Help Analyze a Photograpic Anomaly

Hello, I am a video and image analyst and I took the time to study the photos in question...

In my honest opinion, something is not right with the EXIF data...

The camera that supposedly took the picture of the "anomaly" was a Sony DSC-W55. You can find example images from a real Sony DSC-W55 from this website:

www.imaging-resource.com...

If you take the EXIF data of an image from a real DSC-W55 and compare it with the EXIF data from the image in question, you will find that the EXIF data format does not match. That means the EXIF data is not the original EXIF data that was created by the camera. It means someone edited the EXIF data....

Here is what I am talking about;

Here is the "Main Information" section of the EXIF data from a REAL DSC-W55 image...

Filename : sonydscw55.JPG
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Start Main Information
ImageDescription :
Make : SONY
Model : DSC-W55
Orientation : left-hand side
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
DateTime : 2007:04:07 15:22:50
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
ExifInfoOffset : 256
PrintIM IFD : 28Bytes
End Main Information

Now, here is the "Main Information" section from the OP's image:

Filename : Adam's Family 001.jpg
JFIF_APP1 : Exif
Start Main Information
ImageDescription :
Make : SONY
Model : DSC-W55
XResolution : 72/1
YResolution : 72/1
ResolutionUnit : Inch
DateTime : 2008:06:25 14:06:16
YCbCrPositioning : co-sited
ExifInfoOffset : 328
CustomRendered : Normal process
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Auto
SceneCaptureType : Night scene
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal
PrintIM IFD : 28Bytes
End Main Information

You see, there is a huge difference.

The OP's image is missing the "Orientation" data, and "CustomRendered", "ExposureMode", "WhiteBalance", "SceneCaptureType", "Contrast", "Saturation", "Sharpness", are ALL IN THE WRONG SECTION. That information should be in the "Sub Information" section, NOT the "Main Information" section....

Here is the "Sub Information" section of a REAL DSC-W55 image:

Sub Information
ExposureTime : 1/320Sec
FNumber : F7.1
ExposureProgram : Program Normal
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
ExifVersion : 0221
DateTimeOriginal : 2007:04:07 15:22:50
DateTimeDigitized : 2007:04:07 15:22:50
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 4/1 (bit/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.8
MeteringMode : Division
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Not fired(Compulsory)
FocalLength : 6.30(mm)
MakerNote : SONY Format : 2036Bytes (Offset:722)
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 3072
ExifImageHeight : 2304
ExifInteroperabilityOffset : 2746
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image
CustomRendered : Normal process
ExposureMode : Auto
WhiteBalance : Auto
SceneCaptureType : Standard
Contrast : Normal
Saturation : Normal
Sharpness : Normal

You see how the "CustomRendered", "ExposureMode", "WhiteBalance", "SceneCaptureType", "Contrast", "Saturation", "Sharpness", are all on the end? Well that is how it is supposed to be.... that information should NOT be in the "Main Information" section like it is on the OP's image.....

Here is the OP's "Sub Information" section:

Sub Information
ExposureTime : 1/320Sec
FNumber : F7.1
ExposureProgram : Unknown (0)
ISOSpeedRatings : 100
ExifVersion : 0221
DateTimeOriginal : 2008:06:25 14:06:16
DateTimeDigitized : 2008:06:25 14:06:16
ComponentConfiguration : YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel : 4/1 (bit/pixel)
ExposureBiasValue : EV0.0
MaxApertureValue : F2.8
MeteringMode : Division
LightSource : Unidentified
Flash : Fired(Compulsory/return light detected)
FocalLength : 6.30(mm)
MakerNote : SONY Format : 2036Bytes (Offset:698)
FlashPixVersion : 0100
ColorSpace : sRGB
ExifImageWidth : 2304
ExifImageHeight : 3072
FileSource : DSC
SceneType : A directly photographed image

I think someone ran an EXIF editor program to edit the EXIF data. The EXIF data format was modified in such a way that it doesn't match the format of the original camera. That is something that doesn't happen when you just open an image and re-save it in an image program. This is usually something that happens when you use a program to edit the EXIF data and the program re-writes the entire EXIF data with a custom format that is different from the native format from the camera.

Usually, when the EXIF data does not pass my check (which it didn't), I don't move on until I get a completely unmodified original image from the camera. However, I will proceed for entertainment....

The EXIF data of the OP's image says "Flash : Fired(Compulsory/return light detected)". This means the flash fired... obviously.... and I see no reason for the flash to fire in the day time. I think whoever took the image must have known that the camera light flashed. -note

In my honest opinion (conclusion)... I think maybe the light was originally some type of reflection from the camera flash, and I think someone used Photoshop or another digital manipulation program to modify the reflection to look like the outline of a person or a ghost, and I think someone modified the EXIF data to hide their tracks. If not just a complete photoshop job.

If you look at the white blob, you can almost make out the paint strokes/streaks that look like someone used some type of "push" or "smudge" tool to push some pixels around with their computer mouse.

So I think it is a fake.... a hoax....

Furthermore, I think opening a topic by telling people not to say it is computer-generated is highly suspicious... If only I had a dollar every time I witnessed a hoaxer say that for a fake UFO video...

I, as an artist, though not digital, can tell you my opinion it's a fake since I spend A LOT of time looking at photos when I draw them, portraits landscapes, animals, whatever and I am able to look at similarities and differences between my drawing and the photo. I will tell you why I think it is a fake ....

The top half of the house has the exact same shadows on both pictures, showing the sun is at the same angle. Also the angle of the picture itself is the same. Then when you look at the bottom half of the second picture, you can see that the image has just been cropped a bit to not show the metal fencing tips. Also in the second picture, the bottom half of the house is shadowed darker than the top photo but the top half of the houses' shadows are the same? This shows the angle of the sun, which is the same, but it seems someone has tried to make it look different by screwing with the contrast so that the pictures LOOK like they were taken at a different time. So lets say, they are different photos taken at the exact same time of the day, then the shadows would all be the same, and they are not in SOME places on the photo. Hey man, the sun's shadows don't lie, but unfortunately someone is.

Peace,
Marriah

Well, I'm torn.

On one hand we have an overwhelming amount of scientific data (exif metadata), hundreds of Photoshop (or GIMP) professionals, and the underlying belief that once you are presented logical evidence, then any anomaly can be explained.

On the other hand, the OP has produced all that was asked, original images, background story, and seems very sincere. I don't recall the OP offering an opinion, (i.e. check out this cool alien/ghost pic) simply asking for help determining what the anomaly was. The presentation was simple and concise, and it was immediately attacked as being fake. Fake, in fact, before any solid exif data was available, as if people refuse to believe it COULD be an anomaly. To me, that screams closer inspection.

It seems fake, too many 'sharp' lines on the anomaly. To me, that is bothersome. Shouldn't anomalies be more natural looking? However, I must check myself, and say that I don't determine what they look like, and it's just me trying to focus my worldview on what I see.

To conclude, whatever it is, it hasn't been adequately explained. One poster said it was a prank from years ago, and the original was on flickr. Does anyone care to step up to the plate and produce THAT image? Till then, this one is still open in my book, needing further clarification.

reply to post by marriah3330


My take on the shadows is that someone snapped a pic, walked a few feet, and snapped another. I'm assuming they had no tripod set up, so of course shadowing is going to come into play on a sunny day.

Try again. Look at all the information.

I

I have no input as to the validity of the photo or the energy being within the second photo.

I will say though, That is one SWEET crib!!! Thanks for sharing!

Wow, 10 pages on this.

We'll stop getting ridiculous posts like this when you people STOP flagging and starring nonsense like this. This board is almost on par with GLP these days. Sad, really.

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


the problem you have here is that if it were a video you presented there could be some chance of proving its authenticity. but a single image NEVER. its just to east to do on photo shop.

reply to post by loves a conspiricy


I didn't read the entire thread, so this has probably already been pointed out, but...from the website you cited:

If you are unsure how to interpret the results, please do not claim the results of this tool as proof of anything.

Originally posted by QuantumPhysicist
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

Camera flare doesn't make human forms. I don't understand how people think lens flare or 'digital glitches' cause this kind of thing.

At page 7, i gave up. Surely I thought someone had noticed this in the EXIF data????

"Flash On, Return detected "

Errrrr, I mean, surely there's your darn answer right there!??? It had a flash on, and detected some of it returning. So its just light bouncing back, be it a butterfly, moth, leaf, silver chip packet blowing past in the breeze!!

Also, about slightly different Exif data as someone pointed out above, this may be due to the camera being in a different mode at time of photo, like auto, landscape, manual etc.


flash on, return detected... hmmm, all i needed to see.

Originally posted by Qumulys
At page 7, i gave up. Surely I thought someone had noticed this in the EXIF data????

"Flash On, Return detected "

Errrrr, I mean, surely there's your darn answer right there!??? It had a flash on, and detected some of it returning. So its just light bouncing back, be it a butterfly, moth, leaf, silver chip packet blowing past in the breeze!!

Also, about slightly different Exif data as someone pointed out above, this may be due to the camera being in a different mode at time of photo, like auto, landscape, manual etc.


flash on, return detected... hmmm, all i needed to see.

^^ This. I was going to suggest this prior to knowing the EXIF data indicated this, since the 2nd pic is darker, so it obviously had a bright anomaly in the foreground. No doubt in my mind that this was some sort of insect streaking across the frame.

reply to post by redtic


Thankyou! I didn't come up with the theory first though, I've just taken the supporting exif data which everyone whinged to get and read it!

So, it would seem the Op or supplied photo's were not intentionally faked, nor put here just for giggles. But its just a perfectly mundane photo effect. I'd say its time to move on?

Might be time for many in this thread to apologize for being curt towards others?

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Let's assume for a moment that it is 100% genuine, no manipulation, no digital artifacts. Let's further assume that that the image may have captured a form of energy not commonly defined nor accepted by the scientific community in 2011.

For lack of a more scientific term, let's call it a ghost. To me the most interesting part of this thread is not whether or not the photo is "real" but the reactions of the respondees.

What if the OP started a thread called "do you believe in the possibility of ghosts." I bet more than 75% of ATS members would say yes. Further more members would be very interested in seeing a real picture of a ghost. The interesting thing is our personal biases of what a "ghost" would look like.

Our collective fear of being tricked or taken advantage of is so strong that it may prevent us from considering anything that does not fit our preconceived notions or cultural biases.

My reaction is "So friggin what. I believe in ghosts. Maybe the OPs granny caught a picture of one. God bless her. The impact on my life and concepts of reality are minimal and not worth getting upset over."

We are here to support one another. We are supposed to be the open minded people on the Internet. We are supposed to be non judgmental and supportive of "What if."

reply to post by OrganicAnagram33


I was a photographer for quite a few years, I'll even say where. "Illini studios" and the fact that it's fuzzier on one side then the other leads me to think it might be water in or on the lens. It looks like something very close to the camera. But either way I like the photo, and if it is paranormal all I can say is WOW!!! But I like the photo and the house! Thanks

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I believe I have figured it out and know what it is. It is a reflection off of a car window or windshield in a photo taken from the inside of a car.

I'm not sure it has been mentioned but there hosted was a third photograph too the set, a bit different from the first two but of the same house of the same house taken at the same time that I believe is clearly the faint reflection of a car interior. The slight blur is the auto focus having a rough time with the windshield.

Take a peak...


Adams Family House, Click picture to enlarge...

Now compare in the next one, the camera is much better focused but the view is still from inside the car. Rather than the glare dull glare fogging the first one, the sunlight is being much more tightly focused and is a high enough degree brighter than everything else it ended up overexposed explain the soft transition from the edge.


Adams Family ghost, Click picture to enlarge...

Lastly, nearly identical in ever way to the last just a bit brighter, that being because the camera tried to compensate for the tightly focused bright sunlight resulting in an overexposed ghost in front of an underexposed house.


Adams Family, no ghost, Click picture to enlarge...

Considerably more exposed because it wasn't having to correct for the bright spot in the middle of the glass but taken a very short time from the last one.

I think that may be the explanasion after staring at the photo for a bit.

edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

Actually... that one was taken by a different person. I'll show you what missthinks said to me about that one in one of her e-mails.

"There's also this picture that a student took at the same time, where they swear they can see a man's face in it. Honestly, I've never been able to see it myself, but my parents can clearly (wtf): www.4shared.com... (upper left corner-ish area)"

I hope that clears things up. That one was shot by a student, not the woman who photographed the images I have posted.

The woman was outside, not in the bus, it is not due to the reflection off the interior of a window.

reply to post by AmericanProdigy

Originally posted by AmericanProdigy
We can forever put this thread to rest.

I know this guy, his name is Miguel Meruje. He is an avid Photographer and art lover, who is experienced with Photoshop etc.

The photo is of him and his girlfriend in front of the Addam's house while on a trip to Quebec. They are standing on the gravel, and you can see the angle of the camera is above the fence vs below the fence. He didn't use photoshop for this hoax, but rather Gimp. The original photo is on Flickr.

Sorry folks, not the first time he's done this. He has a passion for old buildings and architecture...and hoaxes.

By the way, was it not a clue to you that the other "account" on here purported to be the friend did not "friend" him in his profile. Small accident he made when he set up the account he forgot to friend himself from the "MissThinks" account.

Sorry brohan, but you couldn't be more wrong. missthinks is another person, and she is how I got the photos.

Miguel Meruje did NOT take this photo, it was taken by missthinks' mother's co-worker and friend when they were on a school trip to Quebec. If you were around earlier, you would have seen that we were both online at the same time.

...and what kind of criteria is 'adding as a friend' for authentication? If I went through the process of trying to deceive you people (which I have not, and do not desire to do by any means), I could easily add a fake account as a friend. Your argument is laughable. If missthinks sticks around on this site for more than just clarifying this thread, I will add her as a friend, otherwise there would be no point in adding an account that will not be active.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I appreciate the time you put into analyzing the data. I really have no knowledge or experience in this sort of thing, so I can't really have a conversation about it... but that goes the same for missthinks and the one who took the photo. None of us are capable of editing what you are talking about, let alone the image itself.

In all likelihood, its probably just a light anomaly/reflection... who knows, maybe something more, like I have said, I try to keep an open mind.

...but this image has not been edited.

Originally posted by OrganicAnagram33
reply to post by AmericanProdigy

 

Originally posted by AmericanProdigy
By the way, was it not a clue to you that the other "account" on here purported to be the friend did not "friend" him in his profile. Small accident he made when he set up the account he forgot to friend himself from the "MissThinks" account.

Sorry brohan, but you couldn't be more wrong. missthinks is another person, and she is how I got the photos.

Miguel Meruje did NOT take this photo, it was taken by missthinks' mother's co-worker and friend when they were on a school trip to Quebec. If you were around earlier, you would have seen that we were both online at the same time.

There you go folks. It was a friend's mother's friend who took this photo. Since he couldn't deceive the Photoshop experts, he opened a secondary account in order to prevent getting caught.

One of the moderators should be able to see if there are similar IP addresses.

I reported the account Missthinks. After the moderators look at the IP addresses, someone will determine if this is a violation of the forum rules.

Its in the moderator's hands now. Lets see what they determine.

Dear OP

In case you didn't know already, many on this site do not work on a belief system. We prefer to use our heads and the scientific method as much as possible. Stop wasting our time.