Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 19
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2011 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by elevenaugust
 



So what we have so far is either: - A hoaxer using GIMP and that don't correctly knows how to fake EXIFS datas - A genuine photography of a ghost - A genuine photography of something natural in front of the camera flash.


Wow, looks like you did a thorough job, and went to great lengths to provide a reasonable analysis. emberscott brought up a good rebuttle to my earlier post.



I mean let's just say for the sake of argument as an example someone, and I'm not saying this is what happened by any means, generated a fabricated image and then used a digital camera to create an authentic digital image.


I had already considered the possibility of the anomaly picture being rephotographed. This would mean that someone would have to rephotograph both pictures. I think it has been proven that the two pictures are two different pictures taken within a short interval of time.

I have taken colored 35 mm slides and rephotographed them to produce a positive color photograph. This in itself is a very time consuming process with a lot of darkroom time (I am an old school photographer). Depending on the method used, because there are several, determines the quality of the final photograph. I would be interested in what you have to say about the OP photos being a photo of a photo.

-Gib

edit on 5/24/2011 by Gibborium because: grammar


In my opinion, it has the detail expected from the EXIF so a photo of a photo is not likely.




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolfie0827
 


I agree. I slept on this a bit and gave it much thought. Even though I do not have the means to do this, IMO, this would degrade the photo(s) to a point where it would be noticed. But, I don't have the means to do this, so I must rely on someone else to verify.

-Gib



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by 22ndsecond
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


The last post before you and a few others showed that it said "Flash fired, return detected". Meaning it fired and bounced off of something. In this case the object had to have been close because it's so bright. Also pretty small for the person photographing to miss it. Likely caused by some wind blowing something in the frame for a second. It happens.


Thanks for pointing this out. I initially started reading every post but was getting heavy eyed. By the time i got around halfway throught the thread, I was ready to go to sleep but wanted to post something so I could find this thread again by just going to "My ATS."

This bit of information makes all the difference in the world.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Understandable, they are 19 painful pages to go through. It's really not that unlikely to believe that something was blown in front of the lens. Especially with a point and shoot camera where people generally look at the LED screen and not through the viewfinder, so small objects could easily be missed. A flash will create all kind of crazy light situations and glows given the right circumstances. It really is quite common. Maybe it's ghosts who knows.. I admit when I was shown the photo before it was even posted on here I saw two figures, leaning against each other.
But, until I am given some solid proof that ghosts exist and can be captured on camera I'm going to go with the perfectly explicable flash + object response. It fits in this circumstance, due to the exposure compensation. Hypothetically speaking if it was two glowing ghosts I don't think the camera would have exposed the rest of the scene so dark and more area around them should be illuminated given the brightness.
that's my take on it...



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
In my previous post, I talked about Chroma subsampling

For those who are not familiar with that concept, here's what's it's all about:


What is Chroma Subsampling?

The JPEG (JFIF) compressed file format can produce significant reductions in file size through
lossy compression. The techniques used to achieve these levels of JPEG compression take
advantage of the limitations of the human eye. The compression algorithm saves space by
discarding additional image information / detail that may not be as noticeable to the human
observer.

It is widely known that we are much more sensitive to changes in luminance (brightness)
than we are to chrominance (color) differences. Because of this, the JPEG format can discard
a lot more color information than luminance in the compression process. To facilitate the
different compression requirements of the two "channels" of image information, the JPEG file
format translates 8-bit RGB data (Red, Green, Blue) into 8-bit YCbCr data (Luminance,
Chroma Blue, Chroma Red). Now, with the brightness seperated into a separate data channel,
it is much easier to change the compression algorithm used for one channel versus the others.

Chroma subsampling is the process whereby the color information in the image is sampled at
a lower resolution than the original.


Read the full article on
Calvin Hass site


To make it shorter, there are mainly four levels of Chroma Subsampling:

4:4:4 (1x1)- The resolution of chrominance information (Cb & Cr) is preserved at the same rate
as the luminance (Y) information. Also known subsampling disabled.
4:2:2 (2x1)- Half of the horizontal resolution in the chrominance is dropped (Cb & Cr),
while the full resolution is retained in the vertical direction, with respect to the luminance.
This is quite common for digital cameras.
4:1:1 (1x2)- Only a quarter of the chrominance information is preserved in the horizontal
direction with respect to the luminance information. I don't think this format is nearly
as common as the other variations.
4:2:0 (2x2)- With respect to the information in the luminance channel (Y), the chrominance
resolution in both the horizontal and vertical directions is cut in half. Used by most of
graphics programs (Photoshop, GIMP, PAINT, etc....)

This Chroma Subsampling can be seen in JEPGSnoop results:



Note that in both "ghost" photographies, the Chroma Subsampling is at level 2x1.

Now, I've done further tests using:
- JPEGSnoop
- ExifTool
- Photome and Exifer to import/export and delete exifs datas

I took again my previous "photo-test"...



...and applied some modifications, re-saved the file and opened it with JPEGSnoop, as expected,
the Chroma Subsampling value is set to 2x2 for each modified file:



The next steps are to delete all the EXIFS datas of the modified files, export the whole EXIFS
datas from the original untouched file and import them into the modified files (Don't mean to
give any bad ideas, but that's what any hoaxer would do...)

I've done it under GIMP, as this seems to be the best free post-process tool as to date.

File name of the original is DSC00032 and name of the modified file is DSC00032-9:



NOTES:
1- The file size have been modified by the process, make it smaller
2- The tag "JFIF Version 1.0" have been added, oddly this is also what we found in our two
"ghost" photographs but also in two of my original untouched "photos-test" (see my previous post)
3- Chroma Subsampling stayed as 2x2

Points 1- and 3- is due to the process of chroma sub-sampling, not sure yet about point -2.



NOTES:
1- The compression tags stay identical
2- Chroma Subsampling stayed as 2x2

CONCLUSION:
Chroma subsampling of both "ghost" photos is consistant with what we should expect to see in
a genuine original Sony DSC-W55 photo and couldn't have been faked using solely any graphics programs, even with replacing false exifs datas with other genuine taken from an original photo.

Now, next test will be using an hex editor to see its effect both on Exiftool and on JPEGSnoop;
trying to modify these datas.
edit on 24-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: fix link



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Edit to add an important thing:

While I was reading again my post above, I noticed something wrong about the Chroma Subsampling on the two "ghost" photo, that appears oddly only in EXIFtool and not in JPEGSnoop:



I never saw before this Chroma Subsampling (4:4:0 (1.2)) level anywhere and there are very few information on this uncommon level.
Only a guess, but that could be the consequence of bad settings of the camera.

Anyone with a Sony DSC-W55 to do some tests?



To the OP: do you know if it would be possible to have other photographs from the same camera to run some more tests?
Thanks
edit on 24-5-2011 by elevenaugust because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I could try and get some other shots from that day. However, I'm not sure if other shots were kept (they're on my mother's school computer so I have no way to be sure except to check it). I will let you know.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by missthinks
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


I could try and get some other shots from that day. However, I'm not sure if other shots were kept (they're on my mother's school computer so I have no way to be sure except to check it). I will let you know.

Cool! Many thanks.

From that day would be better, but any other original photo would be ok too.

Could it be also possible to know more about your mother school computer? (OS, viewer, etc...)




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Haha, I don't know much about it. It's an old-ish computer at the public school she works at. That was the first place they were when they got back from the trip to Quebec (obvously) and were anxious to upload the shots. Again, I'm unsure if she'd have anymore there. She could have only uploaded the couple pictures that were of interest, but who knows!



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by missthinks
 

Thanks!

And is she still using the camera? If so, do you think that she would agree to do some random shoots for the study?

Thanks again!



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


It's actually my mom's co-worker/friend who took the shot/owns the camera. She was actually not very happy upon learning it had been shared on the internet, so I don't think she'd be very open to taking shots to contribute to all this. The best I can do is try and get other shots that were taken on the same day, sorry.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33

Unfortunately, since I have never been there, I can't offer that data. Everything I know about the photos I have provided. I can inquire highly pertinent questions to my friend so that she may ask her mother, however, I don't think they would be able to provide any info like how tall the house was and things of that nature.

Also: I think the second picture is dimmer because the camera's auto-focus/calibration is on, so whatever that bright thing is, the camera's auto-adjustment is trying to compensate for the brightness.


I've been working a lot the past few days, and so am just now getting caught up here. Forgive me if this has already been answered, as I'm not yet caught up, but if we know the make and model of the camera it was taken with, we can probably find the field of view of the camera, and from that find out lengths and distances by pixel interpolation. Also, the original photo files would be immensely helpful.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wolfie0827

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by elevenaugust
 



So what we have so far is either: - A hoaxer using GIMP and that don't correctly knows how to fake EXIFS datas - A genuine photography of a ghost - A genuine photography of something natural in front of the camera flash.


Wow, looks like you did a thorough job, and went to great lengths to provide a reasonable analysis. emberscott brought up a good rebuttle to my earlier post.



I mean let's just say for the sake of argument as an example someone, and I'm not saying this is what happened by any means, generated a fabricated image and then used a digital camera to create an authentic digital image.


I had already considered the possibility of the anomaly picture being rephotographed. This would mean that someone would have to rephotograph both pictures. I think it has been proven that the two pictures are two different pictures taken within a short interval of time.

I have taken colored 35 mm slides and rephotographed them to produce a positive color photograph. This in itself is a very time consuming process with a lot of darkroom time (I am an old school photographer). Depending on the method used, because there are several, determines the quality of the final photograph. I would be interested in what you have to say about the OP photos being a photo of a photo.

-Gib

edit on 5/24/2011 by Gibborium because: grammar


In my opinion, it has the detail expected from the EXIF so a photo of a photo is not likely.


A photo of a photo, would produce the same exif as a photo of the house...

It's just next in series. I explained how Exif data earlier in the thread could be circumvented and still be a hoax...

Although, I know this one to NOT be a hoax... as detailed earlier.



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Recently I've been competing in another website's image manipulation contests. Since I can't afford Photoshop, I use GIMP. What I've learned, not so much from my own entries which are mostly still pretty lame, but from others' entries, is that it's quite possible to manipulate an image so well that it looks perfectly genuine.

I agree that it's reasonable to look for obvious signs of tampering on images posted like this, but beyond that I see it as relatively pointless. These days it's nearly impossible to prove that an image wasn't manipulated. To pop into a thread like this and say "Oh, it's a fake, I could do that easy in Gimp," while it may be true, is the easy (and lazy) choice. Of course you could do this in PS. I could do it in Gimp. Much better and more convincing images could have been done with image manipulation software. That doesn't, however, prove that they were manipulated.

In my opinion, a much more interesting and productive approach would be to say "yes, this image could be fake, but there is some evidence to suggest it isn't, so let's assume that it's not fake and try to figure out what it could be." If image analysis (in the sense of analysis of the elements presented in the picture as opposed to software analysis for evidence of tampering) doesn't yield any good possibilities of what this anomaly could be, THEN we might consider a paranormal explanation or reconsider the idea that the image was tampered with.

In an earlier post I asked some questions about aspects of the photo that puzzle me, and they were ignored although someone else also mentioned one of them: If the flash went off, where is the flash return (reflection) that should appear on the metal fence in the foreground?

My understanding of photo analysis is not so much looking at a picture and noting how it could be faked, but looking at it and trying to figure out what it actually is and what caused it to appear as it does, and I've seen very little of that in this thread. If this is a genuine, unaltered image, figuring out how it happened and what it is could be useful for analyzing other images in the future, and/or could be applied to past similar images. Much more potentially useful than just giving it a quick look and saying "oh, that must be a fake because it would be so easy to fake."

And by the way, I'm still looking for answers to my questions, which pertain to actually analyzing elements of the photo rather than deciding whether or not it's fake.

My Earlier Post



posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by hhott
Recently I've been competing in another website's image manipulation contests. Since I can't afford Photoshop, I use GIMP. What I've learned, not so much from my own entries which are mostly still pretty lame, but from others' entries, is that it's quite possible to manipulate an image so well that it looks perfectly genuine.

I agree that it's reasonable to look for obvious signs of tampering on images posted like this, but beyond that I see it as relatively pointless. These days it's nearly impossible to prove that an image wasn't manipulated. To pop into a thread like this and say "Oh, it's a fake, I could do that easy in Gimp," while it may be true, is the easy (and lazy) choice. Of course you could do this in PS. I could do it in Gimp. Much better and more convincing images could have been done with image manipulation software. That doesn't, however, prove that they were manipulated.

In my opinion, a much more interesting and productive approach would be to say "yes, this image could be fake, but there is some evidence to suggest it isn't, so let's assume that it's not fake and try to figure out what it could be." If image analysis (in the sense of analysis of the elements presented in the picture as opposed to software analysis for evidence of tampering) doesn't yield any good possibilities of what this anomaly could be, THEN we might consider a paranormal explanation or reconsider the idea that the image was tampered with.

In an earlier post I asked some questions about aspects of the photo that puzzle me, and they were ignored although someone else also mentioned one of them: If the flash went off, where is the flash return (reflection) that should appear on the metal fence in the foreground?

My understanding of photo analysis is not so much looking at a picture and noting how it could be faked, but looking at it and trying to figure out what it actually is and what caused it to appear as it does, and I've seen very little of that in this thread. If this is a genuine, unaltered image, figuring out how it happened and what it is could be useful for analyzing other images in the future, and/or could be applied to past similar images. Much more potentially useful than just giving it a quick look and saying "oh, that must be a fake because it would be so easy to fake."

And by the way, I'm still looking for answers to my questions, which pertain to actually analyzing elements of the photo rather than deciding whether or not it's fake.

My Earlier Post

I agree with you on moving on with analysing the elements of the photo. That falls more into my expertise as a photographer/developer. I think we strayed from that because of two things. One due to so many trolls coming in and giving their one or two vehemet lines of:

Originally posted by Version100

Photoshop Dodge and Burn tool, yes.

Anomaly, no.

or

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
No photographic expertise at all, but as a viewer of photographs, it looks fake as hell to me. Not even, "hmmm" fake, but
fake.
or

Originally posted by SireFurious
This looks shopped. I can tell by the pixels and by having done quite a few shops in my time.

No, seriously. I call hoax. Alerted. No flag for you. No Star. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

which created a defensive atmosphere in the beginning. Second, There were posters that wanted the photos be proven authentic through digital means first instead of just using some good old fashioned forensics.

There isn't any harm in doing both at the same time. But simple forensics could save a lot of time if some weird out of place anomaly is found. Or, I guess it could also muddy the waters even more, depending on what is found.
edit on 5/24/2011 by Gibborium because: wasn't finished and click reply by accident




posted on May, 24 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


Thank you! I'm not trying to convince anyone this is a ghost, and neither is the OP. I simply wondered how a shot like this could have been taken (aside from the obvious photo manipulation, which, as the OP and I know, isn't the case). I would love to know more about the possible flash return. I'll wait eagerly for an educated photographer to post!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
I reiterate: I don't appreciate the 'its altered comments'... because its not. It was taken by a middle-aged woman who knows little to nothing about technology. They didn't even see it until my friend loaded the pictures from their trip onto the computer. You're wasting your time and mine.

Please, at least have the sense to say its a digital glitch or a light reflection or something.


A middle aged woman who knows nothing about technology, yet was able to figure out how to quite effectively purchase and use a digital camera, and by your own original post was able to hook it up to a computer that she must have figured out how to install the software for, copy the pictures from the camera to the computer, and electronically send them to you.

Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: fixed runon sentences.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Excellent work. We could use more logic like yours around here. Thanks for posting!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bronco73

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
I reiterate: I don't appreciate the 'its altered comments'... because its not. It was taken by a middle-aged woman who knows little to nothing about technology. They didn't even see it until my friend loaded the pictures from their trip onto the computer. You're wasting your time and mine.

Please, at least have the sense to say its a digital glitch or a light reflection or something.


A middle aged woman who knows nothing about technology, yet was able to figure out how to quite effectively purchase and use a digital camera, and by your own original post was able to hook it up to a computer that she must have figured out how to install the software for, copy the pictures from the camera to the computer, and electronically send them to you.

Not to be rude, but if she can do that, then she can just as easily click on the dodge or burn tool. I'm not saying she did and I actually think I believe you when you say she did not. However, to make the claim that she is incapable of accomplishing that feat due to her own incompetence, especially in light of what she had already accomplished, it is quite easy to see why it can appear to be a hoax.
edit on 25-5-2011 by bronco73 because: fixed runon sentences.


First, the woman who took the pictures is different from the woman that down loaded them from the camera to the computer.

My wife knows how to drive a car very well. She even drives a stick shift with great proficiency, but she couldn't change a tire, change wiper blades, or even put oil in the car, let alone do body or mechanical work on it. Just because someone can take digital pictures and download them to a computer (especially in this day of plug and play) does not mean they can edit, a picture in PS or any other editing tool. Besides, it has pretty much been established that the pictures have not been manipulated digitally.

Why not try and post a comment on topic either pro or con rather than trolling. I say this with kind yet firm voice.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
I want to thank everyone who put effort into analyzing those photos, and those who gave words of encouragement when they could not themselves analyze. I do not expect anyone to believe what I'm saying and it is understandable that most were/are highly skeptical, after all, this is a site that promotes a high degree of skepticism. This is good, however, in order to be truly skeptical and engage in unhindered questioning, we must be skeptical of unyielding skeptics; those who are unwilling to admit to the possibility of an alternative. In retrospect, in saying that I did not want people to post in this thread if all they were going to say was that it was photoshopped, I probably attracted more of what I wished to cast aside. If it were not for the people who questioned whether or not the photos were 'shopped, and provided a detailed analysis and their thoughts, I doubt I would have been taken seriously.

Thanks again for your time and effort.






top topics



 
34
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join