Photoshopped or not?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby chrLz » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:15 am

Access Denied wrote: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?

Yes.. but I have extreme doubts. First up, there are no other signs of anything moving (blurred), nor is there any 'overlay' of anything - you would expect some of the image to have 'transparent' areas where bright areas overlap dark and vice versa - there are none that I can see. Second, the camera / person has obviously moved a significant amount, which means that it either moved quite rapidly, or the shutter speed was very slow, ie a second or so. Again, there are no other indications of a slow shutter speed. Now if the scene was very dark, that might be possible, but again we have the issue that person 1 is not 'overlaid' on person 2. If there were two flashes, or motion, then the see-through effect would be there, along with blurring if there was any normal lighting contributing to the scene. Examples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timjayfitz/2503915959/
http://www.photo.school.nz/flash/flash_and_normal.jpg

Also, as I hinted, I see another problem or two with the image, especially in the area down below the darker twin's arms.. And there is still the missing shadow of first twin's face on second twin's upper arm..

On first look, I got the strong impression of the second person being more 'warmly' coloured, pointing towards incandescent lighting. However, that was a bit of a guess, and on second glance, it could simply be the increased saturation of colours caused by her under-exposure, compared to the over-exposed bright twin.. So yes, it could be a flash from another camera. It would take a bit more analysis to determine whether the colour was an issue, and without exif or original, and no clues as to what the white balance settings were, it's not really a useful path to follow. If the original isn't supplied, then it's over, imo..

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?

True. But I'd expect some other signs assuming 'normal' camera settings, and that missing transparent effect where the twins overlap is the killer, imo.
"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 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:12 am

I understand your objections and they are good ones but if the “darker” twin in the background was exposed first before the “brighter” twin in the foreground, things start to make sense to me.

Notice the darker shadow of the brighter twin near where her hands are folded seems to blend in and disappear into the brighter color of the darker twin’s jacket as you follow it up. Also, the purse straps of the darker twin seem to blend in and disappear into the brighter ground illuminated by the flash from this camera.

I will admit it seems unlikely for the other hypothetical camera’s flash to fire before this camera’s but if you think about it, it makes sense that the person holding the camera might start to move thinking the flash already fired after they pushed the button before it actually did and if both flashes were quick enough, I’m not sure we would necessarily see any blur. Why the flash took so long to fire I don’t know but I do recall my little Nikon digital camera sometimes seems to take a long time to figure out what it’s doing after I press the button.

Considering these folks are motivated enough by their belief in the paranormal to go walking around the forest in the dark looking for anything unusual by who knows what logic, it makes sense to me they would attach some great importance to this seemingly bizarre photograph but in this case I just don’t see anyone going as far as faking it by combining two otherwise unremarkable photos… it’s just not that good. :)

Now if anything looks photoshopped, I would have to say it would be the eyes of the girl to the left. They seem a little dark and it just doesn’t look right to me… but I could be wrong.
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 » Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:29 am

Access Denied wrote:I understand your objections and they are good ones but if the “darker” twin in the background was exposed first before the “brighter” twin in the foreground, things start to make sense to me. Notice the darker shadow of the brighter twin near where her hands are folded seems to blend in and disappear into the brighter color of the darker twin’s jacket as you follow it up. Also, the purse straps of the darker twin seem to blend in and disappear into the brighter ground illuminated by the flash from this camera.

Very observant! Yes, I see what you mean, it is possible that there is so little of the dark twin illuminated in the area where the light one overlaps, that there may not be very much overlap.. Hmm. But I'm still having a problem with working out that shadow.. If there was no-one there at the moment of the bright twin's flash, what was it falling on? The ground? - If so, it just doesn't look right to me.


I will admit it seems unlikely for the other hypothetical camera’s flash to fire before this camera’s but if you think about it, it makes sense that the person holding the camera might start to move thinking the flash already fired after they pushed the button before it actually did and if both flashes were quick enough, I’m not sure we would necessarily see any blur.

True, although it depends on the camera/flash.. One of my old units had a maximum flash duration of 1/100 second, which is enough to see motion blur.

Why the flash took so long to fire I don’t know but I do recall my little Nikon digital camera sometimes seems to take a long time to figure out what it’s doing after I press the button.

Depends on the mode of the camera - some have 'night-portrait' type modes that use a very slow shutter speed plus flash, so you get more ambient light and less of the 'ghost' effect. And if it was a manual camera, who knows what the settings might have been.

Considering these folks are motivated enough by their belief in the paranormal to go walking around the forest in the dark looking for anything unusual by who knows what logic, it makes sense to me they would attach some great importance to this seemingly bizarre photograph but in this case I just don’t see anyone going as far as faking it by combining two otherwise unremarkable photos… it’s just not that good. :)

On reflection, you could well be right. I'd really like to see the full-res original.. but then not enough to actually go chasing it.. :D

Now if anything looks photoshopped, I would have to say it would be the eyes of the girl to the left. They seem a little dark and it just doesn’t look right to me… but I could be wrong.

I think it's just really bad mascara.. But did you notice *she* seems to be duplicated too, in the same way, similar lighting effect (although there isn't much of her to compare..? Hadn't actually spotted that before- shame on me!

So your theory has just gained impetus!! I might change my mind on this one.. :D
"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 Slippery Jim » Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:25 pm

I'm leaning so far towards the photoshop explanation that I'm almost horizontal.

These are two seperate shots taken by the same camera 1-2 seconds apart. The dead giveaway is that the man in the hoody has taken perhaps 2 steps forward (from his perspective) and turned to face the camera. Any camera that had its shutter open for that long would certainly produce motion blur yet both images are fairly crisp.

The 2nd image to be taken would be the one displaced upwards and to the left. This image is clearly lit from the left by a light with a different colour temperature than the flash on the camera evident on the 1st shot. The 2nd image is clearly not illuminated in any way from the direction of the camera - possibly because the person taking the shot forgot to switch on the flash. Its extremely unlikely that someone to the left of shot just happened to activate their own flash at that very instant that the 2nd shot was taken which tends to make me think there was a constant light source to the left, possibly a camcorder or a torch/storm lamp?

I could be wrong though. :)
You couldn't find your own arse with two hands, a map and Google!
User avatar
Slippery Jim
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:14 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Torsion » Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:35 pm

Chorlton wrote:
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..."


Hello folks. My first post on Reality Uncovered. Good to see some familiar faces from "elsewhere", too!

As the photo is clearly two separate shots superimposed into one it is strange that the photographer implies it is of a paranormal nature. Odd, too, that she focuses only on the "Jean" doppelgänger when the other woman and the man in the shot are similarly duplicated. Perhaps the camera is faulty and is somehow overlaying images as they are written to storage, but I feel the overlay is too accurately defined for that. However, if the camera is fine as she claims then I suspect it is a deliberate hoax.

One has to feel sorry for poor old "Jean" particularly if she is of a gullible nature as the appearance of one's own doppelgänger is said to portent one's imminent death! Don't panic, Jean, it's only you twice!
Torsion
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:03 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Access Denied » Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:37 am

Welcome to RU Torsion…

That’s an excellent point… are all three still alive? :shock:
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 RICH-ENGLAND » Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:48 pm

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..."


one minute this person claims its an it/he that came out of nowhere and mimicked jean, next she is saying that its something affecting the camera, she needs to make up her mind.....

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Arbitrageur » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:45 am

chrLz wrote:Hi, all - first serious post, but I won't ask for any special consideration! :D
This is my first serious post too, though you folks have analyzed it so well already it's hard to follow your footsteps!

chrLz wrote: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.
That's the first thing that jumped out at me, the discrepancy of shadows.

Access Denied wrote: 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?
Do I think it's possible? Yes. I don't see anything image-wise that would immediately cause me to rule out that hypothesis. Do I think it's likely? That's another question.

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?
The EXIF data might help in this case. I know exactly what the shutter looks like in some film cameras since I've taken them apart. But if this is a digital camera, my understanding is that most don't have a mechanical shutter in the traditional sense that could get "stuck"?

Now perhaps there is a way it could get electronically "stuck" rather than mechanically, though that doesn't seem as likely. I'd like to think it's not a hoax because as you pointed out, it's just not that remarkable an image. Your two-camera flash theory does seem possibly consistent with the image. It's just not easy to imagine exactly how it happened if it's not a mechanical shutter. But just because I can't imagine it, doesn't mean it didn't happen that way, and it's within the realm of possibility.

So I'm a little undecided about whether this is a hoax or not. I think you've presented a somewhat plausible alternative to the hoax/photoshop theory. Nice out-of-the-box thinking! I hadn't thought of that two-camera theory after reviewing the image.

Now if we really wanted to explore that further, we'd ask them if they were using two cameras that night. But since the image isn't all that remarkable I'm not sure whether it's worth pursuing.
User avatar
Arbitrageur
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:27 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 08, 2010 5:41 am

Arbitrageur wrote:The EXIF data might help in this case. I know exactly what the shutter looks like in some film cameras since I've taken them apart. But if this is a digital camera, my understanding is that most don't have a mechanical shutter in the traditional sense that could get "stuck"?

I believe you're correct that it's unlikely for anything other than a DSLR to have mechanical shutter.

Arbitrageur wrote:Now perhaps there is a way it could get electronically "stuck" rather than mechanically, though that doesn't seem as likely.

Frozen electrons, yeah that’s it…

Arbitrageur wrote:Your two-camera flash theory does seem possibly consistent with the image.

Actually “jack” was the first to propose that theory here, my only contribution was to propose the other camera's flash firing first and it was chrLz’s comments about the color saturation and shadows that prompted me to revisit it.

Arbitrageur wrote:It's just not easy to imagine exactly how it happened if it's not a mechanical shutter.

Well, my little Nikon digital seems like it’s on crack sometimes so I don’t know. Now if I had programmed the firmware that might be a different story…

Arbitrageur wrote:Nice out-of-the-box thinking!

Thanks but I can’t really take credit for it if it’s correct.

At any rate, I think it’s interesting that opinions are so divided… perhaps that’s where the key to understanding paranormal phenomena lies.
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 nablator » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:14 pm

Hi all,

I've joined the forum today as this is where all the smart guys hang out and digital photography is my area of self-proclaimed "expertise". Just pretending. :)

Jack is right IMO. This is very simple. Two flashes during a very long exposure in pitch black darkness is equivalent to a double exposure .

As one of the two flashes was much brighter than the other (nearer ?), it more or less obliterated the other image, making it look like a photoshopped overlay. But if you look closer the dark crease or pocket is visible through the person in the foreground, above her hand. Same for the clothes of the person on the left. I see this was already noticed.

I guess the camera was set for taking a picture with a long exposure, (it could be checked if we had the EXIF data) and then one (or two) other camera(s) flashed while the shutter was open.

Mystery solved, for me.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Slippery Jim » Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:55 pm

nablator wrote:Hi all,

I've joined the forum today as this is where all the smart guys hang out and digital photography is my area of self-proclaimed "expertise". Just pretending. :)

Jack is right IMO. This is very simple. Two flashes during a very long exposure in pitch black darkness is equivalent to a double exposure .


No, there would be evidence of low-light motion blur.

As one of the two flashes was much brighter than the other (nearer ?), it more or less obliterated the other image, making it look like a photoshopped overlay. But if you look closer the dark crease or pocket is visible through the person in the foreground, above her hand. Same for the clothes of the person on the left. I see this was already noticed.


I really can't see this. Could you provide a close-up showing what you think you are seeing?

I guess the camera was set for taking a picture with a long exposure, (it could be checked if we had the EXIF data) and then one (or two) other camera(s) flashed while the shutter was open.


As I said before, the dead givaway is the blokein the background. He has moved about 3 feet to his front and turned to face the camera. This would have taken a few seconds to acheive. If the camera shutter was open for that amount of time there would be motion blur in both shots. There isn't so it wasn't.

Mystery solved, for me.[/quote]
You couldn't find your own arse with two hands, a map and Google!
User avatar
Slippery Jim
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 6:14 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby chrLz » Sat Dec 11, 2010 9:42 am

Slippery Jim wrote:
nablator wrote:Hi all,
Jack is right IMO. This is very simple. Two flashes during a very long exposure in pitch black darkness is equivalent to a double exposure .

No, there would be evidence of low-light motion blur.

Not necessarily... :) For there to be motion blur, you need three things - slow enough shutter speed (check), an object that moves relative to the camera (the camera might be the thing that moves, or both) (check), and lighting that lasts long enough to keep the object illuminated during the relative movement (no check).

If the scene was very dark with no ambient lighting, like an remote outdoor setting (check?) and there were two flashes over a couple of seconds, while the camera sensor was recording, then you will get.. two sharp images. I can't really see any clues in the image that contradict that scenario.

As one of the two flashes was much brighter than the other (nearer ?), it more or less obliterated the other image, making it look like a photoshopped overlay. But if you look closer the dark crease or pocket is visible through the person in the foreground, above her hand. Same for the clothes of the person on the left. I see this was already noticed.

I really can't see this. Could you provide a close-up showing what you think you are seeing?

Here ya go...
Image
I added a third circle as I think I can also see some discoloration of her forehead, from the jacket overlaying her face slightly..

As I said before, the dead givaway is the blokein the background. He has moved about 3 feet to his front and turned to face the camera.

But all of the subjects have moved in that direction, so I think it's just the camera being moved (ie tilted). He may have moved a little and turned, but that it easily achievable in say 2 seconds, or even 1.

So I'm increasingly leaning towards the two flash theory, just to be contrary!
"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 elevenaugust » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:37 pm

Very interesting discussion!:)

I'll go as well with the flash fired twice theory, as it seems the most likely explanation for this double exposure effect.
However, I will add that that alone can't fully explained what we can see in the whole scene.

Maybe this was noticed before, and sorry for the repetition if this is the case, but it seems that the whole scene was duplicated by this "flash fired twice" effect, even the vegetation on the right side of the photography:

Image

Note the subject tagged in blue and its position between "1" and "2"... The differences can't have been done only by the camera tilt, moreover, since vegetation can't move (purple tags "1" and "2") (as far as I know.. :D ), seems like it could be a combination of two factors, i-e camera move plus flash fired twice.

Here's an example of a photography taken using 0.625" exposure + flash fired twice (Nikon D200):

Image

SOURCE and SOURCE

...with the comment: "...I think multiple flash is an interesting way to convey motion"

Note that there are no obvious differences between a shoot taken this way and another using a double exposure feature.

Some cameras (even old ones) have either the "flash fired twice" feature (in fact "pre-flash" [to meter the scene] + flash in the iTTL mode) or the double exposure stuff.

I think that we can't rule out the possibility of a single camera to had flashed twice, I mean, there's not necessarily two distinct cameras that had flashed at the almost same time (BTW, was this already tried in an experimental way?)

So,all we have is either the possibility of a double exposure shoot or a flash that was fired twice plus a camera move.

Now the question is what was the camera model used?
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby Arbitrageur » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:03 pm

elevenaugust wrote:Very interesting discussion!:)
I think that we can't rule out the possibility of a single camera to had flashed twice, I mean, there's not necessarily two distinct cameras that had flashed at the almost same time


So you don't agree with Slippery Jim/Access Denied regarding the appearance that the flash for the back image was on the left (from another camera)??

Access Denied wrote: 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?


Slippery Jim wrote:The 2nd image to be taken would be the one displaced upwards and to the left. This image is clearly lit from the left by a light with a different colour temperature than the flash on the camera evident on the 1st shot. The 2nd image is clearly not illuminated in any way from the direction of the camera - possibly because the person taking the shot forgot to switch on the flash.
If the color temperature were the only difference I'd say that could just be a distance effect. But the angle of the shadows does seem to suggest a light source to the left for the back image, doesn't it? (though I'm not 100% sure). Note how the lighting in the head on the back image is so dim near the side of the head in the rear where it should be more evenly lit if the flash came from the camera, and note the shadows at the sleeve cuffs, etc. They seem to suggest an illumination source to the left to me.

elevenaugust wrote:So,all we have is either the possibility of a double exposure shoot or a flash that was fired twice plus a camera move.
I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize my best guess, which is a single (but extended) exposure, illuminated not by a "double flash" from the same camera, but instead one flash from the camera and another flash from a camera off to the left. I'm not sure but that seems to be the best fit to me.

Now the question is what was the camera model used?
Yes, and where's the original with EXIF data, and "who else was taking pictures at the time, and where were they standing"? ;)
User avatar
Arbitrageur
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:27 am

Re: Photoshopped or not?

Postby elevenaugust » Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Arbitrageur wrote:
elevenaugust wrote:Very interesting discussion!:)
I think that we can't rule out the possibility of a single camera to had flashed twice, I mean, there's not necessarily two distinct cameras that had flashed at the almost same time


So you don't agree with Slippery Jim/Access Denied regarding the appearance that the flash for the back image was on the left (from another camera)??

No, I think it's an interesting (and ingenious) theory, but maybe it worth a try reproduce it in an experimental way anyway.
Did someone already tried it or saw something similar?

Arbitrageur wrote:
Access Denied wrote: 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?


Slippery Jim wrote:The 2nd image to be taken would be the one displaced upwards and to the left. This image is clearly lit from the left by a light with a different colour temperature than the flash on the camera evident on the 1st shot. The 2nd image is clearly not illuminated in any way from the direction of the camera - possibly because the person taking the shot forgot to switch on the flash.
If the color temperature were the only difference I'd say that could just be a distance effect. But the angle of the shadows does seem to suggest a light source to the left for the back image, doesn't it? (though I'm not 100% sure). Note how the lighting in the head on the back image is so dim near the side of the head in the rear where it should be more evenly lit if the flash came from the camera, and note the shadows at the sleeve cuffs, etc. They seem to suggest an illumination source to the left to me.

Well, in my idea, the "pre-flash" (a low power flash before the main flash to automatically set the exposure and white balance) lightened up the whole scene, but with a lower flash than the main flash, hence the different "color temperature" (in fact, IMO this is not the "color temperature" that varies, but rather the amount of luminosity, the color remaining the same), only visible for the main subject in the foreground, while in the background, there's no significant variation.
However, yes, I can concede that the light source appears to come from the left, but, like you, I'm not sure (especially as the shadows appears not to be drop shadows); here, again, a test with a lower flash (in similar conditions) could raise up interrogation on how it was done.

Arbitrageur wrote:
elevenaugust wrote:So,all we have is either the possibility of a double exposure shoot or a flash that was fired twice plus a camera move.
I'm not sure that's how I'd characterize my best guess, which is a single (but extended) exposure, illuminated not by a "double flash" from the same camera, but instead one flash from the camera and another flash from a camera off to the left. I'm not sure but that seems to be the best fit to me.

Now the question is what was the camera model used?
Yes, and where's the original with EXIF data, and "who else was taking pictures at the time, and where were they standing"? ;)

Yes! Lots of questions that remains unanswered!
BTW, do we really know the exact source of the photography?

EDIT: If only we could know the camera model, we should be able to rule out (or not) the "double flash theory", as this is not a common feature in usual DC....
IPACO, the new tool for photo and video analysis is on-line! www.ipaco.fr
User avatar
elevenaugust
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:55 pm

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 14 guests

cron