Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

page: 7
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


That would be a waste of time..... Proving that something can be faked, does not prove it is faked. Yes, people that are good at PS can fake a lot, same as people good at after effects can fake some great video. If we go by your logic, than no picture or video can ever be accepted as evidence.

As I said before, if a photo editor was involved, it should be easy to show in the exif data.
edit on Sat, 21 May 2011 21:21:52 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I do think it's strange, but on the right side, it's very linear. It makes me believe it is some sort of camera flare



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   
The exif data showed the flash was on.
there was another setting that was off.... oh it was set to "night" mode or something .... which means the camera will amplify any light it picks up.

The clouds are probably what caused the odd shape.

the blue hue, is like a prism type thing (I don't know what the correct geek words are)
it's definitely authentic and it's definitely caused by light.

take a picture of a window with the flash of your camera on, you'll get a white circle.
now take a picture of a window with the flash of your camera on, but turn slightly so you're taking the picture from an angle... .you'll get a distorted white spot.

add in the sun rays streaming towards the window, and the clouds breaking the rays and you got a ghost.

for crying out loud, we all know ghosts are translucent, nobody is going to use the eraser tool at 100% opacity and then try to pass it off as a photo of a ghost. (well nobody cept the people who suggested it maybe and those people can not have too much knowledge about how these tools work or they'd know this ?? )

were the settings adjusted between the 2 photos ? or it could've just been the sun coming in/out of the clouds.
it's a great camera but it's not the kind of camera you just "point and shoot"... I suggest you send it to me and I'll send you back one that won't cause this kind of problems for you.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Wow, call me an idiot, but I never seen what you are talking about. Where do you find that? I own CS4, in case that matters.... I never had a reason to check my own exif/metadata, I usually save to PNG to strip it out.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 



Sorry bud, but -- without even blowing up the image you can see the pixel mismatch, which can ONLY happen as a result of digital manipulation.

Here is how it was done, Somebody was really standing there, in that pose... and the picture was taken, it was then dodged and burned, and has a pure white "glow" effect added to the layer (that is the person after effects).

This is not even open to debate, If you sent me a picture of that house with 10 people standing in front of it, in about 10 minutes I can make all 10 people look exactly like that.

I'm betting that is the ladies son, or her herself standing there....

And NO. Exiff data doesn't have to exist. It's very easy to remove exiff data from your picture. How? Just take a picture of your edited picture, and presto... the new picture has authentic Exiff data.

To do this with no quality loss, we use the magic "Print Screen" button.

Also, it's quite apparent that this is a horrible fake, like the guy above me said, he actually stated that it's so bad he can't actually be convinced that anybody made it, because anybody with "knowledge" of the tools would understand that a ghost should not be opaque.

This is poor reasoning. For one, it could be an intentionally poor fake, as an experiment to see how many people would actually respond positively to it....

In this particular instance, you would have to provide proof that an anomoly like that one has existed before, and no -- this is NOT the same thing as a refraction from a flash off of a window indoors. This is a naturally sun lit photo, a flash would not be bright enough to cause any kind of solid opaque pure white shape. It's simply impossible.
edit on 21-5-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laokin
reply to post by OrganicAnagram33
 



Sorry bud, but -- without even blowing up the image you can see the pixel mismatch, which can ONLY happen as a result of digital manipulation.

Here is how it was done, Somebody was really standing there, in that pose... and the picture was taken, it was then dodged and burned, and has a pure white "glow" effect added to the layer (that is the person after effects).

This is not even open to debate, If you sent me a picture of that house with 10 people standing in front of it, in about 10 minutes I can make all 10 people look exactly like that.

I'm betting that is the ladies son, or her herself standing there....


There would be a shadow from the person standing there, and to shop out the shadow would be more work than needed.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Sorry bud, but I know you're wrong. Nobody was standing there and its not manipulation, I suggest you read through the thread.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Like this?


Exif test, Click picture to enlarge...

Yes, in the example posted above I did nothing more than import then save the photo in an identical form to make the point that it isn't necessary to manipulate the image in any way for the Exif data to show the photo had been handled by a photo editing program.

The point being, you cant automatically call foul if you see the footprint from a photo editing program referenced in the Exif data.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Laokin
 


Sorry bud, but I know you're wrong. Nobody was standing there and its not manipulation, I suggest you read through the thread.


Sorry bud, I do this for a living. You are wrong, and perpetuating a hoax. I'm a master with these tools, and as such, it's easy to see when some one who isn't a master of these tools, uses these tools.

I already covered the exif data.

Everything else here, is completely invalid. The OP has stated that he was told via a third party that the pictures weren't edited...

This is alone, enough to discredit this obvious hoax.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
I don't see why people waste their time debating and arguing.
IMO this picture isn't worthy of any discussion. This is at best a good story to read about nothing more. If you (OP) was the one that took this picture and did not make any editing than I'd say you have something interesting at hand. Those of us looking at this picture will have a heavy doubt about the authenticity of this image because it is SUPER easy to fake/recreate.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Thank you for your posts Drunkenparrot. I imagine it was imported onto the computer and they used a similar program (or one with far less capability) in order to view the pictures. Would such a stamp show up even if it were say, windows picture viewer?



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Ask and you shall receive. I did it through the use of layers and feathering in Adobe Photoshop.

It was rather simple.

Original post and images:

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
Here's the house without the anomaly:



...and here's the picture with it:


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



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Thank you for your posts Drunkenparrot. I imagine it was imported onto the computer and they used a similar program (or one with far less capability) in order to view the pictures. Would such a stamp show up even if it were say, windows picture viewer?


Possibly, but only if it was resaved, not renamed. It would have to be placed into it's container file (picture.containerextensionhere) by a photo program.

Windows picture viewer can't do this, because it piggy backs to MSPaint.... So viewing pictures does not create Exif data.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


Well, since you do this for a living, you are clearly a valuable asset in getting to the bottom of this. However, if you haven't read the whole thread, I suggest you do. This is not a hoax, and the person I received these photos from commented in this thread a short time ago. Can you at least hypothetically entertain the idea that is was simply opened in an editing program in order to be viewed? Look at Drunkenparrot's post.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


You really didn't understand how the technique he was using worked did you? It makes manipulated parts stand out more...making them LESS of a match....read the description again.
edit on 21-5-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: fixed spelling error



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


That is a grossly inadequate and dissimilar photo Section31, I can't believe you're trying to pass that off as some kind of proof of manipulation.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 


OK, it would have had to be a program other than windows picture viewer then, thank you.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
If it were real, if you enlarge it realy big, it looks like 2 people a male and female leaning one one another and looking toward the photgrapher...not a single person with head hung as first looks like...much more real looking at it enlarged very big.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by Laokin
 


OK, it would have had to be a program other than windows picture viewer then, thank you.

I used Adobe Photoshop.

Anyone could have created the anomaly using Photoshop. Its a fake.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xen0m0rpH
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.



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%.



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?

edit on 21-5-2011 by Xen0m0rpH because: New comment, enlarged crop added

Thank you so much for posting this. I agree completely. This is exactly what I see and have seen in other photos.
I thought this deserved being posted again for those not reading the whole thread..





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join