|
#36
●
10-06-2014, 10:18 AM
|
|
Re: Dead Female
i would call fake. But I'm no expert or anything, so could be wrong. Was edited and default "save as" at 80% quality. gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80. Why would they need to edit, and compress a document photo? However the ELA shows significant texture changes, separating the body, from the DRs hand, and the innards. This ELA photo is that of a 100% quality, un altered, straite from the camera photo of that other autopsy floating around. This is the ELA photo of the one you posted. Notice in photo 1, the texture, and color contrast is even across the board. In photo 2, the texture changes in all areas, and contrast gives definite outline, and erratic texture change along the edges of the incisions which would suggest a blending tool, or blur tool was used. Textures are like finger prints in digital cameras, each make and model creates a different texture when viewed in the ELA. so in the pic 2, it would suggest some of the image is coming from dual sources. If you have a flat screen monitor (which I'd imagine by now everyone does) open the image, (pic 2) turn your monitor slighty so that you are viewing across the photo. You'll see, the girl is separate from the rest of the pic. It would seem to me, the girl, judging by the texture on her parts, were shot with a crappy digital camera, and the other parts with a better digital camera. Anatomical opinion, her abdomen, and how the guts sit in scale don't seem very correct, and the tighter upside down V of the rib line, looks closer to that of an Animal. |
|
#37
●
10-07-2014, 01:08 PM
| ||||||||
| My Rank: PRIVATE Poster Rank:30497 Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1 Mentioned: 0 Post(s) Quoted: 0 Post(s)
| ||||||||
|
Re: Dead Female
Looking at the file name (and number sequence), they look straight out of a camera AND that there are more to this set that exists somewhere. Wish we someone has the full set to share!
|