Photoshopped or not?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Photoshopped or not?

Postby Chorlton » Mon Aug 02, 2010 3:39 pm

This photo was posted on a facebook page by an alleged 'researcher called : Sacha Christie-AKA Infomaniac Housewife, this person is also a friend of a notorious nutcase called David Moncoeur.

I say it has been photoshopped and badly done at that. It has been suggested it nis a double exposure, But on a digital camera??

This photograph was allegedly taken at Rendlesham and according to the poster has not been tampered with.
She posted this below.

Sacha Christie-AKA Infomaniac Housewife says

"This person... the tall one... was not in our group.... came out of nowhere... vanished into nowhere... i can't explain this picture it has puzzled us all... It/he is mimicking Jean exactly... there are other faces and anomolies in the pic...."
AND THEN

"I know what you are saying but the camera is fine and this always happens when I go to the forest.. same with brenda butler, anyone in fact. there is something happening that affects the cameras. you can see the interference in other pictures.. the camera is totally fine..."

Im calling it b.s. and a hoax.
Comme Pense Tu ??
rendlesham.jpg
rendlesham.jpg (45.03 KiB) Viewed 2081 times
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm


Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:39 am

I moved to this to the UFO forum because it supposedly has something “special” to do with Rendlescam but it probably belongs in the “UFO Wackjob of the Week” thread…

EXIF data or it didn’t happen. :)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Chorlton » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:08 am

Access Denied wrote:EXIF data or it didn’t happen. :)


Exactly what I suggested. It has also been suggested the digital pics posted on faceboook, where this came from have their exif data stripped from them. I disagreed as I have had several pics forwarded to me from facebook that did still have the exif Data on them, but that was a few years ago.
But it really seems to me to be photoshopped as to do a double exposure with a digital camera is practically impossible other than with a couple of very expensive camera's?
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby DrDil » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:06 pm

Chorlton wrote:Exactly what I suggested. It has also been suggested the digital pics posted on faceboook, where this came from have their exif data stripped from them. I disagreed as I have had several pics forwarded to me from facebook that did still have the exif Data on them, but that was a few years ago.
But it really seems to me to be photoshopped as to do a double exposure with a digital camera is practically impossible other than with a couple of very expensive camera's?

Perhaps ask her to upload the original in a zipped file (or to a file-share site)?

I’ve had a run-in with her quite a while ago on one of the old UK forums, wasn’t sure what to make of her and she was very pleasant, well, unless you dare and refute some of the ropey evidence put forward regarding the Rendlesham UFO event.

Then say hello to Mr(s) Hyde…..
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby ryguy » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:36 pm

I don't get it, it's just two images of the same event pasted onto each other with one offset up and to the left. You can see the second woman's exact outfit at the same distance up and to the left as the original picture below.

What is the claim about this picture - that it represents some kind of paranormal activity?
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby DrDil » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:56 pm

ryguy wrote:I don't get it, it's just two images of the same event pasted onto each other with one offset up and to the left. You can see the second woman's exact outfit at the same distance up and to the left as the original picture below.

What is the claim about this picture - that it represents some kind of paranormal activity?

I didn’t bother to locate the FB page but apparently the taller one appeared and disappeared, I don’t think for a second that’s what happened but I don’t think it’s the exact same image either. If you look the taller one is facing a different way, the hairs is lying differently, there’s not as much of the white blouse showing etc. etc.

It seems to me as if it’s a different image perhaps taken a couple of seconds later then either overlaid or pasted into the original image, but it’s pointless speculating without the original as I’d be massively surprised if the EXIF showed no signs of tampering.

The taller one seems to be in shadow which is pretty much consistent with the rest of the image whereas the closest one is lit by the flash which leads me to suspect it’s the smaller closer one that’s been added to the image. (But I haven’t even saved the image let alone opened it up in an editor to try and identify any digital artefacts).
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Tim Hebert » Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:59 pm

She stated that there were other anomolies in the pictures...faces and such. Frankly, I don't see it. If a flash was used then she only captured people's faces in the distance background.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby AussieMike » Wed Aug 04, 2010 11:29 pm

There are subtle differences in angle to be sure, the eyes are obvious as is the undershirt sleeve cuff, one has it showing one doesnt.
what i find odd is the face of the other woman standing nearby, youd think that if a doppleganger showed up in such a freaky pose, everyone would be staring at them.
The other aspect i find odd is the logic of being a mimic to presumably blend in, only to stand out like dogs balls by posing in an identical fashion.
Youd think an entity with this sort of chameleon ability would do a better job
The same with "jeans" reaction, surely she would be staring at her identical double, not casually standing there as if nothing odd was going down
AussieMike
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:14 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Chorlton » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:39 am

ryguy wrote:I don't get it, it's just two images of the same event pasted onto each other with one offset up and to the left. You can see the second woman's exact outfit at the same distance up and to the left as the original picture below.

What is the claim about this picture - that it represents some kind of paranormal activity?


Yes thats what shes claiming.
Then again she is a friend of one David Moncoeur, known nutter of the parish.
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 05, 2010 2:38 pm

Well damn...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to take one look at the photo and realize that it's two different snapshots of the same event, with the second snapshot faded around the edges and offset up and to the left.

Please tell me there aren't people out there actually entertaining the idea that this was a single snapshot of the event?
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Chorlton » Thu Aug 05, 2010 6:07 pm

ryguy wrote:Well damn...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to take one look at the photo and realize that it's two different snapshots of the same event, with the second snapshot faded around the edges and offset up and to the left.

Please tell me there aren't people out there actually entertaining the idea that this was a single snapshot of the event?


Sorry to tell you
There are !!
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby jack » Wed Sep 08, 2010 4:14 pm

Some DSLRs can do double exposure in camera, not sure about compacts, but many compacts have various trick modes. I don't think that's what happened.

Looking at the aspect ratio I think it was a probably a compact. I think the camera was set, either automatically, or coincidently to "slow sync flash". Basically the camera's shutter remains open to fill in areas less lit by the flash.

What I think happened was that after the initial flash someone else, maybe some way behind the photographer (given the doppelgänger exposure levels), took another photo, creating a second flash - inadvertently creating a double exposure after the camera/people had moved.

There's a small possibility this happened without slow sync mode, with a normal flash, in the short time between the shutter opening the initial flash and the shutter closing. The inadvertent creation of a double flash.

The reason I think it's probably slow sync flash is that the man in the background appears to have turned 90 degrees towards the camera, and I'd have thought that would fit better into slow sync flash duration. It'll quite often be in the EXIF info of the image.
jack
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:05 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Access Denied » Thu Sep 09, 2010 7:36 am

Welcome to RU jack.

I can't help but think whoever took the photo knows what happened... or somebody else took advantage of it.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby chrLz » Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:41 pm

Hi, all - first serious post, but I won't ask for any special consideration! :D

A few things.. Yes, you can do double exposures on some digitals - not all that many, though. But this isn't an in-camera double exposure, as pointed out above.

As has also been pointed out, it is very obviously the same person, turned slightly and photographed at a different angle, height (tilt, roll, yaw, etc!) The clothes are identical down to the creases, the same bag straps, etc.

The color difference simply shows that the 'twins' were differently illuminated - the front one by flashgun, the rear one by incandescent lighting. Also, the shadows are completely different - note the crease shadows in the back twin, and the shadowing at the back of her head and shoulders - she is obviously lit from the left. Note also the 'shadow' cast by the front twin.. why does it not reach the second one, except right at the bottom? There should be a very clear shadow of her face's profile on the second twin's arm/elbow.

Assuming the second twin is human sized (grin), then it can't be far behind the front one, and flashgun light doesn't fall off that quickly. It would also have 'filled in' the second twin's hair and back, at least partially.

There are more clues (including one or two that suggest it isn't slow-synch flash effect), but I'd like to withhold those awaiting a full-resolution image (and I'll wager you won't get one, for very obvious reasons..)

If the full-resolution original was posted, this would be busted in seconds, imo. Judging by the shadow errors, it was a quick and dirty job by someone not very good at image editing. It might stand brief inspection at this size...

So yes, I'm very sure it's two images pasted together.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Access Denied » Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:21 am

Welcome to the forum chrLz...

You could be right and it’s a deliberate hoax but I just had another idea thanks to your comments. Do you think it's possible the second image is lighted by a flash from another camera to the left of this one that fired during the exposure and this camera moved slightly in between?

Without EXIF data it’s hard to say whether or not the camera had a mechanical shutter and what the exposure time was but I think I remember something about it being cold there so I’m not sure how we can rule out a temporarily slow or stuck shutter?

Tom
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

cron