Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 12
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The clouds actually ARE NOT the same in both pictures. As others have already pointed out.


These clouds are exactly the same. Only one photo shows slightly more detail in the clouds due to brightness/contrast adjustments.

Look closely, it's the exact same photo, cropped, darkened, perhaps slightly rotated.

0% doubt that this is real.

Khar


There's literally a GIF made to prove that it's not the same photo. It wasn't cropped and the brightness wasn't altered. It's a waste of time to keep bringing this up- you need to read the entire thread (as another poster said, it's worth it!)




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
*sigh* I see so much arguing and critising of the OP's character. It's a shame. It take me enough courage to reply to threads on here, I certainly couldn't start one of my own, not with all the 'sharks' waiting to attack.

I still believe the OP and her friend are genuine, I see no reason to see otherwise. I don't however have enough knowledge of photo manipulation, I've never used photoshop, so I don't know what can / can't be done. My photo skills are limited to Paint and layering using Paint.Net


But the suggestion someone mentioned that it is a reflection of something perhaps flying in front of the camera is an interesting idea. Is there any way to tell if this is the case?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
OK, she uploaded the original anomalous photo on 4share.

www.4shared.com...


Hi, could it be also possible to upload the original untouched photography without the "ghost" that was taken a few seconds apart?

Many thanks!



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by missthinks

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The clouds actually ARE NOT the same in both pictures. As others have already pointed out.


These clouds are exactly the same. Only one photo shows slightly more detail in the clouds due to brightness/contrast adjustments.

Look closely, it's the exact same photo, cropped, darkened, perhaps slightly rotated.

0% doubt that this is real.

Khar


There's literally a GIF made to prove that it's not the same photo. It wasn't cropped and the brightness wasn't altered. It's a waste of time to keep bringing this up- you need to read the entire thread (as another poster said, it's worth it!)
.

And as another poster noted, EXIF data is irrelevant when looking at a fake. Easily altered in any photo tool.

Rely on your eyes on this one, without wasting my time loading these photos in Photoshop to compare, this is the same photo.

Khar



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It would be extremely simple to recreate this effect with photoshop.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


After loading it up in Photoshop on different layers, cropping very slightly, every single part of the image lines up except SOME cloud shapes in the upper right.

The clouds on the left side of the house line up perfectly on first inspection when the house features are aligned. What this tells me is that someone played with Photoshop's Liquify filter and only bothered to alter one section of the clouds.

Had the clouds moved in one portion of the sky, they would almost certainly have moved on the other side of the house as well.

This is just my opinion after loading up Photoshop for 60-90 seconds, but my opinion is that this is such a waste of time and an obvious half-assed hoax that I won't even bother coming back to this thread.

Khar



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 22ndsecond
 


I think some common cams can pic up electromagnetic frequencies beyond what the human eye is capable of detecting, but you are the photographer... I'm just a layman



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron
reply to post by Kharron
 


This is just my opinion after loading up Photoshop for 60-90 seconds, but my opinion is that this is such a waste of time and an obvious half-assed hoax that I won't even bother coming back to this thread.

Khar



Well, my opinion is that you won't be missed in this thread.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I've only been lurking for a few months and finally just made an account, but I'm confident that you don't get ATS points for repeating the same criticisms over and over and otherwise just bogging down a thread. The mods may come back with some IP findings, but it's really not the point. If you're 100% convinced that it's 100% fake, go spend your time in another thread. A lot of people have found the "expert" explanations inadequate, and a true skeptic reserves judgement in both directions. An entire page of this thread could be made up from the "it's the eraser tool" posts, even though the photo in OP bears very little resemblance to anything erased so far.

If you have a ground breaking debunk, by all means, share. But ruining the thread just because you can seems kind of pointless, and counter productive. Anything that looks like disinfo only stirs the masses at ATS, so unless an argument is solid, it just comes across as egoism.
edit on 22-5-2011 by cointelprofessor because: I don't pay very close attention. =(



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by missthinks

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


The clouds actually ARE NOT the same in both pictures. As others have already pointed out.


These clouds are exactly the same. Only one photo shows slightly more detail in the clouds due to brightness/contrast adjustments.

Look closely, it's the exact same photo, cropped, darkened, perhaps slightly rotated.

0% doubt that this is real.

Khar


There's literally a GIF made to prove that it's not the same photo. It wasn't cropped and the brightness wasn't altered. It's a waste of time to keep bringing this up- you need to read the entire thread (as another poster said, it's worth it!)
.

And as another poster noted, EXIF data is irrelevant when looking at a fake. Easily altered in any photo tool.

Rely on your eyes on this one, without wasting my time loading these photos in Photoshop to compare, this is the same photo.

Khar


I suppose, then, there's no convincing you! I am simply being honest, and I'm sorry that you can't see that.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I have seen photos with similar anomolies on which are usually explained away as insects moving through the shot. This to me looks like a couple stood side by side. I don't think it's been tampered with, though I can see how people think it has been considering how bright the anomoly is. I have a similarly bright anomoly on a photo of my own, which no doubt would also take some questioning.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
As for this specific photo like I and others have said it's probably a light reflection, an object in front of the lens or glare, etc. But this whole overly long drawn out debate got me thinking of whether or not ANY "ghost" images could possibly be legitimate.
Say hypothetically we assume ghosts do exist, could we really assume that a camera is capable of capturing one?
In order for a "ghost" to appear on an image it would have to appear on the electromagnetic spectrum, and more specifically on the visible light spectrum which is a narrow width of the whole electromagnetic spectrum.
Today's digital cameras, even the best are still incapable of capturing the full dynamic range of what the human eye can see without the merging of multiple photos, I'd be very hesitant to say that an image sensor could detect an entity invisible to the human eye.
A camera would have to be designed specifically to be able to capture the full electromagnetic spectrum, or ghosts would have to be visible to us also.
I'd be interested to see what people think of this. I don't know all there is to know about the image sensor but if there are other photographers out there who could help me out let me know your thoughts.
(I know there are modified/ specially designed cameras that exist that can capture infra- red or UV light).


Actually, most of today's (past 6 years or so) see a little more than the average human eye can see, they see a little into the infrared, and UV. It's only a little bit into each end but again it's more than our eyes can see.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
While I do believe in ghosts and paranormal phenomena, I can honestly say that this is altered. The reason, the "apparition" is too bright, too much of well defined shame and too solid to be real. My reasons for that are these 1) Smokey white apparitions aren't that thick they have transparency to them, 2) if they are solid, they are either black or look like real people (full body apparitions). Now, I'm not saying YOU did it, but I'm saying someone did. I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to hear. I myself would LOVE to have evidence of a ghost, but this just isn't it. I'm sorry.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 

I agree it does look like 2 people instead of 1. Not sure if it is real or not was not there to eyewitness it. But as a Ghost Hunter having a group, doing this for 15 years now... I have seen with my own investigations very, similar type photos. This one seems to be very bright though, a thought on that is , maybe because there is 2 people, their energy could be really strong. But again not sure if it's real or not
just thoughts if it is real.
edit on 22-5-2011 by Niphredil because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 


It's entirely possible, do you have any sources or links further explaining this? I'd really like to understand better. I am a photographer and this interests me.
I still find it a bit peculiar. Cameras are designed to capture the scene as seen by the human eye, if they were always picking up more information you'd think we'd be seeing anomalies and oddities left and right. It's possible that the sensor is capable of picking up invisible to us photos, but there are filters in place to let only the visible light through. I just know you need light to create a photo, without it is simply black, anything visible in a photo has to be illuminated by a source of light or be the source of light.
The other thing puzzling me is that if the ghost/ spirit is an energy entity, how is it that it's once physical form would be manifested visually once the person has passed. I think 99.99% of orb photos can be explained by dust/ pollen/ etc but it still makes more sense to that spiritual entity would appear orb like than appear in the likeness of their once physical self. Some sort of information has to be given to that digital sensor to produce the image, where would that information be coming from? Just doesn't add up.. but maybe someone has put more research into this and found some answers.. I'm just asking questions.
Brings about bigger mysteries though like what happens to the soul/spirit once the body has died and what exactly IS a ghost? I guess no really has the answers at this point but I think that is a very important thing to think about when considering the possibility that you may be looking at a photo of a ghost(s).
edit on 22-5-2011 by 22ndsecond because: spelling



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Version100
 


Agreed.



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

edit on 22/5/2011 by Sauron because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I have plenty of experience in image manipulation .
Here is a great tip to tell if an image has been digitally edited , and you don't even need EXIF data , just the image.

Load the image into photoshop and then do the following
Click "Image Adjustment."
Click "Levels"
Now take a look at the Histogram . If the image has been edited , you will notice what will look like sawcuts into the curves of the histogram . The more "sawcuts" , the heavier the editing.

Regards.
edit on 27/04/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I dont know...According to this technology, no expert, but shouldnt there be red or white lines surrounding something when added or edited in a photo?
Image analysis



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 22ndsecond
 


Yup, some ordinary digital cameras can pick up infrared light.




posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 

Hi! Maybe you missed my above post, so I asked again, if you don't mind.

Could it be also possible for you to upload the original untouched photography without the "ghost" that was taken a few seconds apart?





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join