What causes transparency effect in photos?

[fawk3s]

I was looking at this photo and it got me wondering. There's a person in the photo, who is apparently not moving so the effect can't be created due to motion, who is partially transparent. The wall and another person is seen through the persons face, but not through the entire face. Just a part of it.

I was wondering what causes this effect? I am sorry I am not able to give you an example photo at the moment, I just couldn't find any on the net.

Thanks in advance,
fawk3s

 

[fawk3s]

Just read about something called the Faile effect. Had never heard about it, but I am still not sure if it has anything to do with it. Any ideas?

Thanks in advance,
fawk3s

 

[mikeph]

Sounds like garbage to me. Any photo can be doctored, and I find no reasonable information on this "Faile effect".

 

[fawk3s]

Didnt find much on this Faile effect either, so I wouldn't go with that. But it looks to me like the photo isn't doctored.

 

[Barwick]

I suppose it could be a multi-path transmission of light, where somehow an object at a different angle than the person's head was reflected off another object and arrived at the same pixels during the time the shutter was open.

 

[fawk3s]

Unfortunately, that's not possible. I've ruled that out already.

 

[1MileCrash]

I don't know much about cameras but I've heard of this happening for a camera with a long exposure if something changes in the area being photographed.

IE if you're in a dark area and set the camera for a long exposure, and a person walks around illuminating the area, there will be parts of the photo where the person walking around is shown (multiple times in same photo) with transparency.

 

[fawk3s]

Well, the person moving themselves was the first thing I thought about. Anybody would. And it still could be the case, but the thing is, usually when someone is moving enough to make him/her transparent on a photo like that, there are multiple "ghosts" of the person in the photo. But the one I am talking about is absolutely clear of them.
So that's why I got interested in the first place and thought I'd ask what might be causing this.

 

[mikeph]

If it's a 30 second exposure and the person moves with any reasonable speed, the actual change in total integrated flux on the sensor due to what you call "ghosts" can be less than the actual sensor noise, especially if you have a high ISO or old CCD. Where is the focal plane? Is the transparent guy in focus, or the background image, or both? Was it film or digital?

Given what you have said, I think it's either a photographic phenomenon or a Photoshop.

 

[fawk3s]

I believe it was digital, and both the transparent guy and backround are in focus.
As I've read about the basics behind digital cameras, there's only 1 chance I can think of: the guy had to move. Why arent the "ghosts" visible? It may be due to the bright light source next to and behind him, making those "ghosts" nearly invisible (which I actually don't think is the case). Or the camera sensors record more than one snapshot of light and the person moved during the short break of these shots, not creating the "ghost" effect.
There's also this very little chance that the camera contains a mechanical color filter, and the person moved during the filter switch phase. But considering the facts that these switches are rapid, they are rarely used in regular digital cameras and it would probably mess up the colors in the in the transparency effect and the person (which is not the case in this photo), I find it very unlikely.

I hardly think photoshop has anything to do with this case. But I also can't find another solution to the problem other than the person must have moved.

Let me know what you think,
fawk3s

 

[QuantumPion]

Maybe the picture was taken through a pane of glass, and what you are seeing is a partial reflection?

 

[Redbelly98]

The photo might be a double exposure. The person could have been present for the 1st exposure, and absent for the 2nd exposure.