South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 12, 2019, 12:57:02 PM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Ghost Photography

 (Read 2424 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« on: August 25, 2010, 12:17:39 PM »

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?
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2010, 12:54:14 PM »

my opinion?
if you can imagine it, you can photoshop it.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2010, 13:42:59 PM »

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:

the top image was sent to me first , and this is what i responded:
Quote
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?
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2010, 14:29:13 PM »

"Ghost photography" in the science section of a sceptic forum... Now that is interesting Evil! Seriously, shouldn't it be in the junk science section?
« Last Edit: August 25, 2010, 14:47:14 PM by Teleological » Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #4 on: August 25, 2010, 15:18:31 PM »

"Ghost photography" in the science section of a sceptic forum... Now that is interesting Evil! 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
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #5 on: August 25, 2010, 15:26:26 PM »

"Ghost photography" in the science section of a sceptic forum... Now that is interesting Evil! 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.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #6 on: August 25, 2010, 15:32:58 PM »

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?
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #7 on: August 25, 2010, 15:35:43 PM »

"Ghost photography" in the science section of a sceptic forum... Now that is interesting Evil! Seriously, shouldn't it be in the junk science section?
It only becomes junk science when the facts can be debunked or BS is claimed to be 'science'
Logged
Mandarb
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 258



« Reply #8 on: August 25, 2010, 15:47:10 PM »

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.
Logged
GCG
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-4
Offline Offline

Posts: 1829


skeptical mantis is skeptical


adele horn
WWW
« Reply #9 on: August 25, 2010, 15:50:25 PM »

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.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #10 on: August 25, 2010, 15:58:29 PM »

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!
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #11 on: August 25, 2010, 19:50:24 PM »

"Ghost photography" in the science section of a sceptic forum... Now that is interesting Evil! Seriously, shouldn't it be in the junk science section?

It only becomes junk science when the facts can be debunked or BS is claimed to be 'science'

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:




That guy in the car just blew my mind, what a great photo shop that was hey!
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2460


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2010, 20:00:25 PM »

Well done for not contributing anything to the thread Teleological.

Well he/she is certainly making up for it now! Roll Eyes

Reflections, double exposures, darkroom fraud. All far less likely than a ghost, not?

Mintaka
Logged
Teleological
Moderate Realist
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +2/-28
Offline Offline

Posts: 980

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit


« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2010, 21:36:20 PM »

Well done for not contributing anything to the thread Teleological.


Well he/she is certainly making up for it now! Roll Eyes

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.
Logged
Brian
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +8/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 1367


I think therefor I am, I think


« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2010, 09:15:30 AM »

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!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.442 seconds with 23 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page March 20, 2017, 08:11:37 AM
Privacy Policy