Investigating the Alleged Ghost Photo

[cristo]

I doubt jpg is the original one. Every jpg picture has some information saved in the header, at least it contains information about the camera used. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXIF. That's from the picture taken with my Nokia 6300:

Make - Nokia
Model - 6300
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - V 07.21
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 157
ExifVersion - 0220
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 1200
ExifImageHeight - 1600

Thumbnail: - 
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 329
JpegIFByteCount - 5281

Nothing like that in the picture you linked to, which MAY suggest that it was modified.

Could be EXIF was stripped by the imageshack. Could be its a practical joke.

Uploading to imageshack or as an attachment to the forum will likely strip all the header info.

Ivan, you can view the basic information by simply looking at the info of the files (on windows I think this is rightclick-properties on the file icon).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Uploading to imageshack or as an attachment to the forum will likely strip all the header info.

Ivan, you can view the basic information by simply looking at the info of the files (on windows I think this is rightclick-properties on the file icon).

I had checked and found the basic summary: Pixel count, dpi, bit depth, frame count. I also see origin: Author. But nothing as detailed as what Borek posted; no camera indicated. I do see that information for some of my own photos.

Would cell phone photos necessarily contain this information?

 

[cristo]

Would cell phone photos necessarily contain this information?

I would think so. I just emailed myself and image I'd taken on my phone, opened it, and it contained all the information Borek mentioned.

 

[Borek]

I would expect at least phone model, after all, they want this information to be spread out.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was also able to confirm that it is possible to upload to and receive images on the phone [I hadn't thought about receiving a photo on the phone, only uploading. Obviously it could have been sent from another source].

I guess the most specific piece of information needed is if it can be determined whether a photo is an original, or if it has been stored in memory from another source.

I'll have him send me several pictures when we talk - while I'm sitting there - including one that I see taken. That might be enough to show there has been foul play.

 

[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!