Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Topic RSS
Offline
Hey, Everyone!
I am curious. Has anyone ever had someone show you orbs, or any other questionable item on a photo taken with a cell-phone camera? Last night, I was on http://www.coasttocoastam.com, and someone took a close-up of a little girl's face, and directly behind her is the face of an older woman(who was not there physically). This is the first time I have ever heard of an incident with cell-phone photography. I would like to hear someone's opinion about cell-phone camera's, and their reliability in catching entities/orbs?
~ MidnightPoet
Offline
Hey, Everyone!
I am curious. Has anyone ever had someone show you orbs, or any other questionable item on a photo taken with a cell-phone camera? Last night, I was on http://www.coasttocoastam.com, and someone took a close-up of a little girl's face, and directly behind her is the face of an older woman(who was not there physically). This is the first time I have ever heard of an incident with cell-phone photography. I would like to hear someone's opinion about cell-phone camera's, and their reliability in catching entities/orbs?
~ MidnightPoet
The only fundamental difference between a cell phone and a $5K D-SLR is the image resolution and the quality of the lens. They both "see" the same thing, and both record the image with the same basic technology. One other relatively minor difference is that a high end D-SLR can store the image as a RAW file, totally uncompressed exactly as each pixel was scanned. A cell phone will almost universally compress the image file before storage, usually as a low-quality (lossy) JPEG. This makes sense, since nobody uses cell phones for professional photography (it would be like using Paris Hilton for quantum physics).
Could the JPEG compression algorithm introduce an extra person into the picture? Highly unlikely, since it saves file space by grouping similar pixels together into blocks and subtracting the unnecessary information. Far more likely to be a distortion aberration of the cheap plastic lens. The "older woman" behind the subject could just be a distorted reflection of the girl in the picture. It could also be an entity, but it's much easier to analyze the details in a good quality photo.
Offline
could it also be a fraud Jyb?
download pic to computer, photoshop, upload back to phone. viola
i dont trust any digital photos anymore,
(unless it's from someone i trust)
way too easy in this day and age to fake
Offline
Well, I have dabbled off and on in photography since 1983. I used to own an Olympus OM-10, which I bought in February, 1983. I took some great photo's with it, and sold it in about 1999. I still kick myself in the butt for selling it. I wish I had it back! I might scout around and get another one that is in almost "perfect/pristine" condition. It's just that, this photo is bizarre. Go to, http://www.coasttocoastam.com, and then to "Ian's Blog," and look at the photo he's posted there. It could be a fake, then again, it could be a "real shot." Tell me what you think.
I agree with what you are saying though.
~ MidnightPoet
The only fundamental difference between a cell phone and a $5K D-SLR is the image resolution and the quality of the lens. They both "see" the same thing, and both record the image with the same basic technology. One other relatively minor difference is that a high end D-SLR can store the image as a RAW file, totally uncompressed exactly as each pixel was scanned. A cell phone will almost universally compress the image file before storage, usually as a low-quality (lossy) JPEG. This makes sense, since nobody uses cell phones for professional photography (it would be like using Paris Hilton for quantum physics).
Could the JPEG compression algorithm introduce an extra person into the picture? Highly unlikely, since it saves file space by grouping similar pixels together into blocks and subtracting the unnecessary information. Far more likely to be a distortion aberration of the cheap plastic lens. The "older woman" behind the subject could just be a distorted reflection of the girl in the picture. It could also be an entity, but it's much easier to analyze the details in a good quality photo.
Offline
could it also be a fraud Jyb?
download pic to computer, photoshop, upload back to phone. viola
i dont trust any digital photos anymore,
(unless it's from someone i trust)
way too easy in this day and age to fake
Heidi, I agree. Then again, we should never count out what we don't know, because the "Other Side" might be able to do things that we might think "impossible." I always keep the door open for possibilities.
~ MidnightPoet
Offline
saw the pic. i would definitely say photoshop
Offline
Heidi, I agree. Then again, we should never count out what we don't know, because the "Other Side" might be able to do things that we might think "impossible." I always keep the door open for possibilities.
~ MidnightPoet
I dont count out the fact there could be ghosts, I just dont trust the living /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
too easy to fake pics now
Offline
I dont count out the fact there could be ghosts, I just dont trust the living
/wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
too easy to fake pics now
Heidi, I agree completely! I am a "critical thinker" at heart, and a "paranoid," don't trust anyone, especially in this day and age. I thought it looked fake to me, then again, because I am kind of new to this, I still try and keep my mind open. I have been collecting books about ghosts and ghost hunting since about 1998 or 1999. I am well past 20 books now on ghosts and ghost hunting. Not many, but they are very good quality books, so, it's a start. My goal is to be into ghost hunting within 3 years or less. I will be about 50 then. I am a young 47 now. Hey, Grandma Moses started painting in her 70's, and lived till her 90's, so, there's still hope for me. /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':D' />
Offline
Heidi, I agree completely! I am a "critical thinker" at heart, and a "paranoid," don't trust anyone, especially in this day and age. I thought it looked fake to me, then again, because I am kind of new to this, I still try and keep my mind open. I have been collecting books about ghosts and ghost hunting since about 1998 or 1999. I am well past 20 books now on ghosts and ghost hunting. Not many, but they are very good quality books, so, it's a start. My goal is to be into ghost hunting within 3 years or less. I will be about 50 then. I am a young 47 now. Hey, Grandma Moses started painting in her 70's, and lived till her 90's, so, there's still hope for me.
/laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
the way the neck is cut really gives it away.
i love reading about ghosts too. i dont know that i'll do a ghost hunt, but i do believe.
Offline
the way the neck is cut really gives it away.
i love reading about ghosts too. i dont know that i'll do a ghost hunt, but i do believe.
Gosh, I want to ghost hunt so badly, but don't want to go till I am fully prepared!
Offline
Gosh, I want to ghost hunt so badly, but don't want to go till I am fully prepared!
I think it would be fun to do one…well, boring too (i'm a realist /wink.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> )
but trying to get into a group around here is impossible, the paranormal
is the latest fad so lots of people are trying to get into them, and im
not someone to start my own investigations.
Offline
Film can be faked now too, by photoshopping a hi-res image and printing it on a high DPI printer before photographing the print. The printer ink blurs the digitization enough that the film grain captures what appears to be a pure image. It's just like counterfeiting money though, in that a hack-job will be easily spotted, but a true artist can go for years without being caught.
Heck, a good photographer can make Demi Moore actually look like someone that should be married to Ashton Kutcher. At some point, a slightly soft focus becomes everybody's friend…
Offline
Heck, a good photographer can make Demi Moore actually look like someone that should be married to Ashton Kutcher. At some point, a slightly soft focus becomes everybody's friend…
too bad life didnt have a soft foucs /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Offline
If this is the picture that I'm thinking of; a young girl looking at the camera and an older woman looking over the girl's right shoulder, then it was brought to the public's attention through a radio station. There's about 15 pages of discussion of it over at one of the TAPS forums. I participated in the debate and most everyone there thinks it's faked as well. Now there are some people over there that I do trust to a degree, they were debating how easy it is to photoshop anything these days. One person was able to photoshop in a picture/avatar of another member behind the girl. It looks pretty real.
How to spot the fake? Sometimes it's very hard. Being able to look at a pictures' exif information is valuable. Other than that, it can be very hard. Usually I have the opinion that if it's by a person I don't know and can't trust the conditions the picture was taken in, then it's a fake until proven otherwise.
Offline
That's the best way to keep from falling for a fake. "It's a fake till proven authentic," which is kind of the way I act toward people on the Internet, "they are not to be trusted till they prove themselves to me, therefore liars till proven trustworthy. Guilty till proven innocent." /unsure.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
If this is the picture that I'm thinking of; a young girl looking at the camera and an older woman looking over the girl's right shoulder, then it was brought to the public's attention through a radio station. There's about 15 pages of discussion of it over at one of the TAPS forums. I participated in the debate and most everyone there thinks it's faked as well. Now there are some people over there that I do trust to a degree, they were debating how easy it is to photoshop anything these days. One person was able to photoshop in a picture/avatar of another member behind the girl. It looks pretty real.
How to spot the fake? Sometimes it's very hard. Being able to look at a pictures' exif information is valuable. Other than that, it can be very hard. Usually I have the opinion that if it's by a person I don't know and can't trust the conditions the picture was taken in, then it's a fake until proven otherwise.
Offline
That's the best way to keep from falling for a fake. "It's a fake till proven authentic," which is kind of the way I act toward people on the Internet, "they are not to be trusted till they prove themselves to me, therefore liars till proven trustworthy. Guilty till proven innocent."
/unsure.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
I've had a lot of experience with "fake" online.
I really should adopt your attitude, but I'm too
trusting, though not as much as I use to be.
Offline
I wish I could contribute. I'm still shocked you can upload photos to a cell phone.
Offline
I wish I could contribute. I'm still shocked you can upload photos to a cell phone.
Karen, I agree, because I never knew that you could do that, either. Then again, I did not realize till about a year or so ago that someone could sit in their car with a "receiver unit" and catch your cars' door-lock code via the airwaves when you get out of your car and lock it with your little gadget on your key ring. I don't have to worry about it, because I have a 1999 Honda Civic LX. LOL!!! It has a factory cassette player in it, with Pioneer speakers. Plays like a dream! /laugh.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Anyway, I have a hard time fully trusting any "ghost photo," just because I don't know anything about the person who took it, or even if they took it at all. I bet for every 10 "ghost photo's" you see nowadays, probably only 1 or 2 out of those 10 will be "The Real Deal," and, maybe all of them are fake. I tend to be slightly more trusting of established ghost hunting societies which have been around awhile, and are fairly trustworthy. But, photo's from individuals, "guilty, till proven innocent!"
~ MidnightPoet
Offline
Anyway, I have a hard time fully trusting any "ghost photo," just because I don't know anything about the person who took it, or even if they took it at all. I bet for every 10 "ghost photo's" you see nowadays, probably only 1 or 2 out of those 10 will be "The Real Deal," and, maybe all of them are fake. I tend to be slightly more trusting of established ghost hunting societies which have been around awhile, and are fairly trustworthy. But, photo's from individuals, "guilty, till proven innocent!"
~ MidnightPoet
I think you're begin overly optimistic Poet. I'd have a hard time
saying that 1 or 2 out of 1000 were legit.
Offline
I think you're begin overly optimistic Poet. I'd have a hard time
saying that 1 or 2 out of 1000 were legit.
I was just using that as a "for example." I agree with you, which is why I wrote, "…maybe "all" of them are fake." I was not being optimistic at all! /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
~ MidnightPoet
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
11 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2962
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1893
Posts: 104956
Newest Members: zoinsimark, tymnBalaync
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427), jackny46 (0), Jack K. (0)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5544), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground