Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What Do You Think?
02-25-2016, 03:07 PM
Post: #11
RE: What Do You Think?
(02-25-2016 11:40 AM)SeVeN Wrote:  I know for a fact that photoshop was not used.

This is completely incorrect. If you read the thread, someone has posted the exif data and it clearly says that Photoshop was used. Furthermore, the photos also have been obviously cropped. Tell us another one.

[Image: space.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2016, 04:41 PM
Post: #12
RE: What Do You Think?
To SeVeN,
As bigshow and Vultyrex pointed out the meta data says Photoshop. Its been in Photoshop. So telling us its not been in Photoshop is a lie. While I can't tell step by step what was done ELA tells us how clean a image is.

First picture the ELA is weird there are no contrast points period, so I think angel is right its either so a Photoshop layer or maybe a slide of glass. Because the image shouldn't be uniform "snow" as a ELA
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...bb0.105618
Second picture definitely some Editing.
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...84ee.72222
The big white blotches give it away.

"Studies Show...Intelligent girls are more depressed, because they know what the world is really like.....She knows in society she's either a Devil or an Angel with no in between. She speaks in the third person, so that she can forget that she's me." ~Emily Autumn
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2016, 09:50 PM (This post was last modified: 02-25-2016 09:51 PM by SeVeN.)
Post: #13
RE: What Do You Think?
(02-25-2016 03:07 PM)Vultyrex Wrote:  
(02-25-2016 11:40 AM)SeVeN Wrote:  I know for a fact that photoshop was not used.

This is completely incorrect. If you read the thread, someone has posted the exif data and it clearly says that Photoshop was used. Furthermore, the photos also have been obviously cropped. Tell us another one.

Perhaps you should have waited until I posted the original meta data first. If yours says photoshop was used then one of you saved over the data from within your own Photoshop and then used the Fotoforensics site. You can't use a copy of a copy of a copy and expect accurate results. The compression ruins it. That's not how it works. See links to the Fotoforensics below. As I stated, there has NO editing been done. No Photoshop. We don't even own Photoshop.

I came to you guys in good faith. I'm open to opinions but calling me a liar does not command respect from me.

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...3&show=ela

File
File Type JPEG
File Type Extension jpg
MIME Type image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Image Width 900
Image Height 1600
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
EXIF
X Resolution 72
Y Resolution 72
Resolution Unit inches
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered
Exif Version 0221
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Exif Image Width 900
Exif Image Height 1600
Scene Capture Type Standard
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset 286
Thumbnail Length 6013
Composite
Thumbnail Image (Binary data 6013 bytes)
Image Size 900x1600
Megapixels 1.4

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...5a2.120665

File
File Type JPEG
File Type Extension jpg
MIME Type image/jpeg
Exif Byte Order Big-endian (Motorola, MM)
Image Width 900
Image Height 1600
Encoding Process Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample 8
Color Components 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)
EXIF
X Resolution 72
Y Resolution 72
Resolution Unit inches
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered
Exif Version 0221
Components Configuration Y, Cb, Cr, -
Flashpix Version 0100
Color Space sRGB
Exif Image Width 900
Exif Image Height 1600
Scene Capture Type Standard
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Thumbnail Offset 286
Thumbnail Length 5232
Composite
Thumbnail Image (Binary data 5232 bytes)
Image Size 900x1600
Megapixels 1.4
(02-25-2016 04:41 PM)Fair_Luminary Wrote:  To SeVeN,
As bigshow and Vultyrex pointed out the meta data says Photoshop. Its been in Photoshop. So telling us its not been in Photoshop is a lie. While I can't tell step by step what was done ELA tells us how clean a image is.

First picture the ELA is weird there are no contrast points period, so I think angel is right its either so a Photoshop layer or maybe a slide of glass. Because the image shouldn't be uniform "snow" as a ELA
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...bb0.105618
Second picture definitely some Editing.
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...84ee.72222
The big white blotches give it away.

See my response above.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2016, 11:46 PM (This post was last modified: 02-25-2016 11:52 PM by Vultyrex.)
Post: #14
RE: What Do You Think?
It's now quite obvious you have posted two different sets of images. Seems that your first post has two smaller sizes of the images. Now you're giving us a larger version of the image. Tell us what you used to resize the image to a smaller resolution and why didn't you just post the original images in the first place?
Furthermore, the only reason why we got Photoshop origin is from the images you posted in your first post.

[Image: space.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-25-2016, 11:57 PM
Post: #15
RE: What Do You Think?
(02-25-2016 11:46 PM)Vultyrex Wrote:  It's now quite obvious you have posted two different sets of images. Seems that your first post has two smaller sizes of the images. Now you're giving us a larger version of the image. Tell us what you used to resize the image to a smaller resolution and why didn't you just post the original images in the first place?

Pretty sure the host website (photobucket) would re-size the image automatically.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2016, 10:00 AM
Post: #16
RE: What Do You Think?
I like how you don't have photoshop yet you know how ELA works? While file size is something to consider its FAR less of a problem in a image of the size you gave us. What you first gave us was 450x800, now the "reported" originals are 900x1600? Exactly half sized, size can be a issue when images are made much smaller{such as an avatar} yes, but the picture as it was is large enough to get a fairly good ELA.

Your "new" file I see barely see reference points, aka no clear edges. The first one you submitted had relatively easily identified reference points. See the MORE you save a picture the more data is lost. Original files have clear edges, even low quality ones. The lack of clear edges in itself proves this is NOT an original. And my guess is you tampered with it more to "try and clean up the ELA".

I took this picture on my phone{2.0 megapixles if I recall-my phone sucks I buy cheap ones because I break phones often}. Anyway I was in a restaurant with very poor lightning at night. This was by the door. I took the picture to express the sign guy had the right idea because the place was terrible.
http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id...6cd.179881
Even as dark as the image is the edge detail is there, on the sign, the door frame. Finer details can be made out, the edges of the sign, the door knob, a hint of the white car in the parking lot. The surfaces in general have the same texture.

I still see the pixel clumping that I originally found odd in the first version of picture two you linked us still. Because it wasn't that it was white that it stuck out to me, visibly the pattern of the picture was off. And the link with the "ghost face" is no clearer either. As originals they should have reference points. What you did was edited the photo until ELA shows nothing.

All of this can be verified by reading the tutorials on the website for ELA.
http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.php

Meta data can be removed, its not hard some upload sites do it automatically.

"Studies Show...Intelligent girls are more depressed, because they know what the world is really like.....She knows in society she's either a Devil or an Angel with no in between. She speaks in the third person, so that she can forget that she's me." ~Emily Autumn
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2016, 10:21 AM
Post: #17
RE: What Do You Think?
Do you live in the same area as your aunt/uncle? Would you be able to investigate this further?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2016, 10:23 AM
Post: #18
RE: What Do You Think?
All that technical stuff makes my brain and eyes go Goofy

The hero is brave in deeds as well as words - Aesop

Please all, and you will please none - Aesop
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2016, 10:33 AM
Post: #19
RE: What Do You Think?
(02-23-2016 04:37 PM)SeVeN Wrote:  Hello,

The attached photos were sent to me by my aunt who has claimed to be able to see ghosts since she was very young. The ghostly images were not seen with the naked eye. She sensed a presence in the room in the house she lives in, so she decided to just start shooting random photos with her camera phone. I have not found any evidence that the photos were tampered. One is a front facing ghost, and one is a profile shot. Maybe someone else can evaluate them and give some input?

I'm a believer in what we call "ghosts" or "poltergeists" but I also look for a reasonable explanation first. I'm not one to jump to conclusions that something is a ghost Smile

Just as a side note, the house my aunt and uncle live in sounds like it's very haunted, by the stories they tell me. Shadow figures, stuff flying around, keys missing and then reappearing, dogs barking violently at nothing, etc.

Thanks!

I'm a little confused. Did you take this picture? Or did your aunt, as stated above?

-DFB

Subject: I have a black cat.
Believer: Black cats are bad luck.
Non-believer: It's just a cat.
Crackpot: Black cats are part of the New World Order government conspiracy.
Skeptic: I can test if black cats are more or less lucky than another cat.
Cynic: You only have a black cat to gain power and prestige.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9iIf4tFoyE
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
02-26-2016, 11:31 AM
Post: #20
RE: What Do You Think?
Let me guess ... the aunt took it and she would
1. never prank you
2. She does not have the know how to fake a picture

Its pretty amazing how over the years how many honest people with no tech savoy have tricked either family member or friends.

Belief bias occurs when we make illogical conclusions in order to confirm our preexisting beliefs. Belief perseverance refers to our tendency to maintain a belief even after the evidence we used to form the belief is contradicted.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)