Would love a rational explanation for this please...

Kelda09

Sorry, cant see it either, I have XP on my laptop, maybe its somethings way of stopping us from viewing it!!:eek::eek:

TequilaMockingBird

I'll copy your post, so hopefully it can be seen then. Possibly a browser problem?

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

Today, 18:51 #2 MrMojoRisin
Registered User


Join Date: May 2009
Location: Drogheda
Posts: 511
Adverts | Friends


Okay, that is one very weird photo. Well, if you swear you didn't drag the images of the woman and the other indistinct figure into the photo using PhotoShop afterwards, fair enough. Tbh, it doesn't even look PhotoShopped to me anyway because the images of the two people have the same lighting as the backdrop and still blend in somehow.

If you had posted a photo of something that was a nebulous blur, I'd call it just that, but with this thing, you can make out fairly detailed features and all.

This is a zoomed-in, cropped shot I did of it. You might not be able to see it too well, though...



I'm not too sure what to think of it at this point in time. I wouldn't attribute it to highly concentrated pixelation or the background features ending up muddled to produce a 'figure' because the rest of the photo is very clear.

Well, the above is what I've been seeing. My Operating System is Windows XP, btw, and I have a PC.

WanderingSoul

Nope, still can't see anything.

northsidedave

try something else

ISAW

northsidedave wrote: »

try something else

I see it and it looks like a Warhol image of Marlyn Monroe has worked its way into your image. Funny how all these "ghosts" seem to resemble a commercial art image isn't it? It may be that you had a poster beside you or a poster was reflected in a glass beside you.

CoolSmileyGuy

I tried to find an app that would let me zoom so I could at least post it to avoid this thread going more off topic than it already is..anyway I found Google's Picasa..

After cropping the image I was also able to brighten it some more and adjust a few of the colour saturation levels...this is what I got..the before and after:

Before


After


I don't even know what to think...

abouttobebanned

There are people now joining the thread saying "I can see it" and referring to the ghostly image in the op....to clarify, that's not what we can't see...

CoolSmileyGuy

This topic was not created to discuss whether we can see a fellow posters embedded images or not...

I created it to discuss what I captured in a photograph on Friday night just gone.

Therefore as far as I am concerned it has gone off track somewhat.

WanderingSoul

Tbh, I'm not sure what to think. In the "before" image it seems as though you can see the background through the figure, which would imply it either is semi-transparent or photo-shopped well (which you said you didn't do so will shall assume the former). What I'm surprised by though is the brightness of the black & white dress because compared to the rest of the figure it looks very "solid" imo.

I don't know a lot about all things paranormal hence me not posting about it before. I'm not in a position to give an explanation and anything I say may be way off the mark.

CoolSmileyGuy

All I did pretty much is lighten the light bits and darken the darker parts to make the figures more clear, and a touch of sharpening to get it to stand out some more, and yes it does look a lot more solid (by design), but that doesn't explain the fact you can still see the vertical lines of the back wall pattern through parts of her head and torso...

WanderingSoul

Just to clarify, in my above post I wasn't talking about the after picture at all. Even in the before picture it looks more "solid".

And as I said, I'm not in a position to give an explanation.

CoolSmileyGuy

Appreciate the input eitherway

WanderingSoul

It's no problem and I hope you end up with a conclusion and not an open question.

ISAW

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

I tried to find an app that would let me zoom so I could at least post it to avoid this thread going more off topic than it already is..anyway I found Google's Picasa..

After cropping the image I was also able to brighten it some more and adjust a few of the colour saturation levels...this is what I got..the before and after:

Before


After


I don't even know what to think...

I think if you remove the head from your "ghost" image that you are left with the Marlyn Monroe image (draw a line along the top of the wood between the two people on the right). The arms and neck of the "ghost woman" forms the top of the hair of Marlyn and the legs and dress forms the shoulders. I hadn't seen your "woman" but I see the resemblance now you have pointed it out. Of course maybe it is possible if you zoom in on the wood between you and your friend that you can make out the face of Bishop Brennan

TYhe motif of the "dress" of your woman or the "shoulder garment" of Ms Monroe, continues off to the left of the image. You can see it as a white shape to the bottom left of your rendering. It suggests common cause.

MrMojoRisin

ISAW wrote: »

I see it and it looks like a Warhol image of Marlyn Monroe has worked its way into your image. Funny how all these "ghosts" seem to resemble a commercial art image isn't it? It may be that you had a poster beside you or a poster was reflected in a glass beside you.

FYI, I adjusted the lighting levels in the cropped image - that's why it looks a bit like a "Warhol image". If you want to see the original image of that lady, then go back to page one and look at the full photo embedded by the OP. So, you can put your insinuations back in their box. Nobody is trying to 'create' any 'ghost', or make part of an image resemble the artwork of some wig-wearing, socially inept homosexual.

You've completely missed the point.

MrMojoRisin

I saw the outline of the woman before I read the words of CoolSmileyGuy's post and before I played around with the zoom function. In other words, I knew exactly what I was looking at, and for, right from the beginning.

I actually thought it was a real woman standing in the background - albeit a bit faded - in the photo until the OP said there had been nobody standing there at the time of the photo being taken.

ISAW

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

I saw the outline of the woman before I read the words of CoolSmileyGuy's post and before I played around with the zoom function. In other words, I knew exactly what I was looking at, and for, right from the beginning.

Exactly my point! You drew the patterns yourself! Just as i saw an image of Marlyn Monroe.

I actually thought it was a real woman standing in the background - albeit a bit faded - in the photo until the OP said there had been nobody standing there at the time of the photo being taken.

Yes. And ??? So what? How does that change my Marlyn or someone else's Bishop Brennan?

MrMojoRisin

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly my point! You drew the patterns yourself! Just as i saw an image of Marlyn Monroe.

What point? Yeah, I've made up my mind what I saw in the photo. You're the one who seems to think we're all seeing Marilyn f uckin Monroe or something just because it looks like a woman. Are all unexplainable images of women in photos Marilyn Monroe in your head??

FYI, I showed the photo to my flatmate, asked him what he saw in the photo, and he said, "A guy in a T-shirt sitting there smiling, another guy's head on the left, and some faded-looking woman at the left in the background".

Wow, LOOK! We're all "drawing patterns"! Straight to Sceptics Gallows for that heinous crime!!

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. And ??? So what? How does that change my Marlyn or someone else's Bishop Brennan?

It doesn't. Keep up your visual fantasies of Marilyn Monroe and Bishop Brennan.

CoolSmileyGuy

Whilst having some spare time today I did some reading about the location of where the picture in question was taken...

First see the embedded picture below, this shows another view of where the picture was taken initially...the little yellow stickman being my work colleague, and the cross being the approx location of the figure in the picture....please note the large stone structure to the left :



Now check this out :

http://www.luigimalones.com/images/wall1.pdf

Also in the PDF you'll see the actual seat I took the picture from which is where the pillar is..

Here's the picture from the pdf, shows exactly where I took the picture from:





I didn't realise this location was so steeped in history when I posted this image initially, to be honest I thought the stone structure was just a fireplace or something...as a skeptic I'm not sure how much bearing this might have on the 'possible' origin of the figure in my original picture...but thought I'd share this info eitherway.

Zombrex

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

The image was captured on a Blackberry 8900 with a 3.2 Megapixel camera...flash was on.

I think you answered your question there.

Digital sensors, particularly cheap digital sensors like those found in camera phones, are notorious for picking up artifacts and ghosts (left over data, not dead spirits) in low light.

The girl was most likely behind your friend at some point you were snapping away, but not when you actually took that photo, it is simply her left over image data confusing the camera sensor when it has so little data to replace it with due to the low light.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you answered your question there.

Digital sensors, particularly cheap digital sensors like those found in camera phones, are notorious for picking up artifacts and ghosts (left over data, not dead spirits) in low light.

The girl was most likely behind your friend at some point you were snapping away, but not when you actually took that photo, it is simply her left over image data confusing the camera sensor when it has so little data to replace it with due to the low light.

I doubt its thats simple. Can you back up this idea of digital double exposures you talk of related to blackberrys?

AnonoBoy

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

After


I don't even know what to think...

See the brightness at the bottom left of that retouched image? That would make me think that it may be some manner of overlay of another picture. Possibly as suggested caused by a faulty sensor.


Here's some examples of people talking about forced and accidental double exposures on digital cameras:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00DPhQ
http://www.flickr.com/groups/double_exposure/discuss/72157622362177028/

maccored

None will do double exposures. It wouldn't be technically impossible, but nor would it have much point. Any decent image editor can combine two pictures with far more flexibility.

i dont get the relevance considering thats one of the first rplies to your first link

AnonoBoy

maccored wrote: »

i dont get the relevance considering thats one of the first rplies to your first link

If you read down further you'll see how somebody did achieve a double exposure 'in-camera'. Also that thread is 5 years old. There are digital cameras that can do it now.

Have you read the second link? An accidental double exposure on an image is being discussed.

My point and the relevance is that digital cameras can take unintentional double exposures and something similar might have happened here.

I think a pertinent question for the OP is - were there people passing behind you around the time of the photo? I know you said there was nobody behind you as it was taken but perhaps a few seconds before somebody moved through while the photographer was preparing to take the shot?

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

I doubt its thats simple.

Why?

maccored wrote: »

Can you back up this idea of digital double exposures you talk of related to blackberrys?

Sure, a 2 second Google finds people discussing ghost images on dark areas in low light.

Today, the predominant architecture used in the design of CMOS image sensors is based on a three-transistor (3T) pixel design.
...
Residual charge on the photodiode brings about image lag in fast-changing dark to light settings which can cause ghost images.

http://www.videsignline.com/howto/174400451

It is pretty simple concept, very similar to how you get double exposures on film.

A digital sensor gets a charge from photons hitting it (ie light). This charge can stay on the sensor unless it is replaced by more light. In low light with dark areas in a photo there is no light coming in to replace the original charge (ghost image on the sensor)

More expensive CMOS sensors in "proper" digital cameras will flush this charge, but the cheap sensors in camera phones often won't because the camera itself only costs a few dollars.

CoolSmileyGuy

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I think a pertinent question for the OP is - were there people passing behind you around the time of the photo? I know you said there was nobody behind you as it was taken but perhaps a few seconds before somebody moved through while the photographer was preparing to take the shot?

Behind the figure to the right is the main stairwell in and out of the basement seating area, so it would be a well traversed path for people entering/exiting the restaurant, so yes its certainly possible that there could have been people there, however, I try to consider myself quite a considerate photographer when taking pictures (even on my Blackberry) so as not to photograph anyone but the subject matter, as I do realise some people do not appreciate being included in other peoples pictures of their nights out or whatever...and I really would have recalled someone else being in the frame other than my colleague with his silly Rib bib thingy.
　
　
I considered it possible that there could have been some kind of double exposure, but the bare fact of the matter is that I have no other images from the evening that resemble this one or the figures in it.
　
　
I was also told by quite a reliable source that the features captured are too static for it to be somebody in passing.

I do appreciate all the logical explanations suggested though!

partyguinness

That is a (dirty/greasy) finger print having touched and smeared on the lens. People getting very worked up about nothing IMO.....

What do people really think it is?

The ghost of a really really really small woman floating in a restaurant posing for a picture...:rolleyes:

Give me patience.

CoolSmileyGuy

partyguinness wrote: »

That is a (dirty/greasy) finger print having touched and smeared on the lens. People getting very worked up about nothing IMO.....

What do people really think it is?

The ghost of a really really really small woman floating in a restaurant posing for a picture...:rolleyes:

Give me patience.

Thanks so much for your constructive theory on the matter...

You might note that this is a sceptics forum and no one here but you so far has mentioned it as being a ghost...

Best go troll elsewhere...

partyguinness

CoolSmileyGuy wrote: »

Thanks so much for your constructive theory on the matter...

You might note that this is a sceptics forum and no one here but you so far has mentioned it as being a ghost...

Best go troll elsewhere...

Riiiigggghhhhttttooo then...so why in God's name have posted this photo in the "Skeptics Corner" in the "Paranormal" thread?

What type of "rational" explantion are you expecting to get in the "Skeptics Corner"?:rolleyes:

If the implication from the thread is not that is some sort of "Paranormal" anomoly i.e. ghost etc then you are in the wrong place, not me. You should have posted in the "Photography" or maybe "Magic & Illusions"

p.s. Accusing someone of trolling usually gets an infraction but as you are new, allowances can be made. Check the rules...;)

pimpmyace

tis a hard one, looking at her clothes and hair she looks like she belongs in the early to mid 80s,

very Moyra hindley looking for me,

overlay sounds like the reason.