the position of the camera, almost centrally positioned between the two subjects, assuming of course that the scene is not artificially lit from behind the camera position. The water is a lighter tint of blue, suggesting overcasting which the sky bears out. Whether the image is depicting a naturally cloudy day or a smog-laden day over the city (Los Angeles, perhaps - since I can't imagine too many self respecting Europeans would be caught photographed in an intimate chat with a man in speedos by the side of a pool with a hat like that and there are certainly an abundance of those extremely tall, small canopied palms there). Perhaps the scene is a morning shoot before the haze has burned off. Anyway, it ain't the same, so it ain't a comparison. Just an example of potential variances, in other conditions, assuming no artificial staging.

So, details...

Gerry's fingers darker underneath than on top... well, yeah... don't you understand refraction and reflection? The proximity of the wall edge of the pool does have a physical effect on the transmission of light, no? That said, while there's less light reflected closer to the wall, and ambient interference from other surfaces, as well as the distinct colouration on his right arm there's still a telltale tint in the curved extremities of his fingers and on the backs of his legs which places him solely and exclusively in position right above the water in the pool, the same source of light that is tinting his right cheek, Amelie's face particularly to the right side (the left side refracted light is bouncing back with pink colouration from the hat) and Madeleine's right cheek, not to mention the downward facing overhang on her right side of the hat which has picked up a little tinting also. And of course two thirds of the surface area of Gerry's glasses.

I think you weren't able to tell the difference when I stated that the light source was secondary, and less extreme, but significant to the lighting of the scene and the claims you're making.

Next.

'top of right forearm same shade as hand...' You do realise Gerry is a THREE DIMENSIONAL object and made up of planes, and planes have faces which tend to face in predictable directions based on their three dimensional structure?

'Left side of face as bright as right side of face...' Where? On what basis are you making the claim that the shading is identical on both sides? You don't actually understand direct and indirect lighting sources, omnidirectional ambiance, reflection etc, do you?

The photograph is legit. You, sir, are not.

Interesting that you comment that 'one photo has natural even lighting, the other does not.' You really shot yourself in the foot with this one.

Natural lighting is NOT even. That's why photographers use fill lighting to make lighting - what's that word, folks??? - EVEN! Natural lighting is complicated, hard to control, hard to shoot, hard to isolate light sources, full of uncontrolled ambient and reflection and refraction. Saturated with diverse light sources, not conveniently direction, not casting uniform Hollywood shadows.

Your little blue arrows, by the way, are also imaginative bollox. Again, even your contention with the discussion of the evidence is drowning with preposition, presupposition and, frankly, transparently absent skillsets.

Game. Set. And Match.

Now does anyone have anything to say about the actual evidences in this case, and not the red herrings and mythologies of conspiracy theorists? Because as far as I see it, with the photograph legit, and the given time frame being apparently legit to my eye (and that of others), the only question remaning is that of the actual date of the image and whether the EXIF data has been tampered with.

If the EXIF was tampered with, why was it not cleaned up to remove speculation? What did it add? What did it change? What opportunity did it create that could not have been more easily created by denying the existence of photos of that day and relying on the abundance of other frauds including eyewitness testimony. What risk did it diminish? If the planned cover up was so precision-engineered, why do the enigmas of it have to be interpreted as blunders in a race against time? If the conspirance was so professional, why did anything get left with holes in it? Why are we drowning in circumstantial and telling evidence all pointing in one direction, only lacking a body to examine or a conspirant to crack, if the conspiracy was so excellent and capable as to appear 'well organised and well-connected.'

Unless, of course, the photo is exactly what it appears to be, and the crime is not deep rooted in a murderous plot, or a pedophilic field trip, but was what Goncalo Amaral perceived - a tragic accident followed by a foolish, panic stricken cover-up which, as it gathered momentum and pulled more and more people into the lie, became something impossible to go back on. The cost of a slip or a confession is your freedom, your remaining children, your family who believe the best in you, your friends, your career - and all those things for every person involved in it who tried to help you out or even cover their own asses - and a certainty of a shank waiting for you when you finally go to Porridge or El Clink. You don't need to find demons in order to uncover wickedness.

Examine the evidence for what it is. The conclusions will form around that, and any justice at all will be based on that and that alone. Anything beyond that, any speculation, any mythology or hype, will simply discredit any of the sane and sober reasonings that take place in arenas like this.

I came here because I thought this was support for Goncalo Amaral and the serious investigation undertaken by him and his team. I doubt he'd want to even associate in this crowd with the spurious and wild accusations flying round the place, and that makes me sad. His face at the top of these pages, and his name in association is a grave and serious thing that should not be misrepresented. He's stood up like no one else has, and stood ground at huge personal cost, and not only that (because any of us can do that) he's made his reasoning transparent, highlighted evidence not speculation, and made deductions not wild conjectures and fairy stories.

Just my thoughts.

But in the Mccanns testimony their friends were there or at least one of them and they had the rest of the holiday to get a full photo. I will bet that you have at least one photo without you in it but the rest of the family in it, that is the whole point what you say makes sense but why miss out MM'S brother and where was he?? You have said it all "you have family phot'os without you in them" that's understandable but to have a family photo with one of the twins missing is odd. It's not a family photo!

dan55 wrote:But in the Mccanns testimony their friends were there or at least one of them and they had the rest of the holiday to get a full photo. I will bet that you have at least one photo without you in it but the rest of the family in it, that is the whole point what you say makes sense but why miss out MM'S brother and where was he?? You have said it all "you have family phot'os without you in them" that's understandable but to have a family photo with one of the twins missing is odd. It's not a family photo!

I can't see the significance of what you're saying. I have lots of photos of just one of my children, even though the other child was around at the time. Photos get taken of whoever happens to be in front of the camera.  Perhaps Sean was on somebody else's lap, maybe even the photograph taker's?  Why does it matter?

Well veritas the point being that the light could not have gone through MM's head to her hat top that is overly bright. Seeing as there is no glass or ice in the picture I thought you would have the sense to realise I am talking about human bodies etc. MM's face is the same both sides in your theory the side nearer the pool should be brighter. "Gerry is a THREE DIMENSIONAL object"  yes in a 2 dimensional image! you just try to impress people with long words and convoluted arguments that confuse rather than explain. Gerry's fingers extend beyond the edge of the pool and should be lighter. all the rest you say is just gobblygook and theory. ANSWER the one question I put to you that you have side stepped where is the shadow from Gerry's left arm?? You live in a world of pedantic theory I live in the real world. It does not take some one with a lot of brains to see the photo is fake and nothing like the other real world photo use your eye's people and ignore false logic. This is not a science class we are discussing a photo made for your eyes, use them to discern it's qualities, it is the only way. THE ARM SHADOW IS ABSENT, fake, fake, fake. Give me one proof that we can all see that shows this photo is real! You can't do it, you are just full of arguments, a hired gun. You have threatened me, accused me of deceiving people, not knowing what i am talking about, not being genuine "legit" etc. I would remind you that abusive personal comments in emails or forums is trolling and abusive and illegal. Please stick to the point as I do.

Yeah whatliesbehindthesofa I get what you say about the photo but the only one taken. Just seems odd to me.

What I don't get is that there is only one pool photo.
Why is there not one with Sean in too? Why not take another one with Maddie smilling at the camera? Most happy snappers take a few at least. Especially as they were on holiday, and especially as KM had taken the camera down to the pool for this purpose, I presume. (Although thats a dangerous occupation with theses two). Capture the family having fun on holiday...(well not GM grumpy s*d)
Are there others? 
I know nothing about photoshopping or software technology and I have problems following this thread sometimes, but if I were the McCs and my "last photo" was purported to be a fake, I would have produced them all and said "there thats proof".

  You are not going to agree, and  I did say cease so am locking for a while.