Forums

Posted: 27-02-2011 17:26 Post subject:

No, the designer who features strongly in the salon, has her name in at least two places, both the right way round, as in here. (My apologies for filling in the faces, it's less distracting!) Very Happy

http://i788.photobucket.com/albums/yy169/coaly66/ghostface_7.jpg

Posted: 27-02-2011 17:53 Post subject:

That would look the same if the mirror image was flipped and the girl was left handed.

It's very hard to say though, as the area does seem to have changed a lot from when the photo was taken. Perhaps it is just a mystery.

Posted: 28-02-2011 22:11 Post subject:

Hi there!

Long time reader, short-time subscriber and just recently found the forums Smile

Having a blast!

Having said that, I know how much we all like to speculate and how we all like a good mystery to wrap our lobes around - but im afraid I may have to burst your bubble on this one as it is my opinion that this image has indeed been tampered with.

Please dont mistake me, I am not calling the OP a liar, something could have happened between the picture being taken and printed that is genuinely explainable in a different way, this is just my opinion, take it or leave it.

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8415/imageun.jpg

This is the picture moderately exposed. Ive noted this one as the yellow glowing contour that hugs the bodies of the other two people stops abruptly between the womans shoulder and the "disembodied" head.
I believe this I can explain.

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6189/imageun1.jpg
Here is a close up of it. I believe this is a feather radius colour OR an artifact of a superimposed blur.
Also, where the "disembodied" head's mouth is, it overlaps the womans ear very slightly.

Number one:

Note the Pixelation at the bottom of this "Disembodied" head. Where the chin rounds, it blurs and suddenly solidifies into a straight line.
Also note worthy is something I cant explain - look to the left of the white box where the womans face should be and you will see two very small, yet precise exclaimation marks.

Number 2:

This I believe is a feather/blur radius - I appologise for my crude circles here - it abruptly stops. There is no gradient fade - it just finishes as if the picture put there is smaller than the origonal it is being put on.
Also note worthy here - look at the womans hair line where she meets the "Disembodied" head - the orange contour is the exposure line, you can see where the head over-laps the tips of her spiked hair.

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/9779/imageun12.jpg

This is the image inverted (with the circles removed) - it is easier to see the feather/blur radius and the over-lapped parts of her hair. Also the exclaimation marks are more pronounced - if anyone can explain that, let me know, im baffled.

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/3449/imageun123.jpg

This is the image equalized and inverted. It is easier to see the feather/blur radius and if you look at the "Disembodied" head you will notice that part of the face below the eye socket seems to be missing - it is a little jut that I cannot put down entirely to pixelation.

I believe this same effect can be acheived by using the clone tool in a photo-editing program and carfully trying to place one picture besides another.
This would, however, cause an obvious over-lapping effect that can only be reduced by using the blur tool and tracing the contour of the image. In this case, the "disembodied" head is from a smaller picture, hence why the edge abruptly stops and does not fade into the background.

Posted: 01-03-2011 02:24 Post subject:

Themadwatcher, congratulations on your hard work! I didn't want to rock the boat, or accuse anyone, but I knew, bare faced fact, that the image was highly manipulated, not particularly by the poster, but by someone in-between, as the face is "unfinished" but in a digital manner. The contrasting inteferance, out of line with the rest of the image, forces one to come to this conclusion. It's all too easy for someone to "test" the powers of persuation in these instances, and when faced with such contradictions of logic, understanding, and claim, it's not unforgivable for one to not to point the finger at meddling. Confused

On further inspection, I found myself at odds with some of the claims, but, I truly do believe the original poster is innocent of manipulation, or any other fabrication. What I do believe, however, is that the image is a PS job.
Sorry. Sad

Posted: 01-03-2011 13:08 Post subject:

Posted: 01-03-2011 14:21 Post subject:

Hi Everyone,

I appreciate your hard work on trying to determine if this is indeed a ghost or something weird. Some of your explanations have left me thinking, "what is this person talking about??", as I know very little about photo manipulation.

However, I would like to clear up a couple of things. These are the facts as I know them:

1. This picture was taken on a digital camera, processed immediately in the store photo lab and then the pics were haphazardly tossed in a drawer, where recently one of the employees looked at them and noticed this "anomoly".
To my knowledge, this photo has never been tampered with or photo-shopped as the time-line of the events I just wrote here do not allow for that to occur.

2. The mirror in the left of the pic is a large built-in stationary mirror which can never be moved. Based on where it is positioned, it is not possible for it to reflect anything in the area where the floating head appears.

3. The yellowish blob, as I previously mentioned, is Lise Watier products. They are neon yellowy green tubes that hold lip moisturizer. Since the floating head pic was taken, these items have been moved further to the right on the shelf. Themadwatcher has this circled in one the pics, but I assure you this is skincare products and nothing else.

4. I love a ghost as much as the next person, and I suppose we'll never know if this is or not, but I would testify that I have never done anything to manipulate this picture...I wouldn't even know how!

Thanks to everyone for their input...it IS interesting to try to figure out what it could be.

Posted: 01-03-2011 14:25 Post subject:

P.S. I will re-photograph the neon yellowy-greeny Lise watier product on the shelf to show you what it looks like in a better photo. I will post it tomorrow night...I don't work today! Smile

Posted: 01-03-2011 15:09 Post subject:

Posted: 01-03-2011 16:01 Post subject:

redhead, i do not think anybody is saying you manipulated the image,but they are saying it was changed before you got hold of it?

Posted: 01-03-2011 19:24 Post subject:

I think it's probably only a glitch, TBH.

Posted: 17-03-2011 20:30 Post subject:

re: Original picture
I can see what looks like a girl in a skirt. Her head goes just above the outlined portion further down on page one. It looks like a double exposure would. Very light compared to the main picture.
re: video
The weird thing in that video is at :47 when something moves out of the doorway past the camera to its right. I was thinking that the light was odd, but looked like an insect, and saw that at :47.

Posted: 18-03-2011 12:26 Post subject:

re the video

It looks like time lapse which could be why things are moving very rapidly, making them difficult to identify. The illumination is low, leading to artefacts. Is it infrared or light intensifier?