Ghost photo puzzle

This rather reminds me of the "Solway Firth Spaceman" photo, in that it's a mysterious figure that wasn't seen by the photographer, but appears to be just an ordinary person seen from behind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman

This rather reminds me of the "Solway Firth Spaceman" photo, in that it's a mysterious figure that wasn't seen by the photographer, but appears to be just an ordinary person seen from behind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman

There's a certain tendency of the human eye-brain to fill in missing information. If the complete person was visible (and not mostly hidden by the girl's head) it would appear very ordinary. But because there is so much of the figure covered up, the  rest is mentally re-created in our imagination.

The key to that Solway Firth picture is in all of the other shots taken on the same film on the same day. It then turns into just an ordinary family picnic, with nothing noteworthy - other than presumably happy memories for the people involved. But take one small section of a single photo out of context and it starts to look odd.

It has been discussed many times already (maybe on the Skeptiko forum) and I have nothing new to add.

This rather reminds me of the "Solway Firth Spaceman" photo, in that it's a mysterious figure that wasn't seen by the photographer, but appears to be just an ordinary person seen from behind:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solway_Firth_Spaceman

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/10...post-61982

Or just a dark-haired girl wearing dark clothing. That would be pretty average, wouldn't it, at least in certain circles? I know people who wear nothing but black (or so they tell me).

I guess so, Typoz, yes. I was just trying to make sense of that 'close up' on the figure. It doesn't look very feminine to me but who knows ?

I think we need to be realistic about the amount of information available. The highest quality version of the original photo that I've found so far has pixel dimensions of 2560 x 1440. The section containing the figure is about 60 x 80 pixels. This is the highest-quality original image I've found:

  FIGURE_CROP.png (Size: 5.71 KB / Downloads: 37)


Everything else is based on using software to make the image larger, or to adjust the brightness and contrast. It's important to understand that doing so doesn't add any extra information - and in fact can be misleading as when we see a larger sized image we may make assumptions and interpret jpeg compression artefacts or image noise as actual picture detail, and also our eye-brain will tend to fill in the blanks and make up things which are not there except in our idealised version of what we think it might be.

I'd go so far as to say it looks like a person seen from behind, in winter clothing, possibly with elbows bent and camera raised to take a photo - but that you see is my speculation - I'm making up things which cannot be seen.

Edit:
I forgot to mention sharpening artefacts. After an image is captured from the camera sensor, it usually undergoes various software processing before we even get to see it.  This includes using software to enhance the visibility of edges, by raising the local contrast between adjacent parts of the image of different colour or different brightness. This may be done more than once, first inside the camera, and again in the process of resizing/processing to upload to an online host. When viewed at the intended size, this is mostly beneficial. But when a small section of a picture is enlarged, these sharpening effects get enlarged too, so that the artificial darkening or lightening of individual pixels now becomes artificial darkening or lightening of large sections of the image. But unless one has access to the RAW sensor data before processing (highly unlikely in this case) it is impossible to distinguish between real and artificial detail (artefacts).

I think we need to be realistic about the amount of information available. The highest quality version of the original photo that I've found so far has pixel dimensions of 2560 x 1440. The section containing the figure is about 60 x 80 pixels. This is the highest-quality original image I've found:



Everything else is based on using software to make the image larger, or to adjust the brightness and contrast. It's important to understand that doing so doesn't add any extra information - and in fact can be misleading as when we see a larger sized image we may make assumptions and interpret jpeg compression artefacts or image noise as actual picture detail, and also our eye-brain will tend to fill in the blanks and make up things which are not there except in our idealised version of what we think it might be.

I'd go so far as to say it looks like a person seen from behind, in winter clothing, possibly with elbows bent and camera raised to take a photo - but that you see is my speculation - I'm making up things which cannot be seen.

Edit:
I forgot to mention sharpening artefacts. After an image is captured from the camera sensor, it usually undergoes various software processing before we even get to see it.  This includes using software to enhance the visibility of edges, by raising the local contrast between adjacent parts of the image of different colour or different brightness. This may be done more than once, first inside the camera, and again in the process of resizing/processing to upload to an online host. When viewed at the intended size, this is mostly beneficial. But when a small section of a picture is enlarged, these sharpening effects get enlarged too, so that the artificial darkening or lightening of individual pixels now becomes artificial darkening or lightening of large sections of the image. But unless one has access to the RAW sensor data before processing (highly unlikely in this case) it is impossible to distinguish between real and artificial detail (artefacts).

Good point, Typoz ! Photography is something I know very little about. And it's such a fabulous tool to have (camera). I don't know why I don't take more of an interest.