First off, it is definitely an actual face. This is not a case of seeing a face in a pattern (I dropped it into photoshop, upped the pixel per inch to 1000 and zoomed right in- its a real face)
However, this does not confirm paranormal activity. I would like to see the original on the camera. The problem with most is that it is nearly impossible to see the original and the poster takes offence at being challenged.
I am inclined to believe this is a fake. The face is too small, too high in the picture and looks too much like the girl second from left.
Of all the pics I;ve seen on here so far, this is the firts I’m willing to pronounce an actual fake as opposed to natural occurence/ oversight.
Techniques like ‘Upping the pixel count’ is, I believe, known as ’empty magnification’. Add whatever resolution you like, you can’t add information which is not there! cf. Digital zooms: no different to cropping a bigger picture.
Oh for one good quality picture! Photo’s i’ve taken in daylight on either my phone or camera are such that you could zoom right in. Here you can’t at all!! So it’s impossible to make a definitive analysis. If you are going to post a photo then make it better quality.
This is almosty certainly a reflection of sorts – the perspective is completely wrong, yet the face is similar to the female ones in the group. This sort of thing happens a lot – perhaps Photoshop experts (real ones, that is) and the camera makers should be asked to look at them.
Abd why do so many people think that the photos featured in this column are made by Photoshop experts? The vast majority of folks I know are happy to take photos of friends and places and just store them on their computers. few understand even how to change the brightness and contrast. I am an exception in that I am getting to know PS very well now; and my view is that there is little evidence that it has been used in any of these pictures – the weirdness in nearly all of them can be explained as natural phenomenon.
The person who submitted this only writes a slightly suggestive comment, but no details of who was there, and what’s so strange.
Could be a girl peeping out from under the man’s jacket – or seems more likely a photoshopped image – happens often when someone is left out of a group photo, and people want to add/include that person in!
the paranormal has been a lifelong hobby for me but alas…in 40 years I have never seen anything. I have however discovered one fact. The human mind can generate an image that the subject experiences visually…thru their eyes. In this respect I do believe that what many people see with their eyes to be genuine…even though, in reality, what they see does not actually exist. But to them ..it does.
Always remember that what appears to you as a ghost or spectre can never harm you.
I agree that this is not a ghost, however, there are a lot of people making comments about the girl whose face is peeking out from under the man’s armpit that justify their skeptcism by saying the girl’s hairstyle and clothes are too new to be a ghost. I daresay that considering that death has not been overcome in the last 50 – 500 years, not all ghosts will be dressed in Victorian trappings. Or, are the dead not allowed to become ghosts until their styles have gone passe??
wow..that looks real, she is fainter than the other people in the picture. she looks like she could be a member of the family..but her face is smaller than it should be in that distance but at the same time it looks like the man is hugging her
Wow…. Lots of interesting theories, but it’s really simpler than that. Camera lenses are not made out of one piece of glass. they are made out of multiple lenses that bend the light. They are arranged in “groups” of these lenses, stuck together. What we are seeing here is an in-lens reflection of the girl to the left of the snowman. The only reason the reflection is visible is because of the darkness of the man’s jacket. This is not a “fake” as in “intentional.” It is a genuine curiosity, but nothing really odd about it at all. Unfortunately, it is also an indication of a not-so-super lens. I bet it’s a digicam, and not a digital SLR, or if it is, it was done with the original kit lens. In fact, many of the phenomena I’ve seen here today on this sight are simple optical problems with cheaper lenses. 😦