Ghost appears in pals' photograph

[sosboots]

if you inlarge it and run it throught a program like DVR focus Pro, you can see the complete child laying on the floor behind them, this is a great photo but i bit more time on photoshop before uploading onto the phone it could have been better.

the girl on the right of the face her knee has been feathered out to try and hide the boys body.. and in the close up you can even see where the jeans have been feathered out.

Edited January 28, 2008 by sosboots

[RX-7]

if you inlarge it and run it throught a program like DVR focus Pro, you can see the complete child laying on the floor behind them, this is a great photo but i bit more time on photoshop before uploading onto the phone it could have been better.

the girl on the right of the face her knee has been feathered out to try and hide the boys body.. and in the close up you can even see where the jeans have been feathered out.

I'd love to see this pic from DVR Focus Pro, any chance you can post it here?

[Sporkling]

if you inlarge it and run it throught a program like DVR focus Pro, you can see the complete child laying on the floor behind them, this is a great photo but i bit more time on photoshop before uploading onto the phone it could have been better.

the girl on the right of the face her knee has been feathered out to try and hide the boys body.. and in the close up you can even see where the jeans have been feathered out.

great find sos

[FairyJosie25]

Seems like most are just smaller, maybe a little grain, but this one is pretty bad. With so many out there it wouldn't surprise me though. Do hers look that grainy right off the camera or do they just look that way when you zoom in? Anyone else have a phone cam that takes pics that grainy?

Yeah, mine are pretty bad, too, especially when I zoom in. Stupid phone.... hoping to get a better one next time.

[RX-7]

great find sos

[sosboots]

I'd love to see this pic from DVR Focus Pro, any chance you can post it here?

as you can see the childs knees are up under her chin and her backside is behind the girls jeans. if you look at the colored inmage you can see where they feathered the jeans trying to hide the backside.

hoope the pic works.

[Demonic Poltergiest]

i would be wondering why the little girl was crying? maybe she senced something? deffinatly wierd pic tho either way

[RX-7]

as you can see the childs knees are up under her chin and her backside is behind the girls jeans. if you look at the colored inmage you can see where they feathered the jeans trying to hide the backside.

hoope the pic works.

I can’t seem to see any knees, but I can see the part that you claimed to be feathered away. Now forgive me for being curious, but how can we be so sure that you didn’t just alter the image to your own liking…

I didn’t actually know there were software yet that could restored tampered images back to original form. As far as I was aware they can only detect if an image has been tampered with, and I have a feeling the media company that published this would have done so before hand to protect their reputation?

[NoahJaymes]

I can’t seem to see any knees, but I can see the part that you claimed to be feathered away. Now forgive me for being curious, but how can we be so sure that you didn’t just alter the image to your own liking…

I didn’t actually know there were software yet that could restored tampered images back to original form. As far as I was aware they can only detect if an image has been tampered with, and I have a feeling the media company that published this would have done so before hand to protect their reputation?

You would be surprised.

Edited January 30, 2008 by __419__

[sosboots]

I can’t seem to see any knees, but I can see the part that you claimed to be feathered away. Now forgive me for being curious, but how can we be so sure that you didn’t just alter the image to your own liking…

I didn’t actually know there were software yet that could restored tampered images back to original form. As far as I was aware they can only detect if an image has been tampered with, and I have a feeling the media company that published this would have done so before hand to protect their reputation?

the software is used to clear up images from CCTV video footage, it clears up the picels and transforms it to 15 grey scale. if you go back to the color image you will see the girls jeans are smudged and blured, the DVRfocus has cleaned the feathering so you can see the feathering but not what the feathering is hiding I said her knees are underher only work out how they are siting between the legs.

there for the software has not turned the photo back to the original but only shows where the original has been tampered. As for me doing the tampering all i can say is you belive what i say or not but i will not waste my time tampering with pics. all i did was saved the pic, ran the software and reposted.

[RX-7]

As for me doing the tampering all i can say is you belive what i say or not but i will not waste my time tampering with pics. all i did was saved the pic, ran the software and reposted.

Well the exif data for your pic shows that the pic was altered using Photoshop CS2?

[sosboots]

Well the exif data for your pic shows that the pic was altered using Photoshop CS2?

I have no idea why it would??? I am back at work tomorrow so I will ask the Digital image guys why get back to you.

[punkmonkey123]

It may just be my computer, but when I viewed the photo, I didn't find any EXIF data. It usually works, but meh.

[Episteme]

Well the exif data for your pic shows that the pic was altered using Photoshop CS2?

Mine also says that.

if you inlarge it and run it throught a program like DVR focus Pro, you can see the complete child laying on the floor behind them, this is a great photo but i bit more time on photoshop before uploading onto the phone it could have been better.

I looked up DVR focus pro to see if maybe there was some bug with tagging the EXIF and couldn't find any reference to that software (besides this thread). I'd also like to learn more about that software, sounds great. Sure you got the name right, google couldn't be wrong!!!

[...:::*ArorA*:::...]

I don't know. Looks pretty real to me. The ghostly face does anyway.

By the way, the girl in the red is HOT!

hahaha her gut is sticking out.......

photos looks real to be honest

[RX-7]

I looked up DVR focus pro to see if maybe there was some bug with tagging the EXIF and couldn't find any reference to that software (besides this thread). I'd also like to learn more about that software, sounds great. Sure you got the name right, google couldn't be wrong!!!

I would also like to know where to find this program.

[mentalman]

It may not be altered or doctored but it may just be the way the light is hilling whatever they are standing infront of. it would be easy to photoshop it in but i don't think that is the case.

[sosboots]

Well the exif data for your pic shows that the pic was altered using Photoshop CS2?

I have no idea why it would??? I am back at work tomorrow so I will ask the Digital image guys why get back to you.

The following is a cut and paste from a email I received in reply from a friend in DIFs.(Digital Imagery Forensic.)

>The soft ware that was used to process these images is a basic image analyser. This program uses a custom modified Adobe photo to process the image. It is imperative for forensic science practitioners and agencies to be able to validate the origin and integrity of not only the digital images themselves, but also the image capture and handling procedures employed in the gathering, processing and analysing this type of evidence, especially when digital visual images are to be used for evidentiary purposes. The evidence requested to be enhanced has been embedded with the adobe metadata signature in accordance with AS 4806.1 National Code of Practice, AS/NZS4360:2004 Risk Management and HB 436:2004 Risk Management Guidelines this to ensure the images is used only as a investigating aid, if it is required for court proceeding then please have it analysed using SIST.

So from what I understand this means is it has the metadata to prove it is not the original but a enhanced copy. A college also stated that it might also be because I had to reduce its size with Adobe so I could copy onto my pendrive then over to my desktop and uploaded on to the site.

[sosboots]

Mine also says that.

I looked up DVR focus pro to see if maybe there was some bug with tagging the EXIF and couldn't find any reference to that software (besides this thread). I'd also like to learn more about that software, sounds great. Sure you got the name right, google couldn't be wrong!!!

according to our SOP's the system is called DVRfocus program. but htat said in responce to a email a sent they say it is a costom program, so it might be just our I.T's program. but there are a lot of image anilasers out there.

[Episteme]

This program uses a custom modified Adobe photo to process the image.

A college also stated that it might also be because I had to reduce its size with Adobe so I could copy onto my pendrive then over to my desktop and uploaded on to the site.

Makes sense. Either of these would add the tag.

according to our SOP's the system is called DVRfocus program. but htat said in responce to a email a sent they say it is a costom program, so it might be just our I.T's program. but there are a lot of image anilasers out there.

DVRfocus (without the space) did come up in a search. On the main site it says they make software but I didn't see it on the sales page, so you're probably right and it's just set up for commercial use with their equipment. The other image programs like this I've found are usually either garbage or way out of my price range (often into the thousands), guess I'll keep looking. Thanks for the response!

[It Just Is]

the guy holding up the cell phone freaks me out the most. his left eye's pupil is like totally huge. thats weird