Anyone with photo skills, please analyse this.

a reply to: proob4

Wow...it really does....lol

a reply to: odzeandennz

When I read your post I thought "yeah, this guy's nailed it", but when I do that I still see a face. I'm not saying that I think there is a face there, it may be pareidolia, in fact it probably is, but your suggested method doesn't work for me.

Michael Jackson without his plastic nose... yeah.

Or the ghost of a conjoined twin that was reabsorbed?

But any other data? Like is something weird happening that would lead them to think this isn't a trick of pixel and pasty flesh?

originally posted by: proob4
a reply to: Vroomfondel
I gotta admit, with the B&W pic it does look like Micheal Jackson, lol

It doesn't matter if it's black or white...

Hi. I am an actual photographer. I have nearly a decade of experience working in digital fine art as well as photojournalism. I have extensive photoshop, photomatix pro (advanced HDR program) and dark room film development experience.

Here is my explanation for your photo mystery. First of all there are several things you need to consider when analyzing any photograph's basic content. To keep it straightforward, I'll just give you my step by step analysis.

This image is very low resolution (obviously) so we see pixelation. The pixelation is exaggerated by the limited light conditions under which this photo was taken.

Under lowlight conditions with a small and unsophisticated camera like this one, there is simply not enough light to properly expose the image. Without enough light, some pixels will not get exposed when the shutter briefly opens.

This lack of exposure in some pixels is one of the downfalls of digital photography (an advantage for film). In order for digital cameras to avoid taking photos with speckles of black (non-exposed pixels), digital cameras have an algorithmic system for "filling" in these pixels with false color in order to soften the speckled effect.

Cameras input false color into unexposed pixels by averaging the color of the surrounding pixels. These algorithms are far from perfect, and in an unsophisticated camera like the one that took this photo, the false color can often be significantly off. This effect is almost certainly showing up in your photograph.

Notice how the color (hue and tone) of the curved line that makes up the shoulder almost exactly matches the color of the odd shapes that look like a face. This is not a coincidence. But it's more than just the false color effect.

If your friend was using a flash to take this selfie, reflections from glass, metal, polished wood, etc could easily produce these color changes on a blank white wall. With a much better camera with higher resolution these color variances would be more balanced and look more clearly like something natural and explainable.

And finally, beware the matrixing effect of our socialized brains. Our brains are designed to recognize patterns, specifically socially related patterns. Reading someone else's face is vital to being a normal, social human. Thus we often see faces in things. Our brains can't help it really, but like optical allusions, just because something "seems to be" does not mean that that something "is."

Long response I know, but hopefully that helps clarify things.

reply to: Joneselius

originally posted by: Squidleepie
Hi. I am an actual photographer. I have nearly a decade of experience working in digital fine art as well as photojournalism. I have extensive photoshop, photomatix pro (advanced HDR program) and dark room film development experience.

Here is my explanation for your photo mystery. First of all there are several things you need to consider when analyzing any photograph's basic content. To keep it straightforward, I'll just give you my step by step analysis.

This image is very low resolution (obviously) so we see pixelation. The pixelation is exaggerated by the limited light conditions under which this photo was taken.

Under lowlight conditions with a small and unsophisticated camera like this one, there is simply not enough light to properly expose the image. Without enough light, some pixels will not get exposed when the shutter briefly opens.

This lack of exposure in some pixels is one of the downfalls of digital photography (an advantage for film). In order for digital cameras to avoid taking photos with speckles of black (non-exposed pixels), digital cameras have an algorithmic system for "filling" in these pixels with false color in order to soften the speckled effect.

Cameras input false color into unexposed pixels by averaging the color of the surrounding pixels. These algorithms are far from perfect, and in an unsophisticated camera like the one that took this photo, the false color can often be significantly off. This effect is almost certainly showing up in your photograph.

Notice how the color (hue and tone) of the curved line that makes up the shoulder almost exactly matches the color of the odd shapes that look like a face. This is not a coincidence. But it's more than just the false color effect.

If your friend was using a flash to take this selfie, reflections from glass, metal, polished wood, etc could easily produce these color changes on a blank white wall. With a much better camera with higher resolution these color variances would be more balanced and look more clearly like something natural and explainable.

And finally, beware the matrixing effect of our socialized brains. Our brains are designed to recognize patterns, specifically socially related patterns. Reading someone else's face is vital to being a normal, social human. Thus we often see faces in things. Our brains can't help it really, but like optical allusions, just because something "seems to be" does not mean that that something "is."

Long response I know, but hopefully that helps clarify things.

reply to: Joneselius

I wasn't aware actual photographers took the time to write in depth replies to moronic threads.

I almost never participate on here but every so often when I'm bored I'll scroll through the recent threads. Saw this one and couldn't help but respond. a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

a reply to: Iamnotadoctor

Thank you for calling my thread moronic because I am simply trying to answer a question. I'll make sure to consult you next time on everything I write so I don't make a fool of myself, ok? Thanks pal. No input at all, just an insult, this is ATS and that comment has no place here, don't do that again.

Squid thank you for your reply, I appreciate it. And to everyone else who contributed.

a reply to: Squidleepie

That was a nice write up. Thank you for the technical explanations as well as differences between digital/ film. It's really times like these I enjoy ats. Great post.

As far as the person who called it a moronic post. Feel free to not partake in it. The guy had a question, posted it, when all the "smart" people finished commenting someone with an actual clue and experience came along and made a post.

To the op. Thanks for posting and don't worry about the comments like moronic. Half the people claiming to be enlightened or who think they are smart on these boards aren't nearly as enlightened or smart as they think. We all suffer from that to some degree though.

a reply to: Squidleepie

Great post and lots of good information. Any time you want to share good information in detail as you did here, feel free to write as long as you want. I don't mind.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Cant we all just get along...

I see the face of Jesus, charge admission.

a reply to: wtbengineer

I tried it too. The right eye appeared even more defined to me, although it looks kinda' ghosted, double-vision like. I'm no pro, but I'd be inclined to think the camera somehow caught a reflection of something else in the room. A photo, or magazine cover maybe.

originally posted by: Iamnotadoctor
a reply to: Joneselius
I'd prefer it if you didn't consult me if you are planning to make threads like this in the future.
It's just jaw dropping that you actually thought anyone here could actually help you when posting such a cropped, out of focus image.
I sigh for the (very few) members that actually took this seriously.

Squidleepie seemed to have no issue. I guess as I stated previously just need the right person with an actual clue and experience and they can clear it up.

NOTE:

The topic is never each other and civility is required in posts here. Please stick to the topic or move on.

Do not reply to this post.

Blaine91555
Moderator