Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

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.

For that reason alone, I think it is NOT fake.
A 5 year old could create a more "realistic" looking fake.


It was a sunny day, she wasn't facing the sun but it was shining onto her from the side.
It was also shining on the glass windows.
If she's technically challenged, she might have take the photo with the camera's flash on.

Take the same camera, go out on a sunny day with the sun shining on the glass windows of your house and take a photo of the house with the flash on. . You will get a light spot like that.... Although the one in this photo is oddly shaped, that could be because of a shadow caused by something not visible in the photo. . A tree branch or something that "interrupted" the refraction.

Just because the person who took the picture doesnt know how to use technology effectively doesn't mean someone else wont take the picture and add there own touches to it.

I believe the sun is behind the photographer and shining onto an albino person, creating a bright blur XD.

Let me take a centrist view for a moment.

To those who think that asking for relevant information is somehow bashing or doubting the OP: That IS how investigation is done and conclusions are drawn. *No one* can just look at such a photograph of unknown provenance and say: "Yup. That's some paranormal s--t, all right!" Nor, conversely, that it's NOT something paranormal. A photograph alone simply does not provide enough information.

To those who immediately call BS: You have to wait for things to develop, guys. I know these things often end up being the work of a troll; but that's not always the case. If they're willing to learn and try and take instruction on how to provide useful information--for pete's sake, give 'em a chance....

To everyone questioning the legitimacy of this photo- I am the person the OP got the photograph from. I understand that a photographic anomaly like this is hard to take seriously, but trust me, it's not doctored (the information provided proves that it has not been modified, right?). The woman who took the shot could hardly upload the photos onto the computer, so I personally helped her do that.

To elaborate on the background story, my mother and her friend are teachers at an elementary school, and for their grade 8 graduation trip they go to Quebec. They have gone on the same tour for decades and haven't come close to getting another shot like this. I've always been interested in getting others' opinions on what the object in the photo could be (or why something like that might have shown up in the shot) but have yet to be taken seriously. The conversation usually goes like it is now, with endless people claiming it's been altered in some way-- I have better things to do than spend hours trying to photoshop an old photo to make it look legitimate (yet here I am defending it. Ah, the taste of irony).

Anyway, just thought I'd redirect the negative attention the OP is getting. Aaaand I'm off.

I think it would look even more real if you made it with clay-mation lol.

And seriously, you made an account just to say that lol give me a break.

Maybe im just cranky cause the world didnt end today, but this stuffs just getting stupid

Originally posted by missthinks
To everyone questioning the legitimacy of this photo- I am the person the OP got the photograph from. I understand that a photographic anomaly like this is hard to take seriously, but trust me, it's not doctored (the information provided proves that it has not been modified, right?). The woman who took the shot could hardly upload the photos onto the computer, so I personally helped her do that.

To elaborate on the background story, my mother and her friend are teachers at an elementary school, and for their grade 8 graduation trip they go to Quebec. They have gone on the same tour for decades and haven't come close to getting another shot like this. I've always been interested in getting others' opinions on what the object in the photo could be (or why something like that might have shown up in the shot) but have yet to be taken seriously. The conversation usually goes like it is now, with endless people claiming it's been altered in some way-- I have better things to do than spend hours trying to photoshop an old photo to make it look legitimate (yet here I am defending it. Ah, the taste of irony).

Anyway, just thought I'd redirect the negative attention the OP is getting. Aaaand I'm off.

THANK you for coming on and supporting the OP~!! I personally think you've captured a energy anomaly. I highly encourage you to view the you tube video. I think FoF caught a white blur 20 or so minutes AFTER they took the Polaroids ..odd indeed~!

For the record, I'm a believer, but also very skeptical. First glace of this photo is one of those too good to be true ones. I have never even addressed the large obvious anomaly. When I was first forming an opinion though, I blew up the very good image linked and found an area very near the large anomaly that looked altered.

I am glad to see the photographer came on here to validate the image. I have seen before on here where someone posted an image from a relative they swore was legit, but then it turned out the OP was fooled by their relative. The fact she came on here doesn't make it legit. But that coupled with the release of the original photos adds more authenticity to the image.

I still stand by my statement that it appears altered even though I will admit the smoking gun hasn't yet been found. It's all circumstantial.

I just sent a link of the thread to my friend to show her how the debate about it was going, I didn't expect her to make an account and comment, quite a pleasant surprise haha. Thanks for posting, and thanks for dealing with my annoying requests for you to upload the original image!

At first I was extremely skeptic myself.

I am a graphic artist, I work mainly with photoshop and know this could be done in several ways.

What I found when I originally looked at it was that they looked similar, but I discerned between looking at the window on the first floor in the lower left hand corner they were different.

The clouds there in the window have moved slightly, and the shadows and colors are shown a little better in the second photo.

I was still very skeptic of the second photo though. I opened it in Photoshop CS2 and an easy way to tell if something has been edited is by the transparency in edges of objects. Usually, when you look at the edges they have a very soft edge to it.

What I've done here is a simple new layer using a reddish color I ran my mouse in a general shape around the figure (which I originally thought was two people holding each other, a simple image that could've been overlaid and created this shape). I then changed the new layer I made to a layer mode called "Color Burn," which uses the colors in the layer above and adds them in extremely exaggerated highs and lows adding the colors, and this is what I got.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8cee192f83e6.jpg[/atsimg]

What you see is a shape, a human figure in clothes. I would say it's a man anywhere from late 50's up in a suit.
Now, the outline though is stark and you can see it is 1 pixel line with a very defined value. If it was a 'shop' the colors would fade into each other.

Here's a closer look. I cropped the image and blew it up 300%.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9f29269c38d2.jpg[/atsimg]

Just what I found, not what it appears to be at all.

A very interesting photo you have here. Maybe the owner come back to see his home?

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


My pleasure. I mean, as I went through the thread and saw how people were responding to the photo (pointing out spots I had never even noticed before, comparing the clouds in both pictures etc etc), I increasingly felt the need to post to add some sort of authenticity to the shot (I have to admit, it did sound a little too "Freaky Stories"-esque)

reply to post by missthinks


Haha, you mean the whole, 'it happened to a friend of a friend of a friend of mine', yeah, sounds like a bad case of the game telephone. However, pictures are worth a thousand words, and they don't change when you're not 'shoppin' 'em.

reply to post by Xen0m0rpH


Would a low-res image not produce the same effects (something like 24x16) ?

The right side of the figure also looks a bit 'cut out' to me.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
...and here's the picture with it:

It was done by using Photoshop's eraser tool.

You can tell that they also used feathering. When you use Photoshop's feathering option, the eraser 'will not delete' all of the information its touches.

reply to post by martiendejong2


It could, and you can see some to an effect in the rest of the image. But it still wouldn't produce anything like this.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
...and here's the picture with it:

It was done by using Photoshop's eraser tool.

You can tell that they also used feathering. When you use Photoshop's feathering option, the eraser 'will not delete' all of the information its touches.

edit on 5/21/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

If it was merely the eraser (which a similar effect can be produced using the history brush) it wouldn't explain the blue hues in 'smoke' or the yellows in the edges of the outline

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
If it was merely the eraser (which a similar effect can be produced using the history brush) it wouldn't explain the blue hues in 'smoke' or the yellows in the edges of the outline

Hmm... Let us see...

Since someone tried to color correct the image, I am also willing to bet they were responsible for the anomalies.

reply to post by Section31


Can you show in an exif viewer that it was opened in photoshop, or a similar program? I had a kickass freeware exif viewer, but the trail ended

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33


I'm going to go with the hypothesis that you don't know much about this stuff either.

If A is success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.
Albert Einstein, Observer, Jan. 15, 1950

It's a shame that you would place such an audacious, arrogant label on me as such as I am an ignorant.


So now I'm going to ask you, why? you are determined to have your images called false. Are you looking for a method to create authentic images that are difficult to debunk?

I am by far a skeptic of anything, because reality is determined solely in direct relative proportion to the perspective of the individual perspective, perceiving the event of observation. From there it is the responsibility of the observer to conceive/fathom the hypothesis.

On the other hand a digital analysis is simply just that, it is not complex but very simple. In an argument let's say that Efixtool is a stand alone perl based app that cannot, is not, and will not be incorporated into a digital camera, specifically a DSC-W55.

My point is, do not by any means underestimate me and/or question my intellect. You asked for analysis. I simply asked for the necessary materials to provide the analysis.

By my own admonition now, if you would have only decided how to thoroughly explain the line exiftool and the line just beneath it, and on that note attempted to remove that signature from the metadata you might have been on to a whole new level of digital deception.


But meh.. I am simply some relatively new random ATS member.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Section31

 

Can you show in an exif viewer that it was opened in photoshop, or a similar program? I had a kickass freeware exif viewer, but the trail ended

Do you know what? I just downloaded both of the images, and I am going to boot up my graphic and web design computer. I am going to replicate the second photo. Since I do not have Photoshop installed on this computer, I have to switch off for a few moments. I will be back.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by makeitso

 

Hmmm, it seems that exif viewer is better than the one I use. Thanks.

TKDRL, If memory serves, I believe you mentioned being a Photoshop user in a previous thread.

If you already knew then disregard, however if not then the tip of the day is that the file browser pallet features an EXIF/Metadata viewer that displays the same data as ExifPro.

Similiar to the features found in ExifPro, Photoshop also includes the option of editing the Metadata files (not that anyone frequenting ATS would ever have a need to edit a digital photograph's Metadata)


ExifPro 1.0/ Photoshop 7.0 comparison, Click picture to enlarge...

Hope this helps.