Murray River Pic

[lorib]

s1085.photobucket.com/albums/j429/lorib6/murray%20river%20pic/

took this pic at the Murray River.

First pic is original with the abnormality circled in red. Second pic is same image lightened so you can see abnormality more clearly.

It was a still night, no wind, no rain, etc. There was no one around me.......... thoughts?

[lorib]

[shireparanormal]

Thanks for posting. I suspect daren will want to analyze the original before commenting.I hope you enjoy and find the forum useful

[lucysposaro]

wow not shure what to think of that kinda scary

[Darren]

Thanks for posting the pic

Exif data states the image was taken on a Canon EOS1000D, 1/60 sec exposure at F5.6. ISO400, focal length 260mm on 11/3/2011 at 20:19:50. The flash was set to compulsory and so fired. There is a record (APP1 marker) suggesting that the program ExifTool 8.35 may have altered the EXIF in some way.

As expected the compression signature and EXIF indicates the image has been processed/edited and is not the original from the camera - This is obvious anyway from the addition of the red circle.

Given the problems inherent with most digital cameras in low light when set to auto, it is highly probable that the anomaly is a natural artifact resulting from the camera struggling with low light. The need for such drastic adjustment to brighten up the image to obtain recognisable features further documents this.

All this leads to the information just not being complete enough to enable ruling out the natural possibilities. Another point is that the EXIF indicates the flash fired but it seems most of what appears in the image was to far away to be effected by it. This meant the illumination for exposure was chiefly by ambient light. If this was the case anything giving off it's own light would have shown up fairly clearly in the original without the need for brightening up.

I'd tend to rate the picture Natural Explanation Highly Likely

[lorib]

Thanks for that