Investigating the Alleged Ghost Photo

[Ivan Seeking]

Get the phone, take a sample pic with it, then download (via a physical connection to the phone or by removing the memory card) both the sample pic and the pic in question to your computer and check the exif data.

Okay...

Don't use email: when you email a pic from your phone it does not necessarily use the original file. I don't understand the question...

When I said "raw", I meant the original, unmodified form, wrt to tampering. Can it be determined conclusively that the photo was/was not uploaded from a pc or received by email?

 

[Pythagorean]

And why is part of the face blocking out the wheel, and part is not?

I don't think it's a ghost, but this complaint can be explained by shadow and color. A brighter color will show up superimposed on a darker color (i.e. both images will show up: the wheel and the face). When both colors get dark (near her neck) they are more indistinguishable because they are closer to resembling each other.

 

[russ_watters]

When I said "raw", I meant the original, unmodified form, wrt to tampering. Can it be determined conclusively that the photo was/was not uploaded from a pc or received by email?

If you can match the photo with a sample by reading the exif data and checking the modification dates, it would be fairly conclusive that it was not an edited photo. If they don't match, it would be certain that it was edited.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

By a sample, do you mean a photo that was taken at the same time as the photo in question? That makes it pretty tough to actually test a claim. The claimant could just lie and provide a sample that was taken later, right?

 

[Thetom]

You can visually determine fake photos with the naked eye, to some extent, unless the fake is very sophisticated. This one isn't. Can you see the difference in quality of the two images? The same is apparent in your example russ_watters. The image of the girl is of a different quality to the rest of the image. You can see the difference in the amount of aliasing in the image. Notice if you zoom in curved edges in the original are blocky and staggered. You also get bleeding on these edges, along with artifacts due to compression. The edges that describe the girls face are far smoother with no bleeding. I suspect the image of the girl was taken using a traditional camera (or possibly a high-res digital camera). The rest of the picture was taken on a low quality digital camera. When you put a nice, high quality, high-res picture over a low quality picture this is what happens. Dead give-away. If you wish I can post a picture illustrating what I mean?

 

[Thetom]

I took the liberty of making a quick illustration. Unfortunately I'm using a tired old CRT monitor that is very, very dark and so I have to turn the brightness up allot. In order for me to get a good view of the photo I had to readjust it and take the brightness way down. If this image is too dark to see on your screen adjust it so that it is clear. Alternatively I can undo the adjustments I made and re-upload so that you can see the picture in its original light.

Hopefully you can see the difference in quality of the two images. It is very apparent. The girls face is smooth, crisp and clear even when magnified (of-course it still has the aliasing and bleeding, just allot less). Comparatively the rest of the picture is jagged and broken. These are clearly two pictures from different sources. Also please note it is impotant to view that illustrtion at its full size (click on it again when in imageshack). If you view it smaller the effects will be dimnished (though still possable to see).

http://a.imageshack.us/img822/5969/noghost.th.jpg

 

[eupeptic]

A couple considerations that haven't been mentioned:

Consider the height of the bar stool, TV, coffee table, and baby, as well as the size of the stereo equipment - the ghost seems out of proportion...

And if that's really a ghost looking to be noticed, why is she looking off to the side? Why not look at the camera? (And why have such a plain and somber expression if you're dead and seeking attention?) (This is an easy thing to spot that is often overlooked by people who want others to believe that they have an image of a ghost.)

 

[russ_watters]

By a sample, do you mean a photo that was taken at the same time as the photo in question? That makes it pretty tough to actually test a claim. The claimant could just lie and provide a sample that was taken later, right?

No, I just meant a photo taken with the same camera so you could compare the exif data. It doesn't need to be at the same time. In fact, it would be better if you took the test picture yourself. Since a cell phone camera and/or internet hosting program will typically resize a picture and often strip the exif data, comparing originals would be a good way to know if a picture you are seeing is really an "original".

 

[YinepuOfSand]

i have a picture for you...and it's not fake...and i don't know how to interpret it...
first pic is not modified...was taken last year at the medieval camp in bistrita, romania, at the haggard concert...i just was with my camera on in my hand...i have to say that were some fire games, but you weren't in the middle of them when the picture was taken...i saw it for the first time after i was home...
this is the original one...the second i cannot uploaded because is to big, and i modified only lights and contrast, so it can be seen better...
you can see a 'couple' and some faces...'the couple' is not like any of my friends i was that day...enjoy!

 

[JaredJames]

i have a picture for you...and it's not fake...and i don't know how to interpret it...
first pic is not modified...was taken last year at the medieval camp in bistrita, romania, at the haggard concert...i just was with my camera on in my hand...i have to say that were some fire games, but you weren't in the middle of them when the picture was taken...i saw it for the first time after i was home...
this is the original one...the second i cannot uploaded because is to big, and i modified only lights and contrast, so it can be seen better...
you can see a 'couple' and some faces...'the couple' is not like any of my friends i was that day...enjoy!

It's nothing special. It is fake (but I'm not saying deliberately).

If digital, it's just a mashup of two photos.

However, I'd say it was taken with a "film" camera (you know, 35mm etc) and it's a double exposure. Simple as that.

This is further backed up by the fact you have a background behind the couple and not just their figures standing alone.

(And this is of course ignoring the question of why two ghosts would stand in the shown pose, at such an odd angle - you're aiming the camera at the floor but they're standing upright as if your legs are the ground they walk on.)

 

[YinepuOfSand]

first of all...it was a digital camera
second...none of my friends are looking like the couple
third...if can zoom in you going to see multiple faces, big and small, that are not human-like
last...i'm a boy
i've asked several photographers and they could not give me an explanation of that...
don't jump with conclusions!

 

[JaredJames]

first of all...it was a digital camera

Then it's fake in another way.

second...none of my friends are looking like the couple

So?

third...if can zoom in you going to see multiple faces, big and small, that are not human-like

The brain sees a lot of things that aren't really there. We try to deliberately find recogniseable patterns. Human condition.

last...i'm a boy

Again, so?

i've asked several photographers and they could not give me an explanation of that...
don't jump with conclusions!

They can't explain after proper computer analysis? Or they can't explain it by accepting you haven't tampered with it? There's a big difference.

I see potentially four faces, but the couple are in modern dress. Of course that doesn't really mean anything (why shouldn't we have modern ghosts?) but then they're posed perfectly as if standing for a camera shot. To add to that, as I said before, this would mean the ghosts where standing on your legs. Why would they do that? What would make them think "ah, a camera randomly aimed at the floor - let's get stuck in!"?

Also, why such a random shot?

 

[JaredJames]

Well it looks like a perfect example of double exposure. But then we're told it's digital and so the only way this can occur is by being edited.

I'd love to examine the original, but I somehow doubt we'd get that.

 

[JaredJames]

nismaratwork@ the photo is not fake you stupid if is on the camera!

We don't know it's on the camera. We don't know anything other than the picture you posted which may or may not be the original.

Cut the attitude. It looks about as fake as possible and there's nothing about it that suggests otherwise.

jarednjames@ i don't know why this random shot...the things there do not look like someone from my group...

So what if they don't look like someone from your group. I never said, nor implied they did.

It's random because of where you're aiming the camera - or did you mean to take a pic of someones crotch?

EDIT: In fact, it would be silly to use people you know to fake it. People would spot that far too easily.

 

[YinepuOfSand]

is not edited...why do you people think that everything is fake?...how the **** can i do double exposure with so many figures with different sizes?...

 

[JaredJames]

is not edited...why do you people think that everything is fake?...

Because there is no evidence it is real.

There are ways of producing these effects quite easily.

how the **** can i do double exposure with so many figures with different sizes?...

The figures all look to be of the same scale to me.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/double_exposure/discuss/72157604059046716/

 

[YinepuOfSand]

i don't want to cut my attitude...my camera was on and aiming down...i didn't move beside my hand (appears in photo) and accidentally i pushed the shutter...this is the result...

 

[Borek]

Calm down please, all of you.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Our goal here is to offer any reasonable explanations. The person making the claim is not on trial.

Sorry, we can offer no explanations.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have analyzed the photo and have found what I feel is essentially conclusive evidence that the ghost part of the image is a digital artifact, not something within the body of the picture. I think most of you who are used to examining photos will be forced to agree.

Several of you have alluded to it, the first I noticed being Evo. But I feel it can be taken much further.

Note: it does not conclude the image is hoaxed - it could be an innocent superposition. But it does conclude that it is a digital (in-camera) artifact.

1] There is - not one but two edges - to the left and top of the ghost image - that are, not merely straight vertical and straight horizontal, but precisely (digitally) vertical and horizontal. Zero pixel aliasing along their lengths.

Not just almost precisely - consider: if a genuine object's edge were as little as 0.25 degrees from true, it would show up as some anti-aliasing across several of antialiasing in it. (see attached image for a sample of an object rotated a fraction of a degree).

2] The two edges are precisely 90 degrees to each other. This means, if within the image, the object is perfectly normal
to the line of sight of the camera (zero obliquity) AND that there is zero barrel distortion from the zoom factor. This simply cannot happen with a physical camera setup.

See attached graphic (here it is full size: https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33492&d=1301014537) but please examine the original 1600x1200 image.

 

[russ_watters]

is not edited...

The photo has no exif data. At the very least, it was edited to remove that data.

What can you tell us about the camera?

 

[russ_watters]

I have analyzed the photo and have found what I feel is essentially conclusive evidence that the ghost part of the image is a digital artifact, not something within the body of the picture...

You're a little late for that train, Dave - the last few posts are examining a new photo posted today and that conclusion about that photo was reached pages ago...

 

[DaveC426913]

You're a little late for that train, Dave - the last few posts are examining a new photo posted today and that conclusion about that photo was reached pages ago...

I know. I think my evidence is more compelling - virtually conclusive. I think it overtrumps 'plausibility'-like arguments and closes the book on doubt.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok...it's just...while you presented it nicer by highlighting them, we discussed those lines already.

 

[russ_watters]

Well it looks like a perfect example of double exposure. But then we're told it's digital and so the only way this can occur is by being edited.

Incorrect. Most digital cameras today have a "night portrait" mode specifically designed to take a double-exposure to highlight a foreground and a background in a night-time photo.

In addition, if you hold still while your digital camera is taking a surprisingly long exposure with no flash, you can get a relatively clear double exposure type look with some additional streaking in it. I have a number of "ghost photos" of myself and my friends due to this effect.

 

[JaredJames]

Incorrect. Most digital cameras today have a "night portrait" mode specifically designed to take a double-exposure to highlight a foreground and a background in a night-time photo.

In addition, if you hold still while your digital camera is taking a surprisingly long exposure with no flash, you can get a relatively clear double exposure type look with some additional streaking in it. I have a number of "ghost photos" of myself and my friends due to this effect.

Bugger, I did realize this and posted a link to the double exposure with digital above but forgot to label what it is.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ok...it's just...while you presented it nicer by highlighting them, we discussed those lines already.

I know. I mentioned that.

But unless I missed some posts, no one took it as far as I did and quantified it. It's the difference between plausibility (which gives ghost-proponents some wiggle room) and virtually iron-clad (which reverses the onus of proof, putting ghost-proponents in the position of having to refute the analysis).

 

[nismaratwork]

I know. I mentioned that.

But unless I missed some posts, no one took it as far as I did and quantified it. It's the difference between plausibility (which gives ghost-proponents some wiggle room) and virtually iron-clad (which reverses the onus of proof, putting ghost-proponents in the position of having to refute the analysis).

I agree... this leaves very little room for any explanation except some kind of fraud, intentional... or incidental.

 

[Gabe21]

ive read something on this before. an image can be ghosted onto any internal digital camera lense if their is a flaw in the assembly. the first time the camera is used it erases the ghosted image. if you don't know what ghosting is its used to refer to the image left on an CRT monitor after when you turn it off after it has been sitting a while with the same image on the screen. excally how an image of that creepy looking girl got on there i don't know.

 

[DaveC426913]

ive read something on this before. an image can be ghosted onto any internal digital camera lense if their is a flaw in the assembly. the first time the camera is used it erases the ghosted image. if you don't know what ghosting is its used to refer to the image left on an CRT monitor after when you turn it off after it has been sitting a while with the same image on the screen. excally how an image of that creepy looking girl got on there i don't know.

Well, that doesn't really explain the cropped edges of the ghost image. If it were a residual image, it should fill the screen from edge to edge, like any other picture. Instead, the ghost image is most definitely a small rectangle.

 

[JaredJames]

Well, that doesn't really explain the cropped edges of the ghost image. If it were a residual image, it should fill the screen from edge to edge, like any other picture. Instead, the ghost image is most definitely a small rectangle.

Are you talking about the latest photo or the original one?

 

[Darken-Sol]

there was a commercial about an app you could get, it puts ghosts in the background. never seen the actual app but they claimed it would "freak your friends out".

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you talking about the latest photo or the original one?

The original - er - the one with the ships' wheel.

 

[stglyde]

You guys are really topnotch. See the following comparisons between the "ghost" photo Ivan shared and that of my friends yesterday who were and scared convinced it was a real ghost picture. I showed them the following images with the almost exact ghost image down to the hair style. I think it's a cellfone virus. We should be hearing more about it elsewhere... has anyone else got the same ghost appearing in other pictures? I wonder what the cell virus and how to identify it so as to be included in the anti-virus database.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/6914/internetghostpics.jpg


from original image:

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5265/ghostgirlq.jpg

 

[stglyde]

Referring to the above identical comparison pictures. I'm certain it's some kind of cellfone virus because just like Ivan friend... they didn't photoshop it.. this is because there were 15 people in the place and they viewed it right after the picture was taken. So it's very likely a software virus. Now to make that kind of virus. How big should be the program and would it able to hijack into the image processing area of the camera during saving? Also since there were no massive reports of the "ghost" images in the internet. It's most likely the program used some kind of very select or random activation like the number of character and initial of the cellfone owner's name so as to produce a few occurance maximizing the scare motive. Give me some idea before I officially submit it to the cellfone antivirus software company to handle it because it can really scare people. After my friends saw it. They bought candles and prayed together not knowing they were duped!