Is that photograph original?

"Just because someone sends you a photo to check, don't accept it at face value that it is the original RAW file image! There is one thing you can do to see if it is the original"

Social media...

Facebook and Twitter... and the rest of the social platforms, can be your undoing when it comes to showing off any 'alleged' evidence of paranormal activity. Why? Well the major problem with all captured footage of 'alleged' ghosts, spirits or other activity is because 90% of people will edit these images for the audience. This is usually by cropping the main image to 'fit' into the post so that leaves some of that main image unseen. Sometimes the original image is saved into a different format too.

How many times have you 'edited' something then saved it, enhanced it (brightness, etc.) then saved it into another format, saved it again... cut and pasted, etc.? Probably lots of times. It's what we do. Well in the paranormal field this is the wrong way to go about trying to prove your capture is valid evidence. Even the masses of people on paranormal groups on Facebook upload their captures and there is no way possible to check the RAW data file. You can ask the poster to send you the actual RAW file but 99% of the time they will not do so.

As a paranormal investigator this is where suspicion creeps in. As a paranormal investigator, one must be professional and always keep the RAW file footage of your 'evidence' so if needs must you can go back to the original and compare the before and after. And never ever do any scrawl of ringing round where you think you 'see' something or drawing in pointed arrows to the 'alleged' activity as this just causes 'subjective' viewing for the audience - they will also think they can see something!

Best way forward - and to maintain credibility - is to show the whole image for viewing - WITH NO EXTRA EDITING - and then upload for people to view. Do not tell them anything or direct them to anything... let them do the work. If anyone 'true' to the paranormal field is genuine then they will deduct their own reasoning and question the photo and also what they think it could be without you showing them.

To be honest, if there has been any formatting like cropping, highlighting, adding in markings, words, etc. then one will automatically think: "what else has been done?" In plain and simple terms, only scrutinise the original file and not a doctored one.

How to know a capture is original?

There is a little known 'tag' and simple way to acknowledge if the image you are viewing is the original photo file... it is called EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format). EXIF is your best weapon when viewing alleged proof of paranormal activity on still photography.

There are numerous ways to view this data and there several websites that enable you to upload an image where it automatically gives you a report. In Windows it is quicker to check the file using the File Explorer: right-click onto the file in question, select 'Properties' then use the 'Details' tab... you can then scroll down through the information.

The things you need to look for are are as highlighted in the following pictures:

Date taken:

This is when the photo was taken with the camera. Now if one were to have programmed the wrong date and time then this will still imprint the date and time as what is programmed into the settings of the camera. The 'Date taken' should be the same as the 'Date modified' data (or as near to each other within minutes) otherwise if a major discrepancy then do not accept the photo as genuine.

Camera maker and Camera model:

This is where you can verify what the picture was taken with. If somebody tells you they took it on their smartphone (an iPhone for example) then this would show as 'maker' Apple and 'model' as 'iPhone'. Otherwise if they claim one thing but this shows another then they are not being truthful.

Exposure time:

This is the Windows File Explorer equivalent of the shutter speed. Shutter speed is how long the shutter was open for when taking the photo. The longer it is open the more chance of motion blur anomalies. The standard speed for smartphones tends to be around 1/60... but can be at 1/85... which is a good thing. Anything slower than this (and some smartphones can go down to 1/17 depending upon environmental factors like light, focussing, how close the object is, etc.) then any movement will cause blurring and anything in view moving will become even more blurry than normal.

ISO speed:

Basically, ISO speed is a camera setting that brightens or darkens a photo. The higher the ISO number the brighter the image becomes due to more light being allowed in... so you can adjust for capturing images in darker environments. The downside is the higher the ISO also causes a lot of grain on the image, also known as noise. So brightening a photo via the ISO should only be done when you are unable to brighten the photo via shutter speed or aperture instead. One would only want to raise the ISO if one did not want to use a flash (like during a paranormal investigation). The huge problem arises on any picture taken with an ISO setting of anything over 400 is that it creates possible matrixing and grainy imagery... and so people might tend to 'see' things that are not really there.

Flash mode:

As it informs... was the flash used or not. As we all know when flash is used it can reflect off objects causing lens flare and also it can light up dust, moisture, insects, etc. So if someone shows you an 'orb' photo and claim the flash was not used, this will prove otherwise.

Date created and Date modified:

The 'Date created' is quite possibly only referring to when the file was uploaded to a PC. It might be the photo was taken on one day but was not uploaded until the next day. The 'Date modified' should be the same date and time data as 'Date taken'... although some smartphones will have a slight delay once taken to when saved - IE 'modified'... usually only a few seconds.

Conclusion?

Do not take a photo at face value. Ask to see the original image file and check the EXIF data. If the person will not submit the file then forget about it. And if they do and the EXIF data shows lots and lots of blank space, especially in the areas identified above, then pass on it as it has possibly been doctored. EXIF data will not hide the truth.