An old digital photo - Ghost?

I certainly can manipulate photos. I certainly can remove exif and I may have removed exif inadvertantly by resizing it and saving it at one point. I certainly didn't add a "ghost" to it. That came out of the camera. If you zoom in on it a lot, the face actually looks more like a skeleton face...creepy.

From memory we didn't have EXIF back in 1998 did we?

See how the pixels look different on the girl as compared to everything else. As one poster said, the original photo of the girl was at quite a bit higher resolution than the deer picture and that's why they are smaller and more regularly sized than the surrounding pixels.

That doesn't happen with resizing.



And if it is two different resolutions being combined in one, it is going to inevitably show the blending at the place where the two images come together, as one poster said, also, and showed that it did.

Those pixels are identical in size throughout the photo. They vary only in HSL. I can't say enough that this image was not doctored, 99.9% sure.

reply to post by Imagewerx


It came out in 1995

reply to post by zayonara


I don't know why you keep saying it wasn't shopped.

Several posters have given convincing arguments as to their opinion that it was shopped.

You keep saying it wasn't as if it is an attack on your credibility.
It isn't since the picture did not originate with you, you are just sharing it.

The more you protest that it isn't faked though the more it seems like you have an actual stake in the validity of the picture.

If you didn't have a stake in the picture I think you would not care one way or another if people don't believe it.
If they don't believe they don't believe, it doesn't affect you one way or another.

So why do you care so much if others believe the photo or not?

Originally posted by dashdespatch
reply to post by Imagewerx

 

It came out in 1995

Aaahn ok,I remember not hearing about it until 2000.

Because I know it's not doctored. Simple.

If I proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that your username was not Pigraphia, would you just agree with me even though you know it is Pigraphia?

reply to post by zayonara


You don't know it's not shopped though.
You did not take the original picture.
You did not download the picture from the source camera or source memory card.

All you can assert is that since the picture has been in your possession it has not been altered.

There are people on this forum quite good at identifying altered photographs and have given quite convincing explanations.

Your example of user names is a poor example as everyone can currently observe my user name.
Your picture has a preexisting state, that being the state it was in before you received it.
We cannot view the photo as it existed before you received it.
So to use a currently observable thing like my user name, as a comparison to something that had a preexisting condition as your photo is a poor example.

To use your comparison example take a pebble smoothed and rounded.
Your assertion would be that the pebble has alwasye existed smooth and round, someone with more knowledge looks at the pebble and sees wear marks that indicate it was tumbled with a polishing compound.
Yet you still argue that it was alwayse smooth and round.
Like the pebble you can only attest to the state of the photo from the time it was in your possession until now.

You brought an interesting picture to the board, I and others enjoyed looking at it and considering it.
You should have no stake in whether or not others think it is fake or not though.
It doesn't change the fact that the picture is interesting.
The fact that you protest so much makes it seem as though you have more of a stake in the matter.
Which you shouldn't since the photo is second hand to you.

The more you ignore the opinions of others who are giving reasons why the believe it is shopped the more it seems you have a stake in the validity of the photo.

Fair enough. But all I know about the photo is already true and disclosed. I would testify that anywhere, anytime. I even just contacted my old coworker about it, and he assures me, that she had no way to manipulate the photo. He is going to try to contact her to see if she can confirm the camera she used, the methods she used to transfer it, and email it to us, and the exact location of the image, FWIW. My only interest is that it's one of the most convincing "ghost" photos I have ever seen. I am never an automatic "believer", but I have a voracious curiosity in me, that will not let me write it off simply as a fake, especially, knowing in my head, that faking this was such a remote possibility, given the circumstances at the time.

I am aware that it's popular to claim "ghost" whenever there is a raindrop on the lens, a flare of light, a bug....this one is just not that easy to explain, of course, only if you believe it was not doctored.

I remember researching at the time, for anything that may have happened in the past near that location. I can't remember what I found, so it was probably unremarkable.

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions on the camera and software that was most likely used if the model given is correct. The Maverick camera did not have a memory card, they saved images to a 3 1/2" floppy disk or a mini CD depending on the exact model.

As for the software, it was a very low end photo program. The program would strip all extra data from the photo when importing it from the camera, then the user would have to save the images without the extra data including EXIF data, to the hard-drive. The program had a minor error correction routine that would run when saving the photos and that could account for the lines in the white/reflection area as well as the possible smudge.

As for the "difference in resolution" if the blocks in the questioned area are bigger, it means it was a LOWER resolution not higher. but from my examination the blocks on both sides of the "border" appear to match in size.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I'm not a professional when it comes to this, but I do have years (Decades actually) as an amateur photographer and graphics artist. So I could be wrong on my interpretation of the data.

I still think it's not a ghost, but since the Op has stuck to his story with no changes, unlike a hoaxer or someone who is lying, I would say this is a reflection from bird feeder or something else hanging in the area.

Originally posted by zayonara
Those pixels are identical in size throughout the photo. They vary only in HSL.

I will agree with you on that point. The pixels are identical in size from one end of the photo to the other. That's as far as I can go with this, but if you can overcome the color of the pixels associated with the figure, it's pretty obvious that they're all the same size.

Then again, if it's a photo of a photo, or a scan, then the pixels would be the same size regardless of what the source photo looks like (pixel-wise).

Originally posted by Pigraphia
reply to post by zayonara

 

The more you protest that it isn't faked though the more it seems like you have an actual stake in the validity of the picture.

If you didn't have a stake in the picture I think you would not care one way or another if people don't believe it.
If they don't believe they don't believe, it doesn't affect you one way or another.

So why do you care so much if others believe the photo or not?

Some people just get irritated by know-it-alls and their dismissal of everything. I know, being a know-it-all who dismisses everything myself. People get really pissed when I tell them how gullible they are. Know-it-alls never get dates, and maybe this is why.

reply to post by NorEaster


So there is no evidence that this was photoshopped?

reply to post by NorEaster


Well I do get dates, but you're right.
People hate that I am right more times than not.
Led to many people yelling at me again.

I don't get it, I welcome being corrected, it improves me.

Originally posted by Wolfie0827
I would like to clear up a few misconceptions on the camera and software that was most likely used if the model given is correct. The Maverick camera did not have a memory card, they saved images to a 3 1/2" floppy disk or a mini CD depending on the exact model.

As for the software, it was a very low end photo program. The program would strip all extra data from the photo when importing it from the camera, then the user would have to save the images without the extra data including EXIF data, to the hard-drive. The program had a minor error correction routine that would run when saving the photos and that could account for the lines in the white/reflection area as well as the possible smudge.

As for the "difference in resolution" if the blocks in the questioned area are bigger, it means it was a LOWER resolution not higher. but from my examination the blocks on both sides of the "border" appear to match in size.

Now, I'll be the first to admit I'm not a professional when it comes to this, but I do have years (Decades actually) as an amateur photographer and graphics artist. So I could be wrong on my interpretation of the data.

I still think it's not a ghost, but since the Op has stuck to his story with no changes, unlike a hoaxer or someone who is lying, I would say this is a reflection from bird feeder or something else hanging in the area.

the above is what i agree with.

my explanation is that it was an accidental double exposure which can happen. it's not a ghost. it's what is sometimes called "a happy accident". every now and then something odd happens inside your camera and you get something interesting. i don't think (in my fairly well versed photoshop and digital opinion) it was photoshopped and i don't think someone made this image on purpose. if we had the photos from the camera that were taken before and after this photo we might know more.

while photoshop was in use in the late 90's it wasn't something your average person had or could afford. most people just had point and shoot digitals and not everyone had one.