Local Bristol Woo

[The Don]

http://www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=12109568&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=cabot%20tower&formname=sidebarsearch

In our local paper yesterday there was an article about a woman who took a picture and saw a bright figure in the bottom right hand corner after developing the film. Looks like flash back to me but I am not a photographer. I surprised that none of the paper's photographers were able to identify why it happened. Sadly The photo is not reproduced in the attached article. I am inclined to write in to tell them not to be so silly, but the Evening Post is a haven of woo anyway.

[jj]

Originally posted by The Don
http://www.epost.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=144936&command=displayContent&sourceNode=144919&contentPK=12109568&moduleName=InternalSearch&keyword=cabot%20tower&formname=sidebarsearch

In our local paper yesterday there was an article about a woman who took a picture and saw a bright figure in the bottom right hand corner after developing the film. Looks like flash back to me but I am not a photographer. I surprised that none of the paper's photographers were able to identify why it happened. Sadly The photo is not reproduced in the attached article. I am inclined to write in to tell them not to be so silly, but the Evening Post is a haven of woo anyway.

I threw it away because it was ugly, but you know that tower that flashes 'B R I S T O L' in Morse code? I managed to capture a couple of "orbs" by tracking a car (trying to get the car on one of the roads above the University) trying to get the car w/o movement when I was using about .5 second exposure. The light was way, way out of focus at the top of the frame, and caught a weak lens reflection giving me some purplish streak at the bottom as well, on diametrically opposite side.

It didn't work, I got the light off and on, leaving a 'ghostly streak'.
#define SARCASM 1
Oooooh! The mystery.
#undef SARCASM

[vbloke]

well, as we all know the camera never lies

although it can "misrepresent the truth"

[Azrael 5]

Where's the picture? Cant someone post it from the area? What good is an article about a ghostly picture without said image?;)

[vbloke]

indeed

writing about photography is like dancing about french

[Gr8wight]

Originally posted by Azrael 5
Where's the picture? Cant someone post it from the area? What good is an article about a ghostly picture without said image?;)

I dropped a line to the paper to the same effect.

[Ashles]

From the article:

Shaun Thompson, the Evening Post's picture edior, examined the print and said: "While it is possible for the figure to be recreated on the print using image manipulation software such as Photoshop, having scanned the image and examined it in detail, there is no evidence that the apparition has been added at a later stage."

Why is there this recurring myth that you can tell whether an image has been photoshopped by scanning it and looking at it?

Many, many photoshop images would fool anyone looking at them, no matter how much they stared.

For example check out this image (http://www.worth1000.com/view.asp?entry=124393&display=photoshop) and try to work out what has been photoshopped in it.

Don't cheat. Have a look at that link first.


Now here is the original image (http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=3116&display=photoshop) and other competition entries.

N.B. there are loads of better images and examples on Worth1000, but I just thought I'd provide an example of a competition I won. :D

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by Ashles
Why is there this recurring myth that you can tell whether an image has been photoshopped by scanning it and looking at it?


*Double-takes* That's a new one on me, and I took computer art dealing with Photoshop. For the people who believe that, I can sell you something I read about in some spam: There's a spray you can apply to your car's license plate that'll maaaaagically make your plate unphotographable.

Personally, I find it silly that a vague, bright figure would be regarded as anything more than a light trick playing on a camera flaw. Heck, I find it silly that cameras would possess such maaaaagical abilities to capture images of stuff not seen by human eyes, even though they work on the same principles. Exception: I haven't tried it myself, but I've heard many digital cameras catch a little bit of the infrared range.

[Soapy Sam]

There's a spray you can apply to your car's license plate that'll maaaaagically make your plate unphotographable.

There is. It's called "Paint".

Ashles- Great picture. I did wonder about the brown stuff on the sand in the foreground. It looked water-laid, which jarred with the dust, but I would never have sussed the original.

[LW]

Originally posted by Ashles

For example check out this image (http://www.worth1000.com/view.asp?entry=124393&display=photoshop) and try to work out what has been photoshopped in it.

Well, I guessed that the clouds were probably original. Other than that, I couldn't really guess anything. (I've seen more than one photoshopped picture where the artist has inserted middle or high altitude clouds in place of low altitude ones and that looks really wrong to my eye. But then again, I did spend 6 months in a weather station.)