Following an incident this weekend re ghosts in the camera: check this site out:http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/ghost3.html I’m a total sceptic when it comes to these but maybe there are some interesting opinions?
my opinion?
if you can imagine it, you can photoshop it.
i think that i have an inkling as to what or where this debate has been coming from.
my office co-worker, and brian’s son-in-law, sends me a pic, and asks me what i think of it. i analyze it, and quickly come to a conclusion.
upon his explanation as to where and how the shots were taken, im now more than a little stumped.
here are the images:
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_YJm3BqMvyLk/THT9gszr1jI/AAAAAAAABB8/MBfuEYBoA14/s512/IMG_5475%20copy.jpg
the top image was sent to me first , and this is what i responded:
From a photographic anomoly point of view, this is easy. Bad lighting makes the cameras shutter stay open longer, so the image blurs. Here you have a case of propably a shot taken in mist, or dawn/dusk, or cloudy conditions. The figure in the background looks like a hiker. You can see the motion of walking up a hill, the side to side associated with uphill waliking with a backpack, this motion blur, and the size increase as the subject approaches the cameraman.The incline from the photographer to the subject allso suggests a mountainside. There allso seems to be mountainous or hill-like secenery in the background.
Since the shutter stayed open for longer, I would think here, anything from 15 seconds on, that the hiker in the background moved a little, and that someone walked in front of the camera while the shot was taken, propably holding a torch, which gives the weird light trail you see in the foreground. It’s quite likely that the cameraman didn’t use flash, as the light doesn’t reach the hiker, but the person in the foreground who walks by the lens, is lighter.
then, he sent me the second shot, he said was taken on a full moon night, on the beach in Mozambique, with nobody on the beach for a mile in each direction. with that in mind, i could see the wave’s water meeting the dry sand, and knowing what that area of MOz looks like, i could see the outcropping of the sand dunes on the right of the image.
the photo information is stored as such:
From a photographic anomoly point of view, this is easy.
Bad lighting makes the cameras shutter stay open longer, so the image blurs. Here you have a case of propably a shot taken in mist, or dawn/dusk, or cloudy conditions. The figure in the background looks like a hiker. You can see the motion of walking up a hill, the side to side associated with uphill waliking with a backpack, this motion blur, and the size increase as the subject approaches the cameraman.
The incline from the photographer to the subject allso suggests a mountainside. There allso seems to be mountainous or hill-like secenery in the background.
Since the shutter stayed open for longer, I would think here, anything from 15 seconds on, that the hiker in the background moved a little, and that someone walked in front of the camera while the shot was taken, propably holding a torch, which gives the weird light trail you see in the foreground. It’s quite likely that the cameraman didn’t use flash, as the light doesn’t reach the hiker, but the person in the foreground who walks by the lens, is lighter.
From a photographic anomoly point of view, this is easy.
Bad lighting makes the cameras shutter stay open longer, so the image blurs. Here you have a case of propably a shot taken in mist, or dawn/dusk, or cloudy conditions. The figure in the background looks like a hiker. You can see the motion of walking up a hill, the side to side associated with uphill waliking with a backpack, this motion blur, and the size increase as the subject approaches the cameraman.
The incline from the photographer to the subject allso suggests a mountainside. There allso seems to be mountainous or hill-like secenery in the background.
Since the shutter stayed open for longer, I would think here, anything from 15 seconds on, that the hiker in the background moved a little, and that someone walked in front of the camera while the shot was taken, propably holding a torch, which gives the weird light trail you see in the foreground. It’s quite likely that the cameraman didn’t use flash, as the light doesn’t reach the hiker, but the person in the foreground who walks by the lens, is lighter.
From a photographic anomoly point of view, this is easy.
Bad lighting makes the cameras shutter stay open longer, so the image blurs. Here you have a case of propably a shot taken in mist, or dawn/dusk, or cloudy conditions. The figure in the background looks like a hiker. You can see the motion of walking up a hill, the side to side associated with uphill waliking with a backpack, this motion blur, and the size increase as the subject approaches the cameraman.
The incline from the photographer to the subject allso suggests a mountainside. There allso seems to be mountainous or hill-like secenery in the background.
Since the shutter stayed open for longer, I would think here, anything from 15 seconds on, that the hiker in the background moved a little, and that someone walked in front of the camera while the shot was taken, propably holding a torch, which gives the weird light trail you see in the foreground. It’s quite likely that the cameraman didn’t use flash, as the light doesn’t reach the hiker, but the person in the foreground who walks by the lens, is lighter.
first image info shows as follows:
date pic taken - 2010/08/22 6:14pm
aperture F5
exposure 20sec
ISO 200
second pic:
date pic taken - 2010/08/22 6:19pm
aperture F3/5
exposure 2sec
ISO 400
the first images long shutter speed explains maybe the photographer assuming the shot had taken, then moving it, giving the light streaking effect. but what on earth is that human looking thingy then?
“Ghost photography” in the science section of a sceptic forum… Now that is interesting >:D! Seriously, shouldn’t it be in the junk science section?
Speculating about phenomena and observations and coming up with probable explanations form part of the scientific method. But somehow I suspect you know this already. So, -1.
Mintaka
Yeah sure, my bad. What should we discuss next in the science section so that we can speculate and come up with probable explanations? Mind reading, homeopathy, UFOs, near death experiences, auras, ID, astrology, witch doctors and how their cures seem to work for some, telekinesis, the hollow earth, heck how about the expanding earth theory? +1 for you.
the point of this forum, is it not, to discuss things. to come up with ideas, theories, debunkings… there really is no point to just posting 100% straight and narrow things. how goddamn boring is that?
the idea is, to put a thought out there, get individual input, expand your ideas, maybe rethink your own ideas.
jeeslike. having a slow year tellie?
It only becomes junk science when the facts can be debunked or BS is claimed to be ‘science’
Well done for not contributing anything to the thread Teleological.
Because of the long exposure, the first photo isn’t hard to do. It can be that the camera was moved at the start or end of the exposure, with a light being visible somewhere. As for the shadowy figure, someone just had to walk into the frame, stand still for a few seconds, and walk away. That is exactly what I would expect. I can try and duplicate that tonight if you guys want.
Not much going on in the second one, so have no comment on that.
The one in the OP is weird, but a more plausible explanation than ghosts is photo shop, or even just a photo taken from a distance at a different time of the day than the report, when someone was sitting there.
well done mandude.
the exposure guess is spot on.
the photographer was standing inside a beach bar thingy, and she thought the shutter had closed, but it hadnt, so she turned around to look at the LCD of the camera, and the humanlike forms are three people standing at the bar chatting, and the light streak is a candle.
was curious to see who would geddit first.
Excellent stuff…justifies the posting. Yes it was taken in a tented beach bar with full moon outside, windy conditions and streaks of clouds; not totally dark yet…the guys at the bar is an excellent analysis as that is exactly as I recall and there were a bunch of small lights/candles etc…Thanks to Gavin for sending it to CGC lower caps!
Cool stuff bru: Check out these amazing photies that adds so much to science it is amazing. I mean photo shop is an amazing scientific tool that is absolutely essential in ghost photography which itself is a fascinating scientific topic. Amazing huh, see if you can explain it:
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/photo/006-1251.jpg
http://english.pravda.ru/img/idb/photo/007-1202.jpg
http://0.tqn.com/d/paranormal/1/7/M/L/granny_lg.jpg
That guy in the car just blew my mind, what a great photo shop that was hey!
Well he/she is certainly making up for it now! :
Reflections, double exposures, darkroom fraud. All far less likely than a ghost, not?
Mintaka
Well duh, this is the science section, you did not think these were actual ghosts? But in the name of science, here are more ghost photographs to please all you sciency dudes out there…
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/Blackpool.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/brownpalace.html
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/oldlady.html
Check out that old lady, sweet hey.
Hey tele…I can imagine what blows your mind dude…this section is also about technology, bru…so get off your high horse (sorry you’ve probably never got on one) Oops this probably belongs in the Flame section! My bad!
i find reasoning with tele about as effective as teaching a polony to riverdance
@ Brian: Yes this ghost photography is for the tech savvy sciency people of the world. Amazing stuff man.
Should I reply to you in kind?
i highly doubt anything you can come up with will blow my hair back
True, then again who cares.
being boring suck, dunnit? fyl