Investigating the Alleged Ghost Photo

[Ivan Seeking]

In the mean time, if we have anyone so inclined, it would be interesting to see if the software mentioned by Math is Hard can produce a photo like the one we see here.

That's pretty weird, Ivan. I was googling around trying to see if I could find something that explained how double exposures could occur on a digital photograph. I found nothing except instructions for how to create the effect with image editing software. The only similar thing I have seen to that was when a batch of my digital image files got corrupted and had bright green lines running through them. (nothing interesting, just boring horizontal lines).

 

[dlgoff]

Just for the fun of it, I brought the picture into Paint and zoomed in on the "ghosts sleeve". I attached what looks like some sort of "writing"?

Edit: Probably just individual pixels though.

 

[Evo]

Ivan, it looks like a superimposed photo. Notice the darker gray outline around the girl's upper body? It appears to be a photo, I don't know of ghosts that would include a cropped background surrounding their picture.

The question is who did it, since we're going on the assumption the camera owner did not do it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, mixed results. I sat there and had him email a photo of essentially the same shot [taken and emailed while I was sitting there]. The jpg header did not come through.

However, the photo is different than the other one sent. Today's photo has a far lower resolution, but I guess that could just be a camera setting? It is sold as a 8MP camera.

Still, I watched him send it and can tell by the time that I received it that no funny business was possible. So it seems the header check is not definitive for this phone.

Note that his clock is not accurate. The photo shows a time of 8:17 PM, but I received it by email at 7:13 PM, which is just moments after the shot was taken.

 

[alt]

IMO, the beginnings of a rectangle above her head, is very suspect, although I don't know if it's a doorway - looks too narrow for a doorway.

But it's there, and as has been asked before, (paraphrased) 'what respectable ghost brings along her own doorway / background' ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IMO, the beginnings of a rectangle above her head, is very suspect, although I don't know if it's a doorway - looks too narrow for a doorway.

But it's there, and as has been asked before, (paraphrased) 'what respectable ghost brings along her own doorway / background' ?

Are you sure that you aren't just seeing the frame of the art work [whatever you call it!]. I do see the line from the frame.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, it looks like a superimposed photo. Notice the darker gray outline around the girl's upper body? It appears to be a photo, I don't know of ghosts that would include a cropped background surrounding their picture.

The question is who did it, since we're going on the assumption the camera owner did not do it.

We don't know that for a fact. And I'm not about to make any assumptions. I just don't think he's up to a sophisticated hoax.

But in either case, it has been said here [in S&D] more than once that ~ "if we only had the camera, we could tell if a photo has been faked". Well, we have it, so can this be definitively debunked or not? There is no mystery about the source and we can get all of the details we want. As I said, he is willing to hand the camera over for analysis.

Note also that the art work does not have a chrome background. The faces are chrome with a white background.

 

[alt]

Are you sure that you aren't just seeing the frame of the art work [whatever you call it!]. I do see the line from the frame.

Just above the girls head, and not wider than her head, there is a dark area that seems to be the beginnings of a vertically running rectangle, that others here, I think, have referred to as a doorway.

It does not seem to have anything to do with the weird art work thing, and it's lines are not in line with it.

 

[alt]

We don't know that for a fact. And I'm not about to make any assumptions. I just don't think he's up to a sophisticated hoax.

But in either case, it has been said here [in S&D] more than once that ~ "if we only had the camera, we could tell if a photo has been faked". Well, we have it, so can this be definitively debunked or not? There is no mystery about the source and we can get all of the details we want. As I said, he is willing to hand the camera over for analysis.

As I said, he is willing to hand the camera over for analysis

That WILL be interesting !

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said, he is willing to hand the camera over for analysis

That WILL be interesting !

The only problem: Who pays for this?

Regarding the alleged frame: If anyone can clearly show this image has been manipulated, that would be one thing, but allusions to a possible crop line is pretty weak. I don't really see it. I do see shading, but nothing definitive. I don't think one can debunk a photo based on subjective observations.

 

[alt]

The only problem: Who pays for this?

Shrugs ..

Maybe some suitably competent member of PF would do it for love ? Think of the cudos if it couldn't be debunked.

Regarding the alleged frame: If anyone can clearly show this image has been manipulated, that would be one thing, but allusions to a possible crop line is pretty weak. I don't really see it. I do see shading, but nothing definitive. I don't think one can debunk a photo based on subjective observations.

I am not trying to debunk it - nor bunk it for that matter. It's just interesting.

I wasn't referring to crop lines. Do you not see a dark area immediately above her head, narrower than her head, which seems to be part of a rectangle ? It doesn't seem to fit or be consistent with the main picture in any way, therefore it can be assumed that it's part of the girl image. So the question is, what is it ?

It could be that the girl was standing in front of a window frame, or a picture frame, or a narrow doorway, when the girl image was taken - if indeed, a girl image WAS taken.

 

[russ_watters]

It looks faked, see how the wheel frames the face? The "face" blots out the wheel then suddenly is transparent again. Amazing how the facial features conveniently blot out the wheel, but no other part of her picture does.

That could happen with a partially transparent overlay in Photoshop. Since the dark on dark of the shadowed part of her face (ghost faces have shadows on them...?) on the wheel doesn't make for much of a difference in brightness, the mixture of colors doesn't look much different.

To me, the perfectly horizontal line right above her head and the perfectly vertical one to her left make for a pretty obvious Photoshop copy/paste job.

Ivan, you say you know the person it came from - how are you so sure they aren't playing a joke on you?

Who pays for this?

Who pays for what? A quick look at the camera and/or chip to read the exif data would clear-up an awful lot!

 

[Math Is Hard]

In the mean time, if we have anyone so inclined, it would be interesting to see if the software mentioned by Math is Hard can produce a photo like the one we see here.

I could probably create something in Photoshop that would be very similar at first glance. I would just layer one photo on top of another, adjust the transparency, and erase part of the background so the first photo showed through. Then I would flatten the layers to make a single image. You'd catch me pretty easily just by zooming in on the image and seeing sharp pixel differences where I had erased the background.

To create the image convincingly would take a lot of blending, time, and skill.

 

[Hurkyl]

To me, the perfectly horizontal line right above her head and the perfectly vertical one to her left make for a pretty obvious Photoshop copy/paste job.

Oooh and there's a line on the bottom too.

Oh my memory is fuzzy, but isn't there some possibility that JPEG compression could leave artifacts in that shape?

 

[russ_watters]

If you look closely, there's actually a second ghost in the photo...standing behind her with a weapon of some sort...

This one I'm sure isn't faked, as it doesn't have either the horizontal or vertical lines framing it.

 

[russ_watters]

To create the image convincingly would take a lot of blending, time, and skill.

Not really, no. It would take longer to take and email yourself the photos than it would to fake the overlay and for a Photoshop user, the required skill level is pretty low.

 

[russ_watters]

Oooh and there's a line on the bottom too.

Oh my memory is fuzzy, but isn't there some possibility that JPEG compression could leave artifacts in that shape?

I couldn't find one on the bottom, but sure - Jpeg compression leaves blocks, as can easily be seen in the photo if you zoom in: in this case, they are pretty small (not too much compression). But I can think of no reason other than a Photoshop job to explain why there would be such large and clearly-defined lines (not blocks).

Also, that made me have another look at the PNG (what Ivan called a bmp) and jpeg - Ivan, where, exactly did you get the png? It is a higher quality than the jpg. And you said it was a 5.5MB bmp - is there a bmp?

Note: png is a lossless compression algorithm so it should be higher quality - no jpg blocks...though it looks to me like there are some jpg blocks in it. So it looks to have been copied from another version that was a jpg.

 

[cristo]

If you look closely, there's actually a second ghost in the photo...standing behind her with a weapon of some sort...

This one I'm sure isn't faked, as it doesn't have either the horizontal or vertical lines framing it.

Haha, nice!

 

[Math Is Hard]

Not really, no. It would take longer to take and email yourself the photos than it would to fake the overlay and for a Photoshop user, the required skill level is pretty low.

Note that I said "convincing". And by that I mean to a trained eye.

 

[cristo]

Note that I said "convincing". And by that I mean to a trained eye.

You didn't find tiger the ghost convincing?

 

[Math Is Hard]

You didn't find tiger the ghost convincing?

Sorry if I missed your post, but I don't know what you are talking about. My only comments were on the original photo, how I thought I could fake it, and how I might be quickly caught. (I have not closely examined the original image for problems.) I worked in digital imaging for a few years and simply offered my suggestions for how to create a down and dirty quick fake, and how to spot the flaws.

If you are concerned because you think I am suggesting this is an actual ghost photo, this is not the case. I was simply wondering if this could happen as the result of file corruption. That seems unlikely to me for reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

 

[cristo]

Sorry if I missed your post, but I don't know what you are talking about.

I was talking about Russ's image in post #50 (he made said quick and dirty fake).

[I guess I shouldn't make jokes this early in the morning!]

 

[DavidSnider]

Doing this with photoshop would take less than a minute. There is nothing even remotely elaborate about it.

You don't even need photoshop, most modern camera phones have apps that will do this on-the-fly.

There is no chance of this happening through file corruption. Digital images don't alpha blend by accident. Especially compressed images.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Doing this with photoshop would take less than a minute. There is nothing even remotely elaborate about it.

I'm not saying you couldn't do it in a minute. What I am saying is I really don't believe do it in a minute and do it well enough that it wouldn't be spotted as a fake.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you look closely, there's actually a second ghost in the photo...standing behind her with a weapon of some sort...

This one I'm sure isn't faked, as it doesn't have either the horizontal or vertical lines framing it.

I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan!

 

[Evo]

I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan!

OMG, yes, yes, there is a third ghost! And this one is truly frightening.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, that made me have another look at the PNG (what Ivan called a bmp) and jpeg - Ivan, where, exactly did you get the png? It is a higher quality than the jpg. And you said it was a 5.5MB bmp - is there a bmp?

Note: png is a lossless compression algorithm so it should be higher quality - no jpg blocks...though it looks to me like there are some jpg blocks in it. So it looks to have been copied from another version that was a jpg.

What I received was a bitmap. When I did the upload, it was converted to a png. I created the original jpg from the bmp. The second jpg linked was from him, as was the third.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think I see a third ghost too. Looks almost familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on what it reminds me of.

Sorry for pooping on your thread, Ivan!

Haha, nope, that's what we want to see! The Ghostbusters were right!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, you say you know the person it came from - how are you so sure they aren't playing a joke on you?

I don't really know him - he is a neighbor of a relative. And I never said I was sure about anything other than he is not a technical person. Even a photoshop trick was likely done by someone else. Note that he had to have his wife send me the email as he doesn't know how.

I know the joke wasn't on me, but it could have been intended for him or someone else. The relative called and asked me to debunk it.

Who pays for what? A quick look at the camera and/or chip to read the exif data would clear-up an awful lot!

Okay, I have no idea. I have never gotten into modern camera technology. What do I do?

Clearly it could have been faked. That's a done deal.

 

[Borek]

And I never said I was sure about anything other than he is not a technical person. Even a photoshop trick was likely done by someone else. Note that he had to have his wife send me the email as he doesn't know how.

Which increases probability that he was just a victim of some practical joke.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I still want to know precisely how to determine if the photo is in its raw form, in camera memory.

 

[russ_watters]

Okay, I have no idea. I have never gotten into modern camera technology. What do I do?

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.

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

I still want to know precisely how to determine if the photo is in its raw form, in camera memory.

I don't understand the question...

...when you take a photo with a camera - any camera - the image gets saved in whatever format/quality/size the camera's settings tell it to save the photo in. If you choose raw format (I'd be surprised if that was even an option on a camera phone), the image is saved in one of several raw formats without any processing. If you have it save as a jpeg, you can't go back and get the raw data. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that produce raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.
Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction
JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats are typically either uncompressed or use lossless compression, so the maximum amount of image detail is always kept within the raw file.
Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters.
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors.
The color space can be set to whatever is desired.
Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.
The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the color gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.
Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in less visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.

 

[russ_watters]

By the way, if anyone is curious, here's the process I used to make my fake, including mis-steps:
1. I browsed my photo library and found a good "ghost" candidate (attached). It is a crop of a scanned corporate golf outing photo.
2. I used the "desaturate" command to grayscale the image, because everyone knows that "ghosts" are gray (color ghosts in Betelgeuse and Ghostbusters, notwithstanding).
3. Used a basic rectangular selection tool to select, copy, and paste part of the photo and then moved it where I wanted it.
4. Used the "normal" blending mode and set the opacity to 10%. See attached result (2nd pic). The clear outline is a problem and the dark background only makes it worse
5. The "overlay" blending mode seems to provide better mixing, leaving the background color more intact - 3rd pic is in that mode, 20% opacity.
6. The borders are still very evident, especially in places where the overlay color is much darker than the original "ghost" photo background. I re-selected the area in my "ghost" photo, then applied the "feather" command, with a 50 pixel radius to create a gradient at the edges of the copied area to more smoothly blend them. See 4th pic.
7. #6 helps, but since the "feather" is created from a rectangular selection, it does not completely eliminate the outline. So next I used a freehand selection tool to grab an outline of myself a little better (and cut away the rest of the person next to me) that contains no straight lines. Then feathered that. The result is what I uploaded last night.

Note: I have Photoshop CS2, but all of that can be done with virtually any photo editing program worthy of the categorization.

 

[russ_watters]

4th pic referenced above...

I also noticed that due to the feather area being too close to the border of the cropped pic, there is still a little bit of outline noticeable in what I posted last night. So I went back and copied from the original, uncropped pic for a new "final" version, attached. I see no evidence of an outline in it.

 

[russ_watters]

My only comments were on the original photo, how I thought I could fake it, and how I might be quickly caught. (I have not closely examined the original image for problems.) I worked in digital imaging for a few years and simply offered my suggestions for how to create a down and dirty quick fake, and how to spot the flaws.

[separate post]
I'm not saying you couldn't do it in a minute. What I am saying is I really don't believe do it in a minute and do it well enough that it wouldn't be spotted as a fake.

One of the real problems I see with the overall issue of using untraceable photos for evidence of anything is just how easy it is to fake them and just how hard it seems like it would be to spot the signs. Altogether, I spent about 5 minutes creating the sample images for my little tutorial above, so they still aren't very sophisticated. Could you go into some more detail about how one might spot such a fake? I'm not sure there is any way to naked-eye spot the evidence, but I can think of two possiblities with analysis software (speculation):
1. Mathematical analysis of the blending to identify the blending algorithm. Evo noted that dark-on-dark blending gives the appearance of more transparency with the overlay. Maybe ghosts work that way too, but there is probably a way to prove mathematically that it uses a Photoshop blending algorithm.
2. Finding the gradients in the edges, again, mathematically.