If it really was a digital camera this effect would have been easily produced in photoshop. All the same, just the look and that guy's face is creepy enough for me.

...Agreed, Gigi. It doesn't even take Photoshop to do something like that--I could (have) done it in crappy Microsoft Picture It!.

I did squeal seeing that old guy, though. My fear of the elderly has just been increased.

Something is really weird with the chair. Look at her left side (right side of the picture). Doesn't that look like a camo pattern?

Keep things like this in mind whenever you hear someone talk how "sophisticated" today's public is. When a cheesy double exposure can fool people into thinking they're seeing a "ghost," it ain't "sophistication" you're seeing.

I'm with crankymediaguy. It's surely a double exposure. She moved her head just a bit; there are a few other double-lined things -- mostly vertical elements.

If it really is a digital camera, I'm not aware of a method of making double exposures. It'd have to be done with photo manipulation software.

Silentz is right. If it's a digital camera, then it wouldn't be a double exposure. But creating an image like this would be dead easy in photoshop. Just use layers and adjust the transparency.

Here is a digital camera that does have double exposure feature built in.

http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/nik4500.html

As I recall, this has become a more common feature on the new digital cameras being released in the past six months.

But the thing that makes me think that this pic is photoshopped (but NOT MS painted) is that the visible door frame running through the old man disappears behind the "solid" neck. The p'shopper would have had to use some sort of gradient transparency to achieve this effect.

I think the perpetrator of this hoax should be arrested-- not for the picture, but for the spelling and grammar (or rather the lack of them) in that story.

A more plausible explanation is that it's simply a long exposure, of half a second or so, and that the old man in the background was walking past, or happened to move as the photograph was being taken.

As for the camouflage pattern to the girl's left, it looks as if her chair has an elasticated cover on it, with the middle section exposed.

The problem with the long exposure theory is that it looks like the photo was taken with a flash. You can see the reflection of the flash in that plastic thing on the left.

A digital camera has a wider spectral range than the human eye, up into the infrared, but also down a bit into the (cold) ultraviolet. Perhaps it can see what we can not.?????

I'm jealous - I used to dream of getting 24 pairs of scissors and an oversize dressing gown for Christmas. She'll probably grow into it, though.

CXIF tag checked out:
It's a digital camera


CX7300 DIGITAL CAMERA



File: - C:\Documents and Settings\user\My Documents\My Pictures\grandpa_lg.jpg

Make - EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
Model - KODAK EASYSHARE CX7300 DIGITAL CAMERA
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 386.00
YResolution - 386.00
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Version 1.0000
DateTime - 2004:12:28 20:20:23
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 246
ExposureTime - 1/2 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 140
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2004:12:25 18:07:06
DateTimeDigitized - 2004:12:25 18:07:06
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 1.52 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/2 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.48
ExposureBiasValue - 0
MaxApertureValue - F 4.48
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
Flash - Flash fired, auto mode
FocalLength - 5.90 mm
UserComment - 0
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2080
ExifImageHeight - 1544
InteroperabilityOffset - 1792
ExposureIndex - 140.00
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto




DigitalZoomRatio - 1.30 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 37 mm
SceneCaptureType - Night scene
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): -

"The problem with the long exposure theory is that it looks like the photo was taken with a flash. You can see the reflection of the flash in that plastic thing on the left."

There's no problem with that theory. It actually explains exactly why the image looks the way it does. Grandpa moved during the 1/2 second exposure, but the flash froze him in that one spot. You can actually see his image blur to the right.

I've got several photos that look like that. I shoot bike races, and with a flash and long exposure, you can get the background to look more like daylight (when the photo is taken at night), but the people riding by appear as ghosts.

Forgot to add. If you want to see my photos that show how the long exposure and flash look, go to my website (click on my name), go to "Photography", then scroll down a bit to get to "Track racing 2004, updated 7/23/04". I have a couple of "ghost" photos that were taken last year.

I think they just said it was a digital camera to try and off-set peoples' suspicions that it's a double-exposure from a regular camera - which is exactly what it is.

It seems that there are a lot of other stuff in the background that she could sell on the internet such as the sissors.... how much are they?

You can buy the scissors for a buck a piece at the dollar store...but in a 24 pack, I've seen them for $90. (The ones I saw had a special doohickey stand/hanger that you could store them on.) Scrapbooking nuts LOVE them.

Cool pics Racer X...

"I shoot bike races, and with a flash and long exposure, you can get the background to look more like daylight (when the photo is taken at night), but the people riding by appear as ghosts."

In fact that's how a lot of concert photography is done for music mags; the long exposure gives the image a dynamic 'whizz-blur' and the flash adds detail. There's a fine art to doing it manually with film cameras, but there's no reason it can't be done digitally as well. This photograph is just an accidental version of this venerable technique.

I'm sorry, but what is that a picture of on the right side of the frame? Is that a framed image of an atomic bomb blast? Seems to me to be tongue in cheek altogether.

Am I the only person to notice 5 "Orbs" in the picture??? Also if you look to the center left you will see a "ghost chair" which leads me to believe that this is a double exposure, unless the chair died too.

I thought the picture was a scary yellow wolf face. I'm not very camera technical...but that looks 2 pictures on top of one another. The bottom picture being the Christmas pic...the 2nd layer being the old guy...totally seems fake.

Those aren't orbs in the picture; they are the ghosts of bubbles they blew in the living room back in September '03. Between the ghost of the chair, the ghost of grandpa and the ghost of the bubbles, that is one haunted house.

The photo just plain creeps me out.:bug::grrr: But i have to say, it looks better than any of those other fuzzy, unclear ghost photos I've seen before.

As a guy who worked with film and Photoshop for 20 years, (not at the same time, obviously) it look like a digital paste together. The Christmas photo is got flash blur, the old man is rather sharp, and have ya noticed he is sort of in Black and White? Just my $0.02 worth.

Tip: Do an CXIF tag check on the picture.

Saintpo, how does one do a CXIF check? I googled CXIF and this page was one of the first comprehensible things to come up (on page 3).

Alex....Free

http://www.irfanview.com/ your need the free plugin allows IrfanView to show EXIF information from/about JPG files.

Comments: Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >