need some help proving this image is a fake

[Adam Norman]

Hi guys, I know this is my first post and I will post more here soon. This guy on a forum post this photo saying he "accidentally" shot a ghost with his camera, and me being in digital design know's it's a fake, but I'm not a PS expert yet to prove him wrong. Can someone unmerge the two photos to be able to prove him wrong? Thanks. -Adam

 

[chrisdesign]

I needed about 10 min. to produce another ghost like this. No problem for someone to fake this the same way in your original image.
The glare is also not realistic, I guess ist photoshopped.

Result: Fake!

 

[Adam Norman]

Thanks so much!

 

[Argos]

It's no problem to someone to fake it, but iin my opinion it's easier explanation being the sun just in front to be a reflection on the lens or something like that.

 

[IamSam]

Since the image is in .jpg format, there's no layer preservation so it would be hard to actually separate any images that may have been blended with the tree photo.

As Chris clearly demonstrated, images like this are so easy to fake that it would be impossible for anyone to stand on the merit that the photo offers definitive proof of a ghost claim. The real discussion about this image is, could the aberration seen in the photo have been a naturally occurring anomaly or faked?

I say FAKE.

Assuming it's a ghost is nonsensical.

 

[sc00t]

No graphic design knowledge needed here mate: ghosts don't exist, ergo, fake.

 

[Tom Mann]

Chris' explanation, Photoshop fakery, is very possibly the correct explanation, but, assuming it is not an intentional fake, Argos' comment that it could be some sort of reflections is also a very good possibility.

There is a phenomena called "lens flare". One of its many forms occurs when light from a very bright area in the image (eg, the sun and sky appearing through the vertical slit of the trees) bounces between the individual lens elements that make up a modern camera lens, and a distorted and out of focus secondary image of the bright area appears elsewhere in the image. If you want an example of one of the oddest forms of lens flare that I have ever seen, take a look at this image: http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00WMhC-240595684.jpg . It took us over 10 pages of discussion to get to the bottom of this, http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00WLVN?start=110, but we finally nailed it down.


BTW, a purple color for the secondary image is quite uncommon with this type of lens flare. It happens because the anti-reflection coatings applied to camera lenses generally work well, but sometimes permit odd colors like purple to bounce around.

There is a huge history of lens flare and other optical phenomena getting honest people riled up and attributing the resulting ghost image as an apparition of some kind. If you want to have some fun, just go to Google images and enter the following search:{orbs in photos meaning}.

Bottom line: With what I know about this image, I can't distinguish between an intentional Photoshop hoax and an extremely common fault of lenses, "lens flare", but I can most definitely assure you that it is not a ghost.

Tom M