 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Redhead666 Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Great Old One Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Total posts: 259 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Age: 43 Gender: Female |
 Posted: 23-02-2011 00:01 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| coaly wrote: | It's not artifact, and it's not a long shutter speed. Two options, it's either manipulated, or a mirror/display pic. The pixels are uniform to the entire photograph, but there's some fogging, or blurring around the edges, (Not motion blur).
I do genuinely look forward to seeing the other pics from the shop, and the recreation.  |
I can absolutely assure you the pic has never been tampered with. The photos went straight to the store photo-lab to be printed from the camera, then to a drawer in the cosmetic department, where they get glanced at every now and then.
Once I post a pic of the area in question, you will also see how there is nothing there for reflection----just some white shelves with makeup products on them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Redhead666 Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Great Old One Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Total posts: 259 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Age: 43 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 00:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| linesmachine wrote: | It sure is an odd image.
@redhead666: Does the image at all resemble any of the other people who were at the location that day? I ask because I've seen something similar caught with a digital camera last year. When shooting indoors cameras struggle with exposure, and when the indoor area is well lit (like this) the camera doesn't fire the flash, it chooses to use a longer shutter time instead. This might account for the decapitated head, but I'm not convinced. |
Many people attend these makeup events. There could have been as many as 200 + women there that day so there is no way to tell if the face is of a customer.
As for shutter speeds, I can't answer that. I didn't work there then. One of the employees took the pic with an every day run-of-the-mill digital camera. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 00:08 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| It's a long shot I know, but do you even slightly recognise the mystery face? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Redhead666 Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Great Old One Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Total posts: 259 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Age: 43 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 00:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| gncxx wrote: | | It's a long shot I know, but do you even slightly recognise the mystery face? |
No, sorry. Everyone who works there has seen this pic by now---no one knows who it could be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 00:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Redhead666 wrote: | | gncxx wrote: | | It's a long shot I know, but do you even slightly recognise the mystery face? |
No, sorry. Everyone who works there has seen this pic by now---no one knows who it could be. |
In that case she was probably a customer if she was anybody. But a customer from where? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JackDark Great Old One Joined: 16 Mar 2005 Total posts: 191 Location: Manchester, UK Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 00:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Werecow wrote: |
For months I'd been assuming the blur was a strange artifact of the fellow at the back moving away quickly, especially as I took several pictures in sequence, and the next shows only the groom and trainer in frame. However, looking at it again (and looking at it full size, which I hadn't recently), I think those of you who think it's the jockey are probably right; he's wearing similar colours to the man behind, so the overlap/blur created this effect that confused my (and appparently not just my!) eye. However, as said, I have a whole sequence of pictures and the jockey's not in any of them, just the other three, hence why this perfectly reasonable explanation never occurred to me. He must have scampered out of frame pretty right quick, the little bugger. So it's not as relevant as I thought, but I'm glad that mystery has been cleared up at least. |
Maybe it's the time of night and I'm knackered, but my head is spinning with that 'explanation'.
Can you clarify: - when you took that photo did you think there were 3 people there, or 4? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| linesmachine Great Old One Joined: 23 Aug 2003 Total posts: 1002 Location: Oxfordia UK Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 12:02 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Werecow wrote: | | I think those of you who think it's the jockey are probably right; he's wearing similar colours to the man behind, so the overlap/blur created this effect that confused my (and appparently not just my!) eye. However, as said, I have a whole sequence of pictures and the jockey's not in any of them, just the other three, hence why this perfectly reasonable explanation never occurred to me. He must have scampered out of frame pretty right quick, the little bugger. |
@jackdark: Werecows current thoughts are indicated above. We reckon it's a jockey (dismounting?) and then he doesn't feature in the next shots in the series becuase he's scarpered! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| norton51 Great Old One Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Total posts: 130 Gender: Unknown |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BlackRiverFalls I wear a fez now.
Joined: 03 Aug 2003 Total posts: 8716 Location: The Attic of Blinky Lights Age: 44 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 23-02-2011 14:01 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Do they make one that looks kind of like a bad transvestite? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Redhead666 Eat right, exercise, die anyway.
Great Old One Joined: 09 Aug 2005 Total posts: 259 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Age: 43 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 25-02-2011 02:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ok, here is a picture of that same area where the original pic was taken. It was as close as I could get it to the angle in the original--I apologize for it not being exactly the same ( that is hard to do!).
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/RedheadGrrrrr/LW.jpg
PLease note that in the original pic under the floating head, there is a yellowish-greenish blur. That is a type of makeup product and since the first pic was taken, those products have moved to the right a bit so they will not appear in the same space.
Also note, there is no mirror or reflective surface in the area and there wasn't when the first pic was taken, either.
And, we do not use the "training heads" as previously mentioned (only live (or not live, ha ha ha) heads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| norton51 Great Old One Joined: 18 Sep 2007 Total posts: 130 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-02-2011 12:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Quite a lot seems to have changed between the original photo and the comparison one. I guess that reflects stock being moved around and special things coming in for the demonstration.
Just a few additional thoughts on the original 'phantom head' photo. It is quite blurry, compared to the new photo, suggesting a longish exposure. Given the lack of flash and the indoor setting that isn't too surprising. The left and bottom edges of the phantom face are particularly blurry.
The picture appears to have been cropped. The resolution is low but that could just be the very high compression.
The size of the phantom head looks disproportionately small compared with the two women, given that anyone physically standing there could have been no more than centimetres behind.
None of these factors is incompatible with a long exposure shot accompanied by significant camera movement. Without getting hold of the original, complete with EXIF info, it's impossible to eliminate that as a possibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coaly Banned
Great Old One Joined: 12 Jun 2009 Total posts: 831 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 25-02-2011 13:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
It may be just me, but it, (the original)... looks a rather lot like a botched Photoshop affair. Someone's used the clone tool to add people to the background, and given up. Maybe someone was messing about with it, and got distracted, or gave up, and the file was saved, and no one noticed. It does look an awful lot like an addition, digitally. But you did say, this wasn't possible,so it's a mystery, until more details arise.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-02-2011 17:37 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Thanks for going to the trouble Redhead, but as expected it doesn't clear up the mystery. Coaly is right that if there's nothing there in reality, it is likely to have been something affecting the picture as it was in the camera, but don't ask me what! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 9109 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 25-02-2011 22:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| coaly wrote: | | It may be just me, but it, (the original)... looks a rather lot like a botched Photoshop affair. Someone's used the clone tool to add people to the background, and given up. Maybe someone was messing about with it, and got distracted, or gave up, and the file was saved, and no one noticed. It does look an awful lot like an addition, digitally. But you did say, this wasn't possible,so it's a mystery, until more details arise. |
I thought 'Photoshop' too, as there are some really jagged edges, if you zoom right in on the photo. That's just the way it looks, not necessarily how it is.
Edit: I would say the original photo was probably a jpeg. It's probably been cropped and of course the faces cut out, and then probably saved as a jpeg again.
Each time you re-save a jpeg, it applies jpeg compression and you get more compression artifacts appearing. If you zoom right in on that pic, there are a lot of artifacts... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| coaly Banned
Great Old One Joined: 12 Jun 2009 Total posts: 831 Gender: Female |
| Posted: 26-02-2011 03:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Has anyone noticed in the new pic, the very large mirror to the left? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
