Bizarre digital photo - how did this happen?

[stp]

<p>I tell you, this wouldn't have happened with a film camera. Need I say more? At last, vindication.</p>

[t._kim]

<p>

<p>That has to be the strangest thing I've ever seen.<br>

Is there a possibility that somehow those lines got temporarily "burned" onto that portion of the ccd before the picture was snapped and by pure coincidence everything lined up in the pic?Perhaps the low level radiation caused this?<br>

My DSC-F717 exhibited some quirky behavior before Sony recalled/replaced the defective sensor. Your pic does show some similar characteristics of what mine did in its early stages, especially in the heat. But of course I've been known to be wrong once or twice before :)<br>

The camera does video, no?</p>

</p>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p>Who is that mysterious man in the blue jump suit next to the red car in the background, who stepped on the yellow line at the very instant this photo was taken? And what is that paper he's reading?<br /><br />Find him. And that document. We want to speak with him.....</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>I'm glad our government is getting more transparent.</p>

[william_sturtevant]

<p>Tom (and everyone really) I have the original pictures directly from the camera, including the ones that were taken before and after it. They are larger files than can't be attached here on the forum but I'd be happy to email them to anyone who wants to analyze them. Just send me an email via the forum and I'll respond ASAP.<br />The original file most certainly has the lines across the legs, so this one can't be blamed on Facebook. <br />I don't think two images were superimposed because only one shot was taken from that position. It's a shame really as a second shot might have cleared this mystery up. The other pictures taken that day look completely normal from what I can see.<br />T Kim, this Samsung does take movie clips as well, yes. Although I don't have any video from that day.</p>

<p>EDIT I was able to attach the original file - see below</p><div></div>

[tom_mann1]

<p>William - Thanks. Got it.</p>

<p>One thing that jumped out immediately when examining the EXIF data was that the exposure compensation was +14.6 !.!.!. I presume this number is in "stops", as it is listed with all other cameras. If so, I have never seen a number this large, and I'm sure you didn't dial that in, so something odd must be going on with the on-board computer. </p>

<p>More later,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<p>PS - The image is only 1600x1200 pixels. I presume that you intentionally had the camera set for "low resolution"?</p>

[bart_maczynski]

<p>I think the secret is in the reflective properties of the paint used to mark the lines at the airfield, combined with the fact that a digital imaging sensor can register wavelengths other than visible light. Any physicist here?</p>

[william_sturtevant]

<p>Actually, I had it set low but not for this particular event. I work in an environment where I need pictures that are smaller resolution that can be emailed fast. I put the camera on that setting about two years ago and I don't think I've touched it since. The rest of your questions sound like this to me: blah blah blah blah blah. :) I have no idea how to set an exposure or what EXIF data are either. So if anything on the camera is set at a strange mode, it is completely accidental.</p>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

<p>Where did the shadow of the engine directly behind the guys go? If you follow those pod things on the wing it should be visible between those on the other side?<br>

Interesting that there does seem to be a line of flare coming off the engine at the same angle as the yellow line</p>

[hal_bissinger]

<p>The line was burned into the sensor (due to the high light levels) during composition. Betcha the subjects were standing to the left or right of the center of the frame then moved to where the image was taken. If a tripod was used this is most likely but it still could happen since we are talking about only the legs moving.<br>

-Hal</p>

[fischerphotos]

<p>Aliens Perhaps?</p>

[steven_kifer]

<p>look closely at the car door. the black and yellow line is clear.....the two people are not reflected in the door</p>

[peter_e]

<p>I think it is lens flare or internal reflections within the lens. Similar to the spots created from the sun or some other bright light source, in this case the flare is from the yellow line and the white concrete, creating the illusion that the black lines are contuing across the legs as well. Just like ordinary lens flare lines up with the light source, so that this flare, thus connecting the lines on both sides of the legs, and giving the impression that the lines go across the legs.</p>

[dave_reichert1]

<p>"...the exposure compensation was +14.6 !.!.!."<br>

 <br>

Another oddity is that the actual exposure is about 3 1/2 stops over what the "Sunny 16" rule would predict.<br>

 <br>

You've got one very strange picture here, William. I hate to sound skeptical, but I hope this isn't some kind of demonstration of how one can photoshop a pic, and still have it show up as an unaltered, in-camera JPEG. If it is, then I'm waiting to hear how you did it...</p>

[martyphotoarts]

<p>I think it's quite obvious what is going on here, William. Both you and the SS agent are dead and, as such, you are not nearly as opaque in pictures as you are used to. The real mystery is why are you still here starting threads on PN? And if that isn't it, then I really have no idea what the heck is going on with your camera.</p>

[marcward]

<p>William,<br>

How fun!... I read a few of the responses, but I stopped and decided to post my impressions. If I was at this location with a camera I could produce the EXACT same image... But, I think a bit better.<br>

Asked to testify in a court of law, I would put my hand on my NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professions) and swear to the truth of my testimony. This is several images. I'm not buying your story. Sorry, you can come back and swear and implore, but I ain't buying it. Again, I could produce this exact same image in Photoshop, but producing it in camera, in one image is extremely doubtful. Let's move to the evidence phase of our trail...<br>

All I have to work with is the web file you've provided. But, there are some very telling artifacts present that point to the layering of multiple images.<br>

Yes, the yellow/black line runs through the pants legs... but look at the opacity of the people and their suits. Above the handshake, the density of the color in the suits is greater that below. Look closely at the heal of the big guy and you'll see a bit of tarmac trough his heal. The same is true on the left leg of "your?" pants. Around the shin area area you see the tarmac line run a fraction of the way into the pant's leg... then disappear. This say's to me that we have a slightly sloppy layer masking job. The next problem is Tiny's left side. Running along the profile of his right side (the viewer's left) is a slight 3-4 pixel glow. CA would not explain this with the light source present but, a marginal extraction job would. It should not be there.<br>

The shadows and light sources are pretty spot-on except for a problem with the security guy walking up to the car. He has a light reflection off the left-hand side of his head and a small light source off of his left nostril. I can possibly see how that might be. But, without the original file, I'm unsure of this and would not be part of my testimony. It looks as if this image was taken at a slightly different time of day. I find the color and intensity of the security guard's reflection in the hub cap of the "Caddy" far too bright and with a slightly incorrect color cast. Also, there is no distortion from the convex nature of the hub cap... Sorry, I can't believe this. I believe he has been dropped into the image, then the reflection has been dropped onto the hub cap. But, this layer is better done than the foreground figures. The hub cap is a big "tell".<br>

Now for the big problem... You're a brand new member (April 28) that works for the government... I find this very interesting... Let me know if I can be of further help.</p>

[marcward]

<p>Oh, and one more further problem... the length of the shadow of the security guard is about 2/3 of the height of the guard. The foreground principles shadows are equal to their heights. This doesn't work...</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>"I ain't buyin' it!"<br>

That's Texan for, "Bull S%#t!"</p>

[MathewDH]

<p> I think it is a fake. First off, the aircraft shadow angles relative to the sun and the ground are away from the viewer. This accounts for the lack of an engine shadow behind the subjects on the ground. Now look at the shadows of the car area and the two forground subjects. They are angled from the left to the right of the viewer, indicating a different sun placement above the subjects. It s a simple lighting issue. The shadow of the C-141 in the backgriound looks similar to the Air Force 2 in the forground.</p>

<p> The reflections on the car are wrong too. To the left of the person is a reflection of somebody no longer an element of the image. Also, the three people reflected on the rear door look wrongly spaced and do not appear to be the three people in the foreground-- the two subjects and the photographer.</p>

<p> The handhake area too has been altered. Note the brightness, of the hands and coloring. They should be in low contrast shadow and dull like the mans hand on the right side of the picture. Its sloppy work too, just look at the elevated contrast artifacts of the mans suit aound the hands. It looks altered then pasted down.</p>

<p> All I did was copy the low res image from the web link and look at it in photoshop. The details matter. So, are we being tested by the NSA? Did I win a free tour of the space alien bodies in storage?</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>FWIW, LinkedIn shows a William Sturtevant as a Sr. Security Specialist at <a href="http://www.linkedin.com/companies/1669/FedEx?trk=pp_icon">FedEx</a> in Allentown, PA. The color of the badge of the guy in the photo seems to be the usual FedEx purple, and he is wearing a lapel pin that looks like a police badge, so at least these observations are not inconsistent with the OP's story about him going out to the pad after the VP departed. </p>

<p>William, to give you the benefit of the doubt, are any of your friends or co-workers reasonably proficient with Photoshop? If so, did any of them ever ask to borrow your camera or its memory card after the day this photo was taken? Asked differently, has that camera and its memory card ever left your possession? If so, that would have given a person an opportunity to replace the image on the card with a doctored version to "have fun with you". What about your friend, Blake, who you state first pointed out the problem? Is your memory of the details in the picture exactly consistent with what is shown (eg, Was there a guy walking up to the car behind you? Was he holding a paper?, Did you shake "Tiny's" hand with exactly that grip? etc.)</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Based on the version that was considerable lightened, I suspect that there is something behind the photographer causing another line to be reflected on the pants. The theory is not watertight -- it would be rare for the reflection to line up like that, whether it's a reflection in the lens or from some external object. But the line seems to align better with the legs than with the line behind you, which would indicate that it's somehow project on you.</p>

[william_sturtevant]

<p>Tom is a bit of sleuth and has identified my position and company correctly. I work as a Security Specialist for FedEx and -as such- liaison with Secret Service when the President and VP come to town. The badge you are looking at is actually brown, not purple. It's a Lehigh Valley International SIDA cargo badge. The pin is a Secret Service pin given as a gift during President Obama's visit (see the unrelated picture attached).<br>

The posts so far are pretty funny, even the ones that accuse me of lying. Since the integrity of my original statement is called into question, I'll do my best to post the pictures so we can lay doubt to rest and get on with the mystery of how this occurred. I normally could care less what people think of me but in this particular case I will never get this mystery answered until people can stop looking at 'what if' and start looking at 'what is'.<br>

So let's start with the obvious... This is me.</p>

<div></div>

[william_sturtevant]

<p>On the day of VP Joe Biden's visit, I took 11 pictures with the same Samsung camera. This was the first one of AF2 taxiing to the FedEx pad.</p><div></div>

[william_sturtevant]

<p>The second picture is kind of the same thing.</p><div></div>

[johan_ingles_le_nobel]

<p>I'm still perplexed by that missing shadow, but the weird EV +14.6 EXIF data also rings out at me because that's just crazy for a camera that can do +-2 EV in its specs. William, EXIF data is information about the picture, like the shutter time, the f stop you used etc. 14.6 EV means the camera thinks it was told to overexpose by 15 stops of light. Like making a 1/100 second shot into 20+ seconds. Download something called photome (a free application) and you'll see what we mean.</p>

<p>This makes me wonder if the camera didn't just do some weird fubar like try to do two images (a regular exposure and a weird +14.6 EV malfunction) which then both burned into a combined malfunction photo somehow. EV 14.6 makes 1/118.8 into 30+ s - this camera is incapable of this. The longest it can do is 1/4 s. So maybe the camera took 1 normal, then malfunctiond and tried to take the +14.6EV malfunction shot, got stopped at 1/4 in the malfunction (because that's the longest it can do), realised that this image wasn't complete but because it hadn't received the proper 'image finished' signal from its electronic brain (it hadn't done the +14.6 it thought it needed to) combined it with the previous.</p>

<p>-update - the other shots William is posting also have large +EV. Guess that blows this theory :)</p>

<p> </p>