This is my opinion.
Let me start by saying…
- I am no supporter of the Royals in general and Andrew in particular.
- I am not attempting to prove his innocence or otherwise in relation to the charges made against him in relation to his association with a convicted sex offender – if that’s what they are.
- I am not an expert on the practice of photo manipulation. I’ve done a lot. I’ve also driven many miles in over 50 years of driving but that does not mean I’m an expert driver either. What it does mean is I have a lot of experience of both.
What I am looking at and discussing here is whether or not I believe the picture in question.
Let me explain the issues I believe, for me at least, make the image questionable.
The tonal range of each individual does not look right, one against the other
The lady on the right looks right in relation to the room the image was taken in.
The other two look out of place.
The use of flash tends to make for a uniformity of tone across subjects, especially if they are in the same plane in relation to the taking lens and at the same distance from the simple, single light source, and in this case they are. So, why the difference?
Andrew, to the left and the central female again seem to be at variance. Andrew looks slightly sharper than the central female, Once more, with the use of flash, the tendancy is to shut the lens down slightly, increasing the depth of field, making people in focus even if they are at a slightly different distance from the camera. However both Andrew and the central female are at the same distance from the camera and so should both be sharp, or otherwise.
The disparity between the image of Andrew and that of the centre female could even indicate towards the images being taken by different cameras, with differing resolutions.
The shadow cast by the knob on the newell post (Position 1. in the picture) indicated the flash was positioned above and to the left of the taking lens. This position appears to be confirmed by the shadows cast by the central female on the background (Position 5 and 6 in the picture) and of the shadow cast by the right hand female against the background (Position 8 in the picture) – although I feel we should question those shadows too. See D. below.
Andrew, to the left, seems to cast no shadow at all against the wall behind him. To achieve this the flash must be held above the taking lens and in line with the subject so as to cast the shadow behind the person, and hiding it as it were. We have seen above from the Newell post argument , however, the flash was to the left and higher than the taking lens. Both cannot be true.
And yet there is a darkening along the side of his face (This usually indicates to me the image has been cut from an image taken somewhere where he was standing against a dark background). And, if that were so, and he therefore had little light to that side of his face, and the central female was standing next to him, how come she is lit well and fairly uniformly? Why is the side of her face nearest to Andrew not darker? Both cannot be right.
Also, the reflection of the central figures body and clothing should have been enough to’ fill’ the ‘darkness’ to the side of his face next to her, thereby reducing/removing it.
Were the images of Andrew and the central female taken in different places? I’m inclined to believe so.
The shadows cast by the central female (Position 5 and 6) seem very solid and of a constant density and size(Particularly at position 6) .
Note. the shape of the body of the central female at position 6 looks to be a straight line from just above the hand around her waist up to her armpit. That looks artificial. That artificiality is reflected in the shadow that part of the body casts against the wall.
It looks like a straight line mask was used in order to introduce that shadow.
The hand around the waist of the central female also casts a shadow. That shadow looks clumsy, and it continues to the right and down her leg, somehow interfering with her hand which may or may not be on her hip. This does not seem to work at all.
Given where the flash seems to be positioned as mentioned in the Newell post argument above, i.e. high and to the left of the taking lens, Why is there not a shadow cast by the central females arm (the one with the watch) onto the the white top of the right hand female?
At position 3 on the photo, you can see the white of the wall behind and through the slight gap between Andrew and the central female. Surely this would be black shadow given the position of the flash indicated by the Newell post argument. Similarly, just above that small gap, and after a break, the gap continues, showing what appears to be the blue shirt arm. That is also well lit. That is just not possible using the Newell post argument.
The crop of the trousers at position 2 in the photo, seems very unnatural. They seem too angular. Does cloth fall like that? Is this just a sloppy crop?
There are simply too many indications on this image to confirm it is the original image. Quite the contrary in fact. It appears to be a construct which, at first glance seems right. However the law of physics says light travels in straight lines, yet in this image it does not appear to have done so. I do not believe this to be a reflection, or indeed, proof, of the particular reality it wishes to convey.
There is ONLY ONE WAY to determine the real truth, and that is to see the original file from which it was printed. The RAW file should tell you whether or not I have this all wrong.
To repeat myself “I am no expert”. Use your own eye’s and question the image. Look past the superficiality and see if it passes your own test for truth.
Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre), the female at the centre of this image, states it is an original picture, seen and verified as such by the FBI. Against that sort of verification, who am I to disagree, and yet…
Show us the original files. I would be happy to be proven wrong.