Question about shading in a black and white photo. Would you please help me?

[rokvi]

its an orb of A ghost! They say that you will see them in pictures before a tragedy. Case closed!

 

[bazooka]

I haven't even seen the photo but I DEFINITELY think it's an orb!

 

[Proteus617]

Ever heard of the Voynich Manuscript? It's a 15th c. manuscript, written in an unknown language, using an unknown character set and possibly encrypted. In the 1920s an academic named Newbold damaged his career and possibly his sanity when he published a partial translation. After lengthy microscopic examination of the manuscript he discovered that the characters on the vellum were not characters at all, but assemblages of microscopic characters based on an ancient Greek shorthand. In short, he was translating ink flecks and at the end of the day, ink flecks are just ink flecks and convey no actual information. Which brings to mind an axiom of digital photography: "Thou shalt not pixel-peep". You are pixel-peeping my friend. It's not an insult or accusation as it happens to the best of us. You are looking for info where there are only artifacts from a low res printing process and digital noise. If you had an original negative you would be able to recover a bit more valid information.

 

[Firsk]

Pixel-peep this: That image shows the deliberate obfuscation of the face of a man who is standing in front of the headless man. Digital noise is what's coming out of you and the other malcontents on this site.

 

[MTVision]

Pixel-peep this: That image shows the deliberate obfuscation of the face of a man who is standing in front of the headless man. Digital noise is what's coming out of you and the other malcontents on this site.

You can't say that with certainty looking at the picture. There is no way possible.

Also, why come here asking for opinions if you already "know" what it is?

 

[o hey tyler]

Pixel-peep this: That image shows the deliberate obfuscation of the face of a man who is standing in front of the headless man. Digital noise is what's coming out of you and the other malcontents on this site.

You're a fool, and that's putting it lightly.

First you come to this site, admitting to not know enough about the subject at hand (film photography and printing techniques)... You then disagree with everything that has been said from the professionals' help that you enlisted in the first place, only to place support behind your theory even though your source is lacking... Also, you then try to push your clearly farfetched conspiracy THEORY on people that DO NOT CARE. Yes, we're the malcontents here... The ones with the knowledge you came seeking.

Believe what you want. I'm sure you think the Holocaust was a hoax as well.

 

[SCraig]

Sir, you asked our opinion of what was in the photograph. I told you what is there however it was not what you wanted to hear so you became argumentative. Then you asked how it was possible for me to see things that none of the other whack jobs could see. I explained that to you however it was not what you wanted to hear so you became argumentative. The man's face is not obfuscated in any except perhaps by his hand in front of it. If you were looking at the came photograph on my computer and monitor you would see the same thing.

Your question has been asked and answered. We are unable to provide any more information that will satisfy you. I would request that one of the moderators lock this topic since it is getting to the out-of-hand point, it has very little to do with photography at all, the apparent intent of the OP is to hear only what he wants to hear, and no more relevant information is going to come to light. Once again, I am done with this topic.

 

[Tee]

He was hoping you all would agree with his analysis so he could cite this website as a credible authority. He failed. He's pissed. The cuckoos have been out in droves lately, eh?

 

[Firsk]

Lock it up. I am getting a much different and better attitude at another photographic forum. Most of you expressed nothing but scorn and derision and ridicule from the very beginning, the only exception being SCraig, to whom I express my thanks. So yes, lock her up!

 

[o hey tyler]

Lock it up. I am getting a much different and better attitude at another photographic forum. Most of you expressed nothing but scorn and derision and ridicule from the very beginning, the only exception being SCraig, to whom I express my thanks. So yes, lock her up!

And all you expressed was resistance towards facts presented at your request.

Good job.