3 ms·
I don’t know why you think the photo on the BBC is the original photo. It’s probably been re-compressed half a dozen times as it was passed between police to re
by avianlyric 5y ago
I don’t know why you think the photo on the BBC is the original photo. It’s probably been re-compressed half a dozen times as it was passed between police to reporter to CMS to CDN.
- asddubs 5y agoit's not compression blurry though, it's out of focus
- gus_massa 5y agoIn this other source, the fingerprints of the thumb and the pinky are almost visible https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2021/may/liverpool-man-latest-to-be-jailed-as-part-of-national-operation-venetic/ https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2021/m... Anyway, the other fingers look too out of focus to detect anything.
- StavrosK 5y agoIt's not even out of focus, it's motion blur.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- kordlessagain 5y ago> I don’t know why you think the photo on the BBC is the original photo Because people love to troll when it comes to pixels?
- pbhjpbhj 5y agoThe writing in the BBC article suggests "this photo", they refer to "the photo" and show a photograph. IMO that's bad journalism if it's not the original photo - how about 'the original photo, of which this is a lower quality copy, had enough detail for police to read fingerprint markers from, those markers were matched to the suspect [...]'. If it's not _the_ photo, then who knows, perhaps it's a fake the BBC produced or it's a stock photo. Why not state details about the pertinent evidence on which the whole story supposedly hangs.