Ghost in photo

shcoff

I was shown the attached picture, it was taken in a nightclub at the weekend. i have removed the girls faces to protect their privacy but other than that have not altered it in anyway.

Is it a photoshop or is it real? very good photoshop if it is!

Keith186

Freaky looking. Part of it looks like a reflection but its some coincidence if his reflection was in that position with his arm around her.
I don't believe in paranormal beings but that would scare me if I was that chick in the photo.

Urizen

I'm gonna call shenanigans. I've never seen any pic close to that quality that wasn't fake. It's a damn good shop, but a shop nonetheless.

Tragamin2k2

long exposure and yer one jumped on her back?

chuckliddell

its Halloween remember folks!! photoshoped!

SugarHigh

Tragamin2k2 wrote: »

long exposure and yer one jumped on her back?

I'm pretty sure it's not. With film cameras you can get a situation where photo is printed on top of another one and I've read a discussion where something similar can happen with digital where two images get put into the one file.

Major Lovechild

shcoff wrote: »

I was shown the attached picture, it was taken in a nightclub at the weekend. i have removed the girls faces to protect their privacy but other than that have not altered it in anyway.

Is it a photoshop or is it real? very good photoshop if it is!

It is certainly a fake photo. (I don't say photoshop as I reckon anyone using it would have done a better job.)
Firstly it looks as though it was shot through a glass partition thus giving the reflection of someone on the same side as the camera. Some sort of booth perhaps?
The image of the alleged ghost is actually sharper than the girls in the photo and the highlights on the the said ghost show a different light source. Put the faces back in. In doing so we could rule out one of many digital anomalies that show the ghost and girl to be the same person.
Nice try but no cigar!

faceman

The image isnt sharp, has lens flare and is smokey. It looks like overexposure or a very coincidentally clever reflection,

maccored

with all those ghosty iphone apps these days .....

CMpunked

Its the same girl.

Same hairline, same jaw structure.

MrMojoRisin

The photo is a fake. It's just an image of a living person that's been put into the shot.

Cool photo though. One for the family album!

maccored

CMpunked wrote: »

Its the same girl.

Same hairline, same jaw structure.

interesting, considering one cant see the face of the non ghostly lady

CMpunked

maccored wrote: »

interesting, considering one cant see the face of the non ghostly lady

yeah, it is quite convenient

maccored

i agree with major lovechild in that it looks like the camera was behind some kind of glass partition

Professey Chin

Just looks like a ghost app for Android/iPhone

maximoose

oh dear.

KeithAFC

I wish people would stop faking photos.

fryup

adobe photoshop what a great graphics program

Major Lovechild

Such a pity it wasn't used here.

Riamfada

Major Lovechild wrote: »

Such a pity it wasn't used here.

Nice... Its not a photoshop job, I cant see why people think it is.

6th

I love how people can say one way or another what it is or isnt and be 100% certain based on just lookign at the version of the image here. Its laughable

CMpunked

Looking at it again, zoomed in to the max and thing is i might have to retort and say its possibly not a photoshop job. The green hue in the corner isnt cut, there is a definite fuzz that wouldn't be there if it was overlapped with another image.

alex73

love photoshop!

6th

I've been using PS since version 3.1 and used it professionally for over a decade. I "could" do and image like that if I was arse but claiming to know anything about this specific image based on looking at this thread is either arrogance or ignorance.

Riamfada

Im sure if someone had the skills to do something like that in photoshop they would have used better subject matter.

6th

I think if someone was to fake a photo then the subjects in this case would be a very clever idea. These are the exact type of people who would get excited and share the image via social networking sites. The idea that amazing things like this can happen to everyone make it much more acceptable and believable ... for some.

Major Lovechild

6th wrote: »

I've been using PS since version 3.1 and used it professionally for over a decade. I "could" do and image like that if I was arse but claiming to know anything about this specific image based on looking at this thread is either arrogance or ignorance.

Perhaps you are right. I use it professionally also and the fact that I am arrogant has nothing to do with it. I am hardly going ignore the fact that this is a fake ghost photo. An image that has been doctored admittedly by the op....!!!! Ah here!...Stop!

maccored

6th wrote: »

I've been using PS since version 3.1 and used it professionally for over a decade.

I still have the floppies from 2.5. the basics never changed much after v4 i think.

maccored

6th wrote: »

I love how people can say one way or another what it is or isnt and be 100% certain based on just lookign at the version of the image here. Its laughable

no offense, but I think you find thats part of being human. All of us have opinions, and I'll wager very few DONT have an opinion on if its real or fake.

It has to be either one, and I wouldnt bet on the 'real' option.

6th

maccored wrote: »

no offense, but I think you find thats part of being human. All of us have opinions, and I'll wager very few DONT have an opinion on if its real or fake.

It has to be either one, and I wouldnt bet on the 'real' option.

I agree with you to a point but an opinion is one thing, stating it as fact is another.

maccored

'thats shopped cus I can see the pixels' is a common refrain over the web in regards to many photos. usually by people who havent used photoshop.

maccored

they think its some kind of magic program with an 'insert inexplicable thing' button in it.

6th

maccored wrote: »

they think its some kind of magic program with an 'insert inexplicable thing' button in it.

And that its the only image manipulation programme out there!

Johnny Utah

That's the worst case of anorexia I've ever seen!

Abelloid

Check the EXIF data on the original pic, I bet it's a high ISO (slow shutter speed) combined with a strobe or flash in the night club.

6th

If it was very slow shutter then everyone would have to be standing fairly stil .... apart from the Ghost of course

Abelloid

6th wrote: »

If it was very slow shutter then everyone would have to be standing fairly stil .... apart from the Ghost of course

Depends on the lighting.... It's not a ghost, that I am certain of.

tigerblob

This is shopped. Badly!

Riamfada

tigerblob wrote: »

This is shopped. Badly!

can you elaborate?

alex73

The Photo is transposed, Basically a photo from a reflection married with the party foto. The real give away is the arm of the "Ghost". Its not just the "Ghost" that has been added but lots of other stuff.

Biggest give away are the 2 light reflections!!. I mean how dumb can you get..

So there is no possibilities here,, only the reality of a poor photoshop of 2 different photos.

CorkMan

[IMG][/img]http://cdn.theboxhouston.com/files/2010/06/50-PAC-PIX.jpg

Here is another ghost photo, 2Pac is standing next to 50 Cent. (Pac died in 1996)

:rolleyes: