Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ghostly cell phone image creates buzz

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I think I figured out how it could be done without Photoshop, using nothing more than an integrated camera on a cellphone and assuming that the person is really not standing in back of her.

The child is standing with her back against a mirrored wall, the person in the "background" is actually in front of her and is the person the child is looking at.

Definitely a hoax now that I've taken a closer look.




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


King - that is a much better shot. I does clearly look like a girl standing there adjusting her shoe or something. Likely, that's what it is or a double exposure. IMHO



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Anyone else find it odd that the "ghost" is looking at the camera? I think legs are being pulled here. I also agree with the previous poster who pointed out the shadows and solidity of the "ghost".



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
So many people have done so many hoaxes like this so many times for so many years, that the one time it really does happen for real, nobody's going to believe it because of "crying wolf" so many times on all the other hoaxes....

Oops I forgot there are people that will believe anything so of course some people will believe it anyway...heck...I'd LIKE to believe it, I watch the ghost hunters show enough hoping they would catch one on camera sometime and they've got a few interesting things but never an image like this that I've seen.

I can't really prove it's a hoax but I can't say I believe it either.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
It wasn't that long ago, and it apparently still goes on now. That full bodied apparitions would appear in front of control groups. And they apparently looked as we do. There was no willow the wisp type looking ghost. They could be physically touched and had the same colorings as we did, you would think that they were "alive" in this realm.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
If this is a fake it's a very, very good one and one that took someone a lot of time. Did you notice that you can see the rest of the facial features between the strands of hair on the little girl? You can see the other eye, most of the mouth and the other nostril. You have to enlarge it quite a bit. I just don't see how this could have been photoshopped in, look at the photoshopped one on the radio station website it much flatter and the hair strands don't overlap with the face. Also, I honestly don't see how this could be a composite either because of this detail BEHIND her hair strands.

I'm not the expert here, but don't you just have to take the little girl's picture in front of a "bluescreen" or really it could be any solid color background that's different from the girl's clothes, face and hair. Some TV shows are made using bluescreen and typically the weather reporters on the news channels use that technology. In photoshop you then just select the blue (or whatever color background) and you have an image of the little girl, you could put her on the moon if you want, and it should show up behind the little girls hair just like that.

Also the shadows on the face indicate approximately similar lighting, but the exact light reflections in the eyes are a little different...take another look very closely.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   


I blew up the photo, if this makes any difference



[edit on 7/30/2009 by bl4ke360]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
As a professional photographer - I can tell you at a glance this is a fake.

I know Y'all hate one liners but I cant sit here and give away all of my trade secrets no more than you are probably willing to do.

What I can do, however, is prove I am a published photographer with images in many publications including, but not limited to, National Geographic and Drs. Fosters and Smith. With that being said, we can rest assured I am competent in this area of study. To say the very least.


I have supplied my credentials, do with those what you will. Want crazy good ones? Ok...

Any 'real' images are buzzing on image sites such as: redbubble, eyefetch, imagekind... THAT is where all of the images are that throw even the most advanced of photographers.

Those images arent here - no offense ATS but fact. The fakes are here, the ones that are harder to debunk are on image sharing sites. That is where one goes to find really GOOD fakes or images that cant really be deemed fake or real... because they are THAT good.

You wont find those images here. Only the poor ones.


To find ones that make you go ewww - hit the sites I mentioned (or the like - any 'image sharing site')

If you would like to have a look at my work to decide if Im up to par - hit me up and Ill send you the link to my photostream! Or see my portfolio - the link is there. T&C suggests I shouldnt post the link here I believe.

Ill leave Y'all with this to consider.

SUPERIMPOSED:

A adjective
1 superimposed
added or imposed without integration; "the superimposed symbolism lacked validity"; "superimposed periodic variation"

2 layered, superimposed
with one layer on top of another; "superimposed rocks"

3 overlying, superimposed
placed on or over something else; "an overlying image"


Love, Peace and Tolerance,



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Little One
SUPERIMPOSED:

A adjective
1 superimposed
added or imposed without integration; "the superimposed symbolism lacked validity"; "superimposed periodic variation"

2 layered, superimposed
with one layer on top of another; "superimposed rocks"

3 overlying, superimposed
placed on or over something else; "an overlying image"


You don't have to prove your credentials to me but I have questions.

I'm assuming you are saying this is a fake because of it being superimposed by either layering or overlying.

If one image were superimposed on another image to give the effect, wouldn't the image B (behind) be blocked by image A (front) as in the photoshopped image contained on the radio show website? Wouldn't you NOT be able to see the other eye, the other nostril, and most of the mouth of the person in image B? When you enlarge the photo greatly, you can see behind the girl's hair strands not just beside it. You can actually see the image B's left eye.

These two images (if they are TWO images) are definitely integrated. Sorry but unless you know of a way to integrate an image into another image (which you might and why I'm asking) then I have to say this is not superimposed.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
In this day and age its not can it be faked, ANYTHING can be faked,. its IS it fake. If you take a real photo, then take the elements of this photo and made a composite, you can make it look like the original photo. Does that make the real photo fake

So everyone please stop saying its fake because it can be faked. Find the elements of the photo that are proof it is fake.

I have been working in Photoshop for 18 years, for major ad campaigns .

Can these be faked yes. But it is a good composite , especially the masking of the hair. You do not seem ANY fragments between hairs but you can paint a mask to gradate down and anti alias . Example one of the more used pieces of software is www.ononesoftware.com...
Mask Pro can do this. But again. The personal would have to be very good at it. and again just because you can fake it doesn't mean it is fake.

the bottom line is 3 things

1) It real
2) Its was digitally manipulate
3) There is a real person in the picture.

Because of the quality of the hair and not seeing many digital artifacts. I say it is not digitally manipulated . Now due to the shadowing and reflections. I would say this is a real person in the picture . The person would have to have take a picture at the same time of day in the exact location in order to manipulate. but if you going to do that, why not just take the picture with the person in it. .. Or its real lol.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Kinda reminds me of this famous photo.



While not the same field (ie UFO's rather than ghosts) its still rather interesting their similarity.

I dont know people are saying its to good or the person doesn't look like a ghost (as if thats supposed to carry any weight since who among us know what a ghost really looks like, and how could we prove it anyhow).

I guess you can only take the photos takers word for it, give it time and im sure that if its a fake the identity and their connection to the photographer will come to light, on the other hand who knows perhaps a long gone relative was catching up and unfortunately got 'caught'


Me im for fake "hey gran get in behind!" but i aint tossing aside the possibility its not a long departed individual.

ShiftTrio's closing paragraph above this post summed it up perfectly in my mind.

Edit:- Hmm anyone else think their related, the old womans got a face with very similar features to the kid in front of her, definitely say they are related... maybe their one in the same
... i kid, or do I?



[edit on 30-7-2009 by BigfootNZ]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
No, I didn't read anyone else's responses before talking as I usually don't with these types of threads. Why all the talk about photoshop? Who needs that?

Edit: To clarify...I didn't read in detail...I just skimmed really fast (in case were to try to bust me on some apparent contradition).


To take this photograph with literally noone else in the room but the subject and the photgrapher is to put a carfully positioned portrait of somebody behind the subject. Take some care with the lighting and you're all set. No need for bluescreens or fancy editing and it will be the original image from the camera.

[edit on 7/30/2009 by EnlightenUp]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Just so everyone can see what something like this in photoshop would look like here's what I did with my wife's picture:



Here is the original.



I tried getting transparency in the hair like in the original but I have to say there is someone behind the girl.

Here is an inverted shot. Notice the detail behind the hair.



Let me know your thoughts.

Edit: Also notice the lighting from my photoshop to the original. There really was someone behind the girl, if she was a ghost or not is the mystery question.

And look down by the little girls shoulder, you can see the couch and then it fades up into the woman in the back. I might want to claim this authentic.

It also gives me the creeps.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by gravitybender]



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Had to add this one for skeptics:



Challenge: try to recreate this highlighted section, the hair of the girl is in perfect condition down to the strand! You can see the couch and the woman's torso goes faded.

This could be proof.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
The wife is a photobug (dang near a pro). She is also a believer in the supernatural. She only glanced at the photo and said, "fake".



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 


I cannot definitively see what is there because the hair is all spread out and fuzzying what is in the background. Whether or not it is the shirt or couch I cannot say with complete confidence.

They are both leaning into the grayish. The couch is a bit brownish while what is behind the hair tends to fit the shirt better. Try turning up the saturation on the image.

The "ghost" image is also conveniently positioned to hide any sort of edge, whether from a mirror or a portrait in the background. Notice though some light coming through near the left-top of the little girl's head on the top edge. I think I see an edge where the luminance suddenly dips that doesn't fit a genuine scenario.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by gravitybender
 


I cannot definitively see what is there because the hair is all spread out and fuzzying what is in the background. Whether or not it is the shirt or couch I cannot say with complete confidence.

They are both leaning into the grayish. The couch is a bit brownish while what is behind the hair tends to fit the shirt better. Try turning up the saturation on the image.

The "ghost" image is also conveniently positioned to hide any sort of edge, whether from a mirror or a portrait in the background. Notice though some light coming through near the left-top of the little girl's head on the top edge. I think I see an edge where the luminance suddenly dips that doesn't fit a genuine scenario.



Here you go!!!




posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by gravitybender
 


You cranked it up I see to the max.


What's behind the hair in that amplification definitely matches the shirt in chrominance far better than the couch.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Reminds me of a photo i took with my nokia phone a few years ago, it was of my friends son walking down the stairs and in the lower right corner you could clearly make out another child with blonde hair and a striped t shirt on. It looked very out of focus and you couldn't see any features. Had us talking for a few ours about it i can tell you.

Im not sure what to make of this one though, looks hmmm... faked. Cant rule anything out though.



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
reply to post by gravitybender
 


You cranked it up I see to the max.


What's behind the hair in that amplification definitely matches the shirt in chrominance far better than the couch.


I went crazy!!!


The last one was at 95%

This one is at 60%, probably a little better.






new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join