FIRST photo

rustyjames wrote:PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

Found it

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

is the reference.
This is the photo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Aspect ratio quoted as 1888 x 2350
Compare the Olympus and Canon
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

And no, I don't know if AFP cropping influenced the ratio.  I am not knowledgable enough, which is why I rely on others.
when I print it, it comes out as 9cm x 11 cm, a ratio of .818181
1538/ 2150 gives .8034, which is close, but I don't know what it implies

I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.  It is unlike ANY of the other photos we have seen.  The Last Photo is clear and sharp, as are most of the others.  This one is in a category of its own.
Incidentally how did it get to AFP ?  Who sent it ?  Was it 'e-mailed' ?  
In 2007 Hotmail would not have been able to handle it at 12mB.  Until very recently their limit was 5 mB

For information

Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.

I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.

Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response:   


REASON 27. Having a ready supply of pre-printed photographs of Madeleine ready for the police as soon as they arrived on the night of 3rd May.

Within just two hours of Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’, the Doctors McCanns had a ready supply of posters featuring Madeleine’s face. The Doctors McCann claimed that they had produced them on the spot using their digital camera and by getting access to a printing machine at the Ocean Club. But police enquiries at the club did not find any printer that could have produced those particular types of photo posters. This led to the Portuguese police to strongly suspect that they had been pre-prepared earlier in the day, somewhere away from the premises.


reply by 'nicked'

Mr Bennett, have you actually left this paragraph in your book?

We discussed this at length previously - I explained that you are basing the above claim on a flawed 24 horas article and in fact the Official Police Files show that the PJ believe that the photos were printed on Amy Tierney's printer, as she explained in her statement.

eta her printer was a Kodak easyshare G600. It's a printer dock so hardly needs a separate suitcase.

The problem as I see it though, is that TB is relying on media reports to get some of his information, rather than the official Police Files which we now have available.

That 24 horas report was wrong just as many other stories in the media have been wrong.

I did warn TB about this and he still chose to include this photo thing as one of his facts. As I pointed out some time ago, it only needs a couple of errors in amongst these facts to undermine the credibility of what TB is trying to achieve.

One of the tabloids just needs to take one of the mistakes and make a big deal of it to portray "us" (those of us still interested in this case) as nutters talking a load of rubbish when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. We have loads of enviable resources/research but that is not what would be homed in on.

Thanks PeterMac - that's where I guessed it came from as the pixel count of 1888x2350 was mentioned in Tigger's posts.

Going back to basics for a minute, the A620 and C50 each had a choice of resolutions to take photos at, giving a compromise between quality and the space taken up on the memory card.

The A620's available resolutions were:

3072 x 2304 (i.e. 7077888 - camera described as 7.1 mega pixels)
2592 x 1944
2048 x 1536
1600 x 1200
640 x480

The C50's were:

2560 x 1920 (i.e. 4915200 - camere described as 5 mega pixels)
2048 x 1536
1600 x 1200
1280 x 960
1024 x 768
640 x 480

However note in all cases, the aspect ratio, (i.e. the ratio between long edge and short edge), is 4/3 or 1.33333 recurring.

This is generally the case for all compact cameras, whereas DSLRs and old 35mm film have a ratio of 3/2 or 1.5.  More info from "What Digital Camera" here.  The G600 printer manual does suggest that a Kodak camera can be changed to 3:2 ratio to avoid cropping when printing on 6x4 paper, but an uncropped image would still always be one of these two ratios.

I'm pretty certain there is no camera that natively produces a 2350 x 1888 image, and a google search for "1888 x 2350" throws up just 10 results of which two are about the "first photo", or 17 results for "2350 x 1888".

If we had something claiming to be an original unedited image from one of those cameras it would have to match one of the resolutions above, although could simply be resized to a valid pixel count.

The AFP photo is therefore cropped, which we know anyway from the shop window versions which seem to have retained the most content.  The pixel count and ratio just represent the proportions of the edited version.

My view is that the original image has not been released to press agencies etc.  If that is the case, and the only versions we have available were initially produced on the Kodak printer, the printer would crop when printing to a 6x4 ratio, (although the printer does have an option of printing multiple images on one sheet of paper which would allow for two 3x2 photos to be printed on a single sheet).

The AFP version was from the 4th May and I would guess from the quality it's either been scanned or is a photo of a photo, the original of which is of poor quality.

So in summary unfortunately I can't see a way of determining which camera the image was produced on, unless there is an original image available.

PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.

Who 'cares'?

People at OC, PDL, would be 'searching' for, the 'girl' in the photo the first photo 'released'.

(Younger, very different hair 'style'.)

THAT 'girl' did NOT 'exist' as a person, in OC, PDL, in May 2007.

People 'might' have 'recognised' Madeleine from the 'last' photo, (pool)

"Oh, i saw THAT girl, in the play area, by the kiddie pool, at the creche, YESTERDAY, etc.,"

The McCann's 'had' THAT one, 'available' from KM's camera.

THEY DID NOT USE IT!

People were NOT 'looking' for the 'girl' in the 'last' photo!

Because they had been 'given' a photo of a 'different' girl, to 'search' for!

eg: "That girl looks 'like' the girl we're searching for"

"Er , no, the girl we're searching for, and in the photo they gave us, and on posters, has much shorter hair, and looks very much  younger"

"you're right, that's not her"

WHY 'they' witheld the very 'last' photo, of Madeleine, by pool, 'available' on 3rd/4th May 2007, for THREE WHOLE WEEKS, is very RED 'flaggish'!

It was 'available' but NOT USED!

WHY NOT?

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.

Bad form replying to my own post but, having given it further consideration, I think this image might have started out as the cropped centre section of a physical, landscape format photo, which has then been scanned and reprinted "normal" size.

PeterMac wrote:

Angelique wrote:PeterMac
Very useful images and instructions for un-teccy people.
You can also put a memory card into some lap tops with a reader and thence into a printer via the lap top.

Good point, and deserves to be mentioned for completeness.  Thank you
Answer
You can these days, with the more modern versions, but we are talking about 2007, when lap tops were much more basic.
There is of course no mention either from AT or ROB that any such thing was done.  
So far as we know there was only one Mc-laptop though they borrowed or rented another one later.
Unless they bought the lap top especially for the holiday it would have to be a 2006 - or even earlier - model whose tech spec we would need to look at.

Didn't the PJ give them a laptop in loan, but it was not good enough in Gerry's opinion? 

I think they were really afraid of what the PJ would find after they gave it back. We know in the right hands nothing is really completely deleted on a computer.

I still don't understand the reason why all the meddling with photos. At that time, if there was no abduction, there were 2 likely possibilities of Madeleine to be found: as a dead body or wandering alone. In both cases you really don't need a photo. Any dead body of a child, and any toddler wandering alone was likely Madeleine. You don't need photos for that. The only scenario you would need a photo is when an abductor is trying to get away with a child. Then, however,you would need a photo where Madeleine is very recognizable, not these outdated shots in which she is barely recognizable. So why??

lj wrote: In both cases you really don't need a photo. Any dead body of a child, and any toddler wandering alone was likely Madeleine. You don't need photos for that. The only scenario you would need a photo is when an abductor is trying to get away with a child. Then, however,you would need a photo where Madeleine is very recognizable, not these outdated shots in which she is barely recognizable. So why??

Precisely so.
It is not likely that someone would walk past a 3 year old girl wandering around, and then say "I didn't think it was Madeleine because she wasn't wearing the polka dot dress, she was in pyjamas . . . so I didn't do anything . . ."
Or ignore a little crumpled body by the side of a road because the hair colour was too dark . . .
Ludicrous.
So the photo is ONLY of use if someone discovers someone carrying a child, or has one in his / their car, and claim that she is their own . . .
In which case, as you say the up-to-date one, taken earlier that day (hmmmm !) would surely have been the one to use.
But they didn't
They saved that for two whole WEEKS before showing it to the world.

PeterMac wrote:

rustyjames wrote:PeterMac - I agree with pretty much all you've said in the previous posts, however I'm interested in the camera that was used and as per my post a few pages back, I don't think anything can be determined with regard to aspect ratio or resolution from the info we have.

I'm just wondering where the aspect ratio information has come from.

Found it

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

is the reference.
This is the photo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Aspect ratio quoted as 1888 x 2350
Compare the Olympus and Canon
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

And no, I don't know if AFP cropping influenced the ratio.  I am not knowledgable enough, which is why I rely on others.
when I print it, it comes out as 9cm x 11 cm, a ratio of .818181
1538/ 2150 gives .8034, which is close, but I don't know what it implies

I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.  It is unlike ANY of the other photos we have seen.  The Last Photo is clear and sharp, as are most of the others.  This one is in a category of its own.
Incidentally how did it get to AFP ?  Who sent it ?  Was it 'e-mailed' ?  
In 2007 Hotmail would not have been able to handle it at 12mB.  Until very recently their limit was 5 mB

Is this even Madeleine McCann? Certainly not as she looked at nearly four. It could be a composite or even a different child.

In any event, as others have pointed out, it would not have helped 'find' Madeleine McCann. So why release it at all?

Hmmmm

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
I also do not know what causes the graininess  / vertical lines down the photo.

As rustyjames says, it could be some kind of second generation copy - either a scan, or a photo of a photo. I've suspected the use of a scanner in one or two of their other photos too.

I would say that the printer was running out of ink but I would expect the print head to move across the shorter dimension - ie. the missing lines would then be horizontal. I hope I'm explaining that OK.

Bad form replying to my own post but, having given it further consideration, I think this image might have started out as the cropped centre section of a physical, landscape format photo, which has then been scanned and reprinted "normal" size.

The grainy one with vertical lines is released by AFP.  Depends how AFP received the photo?  Photo sent over email (as scanned attached copy) when reproduced will be very poor in quality.  
PeterMac raised some interesting points.  Maybe it was sent by fax as that was still widely used back in 2007.
On top of that I would like to add when and why did they send it to AFP (Agence France-Presse, international new agency headquartered in Paris).  

Why France Presse?
What would be the relevance of releasing it to AFP when the Mcs early days proactive search campaign didn't extent to France.  It was mostly done in Spain.
The Last Photo was also given to and issued via AFP by team Mccann PR machinery if IIRC.

As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

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

I don't think anyone specifically "released" it to AFP.  The description refers to "an undated handout picture", so the press may have been given copies or just as likely they took a second generation copy from one pinned up somewhere.

I think the pic on the left was taken at the MCs as I recall seeing the rug in other pics.  istbc on this.

I don't recall anyone claiming the one on the right was taken in 5A.

Note that MBM (if that is her sitting on GM) is not carrying Cuddlecat.

Tony Bennett wrote:For information
Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.
I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.
Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response: 

Fascinating.
We have wondered for many years what it was about the 60 Reasons which caused them so much stress. Most of it was fairly mundane (sorry, but you know what I mean) dispute over the entry they describe, windows not forced, shutters not broken and so on.

But clearly something in it really caused them alarm and panic, to the extent that the big guns were wheeled out, you had to be silenced, and the booklet "banned"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

Knitted wrote:As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

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

Just looked at Pamalam photos of MBM and there are two featuring brown sofa, with Aunty Trish, another female, twins and MBM.

Another one with kids sitting on rug in front of fireplace, MBM wearing a red dress.  Looks like Christmas time.

Unable to c/p, using tablet.

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:For information
Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.
I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.
Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response: 

Fascinating.
We have wondered for many years what it was about the 60 Reasons which caused them so much stress.   Most of it was fairly mundane (sorry, but you know what I mean) dispute over the entry they describe, windows not forced, shutters not broken and so on.

But clearly something in it really caused them alarm and panic, to the extent that the big guns were wheeled out, you had to be silenced, and the booklet "banned"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

PeterMac, has the first photo been discussed in-depth previously?  It's very interesting.

Knitted wrote:As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

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

My guess would be the Queniborough home with Gerry and cousin and Rothley for the other one based on a guess of Madeleine's age.

Both homes were new when they moved in and tend to have the same neutral decor i.e. light painted walls/blank canvas.

PeterMac wrote:"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

How so? Unlike the last photo that was tampered with (allegedly) for a purpose.

A lie is done for a reason/purpose. What could the purpose be for a LIE with the first photo?

...a lie in so far as it was not produced in the way explained in any statements? ... and if so, a lie if it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced... and if so, dishonest in so far as it wasn't a current photograph (i.e. not that week) and thus not as helpful as it might otherwise have been in identifying Madeleine.

aiyoyo 'took' the words right out of my mouth!

STOP, THIEF!

"A lie is done for a reason/purpose. What could the purpose be for a LIE with the first photo?"
-------------------------------------------------

The McCann's, imo, have never done 'something' without there being a 'reason/purpose' for doing it or behind it.

WHAT was the 'reason/purpose' for them, giving police, searchers, an out of date photo, of their child?

'Unrecognisable' to people at OC, PDL, on 4th May 2007.

There HAD to be a 'reason/purpose' for doing this.

Was the 'last' photo Madeleine ALREADY 'out of the area'? (scam, 'dead', hidden)

But logic 'dictates' if she was 'out of the area' there'd be no problem in releasing the 'last' (poolside) photo IMMEDIATELY (4th May 2007)

But  they didn't!

Not 'released' until May 24th 2007................THREE WEEKS 'after' the 'event'!

People would NOT have 'found' her, a day after, or 3 weeks after, or almost 8 years after!

Imo, they didn't want her, 'poolside' Madeleine, 'found' or people to 'be searching' for 'poolside' Madeleine.

WHY NOT?

Hence people given a totally 'misleading' photo of a much 'younger' Madeleine. (to 'look/search' for)

And, surprise, surprise, nobody found 'her'!

WHAT, or WHY, was the 'REASON/PURPOSE' the McCann's, consciously and diliberately, released the 'much younger, shorter haired' photo, who police/searchers would NOT have 'recognised', in PDL, of Madeleine?

Got to be one, right?

in my "purported' scenario, they needed the Last Photo as proof that she was alive on the afternoon of 3/5/7
It was taken on the camera which did have time and date.
The Olympus did not, so anything from that camera was useless for this purpose.

INteresting that none of the other photos we have been offered have times and dates attached . . .

Almost as interesting as the photo being released the day after GM, CM and PM all arrive in PdL.
Yet another 'coincidence" ?
‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’ madeleine, by Kate McCann
We are in the thousands by now !

We've been going over the first and the last photos, provided -we think- by the Mecs themselves

But nowhere have we see a single picture of her by anyone else

Really, truthfully, I mean. As is: 'Look, here's little Maddy with her best friend E, or one or more of her umpteen quite similar creche-friends'

Nothing, zilch, nada. Not on the first day, not on the last day, not on any single day

Or have I been asleep?

Knitted wrote:...a lie in so far as it was not produced in the way explained in any statements? ... and if so, a lie if it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced... and if so, dishonest in so far as it wasn't a current photograph (i.e. not that week) and thus not as helpful as it might otherwise have been in identifying Madeleine.

Fair enough.  It is indeed a LIE if the production of it was not as stated in the depositions.
The pertinent question is why though?  
Why lie about the provenance of it?  It it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced, the implication of it is very obvious and a very serious one.

More importantly did AT lie for them?  If so, why?

As for it not being a current photograph, they did not claim/state it to be anything, let alone current.  They didn't write any message of their own on it.

They were shamefully dishonest when they used an out of date photo of Madeleine, when an up to date one would have been more useful in which to aid the identification of Madeleine.  
Again, that goes back to same question - what could be their motive for dispensing an outdated photo?  Most normal parents of average IQ and even of low IQ would have rejected using an out-of-date photo for poster when it is a critical matter of life and death where finding their missing child is concerned.  More normal people desperate to find their missing child would know the importance and would be mindful to put out correct reflection of their child's current look, so why not this pair of well educated well above average intelligent doctors?  What were they thinking when they had the pool photo with them all along and could have used it?

PeterMac wrote:
INteresting that none of the other photos we have been offered have times and dates attached . . .

Just this stand out oddity in itself is enough to raise the red flag.

It therefore means that the tennis photo must have been on the Olympus camera, the one without date and time set.
If it is found that tennis photo had been extracted from the Canon Camera, it would be bingo moment, justifying enough reason for SY to haul them in for questioning.

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
INteresting that none of the other photos we have been offered have times and dates attached . . .

Just this stand out oddity in itself is enough to raise the red flag.
It therefore means that the tennis photo must have been on the Olympus camera, the one without date and time set.
If it is found that tennis photo had been extracted from the Canon Camera, it would be bingo moment, justifying enough reason for SY to haul them in for questioning.

So far as I know there are no other photos from the Canon, even though KM told us she had had it with her in the police station when she looked at them all and made a "diary of events' for the dates and times.

Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could. The regular routines of the week helped to make any deviations from them stand out and undoubtedly made this easier.

Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before.

DATED photographs indicated that she had the CANON. Was this when she realised that by altering the date they could claim the Last Photo had been taken on 3/5/7 at lunchtime, rather than on the Sunday ? And what other photos are there ? Why have we not been given those, with times and dates . . . ? (Rhetorical question, obviously !)