Dust is pretty mobile. It could also simply be a bird or flying insect. And given the fact this was taken in Yosemite along the trail to get to a pretty popular tourist destination (so popular I...
Dust is pretty mobile. It could also simply be a bird or flying insect. And given the fact this was taken in Yosemite along the trail to get to a pretty popular tourist destination (so popular I recognized it immediately, see below), I would say either of those possibilities is far more likely than it being an unidentified aerial craft.
What exactly does he want from the photograph? I'm pretty handy in Photoshop and could give it a quick edit if it's something that isn't super time consuming. E.g. Zooming in at the point I assume...
What exactly does he want from the photograph? I'm pretty handy in Photoshop and could give it a quick edit if it's something that isn't super time consuming. E.g. Zooming in at the point I assume you're talking about on the highest res photo you provided, it still looks like a super indistinct smudge, so I doubt that anyone will be able to "enhance" it to anything identifiable.
IMO there isn't really much that can be done to "enhance" a photo unless you're fine with contaminating it with new algorithmically generated data that won't necessarily reflect reality. With...
IMO there isn't really much that can be done to "enhance" a photo unless you're fine with contaminating it with new algorithmically generated data that won't necessarily reflect reality. With enough playing around you can make that smudge look like pretty much anything you want to, but you unfortunately can't draw more genuine information out of an image file than is already present. And without a RAW image file, which contains the minimally processed "raw" camera sensor data, what you see is pretty much what you get.
p.s. And it's worth noting that given the JPG file format, and the fact that the metadata has already been stripped from the image, that hints at at least some basic level of (probably automatic) image processing already being involved.
Huh, so there is! When I first viewed the metadata in GIMP it didn't show anything though, which is weird. But I am still pretty new to using GIMP (normally I use Photoshop but I cancelled CC a...
Huh, so there is! When I first viewed the metadata in GIMP it didn't show anything though, which is weird. But I am still pretty new to using GIMP (normally I use Photoshop but I cancelled CC a few years ago) so I probably just got confused and/or fucked something up the first time I did it. :/
This may not be very particularly helpful towards your endeavor, but I can tell you definitively that the Mountain in the picture is the Half Dome at Yosemite. And based on the angle/elevation of...
This may not be very particularly helpful towards your endeavor, but I can tell you definitively that the Mountain in the picture is the Half Dome at Yosemite. And based on the angle/elevation of the photo, it looks to be taken not far from Glacier Point along Four Mile trail.
Side thought: since digital images are inherently falsifiable, would there be any value in using film photography if you're looking to prove the existence of UFOs? Would film make for better proof?
Side thought: since digital images are inherently falsifiable, would there be any value in using film photography if you're looking to prove the existence of UFOs? Would film make for better proof?
IMO film doesn't always guarantee a more accurate reflection of reality either, as it can also be manipulated as well. Just look at all the early VFX industry techniques which were applied to...
IMO film doesn't always guarantee a more accurate reflection of reality either, as it can also be manipulated as well. Just look at all the early VFX industry techniques which were applied to physical film stock, E.g. multiple exposures, forced perspective, or even something as basic as staging.
I can see that. However, I get the impression that it is generally harder to hide the marks of manipulation on film photography? I took film photography and used a film lab before. IDK. It seems...
I can see that. However, I get the impression that it is generally harder to hide the marks of manipulation on film photography?
I took film photography and used a film lab before. IDK. It seems it would be harder.
I don't think one can recover much here beside boosting the contrast, but ask if they have the raw file (this was taken with a digital SLR), jpegs contains much less information that the raw image...
I don't think one can recover much here beside boosting the contrast, but ask if they have the raw file (this was taken with a digital SLR), jpegs contains much less information that the raw image and has been heavily processed by the camera, so it's not ideal to work with.
Is there something fishy in the image? I took a cursory look and I'm not sure why it'd be posted to a UFO forum.
Seems more like unidentified dust in my optical pathway.
Dust is pretty mobile. It could also simply be a bird or flying insect. And given the fact this was taken in Yosemite along the trail to get to a pretty popular tourist destination (so popular I recognized it immediately, see below), I would say either of those possibilities is far more likely than it being an unidentified aerial craft.
What exactly does he want from the photograph? I'm pretty handy in Photoshop and could give it a quick edit if it's something that isn't super time consuming. E.g. Zooming in at the point I assume you're talking about on the highest res photo you provided, it still looks like a super indistinct smudge, so I doubt that anyone will be able to "enhance" it to anything identifiable.
IMO there isn't really much that can be done to "enhance" a photo unless you're fine with contaminating it with new algorithmically generated data that won't necessarily reflect reality. With enough playing around you can make that smudge look like pretty much anything you want to, but you unfortunately can't draw more genuine information out of an image file than is already present. And without a RAW image file, which contains the minimally processed "raw" camera sensor data, what you see is pretty much what you get.
p.s. And it's worth noting that given the JPG file format,
and the fact that the metadata has already been stripped from the image, that hints at at least some basic level of (probably automatic) image processing already being involved.There's EXIF information with all the camera settings.
Huh, so there is! When I first viewed the metadata in GIMP it didn't show anything though, which is weird. But I am still pretty new to using GIMP (normally I use Photoshop but I cancelled CC a few years ago) so I probably just got confused and/or fucked something up the first time I did it. :/
If all he wants is a basic zoom/crop, here's one for you with Navigator visible so they know it's the right spot: zoom.png
Weird, probably because I linked directly to the file... try this instead: https://1drv.ms/u/s!Av9PGlC3BdiRiIhPEyVzoH9uyFPbPQ?e=PPxNll
This may not be very particularly helpful towards your endeavor, but I can tell you definitively that the Mountain in the picture is the Half Dome at Yosemite. And based on the angle/elevation of the photo, it looks to be taken not far from Glacier Point along Four Mile trail.
Side thought: since digital images are inherently falsifiable, would there be any value in using film photography if you're looking to prove the existence of UFOs? Would film make for better proof?
IMO film doesn't always guarantee a more accurate reflection of reality either, as it can also be manipulated as well. Just look at all the early VFX industry techniques which were applied to physical film stock, E.g. multiple exposures, forced perspective, or even something as basic as staging.
I can see that. However, I get the impression that it is generally harder to hide the marks of manipulation on film photography?
I took film photography and used a film lab before. IDK. It seems it would be harder.
I don't think one can recover much here beside boosting the contrast, but ask if they have the raw file (this was taken with a digital SLR), jpegs contains much less information that the raw image and has been heavily processed by the camera, so it's not ideal to work with.
That's also a jpg, raw file for his camera should be .pef or .dng (it's possible he didn't save the raw file though, it's an option on the camera).
Unfortunate (storage is cheap nowadays, always save raws), in any case here's an edited version, doesn't look like much.
https://imgur.com/uzBvzMS
This pretty much looks like the edited original. https://i.imgur.com/7b1SSbW.jpg