Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

Heres a mod of the photo with a touch of emboss and enlarged with inverted color..

To me, I can see his face, and it looks like a dark haired young dude looking right at the camera and smiling a bit.

Very lucky and rare to get a picture of a spirit like this.

this is what i got from it

originally posted by: samerulesapply
a reply to: destination now

Yeah, I saw those. Nice pics.

But what's the explanation for the varying colours shown in the enhanced image? It looks like the water is shallow in the foreground and getting deeper towards the back...can the colours in the enhanced image be used to determine the depth of the water...or does the fact that the image is enhanced at all mean that the colours serve no purpose in this regard?

Well I wouldn't trust the colours 100% but it certainly makes sense that we are seeing deeper water out to sea, and shallow water over sand in the area where the figure is standing. Looking at the area where the photo was taken...



you can see that there is gently sloping sand there. (This pic is taken from the opposite direction, obviously, looking onshore, so the figure would be standing to the left of the line of rocks in this view.)

I have to say if the OP is genuine and not some very elaborate hoaxer, this is one of the better "ghost pictures" or at least some prime example of amazing paredoilia.

Even if we assume its paredoiliia and not a genuine ghost..WHAT would cause the smudge on the photograph? I cannot see a logical explanation since digital cameras won't just randomly produce such type of smudge...so it's indeed something unexplainable going on. For me what it would come down to (if I were an investigator) would be the credibility of the photographer..and if I were to interview him and otherwise come to the conclusion he is genuine/legit I would say this is a genuine and rather intriguing ghost photograph.

can't embed pics but i see a man's outline and something else.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: undo
this is what i got from it

The "bird" is an illusion caused by the overlapping images. Notice how the picture is darker where two positions of the figure overlap, because in these areas the figure is blocking the light from the sea for longer.



The figure seems to be roughly in the position I've outlined at the right at the start of the exposure, then moves to a middle position, which leaves a small overlap, making a darker vertical band, then he moves to the left and stays more motionless, making a sharper image.

I'm not too sure what the solid dark area is across the waist area. Could be a small surfboard but then you's expect to see a sharp image of it at the left too. It does also seem to coincide with a darker area of sea behind so might just be down to that.

Anyway it is a cool image - I just don't think it's a ghost. He even seems to be casting a shadow in the water, which I don't think ghosts do

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Could maybe be caused during the films manufacture.Nothing conclusive can be determined.I am a big student of the paranormal.I do make out 2 forms that appear humanoid though.

originally posted by: ItsKnotsew

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Could maybe be caused during the films manufacture.Nothing conclusive can be determined.I am a big student of the paranormal.I do make out 2 forms that appear humanoid though.

Holy cow...

Not sure what step I should take next....

Perhaps, can you expand on your film manufacture theory? Because I hear the sales of digital film has skyrocketed in recent years...

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Here is a crop of the artifact in question.

vvv

Looks like a Person standing facing left with a dog behind them...Do you have a Dog VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: BuzzCory

Not possible mate, I would have noticed.

Here is the images taken, seconds before and after the one in question.

If there was anything in the frame, it would have showed on the others too.

and that was taken, maybe within 10 to 15 seconds. I usually take many pics of one scene, so later I can pick the best one.

vvv

Not too far into the thread yet, so I don't know if it's been pointed out, but those two photos are both the same shot, the "after" photo. The EXIF data has the time stamp at 18:59:44 in both, the file sizes are exactly the same, as is the surf, mist, and clouds.

The anomalous photo is time stamped in the EXIF at 8:59:23, and all of the above parameters are different between it and either of those two.

ETA: What I'm seeing in the figures is two people, one standing and looking towards the camera, and another slightly closer to the camera an behind the first, bent over at the waist as if picking something up.

a reply to: majestic3

I am Scottish

There are rumors men do "strange" things to sheep. Urban legend, joke type thing.
This is what this looks like...

A Sheep Sh****r

Sorry I am Scottish

originally posted by: Rob48
Need that EXIF data. Judging by the sea this is a long exposure. Looks unmistakably like a person who stood there for a little while before moving off.

They wouldn't appear in the other frames as they would have moved out of shot.

They only show up where they were stood fairly still. They could have moved out of shot BEFORE the end of this frame.

Here is the EXIF data from the anomalous photo. The exposure was 4 seconds:

Filename - ad538d74fe.jpg
Make - NIKON CORPORATION
Model - NIKON D3100
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Ver.1.00
DateTime - 2014:03:15 18:59:23
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
ExifOffset - 228
ExposureTime - 4 seconds
FNumber - 22.00
ExposureProgram - Manual control
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0221
DateTimeOriginal - 2014:03:15 18:59:23
DateTimeDigitized - 2014:03:15 18:59:23
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 4 (bits/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue - -5.00
MaxApertureValue - F 3.48
MeteringMode - Spot
LightSource - Auto
Flash - Not fired
FocalLength - 18.00 mm
UserComment -
SubsecTime - 40
SubsecTimeOriginal - 40
SubsecTimeDigitized - 40
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 4608
ExifImageHeight - 3072
InteroperabilityOffset - 33800
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Manual
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 1 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 27 mm
SceneCaptureType - Standard
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

GPS information: -
GPSVersionID - 2.2.0.0

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Data version - 0210 (808595760)
ISO Setting - 100
Image Quality - FINE
White Balance - AUTO
Focus Mode - AF-A
Flash Setting - NORMAL
Flash Mode -
White Balance Adjustment - 0
White Balance RB - 718
Exposure Adjustment - 3.2
Thumbnail IFD offset - 11290
Flash Compensation - 67072
ISO 2 - 100
Lens type - 234881024
Lens - 1466
Flash Used - Not fired
Bracketing - 2228224
Noise Reduction - OFF
Total pictures - 3896

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 300
YResolution - 300
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 33960
JpegIFByteCount - 8898
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited

i looks like ghosts having a threeway

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Very very cool picture.

It does look like the silhouette of a man and a big dog. VVV, I would look if you took a picture of yourself with a dog before this picture. I just wonder if something went wrong with the camera or the memory card and it merged within this pic.

If not, cool picture. Ghost or not.

a reply to: SonoftheSun

he got a big dog too

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

In your best interests...how is it "copyrighted" to you specifically? As I see it, and as you presented it...it is not copyrighted at all. But, perhaps you have placed a watermark on it that cant be seen?

Just wondering...and trying to look out for you because of what you said there....

*Looks like a camel chewing to me!

@VVV. You're not the first person to have taken a photo and not noticed a person wandering past the front of the camera while you were engrossed in taking the photo. Remember the legendary Solway Firth spaceman photo taken some 50 years ago,Jim also always claimed he didn't see his wife in the background while taking a photo of his daughter.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

In your best interests...how is it "copyrighted" to you specifically? As I see it, and as you presented it...it is not copyrighted at all. But, perhaps you have placed a watermark on it that cant be seen?

Just wondering...and trying to look out for you because of what you said there....

*Looks like a camel chewing to me!

Normally only under CCL (Creative Commons Licence),but anyone stating this has to clearly give the terms of the copyright.

originally posted by: Imagewerx
@VVV. You're not the first person to have taken a photo and not noticed a person wandering past the front of the camera while you were engrossed in taking the photo. Remember the legendary Solway Firth spaceman photo taken some 50 years ago,Jim also always claimed he didn't see his wife in the background while taking a photo of his daughter.

Though the viewfinder in the camera Jim Templeton was using significantly obscured his view. So if the spaceman was actually his wife, as many claim, he might not have seen her.

That doesn't seem to be the case here.

The processing really makes the guy on the right stand out clearly. I can see a bunch of different things on the left, but the distorted face I outlined is kind of creepy. It's pretty subtle so the outline almost covers up the edges.

beach ghosts

a reply to: BuzzCory