Ghosts On Film (Got your picture!)

SatansMaleVoiceChoir

Illuminator
SatansMaleVoiceChoir
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
3,446
Location
All Over You
Firstly, apologies to any Duran Duran fans (if any!) for the thread title...

Bouncing around the net, link-to-link, I came across this site:

http: //paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa101402b. htm (spaces added)

I'm not posting this link as any form of 'proof' of the existence of 'ghosts'; I am genuinely interested in the opinions of forumites as to how these pictures were achieved, regardless of whether or not they are 'doctored' or unintentional effects. I am also interested in any opinions on authenticity; none of these pictures would convince me of the existence of 'ghosts', but some of them are extremely interesting and IMO warrant further analysis.

The pictures range from blatantly obvious fakes - Tulip Staircase Ghost; longest right arm of any humanoid, living or dead - to the genuinely intriguing - Freddy Jackson.

I apologise if any of these photo's have been discussed before - I'm new, please be gentle!
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Firstly, apologies to any Duran Duran fans (if any!) for the thread title...

Bouncing around the net, link-to-link, I came across this site:

http: //paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa101402b. htm (spaces added)

I'm not posting this link as any form of 'proof' of the existence of 'ghosts'; I am genuinely interested in the opinions of forumites as to how these pictures were achieved, regardless of whether or not they are 'doctored' or unintentional effects. I am also interested in any opinions on authenticity; none of these pictures would convince me of the existence of 'ghosts', but some of them are extremely interesting and IMO warrant further analysis.

The pictures range from blatantly obvious fakes - Tulip Staircase Ghost; longest right arm of any humanoid, living or dead - to the genuinely intriguing - Freddy Jackson.

I apologise if any of these photo's have been discussed before - I'm new, please be gentle!
Click to expand...

I think we've been down that road...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2019387

Oh... welcome to the forum.
 
http://paranormal.about.com/library/graphics/freddy_jackson_lg.jpg

It seems quite obvious to me that this one is simply the result of a long exposure. One thing that can be noted is that the "ghost" face (what you can see of it) looks quite similar to the person's face it is next to, but it is not wearing a hat. My guess would be that the person realized at the start of the photograph that he was the only person not wearing his hat, and quickly put it on. This caused his position to shift, resulting in one dim image of his face from his initial pose, and one sharp face that he held for the remainder of the exposure. The story associated with it is likely the result of a few of the crew members, still feeling the pain of their coworkers death, simply associated that face with his face, since it was on their mind (the story said he died only a few days earlier, and his funeral was held that day). That is my guess, anyway.
 
I really don't get this one:
Click to expand...

Agreed - I'm not seeing anything remotely like a small boy - just a bush.

It seems quite obvious to me that this one is simply the result of a long exposure. One thing that can be noted is that the "ghost" face (what you can see of it) looks quite similar to the person's face it is next to, but it is not wearing a hat. My guess would be that the person realized at the start of the photograph that he was the only person not wearing his hat, and quickly put it on. This caused his position to shift, resulting in one dim image of his face from his initial pose, and one sharp face that he held for the remainder of the exposure. The story associated with it is likely the result of a few of the crew members, still feeling the pain of their coworkers death, simply associated that face with his face, since it was on their mind (the story said he died only a few days earlier, and his funeral was held that day). That is my guess, anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm inclined to agree in the main - however what interests me is that if a longer exposure caused the effect, surely there would be some blurring or after-image in other parts of the photo:

Why is it only that man's face that the effect applies to?
It would have to be a fairly long (in relative terms) exposure; does this mean that everyone else in the photo kept completely rigid throughout the duration?

Already discussed.
Click to expand...

Apologies.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Why is it only that man's face that the effect applies to? It would have to be a fairly long (in relative terms) exposure; does this mean that everyone else in the photo kept completely rigid throughout the duration?
Click to expand...

Yes, Older film had exposure time measured in seconds. Often there wasn't a shutter but rather a lens cap that would be removed, then the photographer would turn over an hourglass and replace the cap when the sand ran out. For the whole picture people would have to stand perfectly still and I suspect that everyone was used to that.
 
Yes, Older film had exposure time measured in seconds. Often there wasn't a shutter but rather a lens cap that would be removed, then the photographer would turn over an hourglass and replace the cap when the sand ran out. For the whole picture people would have to stand perfectly still and I suspect that everyone was used to that.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, thank you.
 
As everyone else has pointed out - long exposure and movement. It was also taken with a large format camera and the were plates even slower exposure-wise. The technical term is "ghosting" which leads some people to think it's something supernatural.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
...however what interests me is that if a longer exposure caused the effect, surely there would be some blurring or after-image in other parts of the photo:

Why is it only that man's face that the effect applies to?
It would have to be a fairly long (in relative terms) exposure; does this mean that everyone else in the photo kept completely rigid throughout the duration?
Click to expand...

Yes.

This is a Mathew Brady photo of General Grant holding a conference in the field (Grant is the one leaning over the bench, looking at the map). Brady took two or three other plates of this scene, and in one of them Grant is the only one who moved and "looks like a ghost." Unfortunately, this is the only one of that series I could locate online in a hurry. As it is, you can see several men who are perfectly clear, while others are blurred through movement (see the man standing opposit Grant; you can see how he bent over during the exposure).
1894461e9d1838710.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes.

This is a Mathew Brady photo of General Grant holding a conference in the field (Grant is the one leaning over the bench, looking at the map). Brady took two or three other plates of this scene, and in one of them Grant is the only one who moved and "looks like a ghost." Unfortunately, this is the only one of that series I could locate online in a hurry.
Click to expand...

Adds to the credibility of the longer exposure explanation. Howvever - again - in such a busy picture, I'm suprised that Grant is the only one to whom this effect applies, given that there are horses in the picture, and there even seem to be a man riding a horse away from the camera.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Adds to the credibility of the longer exposure explanation. Howvever - again - in such a busy picture, I'm suprised that Grant is the only one to whom this effect applies,
Click to expand...

Nevertheless, the effect is demonstrated (and note that I edited some of my text while you were replying). Remember, the ghost photo you are talking about was posed, with everyone intentionally standing still, except for one man who moved.
 
and note that I edited some of my text while you were replying
Click to expand...

Ah, thank you - I thought Grant was the fellow who bent over leaving the 'blur trail'. I hadn't noticed the effect on the chap to the left; for me it's only slight and noticeable only on the tail-end of his coat. But the effect is clearly demonstrated as you say. In this particular picture, I would have expected more of this effect in evidence though.
 
Pah!

Those are all rubbish.

This is the best ghost photo of all time. Utterly convincing - I can't explain it.
 
SatansMaleVoiceChoir said:
Adds to the credibility of the longer exposure explanation. Howvever - again - in such a busy picture, I'm suprised that Grant is the only one to whom this effect applies, given that there are horses in the picture, and there even seem to be a man riding a horse away from the camera.
Click to expand...

Grantisn'tthe only one.See inmiddle of pic a man reading a paper(I assume)it is blurred,same for the man stood at left edge of frame in foreground turning to look at camera's direction.Man (of 3)sat on bench looks to have his head msising!!
Lots of movement.;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom