Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Negative images sometimes show more detail,since nasa tends to mask in the positive images more than the negative,or at least less effects negative
images.
An image has some detail, regarless of being a positive or a negative. The contrast, for example, is the same, as is the number of
colours. The fact that we may see things better in a negative image (sometimes) is only because of the way we interpret the data, and in this case,
the way we see faces.
That's why I get flamed most because the very people who insist "only Rocks" are the most invested in cover -ups and detest the fact I've
found an easy way around masking that would cost them $ MILLIONS $ of dollars in man-hours to correct.
I suppose I could be considered one of
those people that insists "only rocks", and if you consider me one of those, I would like to say that I have nothing invested in cover-ups.
In fact, the only thing I can invest is my free time, and I never invest any in hiding anything. I say that I only see rocks because I only see rocks,
even in the cases where I can see a rock or rocks that may look like something else.
As I have said many times, you are not unmasking anything because there is no way of unmasking anything on a JPEG (or other "flat" file format), if
the image was altered there is no way of knowing what was there before.
The fact that you think that the image was altered to almost hide something does not mean that that was the case.
For example, who took this photo?
If you say, in
this post, "Look next to my belly in the muscle pose pic and see the
little green guyin front of the car hood in the grass.", does that mean that the person who took the photo (that I suppose was you) tried to hide
that "green guy" and you unmasked it?
Or does it mean that you see these things in photos regardless of who took the photo and the processes (like masking) used on the photo after it was
taken?
PS: I can see the face (in fact I can see two faces) on that photo with the area that I circled.