Creepy Photo From Another Forum I Frequent

My background: 12 years experience with cameras, 10 years with photoshop.

My opinion is bad photoshop. It looks like the head is behind the girls head but somehow its also in front of what appears to be her finger partially blocking the lens. When you look at the image at 1600% the pixels are much more smooth and natural on the girl in the foreground.

reply to post by nyk537


Someone on the other board posted this link. Apparently it shows that the photo is as it was taken, no alterations.

errorlevelanalysis.com...

I admittedly did not visit the link in the OP to read up on any other possible explanations, but I don't believe this could be a double exposure. That term is from film cameras - exposing the negative, then not advancing the film and opening the shutter again can result in two images captured on the same frame. That mechanic simply does not exist in digital equipment (like a smart phone). Can anyone provide evidence that double exposures happen with digital capture?

That said, my first thought when looking at this (very creepy) image was that it is possibly a reflection. Take for instance an iPhone with the camera on the screen side. If the child was standing with her back to a reflective surface, then took a pic with the right light, couldn't the image on the screen of the phone be reflected on the surface behind her? It's a stretch, I know, but I do see similarities between the two faces with the "doll head" almost being a fun-house mirror distortion of the primary subject.

Dunno!

reply to post by Ellie Sagan


How can you tell it is as it was taken? I'm just curious if you know how to read the analysis. I don't mean to come across as a jerk or anything, I genuinely want to know if you have experience with that site.

Heres what a photoshopped image could look like.


And if somehow this image is the original, all we're looking at is a blurry picture of 2 girls taken by a 3 year old...nothing more. If a faster shutter speed was used and the white balance was accurate, there probably wouldn't be any sort of debate on this one.

I'm all for skepticism, but really, did anyone read through some of the replies on that other board? Some (SOME, I stress before you jump on me for that) of the responses there seemed more intelligent than here. I'm surprised there aren't more open minds here on ATS. A lot of people here are responding with closed minds, fully intent on slamming the OP and also others who think it's strange. A few of you have said it is obviously photoshopped, but a poster there showed that it wasn't. I am not familiar with phones, so I can't speak to that, but some of you need to post pics where it shows how it could turn out like that other one. Prove your point. I would like to see that. For example, on the other board (or here) some ideas were that the phone got set to HDR or night settings and that could cause the effect. I don't know though and I can't prove it to myself because I don't have a phone that takes pics.

The other thing is, some people posed the theory that it looks like it could be a weird twin photo and asked if the girl had a twin perhaps that died or something. A doppelganger was suggested also. And one I think is very plausible is that it is the girls imaginary friend that may not be so imaginary. If the little girl was left to play on her own while dad is fixing up the house, then she may indeed be open to having a friend with her and may have attracted one to her.

reply to post by midniteracerx


Ok. Thanks for that, and you don't come off as a jerk or anything. I just trusted that the website and the user's analysis was legitimate. I admittedly know nothing about the stuff. I see what you mean.

I don't think it's two girls though. It says that the dad left his 3 year old playing with his phone to amuse her while he worked on the house.

I also don't think it's a doll like other posters stated with such certainty that I wonder what kind of dolls they have seen! That would be one creepy doll!

Wow, a kid just took a photograph ten times creepier than anything Hollywood has put out for decades.

It's a not a PS job imho. If the kid has been playing around with the settings, she could have switched something on like a night setting. I think the "doll" is her, then she moved the camera after pressing the capture button but before the photo was finished taking.

If it is a Bratz doll then I am not surprised it has come across as creepy both my DD will not buy a Bratz and they think they are disgusting.

Plus it is written in the Bible do not make for yourselves any graven image of anything under or above the ground.
Graven means carved by hand. As entities can take them over and deceive you.
Or scare you silly.

I once got my youngest to sing happy birthday into a old type mini cassette tape. When we played it back, there was a man's voice saying something. But I know it was just her singing. I will try to find the tape. I would love to get someone to found out what the man was saying.

So I do believe 'something' (weird pupils or entity) could be from the ether or other dimension. If it is, someone should get some Holy water and annoint the child, the doll (if it is one) and the house.

Not scared, just creeped out.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

heard somebody on the radio say water washes the spirits off 'ya ..just don't mix the water and electrical thingy..
unplug and then wash..by flashlight ??? LOL..if during the day you won't need one. It's an unpleasant picture
whatever it is..even if it's nothing it's still creepy.

Originally posted by 2012srb
Come ON.

It's a double exposure.

The quality of threads on this site has plummeted.

No idea how long you have been browsing the site, but as you've only been a member for a couple of weeks, I think that your analysis of the quality of threads is a bit unfair...

And it's a digital picture, you can't get a double exposure with a digital image to my knowledge...

To me, the thing in question looks like the little girl with distortion. I wonder if she was standing with a mirror behind her, the reflection of her face on the cell phone is reflecting back in the mirror behind her, and the phone snapped the image. I hope I explained that right. It sounded right in my head.

The eyes are what stand out. The squarish unnatural looking eyes are puzzling. I don't think the eyes can be explained with any natural or common photographic distortion.

Based off the distortion type throughout the entire image, the distorted eyes should have been distorted in the same way - which would leave the eyes with a distorted, yet still, oval eye shape, not rectangular.

Especially since there is no abnormal distortion or shadows on the rest of the image that can account for the altered rectangular shape of the eyes (the mouth or nose do not have rectangular blurs). Unless it was some strange or rare photographic occurrence.

Are there any professional photographers here that can collaborate this assumption?

Now if my child took this eerie photo - I would personally post it myself all over the web trying to find an explanation and not just rely on someone else. The fact the this photo is being posted by a third party, lacking pertinent details, automatically makes me suspicious of it's origin.

Because of this assessment, I would based my personal conclusion that this photo is either a clever, yet real, photographic hoax or a photoshopped hoax.

Now if you want a creative response... here goes...
I would say that the phone was projecting the soul of the girls parallel self who was trapped within a dimensional void between two realities due to a time shift that went terribly wrong...

I don't think it's the same girl. Look at the strands of hair on the creepy girl. The strands go down along next to her eyes and everything, but the real girl has no strands of hair going down her face at all.

Creepy but nothing. Double exposure as the guy above said.

I saw this thread on bb.com as well. I really have no idea what is in the picture, but I definitely do not see it as a double exposure. The makeup, colorization, eyes, and hair are completely different in the face of the background. It has a very evil feeling to it in my opinion.

Originally posted by destination now
And it's a digital picture, you can't get a double exposure with a digital image to my knowledge...

Yes, double exposure is possible with digital picture.

Examples:





Note that in the OP photo, both the child and the "doll" have exactly the same facial appearance.

Most likely a double exposure shoot....

reply to post by mrbocci


How silly.

You say..
"I found this on another forum"..

But..

"I swear, it's 100% "real"..

Seriously?

How would you know?
It's not even your photo.

Come ON man.

Ridiculous.

p.s.. that "other forum" is Troll City.

What a crock.

Originally posted by Ahmose
reply to post by mrbocci

 

How silly.

You say..
"I found this on another forum"..

But..

"I swear, it's 100% "real"..

Seriously?

How would you know?
It's not even your photo.

Come ON man.

Ridiculous.

p.s.. that "other forum" is Troll City.

What a crock.

edit on 8-7-2011 by Ahmose because: (no reason given)

Erm....EXCUSE ME!!! I did NOT say it was 100% real, I literally copied the entire original post from the other thread into mine here. Look at the quote marks in my OP.

Absolute moron.

I'm not sure it’s Photoshop. I truly believe it’s a toy doll that belongs to the child. She's just positioned it so as to be in the photo with her. The low quality helps make it appear more creepy & exaggerates the "evil look".

I've seen nieces & nephews do this with their toys. They like having them in their photos.

The only suspicious area I can see is the area where the light behind comes through the round gap made by the girls shoulder, cheek and the right side of the dolls face. The light seems to cast itself off of the girls face but does not do the same off of the dolls face. The real problem with this is we don't really know what angle that light is coming from.

The "doll" has strands of hair hanging in front of it's eyes and nose... The kid doesn't, just for naming one difference.. There is a lot of small differences..

The problem proving this is paranormal is that with digital photography you can "make" a double exposure by just taking 2 similar photos and then layering one onto the other using transparency to reproduce this strange image..

This still doesn't mean that this is faked or not paranormal, but it certainly could be either...

Either way, it still looks pretty freaky