Digital Camera Mystery

I'm searching for a possible explanation of the event described
below.
I turned on my digital camera yesterday, to remove all images on it
before lending it to a friend ... when I scanned through the images on
the camera's internal memory, I recognized the first 3 immediately ...
photos I had taken of my father and his wife during their last visit, last
year ... the remaining 20 images where of a place I have never seen or
visited.
At this point, I have owned the camera for several years, I have taken
hundreds of photos, viewing and uploading and deleting, etc ... I have
never seen these photos before.

Four of the 20 mystery images:

http://i32.tinypic.com/30mx0lx.jpg

http://i31.tinypic.com/vpaw60.jpg

http://i29.tinypic.com/2128g2d.jpg

http://i26.tinypic.com/2mx0i01.jpg

Can anyone explain how this could happen?? :idea:

Thanks!

Bought new?
Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:03:15 10:20
Was that before you bought it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandog

I'm searching for a possible explanation...I have never seen these photos before.

---

First of all, welcome to the site. FWIW, this kind of discussion is not off-topic, so maybe your thread will get moved to a more appropriate forum. Whatever...

You didn't say if you bought the camera used, but you sort of imply it. If so, my guess is these files were simply in the camera's internal memory from the previous owner.

Much like "deleting" files on a computer doesn't actually remove the data, this info might just have been sitting on an unused portion of the camera's memory all this time...

Quote:

---

Bought new?

---

Yes

Quote:

---

Last Modified Date/Time = 2006:03:15 10:20
Was that before you bought it?

---

No ... I bought it in 2003.

Quote:

---

You didn't say if you bought the camera used, but you sort of imply it. If so, my guess is these files were simply in the camera's internal memory from the previous owner.

---

Hhhmmm ... I don't see the implication, but no - it is not used.

Quote:

---

Much like "deleting" files on a computer doesn't actually remove the data, this info might just have been sitting on an unused portion of the camera's memory all this time...

---

Even if the camera was purchased "used" ... I would have been seeing those images
every time I hooked the camera up to my computer ... the various transfer applications
I use display all images in the camera's memory each time they access it.

Addendum: I have never owned a memory card for this camera ... I have only ever used
its internal memory

are there sample images from the manufacturer? Just tossing a guess in here.

Quote:

---

are there sample images from the manufacturer?

---

Thanks for your input, Jaedon!
Are you asking if the images on my camera could be sample images from the manufacturer?
I suppose that is a possiblitiy ... I would think a camera manufacturer would attempt
to use better quality and more attractive subject matter ... here are some more of the
images:

http://i31.tinypic.com/r7oikm.jpg

http://i25.tinypic.com/34xnwx3.jpg

http://i32.tinypic.com/md1nao.jpg

If, despite the odd selection, the manufacturer loaded these images before sale .. how
could I have missed them through all these years?

Is it possible that that nature of data storage with digital cameras could have concealed
these images from sight all along ... :confused:

I was thinking that they might be sample shots, also, especially if you happened to buy a demo model but you are right in thinking they aren't exactly good shots for samples.

I do love a good mystery though!!

But if you bought it in 2003 and these are dated 2006 - they must have been taken on this camera.
Or loaded into this camera from someone else's memory card.

Thanks for your input, Frog!

I purchased the camera in 2003 (supposedly, new) ... the data attached to each of
these images, indicates they were taken during a one week period in March 2006 ... so
that pretty much does away with the idea of pre-loaded images, right?
That is ... if the data attached to the images is correct ...

Quote:

---

But if you bought it in 2003 and these are dated 2006 - they must have been taken on this camera.
Or loaded into this camera from someone else's memory card.

---

hehe ... we were both posting at the same moment, wombat :)

Your point re. the memory card is the most plausible explanation that I've come across
so far.
I just can't imagine how that could have happened without my knowledge though ... the
camera has been sitting on a desk in my room for the past three years ... I stopped using
it when I purchased my new Fuji camera.
The reason I grabbed it to photograph my father and his wife during their visit last year, is that our
topic of conversation had turned to digital cameras, storage devices, etc ... and I dash
off to retrieve this HP digital camera from my room to demonstrate its functions ... snapping
2 shots of father and wife ... and one out of the window in the room where it was kept.

No family member went to some tropical island?

Most definitely not

I've submitted an inquiry to HP concerning this issue ... I've been dealing with the tech
support at HP for a few years now ... is it just me ... or are these some of the most
intellectually challenged people on the face of the Earth ...

This is a good mystery . . .
So, the last time you used the camera was when you took pics of your father and his wife last year. . .and you used that camera because a discussion on Digital cameras came about and you wanted to show him some of the features. During this time, you only took three pics? Did you look through the camera to view those pics at the time you took them (of your father and wife) and did not notice any other ones on it?
If so, then those mystery images were loaded into the camera somehow between last year and now.
Do you load your images on to a computer that others in the household use as well? If so, maybe doing a search on your computer for those mystery images (searching using date and file name perhaps) may reveal where they came.
I do notice something that seems a bit odd in the IPTC Status of the metadata. It says
"Copyright, HP Corp, 2003" in the copyright section. I'm not sure if it's normal that this section would show a copyright to HP for an image that you may have taken, unless these truly are sample images. In which case the question comes back to, why did you not see these before. . . .hmmm

Gary ... an acquaintance sent me the IPTC status info ... he has a program for searching
this data ... I do not. I'm posting one of the images that I know is mine ... can you
find the same "copyright" info for this one? My thought is that, if the IPTC data for this
image says "Copyright HP ... ", then that is some type of standard info added to every
image on the camera ...

http://i31.tinypic.com/scgqvm.jpg

Nice pictures; I'd like to be able to call them mine... Or someone is possibly playing a joke on you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandog

Gary ... an acquaintance sent me the IPTC status info ... he has a program for searching
this data ... I do not. I'm posting one of the images that I know is mine ... can you
find the same "copyright" info for this one? My thought is that, if the IPTC data for this
image says "Copyright HP ... ", then that is some type of standard info added to every
image on the camera ...

---

Yes, your image has the same copyright info as the other. These images were taken from this camera. . .

Quote:

---

These images were taken from this camera.

---

And ... the copyright data does not indicate that the mystery photos
were preloaded by the manufacturer ...

What synchronisation (i.e. upload images and download images) software are you using? It's possible that the software is uploading sample images to your camera every time you sync. Is there any way to clear the memory entirely?

I'm using the software that came with the camera, something included in windows xp,
and one other utility, the name of which escapes me at this moment ...

Quote:

---

It's possible that the software is uploading sample images to your camera every time you sync

---

Wouldn't I have seen something like this before if that were the case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandog

Gary ... an acquaintance sent me the IPTC status info ... he has a program for searching
this data ... I do not. I'm posting one of the images that I know is mine ... can you
find the same "copyright" info for this one? My thought is that, if the IPTC data for this
image says "Copyright HP ... ", then that is some type of standard info added to every
image on the camera ...

http://i31.tinypic.com/scgqvm.jpg

---

Both show the HP copyright, and I’m hoping they’re claiming a copyright on their software, not your images.

I guess the question is- what were you doing March 20th of 2006? A nice tropical vacation with a little too much rum to remember it? I’d say because of the general nature you could be looking at ‘demo’ photos, but that last one looks way too amateurish, like the inside of a hotel room. Did you loan the camera to someone in March of 2006? Is it possible you accidentally switched cameras with someone with the same model at a party after that date, but before you took the pictures you remember being there?

Did you ever take the camera to a lab to print pictures? Maybe they accidentally loaded a few of someone’s holiday pictures on your card, but the EXIF data says both pictures were taken with a HP 635.


This is the EXIF info from the “Looking at boats through the windows” shot. (The bolding is mine to highlight some of the more interesting things).
__________

Make - Hewlett-Packard
Model - hp 635 Digital Camera
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - HP Firmware Ver 1.58.38
DateTime - 2006:03:20 08:20:27
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright - Copyright, HP Corp, 2003
ExifOffset - 306
ExposureTime - 1/304 seconds
FNumber - 5.80
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2006:03:20 08:20:27
DateTimeDigitized - 2006:03:20 08:20:28
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/304 seconds
ApertureValue - F 6.96
BrightnessValue - 8.40
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.73
SubjectDistance - 0.72 m
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
LightSource - Daylight
Flash - Flash not fired, auto mode
FocalLength - 5.20 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 400
ExifImageHeight - 300
InteroperabilityOffset - 804
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 0.00/0.00 x
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Distant view

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 928
JpegIFByteCount – 13068

________

This is the EXIF info from the one you just posted, "Looking through the window at the house next door"

_________

Make - Hewlett-Packard
Model - hp 635 Digital Camera
Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - HP Firmware Ver 1.58.38
DateTime - 2007:04:23 08:46:55
YCbCrPositioning - Co-Sited
Copyright - Copyright, HP Corp, 2003
ExifOffset - 306
ExposureTime - 1/152 seconds
FNumber - 2.90
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 100
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2007:04:23 08:46:55
DateTimeDigitized - 2007:04:23 08:46:55
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/152 seconds
ApertureValue - F 2.73
BrightnessValue - 5.40
ExposureBiasValue - 0.00
MaxApertureValue - F 2.73
SubjectDistance - 0.40 m
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
LightSource - D65
Flash - Flash not fired, auto mode
FocalLength - 5.20 mm
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 400
ExifImageHeight - 300
InteroperabilityOffset - 804
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - Other
SceneType - Other
White Balance - Auto
DigitalZoomRatio - 0.00/0.00 x
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Distant view

Thumbnail: -
Compression - 6 (JPG)
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
JpegIFOffset - 928
JpegIFByteCount – 10276

__________

Thanks California - that's a LOT of info you've provided!
In March 2006, I was working 9-5, and going nowhere.
The furthest I've been from my home (Ontario) is a few miles
south of the border, no more than a half dozen times in my
entire life ... so, no ... I didn't take the photos while on vacation,
and "forget" ... although, I'm almost wishing I did, so that a
possible explanation could be reached!
I've never lent my camera to anyone - ever. I just don't have the
money to replace something like this, so it's best not to take
chances.
One plausible explanation that you offered would be that I might
have put the camera down at some point, and accidentally picked
up one belonging to another person ... the exact same manufacturer,
model, etc (it's quite a stretch, but still ... one of the most plausible
explanations I've seen so far).
BUT - my three images are #'s 1, 2, and 3 on the memory card ... were
recorded in March 2007 (after the recorded dates on the remaining images)
... #'s 4 through 23 - which are NOT mine ... follow in sequence.

ha ha, maybe the camera was swapped twice. Now that would be crazy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dumpy

ha ha, maybe the camera was swapped twice. Now that would be crazy

---

hahaha - now there's some garage band wondering what happened to "our group photo that was so cool."

it is strange that there are several different places to these photos. one is a studio shot, several from some warm sunny place and a couple that look like they could be from the pacific northwest.

Another, maybe far reaching explanation... Maybe you or someone was taking pictures of something on tv, computer or something like that. It's hard telling -- but the pictures look too good to be something like that --but , maybe!

mbb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandog

Thanks California - that's a LOT of info you've provided!
In March 2006, I was working 9-5, and going nowhere.
The furthest I've been from my home (Ontario) is a few miles
south of the border, no more than a half dozen times in my
entire life ... so, no ... I didn't take the photos while on vacation,
and "forget" ... although, I'm almost wishing I did, so that a
possible explanation could be reached!
I've never lent my camera to anyone - ever. I just don't have the
money to replace something like this, so it's best not to take
chances.
One plausible explanation that you offered would be that I might
have put the camera down at some point, and accidentally picked
up one belonging to another person ... the exact same manufacturer,
model, etc (it's quite a stretch, but still ... one of the most plausible
explanations I've seen so far).
BUT - my three images are #'s 1, 2, and 3 on the memory card ... were
recorded in March 2007 (after the recorded dates on the remaining images)
... #'s 4 through 23 - which are NOT mine ... follow in sequence.

---

The info is just cut and paste. But to make a long shot even longer- on my Olympus if you delete pictures, 1, 2, 3, but not 7-20, or whatever, your next three shots will be in places 1-3. So maybe those pictures, somehow, were taken in 2006, but somebody deleted 1-3. In 2007 you took 3 pictures, which ended up 1-3 on the card. That would make the switched camera theory possible, if not plausible. Do you have the serial number of the camera you bought and the one you have?

Could someone else have loaned the camera- wife, girlfriend, mother, brother, roommate, without telling you?

Then there's mattbikeboy's theory, maybe not a TV, but how about a magazine- someone testing the camera?

Reminds me what happened to a filmmaker friend of mine. He went to the lab to pick up some 16mm he shot. He asked to see it in one of their editing rooms. A minute later he's at the front desk insisting it's not his film. The lab explains that it's extremely unlikely he got the wrong film with the serial number system they use, and that the serial number on the film matches the one generated for his receipt. If there was an error then it meant they gave everyone the wrong film, and nobody else had complained. They ask him if he's certain it's not his. He is. He explains that he's shooting a serious experimental film and the film they gave him is women playing volleyball- obviously some horrible ad agency stuff. The lab manager goes into the editing room and views the film. My friend is of of an artistic temperament and won't even go back into the editing room. He KNOWS it's not his film. The manager comes out two minutes later and describes the opening scene on his reel- a room with moody lighting and a young man holding a can of beer staring into the camera. He's relieved. They found his film. Yes, and no- it's the film they gave him. Come back to the editing room and they'll show him. Sure enough his film is cued up to the first shot. What he forgot was that his last shot on that reel was a slow dolly into a TV- which was a live off air broadcast that happened to be showing a beer commercial with- women playing volleyball. He also forgot, but should have known, that labs deliver film 'tails out'- last shot first. He was so shocked to see jiggle shots instead of art his mind went blank. He left with his tail between his legs feeling like the world's biggest idiot. They're probably still laughing about it. I know we are.

If you ever figure this one out, let us know. I'd like to hear the real story.

re. different locations - my boyfriend noticed conifer trees in a few of the mystery
images ... I'm not botanist, but I don't think conifers live in the tropics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bandog

re. different locations - my boyfriend noticed conifer trees in a few of the mystery
images ... I'm not botanist, but I don't think conifers live in the tropics?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropica...ferous_forests

If I were to guess, and it would just be a guess, I'd say either Mexico or possibly the Caribbean.

poltergeist.....

I really want to know what happened here lol I love a mystery :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lori11

I really want to know what happened here lol I love a mystery :D

---

...Julius von Bismarck used his Image Fulgurator to plant those images on the camera... :D

I have no further information concerning this mystery ... HP has stopped responding ...
I must have used a big word in my last response to them.
As someone pointed out recently ... there MUST be a logical explanation ... but it might
never be found ...
I will continue to monitor this thread for any further suggestions/ideas/theories ... and
respond to any I see.
I'm busily preparing for a weekend getaway right now ... but I'll be sure to call HP
next week ... if I demand to have the issue escalated via phone, I'm sure they'll be
much more likely to comply.
My thanks to all who have attempted to assist in solving this oddity!

To me they look like photos of photos, as in some took a picture of a photo. The first one in this post looks like it has a line in it?

Just my thoughts.

Most likely they're just sample images, a lot of older digital point and shoots had those. Much like on windows media player when you first buy a computer. I had that happen when I bought this one - found all these pics of peoples' birthdays and stuff like that of somewhere in mexico. Who knows? As long as the thing works ...

Quote:

---

Most likely they're just sample images, a lot of older digital point and shoots had those

---

I don't think so in this case, because the date/time stamp in the EXIF is after the camera was bought.
That's the confusing thing.

Quote:

---

like on windows media player when you first buy a computer. I had that happen when I bought this one - found all these pics of peoples' birthdays and stuff like that of somewhere in mexico.

---

So your "new" computer wasn't new after all then?
I've had that when I bought a discounted returned-and-refurbished computer.
But I expected it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmartWombat

I don't think so in this case, because the date/time stamp in the EXIF is after the camera was bought.
That's the confusing thing.



So your "new" computer wasn't new after all then?
I've had that when I bought a discounted returned-and-refurbished computer.
But I expected it :)

---

Bought am ipod like that from bestbuy, was new in the box. Opened and went to set it up and noticed it was named Joe's :P

Man I was pissed, when you spend $300 on something new and get used it tends to do that hahahaha.

But yes all retail places can rewrap products. So it could have been used but new to you.