Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

GuidedByPandas Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:50 pm

Woodwose requested that I report my response to his analysis here in the Forum.

Ignore this thread - I was supposed to post in an existing thread.

**Blondie1** Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:57 pm

Welcome GuidedByPanda's! Glad you made it!

**Blondie1** Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:59 pm

Thanks so much for the info.

Woodwose Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:16 pm

Yes, thanks for re-posting your comments here on the forum.

I'll give a proper response tomorrow, but I do have a couple of comments about the ELA. Setting aside the limitations of this type of analysis (especially on low resolution images) I agree that the lighter line along the back doesn't necessarily indicate tampering ang could be down to selective adjustments to the background/sky.

I came to the same conclusion before posting my analysis, but forgot to mention it.

The outline around the log is much more fishy and I think it supports my opinion that that element is a later addition to the photo. Alternatively it could be the result of masking and tone mapping the edge of the log, but why would anyone do that?

Not unsurprisingly the ELA results for image 3 are lit up like a Christmas tree. Is this down to the alleged brightening or has the photo had some serious modification? I'm leaning towards the latter as you cannot adjust the 'original' image to produce the results the photographer claims to have achieved.

Admin: could this thread be merged with the original?

CMcMillan Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:56 pm

GuidedByPandas:

I have to agree with your write up.
People need to understand that autofocus with telephoto lenses can mess with with the Focal points in a picture causing blurs and weired depth of field. These people taking them are not professional photographers with sports camera's or spending time to take a pretty picture most of the time they are nervous , heart is racing while trying to focus and get a steady shot. Think about it this creature is HUGE they have no idea what it can and can't do. I would be so nervous trying to get a good shot.
I had a Black Bear walk down the side of my yard. I ran to my deck and took pictures of it. My heart was racing and i actually had to set my camera down on the deck rail to steady my hand.
I have taken some pictures at the Bronx Zoo with my subjects behind the glass and have gotten the same affects as the pictures of this creature. The autofocus will take some time to focus on what you want it too especially from a distance. leaves plants etc.. will be in the way till you get it set correctly on the subject you want.
Now Raw Data of a Picture will do nothing for proving anything. Should see my Date on my camera it isn't filled out correctly so i be lucky if it shows the correct date as 2012. If I open my photo in Photoshop all the info data is blank. So it really goes to what you put into the camera and what software you use to import into from your camera's card.

I don't see how they can say that the fallen branch was added to the 1st picture when it is in 2 images and it is in the same position on the ground.
I don't think the pictures have been manipulated. I was able to pull down the DARK picture and play with it in Photoshop the Autofocus to me looks about right.
Now It could be that the Creature could be just a great costume.
But i wonder why we as believers in Bigfoot will always jump to that any good image is fake. Even if we get the best photo full front it will still be assumed to be a fake and ripped apart to look at the raw "data".

CM

**Blondie1** Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:12 am

Welcome to the forum CMcMillan.

**Blondie1** Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:14 am

GuidedByPandas wrote:
Blondie1 wrote:Welcome GuidedByPanda's! Glad you made it!

I still post, usually anon, still trying to inform in the ways of scientific method and open-minded skepticism to both sides of the room. That's me, bloodied and battered in the corner. Despite being guided by those black & white panda crittters, I wholly embrace the gray. That's where answers live - in the space between Yes and No. Oh well... let the abuse begin.

Oh my, I couldn't agree with you more. There's so many different shades of gray. Smile

Love your avatar.

SasquaiNation Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:14 am

Good to see you here GuidedByPandas!

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:16 am

GuidedByPandas wrote:So while image 3 does light up like a Christmas tree, the whole image lights up, not defined sections. So I respectfully disagree that the image was seriously altered - there is little variance across the image. But RAW image analysis would be nice.

I would be more inclined to say that adjusting the overall tone means that ELA can't distinguish between manipulation and basic tone adjustments. You can't really call it one way the other based purely on the ELA.

There are however factors in the actual image that I find hard to explain without there being any composting or doctoring. Firstly there is the fact that the brightened image contains more detail than the original and then there is the colour noise that covers the entire image (again this isn't present in the original underexposed image).

Overall I would however agree that the images are essentially inconclusive as evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. I think that there are a lot of red flags pointing towards them being fakes of one variety or another, but looking only at the available photographic evidence it's difficult to make a conclusive analysis.

As a side note there has been a lot of talk about needing to see the RAW images. Other than professional photographers most people simply don't shoot using the RAW format and even if we had access to the original images the chances are that they would not be RAW. They should however be of a higher resolution than the supplied photos.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 7:33 am

CMcMillan wrote:People need to understand that autofocus with telephoto lenses can mess with with the Focal points in a picture causing blurs and weired depth of field. These people taking them are not professional photographers with sports camera's or spending time to take a pretty picture most of the time they are nervous , heart is racing while trying to focus and get a steady shot.

I agree.....up to a point. Auto focus issues could explain some of the DOF anomalies in image 2 and 3, but I don't think it can account for the selective areas of motion blur in image 1.

It's also worth remembering that the photographer supposedly used a Canon Digital Rebel XT with a 300mm lens (we don't have details of the exact lens model). This isn't a cheap point and click camera, it's a very good semi-pro DLSR and not something you would expect to see in the hands of a complete amateur.

I don't see how they can say that the fallen branch was added to the 1st picture when it is in 2 images and it is in the same position on the ground.

If it was pasted into image 1, why not image 2 as well?

As I've mentioned on the other thread the fringing and sharp edges on the log could be down to compression, so I haven't claimed that it unquestionably a cut and paste job. In fairness one thing in favour of the log being an original part of the scenery is the fact that the log is seen from a different angle in the wider shot. This does however mean that the photographer must have moved position between images, which doesn't quite match the back story.......although this could just be an innocent omission or a consequence of misremembering the event.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:39 am

The images as supplied by the alleged photographer can be found here.

The image labelled 'no flash' is supposed to be the starting point for the 'brightened' image you ran the ELA on.

CMcMillan Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:40 am

Woodwose wrote:
CMcMillan wrote:People need to understand that autofocus with telephoto lenses can mess with with the Focal points in a picture causing blurs and weired depth of field. These people taking them are not professional photographers with sports camera's or spending time to take a pretty picture most of the time they are nervous , heart is racing while trying to focus and get a steady shot.

I agree.....up to a point. Auto focus issues could explain some of the DOF anomalies in image 2 and 3, but I don't think it can account for the selective areas of motion blur in image 1.

It's also worth remembering that the photographer supposedly used a Canon Digital Rebel XT with a 300mm lens (we don't have details of the exact lens model). This isn't a cheap point and click camera, it's a very good semi-pro DLSR and not something you would expect to see in the hands of a complete amateur.

I don't see how they can say that the fallen branch was added to the 1st picture when it is in 2 images and it is in the same position on the ground.

If it was pasted into image 1, why not image 2 as well?

As I've mentioned on the other thread the fringing and sharp edges on the log could be down to compression, so I haven't claimed that it unquestionably a cut and paste job. In fairness one thing in favour of the log being an original part of the scenery is the fact that the log is seen from a different angle in the wider shot. This does however mean that the photographer must have moved position between images, which doesn't quite match the back story.......although this could just be an innocent omission or a consequence of misremembering the event.

I have the Canon Eos 5mg pixel camera. Its the Digital camera before the rebel came out. I have multiple lenses. I will get you the lens i use when i get back home from work. It is the lens I tend to use for all my RL pictures.
The Image in the link below was taken with that camera with a small telephoto lens. It was at the Bronx Zoo it was in the Snow Leopard Exhibit. If you have been to this Zoo, you would be taking this picture from behind a glass that is all marked up, and up into the back of the cage where the cats tend to relax. I only added the frame in photoshop.
As you can see I have achieved similar results, If you look at the foreground rock it is very sharp looking compared to the leaves just above the cat.

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 4630716044_327cc9c9a3

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 4630716044_327cc9c9a3

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:03 am

CMcMillan,

The thing is that the shadows, lighting and DOF in your image are all consistent with the way I would expect your camera to work under those conditions.

This - coupled with the uniformity of the edge on both the rock and leaf to the right of the cat - means that I would rule out montaging.

What you have demonstrated very well is that the quality of the Tamagami images are inconsistent with what we should see from the Rebel. If you can take a superb image like this with an older 5mp camera, then the 8mp should (even under duress) result in much higher quality images than those presented.

CMcMillan Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:19 am

@Woodwose,

I think some of the issue is that photo1 seems to be cropped unless it is taken as a vertical picture. Just from what I am seeing.
Photo2 I am looking at more, This photo to my eye tends to be more inline with what I expect to see in a photo.
What I would like to see is more landscape images. I tend to taking pictures landscaped/ horizontal before turning the camera to get a length shot unless I was positive my subject was not going to move. I would prefer to see the whole selection of images they took good and bad. I would expect that the first couple pictures may be bad but it does help see the over all progression. I would hope if i ever saw a creature as this i would post the whole set of pictures up.
I don't know why people don't show all of them. We don't need a glamour shot of Bigfoot. But posting all the images does help out.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:26 am

I hadn't considered the orientation, but now you mention it portrait images can be more awkward, especially in the heat of the moment and using a large lens.

More photos would be great, but the photographer claims that they only took three shots.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:56 am

I for one think that your input has been very valuable so far. As I've mention before I can tend to over analyse digital imagery, so it's good to have someone who can keep me in check.

What did you make of the 'no flash' version of image 3?

CMcMillan Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:26 am

Woodwose wrote:I for one think that your input has been very valuable so far. As I've mention before I can tend to over analyse digital imagery, so it's good to have someone who can keep me in check.

What did you make of the 'no flash' version of image 3?

I played a bit with Version 3 "no flash" I played with the brightness and contrast of the dark one and got about the same results as they did. Maybe a little better since i played with the contrast twice. I haven't played with the levels yet of any of them. I also looked at the images inverted which I also find helpful to see issues.

It still bugs me that they took portrait pictures and not landscaped unless they cropped something out to make it look portrait.
I would think if you had only what you thought were seconds to turn the camera to the side to take a Portrait shot just seems odd to me.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:31 am

CMcMillan,

Could you post your results with the 'no flash' image?

CMcMillan Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:33 am

Woodwose wrote:CMcMillan,

Could you post your results with the 'no flash' image?

Sure when I get home tonight i will upload what i did to the image as well as well. I will save some of the steps as well for you to see.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:42 am

That will be very useful thanks.

I've tried numerous methods and I can't get around the fact that there are blocks of solid pixels where the 'brightened' image has relatively fine detail.

SasquaiNation Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:42 am

Thanks for all of this information guys. I have no technical experience with analyzing images so i find all of this very helpful.
Why is image 3 'no flash' more important than the other ones with 'no flash'?
I'm going to continue looking in other areas of this story.

Woodwose Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:01 am

It's to do with the claim that the 'brightened' version of image no.3 derives from the 'no flash' version. If that brightening cannot be replicated then it means that particular claim is incorrect.

This could be down to dishonesty or merely because the image resolution of the shared images has been greatly reduced. Regardless of any dishonesty the second possibility is almost certainly true as the compression artifacts are consistent with re-saving a jpeg from an 8mp camera at the lowest possible setting (I have to question why anyone would do that).

SasquaiNation Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:49 pm

That's the science part of me talking. Now the artist: digital media is not a good source of evidence. Few cameras can render accurately when processing the amount of data present in a forest - that's one big problem. And digital media can be easily manipulated - a 2nd big problem. We need to dust off the old manual focus film cameras - that would be better proof. An image can be proof IF it can be replicated by an independent source. But even that won't be the final word.

I am starting to do just that GBYP. I have 3 old Pentax 35mm cameras with different lenses so I don't have to swap out. I recently picked up an old Super8 film camera and some cartridges. I took the film camera out yesterday only to discover that it didn't function properly. It stopped after 20ft. of film. I am working on getting a much better model that has all the options of the day. After a few test cartridges, I may get a 16mm as well. The store owner was explaining to me that I can do my own processing instead of shipping the film to Ontario. That may be an option I'll consider.
The problem I have,as you mentioned, is auto focus and digital zoom. I can't afford high end equipment so I started to think about film. It never hurts to give it a try, does it?

CMcMillan Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:27 pm

Woodwose wrote:That will be very useful thanks.

I've tried numerous methods and I can't get around the fact that there are blocks of solid pixels where the 'brightened' image has relatively fine detail.

Ok the lens I typically use on my camera is a Canon Zoom Lense EF 75-300mm

I have upload some of my playing around with the images to flickr

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 7728771032_f760feb429

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 7728771032_f760feb429

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 7728773210_570e3c4604

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped? 7728773926_ae71a6b99b

SasquaiNation Mon Aug 06, 2012 6:51 pm

Nice job CM. The profile of the head resembles the Bigfoot re-creaction mask from the Matine video.

Sponsored content

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Film Cameras

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?

Re: Are The Temagami Ontario Bigfoot Photographs Photoshopped?