Paranormal Photography

[Josh66]

I found this book (pdf) before - I think when this thread started - "Picture Yourself Capturing Ghosts on Film". Skimming through it now. It's actually a pretty decent guide on how to fake it so far. I haven't gotten to the "real" pictures yet...

Oh, and ORBS!!, man!

 

[Josh66]

Admittedly, I'm skimming through it pretty quickly, but I think the book is kinda dated now... You could probably learn everything in it by watching a couple episodes of Ghost Hunters on the SyFy channel (though he seems to be much more skeptical than they are).

I don't know if this is just the author's personal system, or if it's "industry standard", but he has three classes of paranormal photos - A, B, and C. (I think it is his personal system.)

C = Natural causes that can be immediately identified. Smoke, dust, flashlights, long exposure, stuff like that.

B = Natural causes cannot be discounted, but other paranormal stuff was also happening at the time. This seems to be anything that would have been class C if it were not taken in a 'haunted' location.

A = No natural causes, no technical problems. "Something" paranormal is probably going on.

He seems to mostly be skeptical. There is an entire chapter on orbs though, which is probably good because he shows how stuff like dust or bugs in the air is usually the cause -- but that there are maybe 2-5% that cannot be explained...


OK. I "read" it in 20 minutes, lol. I think I got the main gist of it though. There are probably only 5 or so photos in it that he uses as examples of possible paranormal activity (and I think they were all 'orbs'). I was kind of disappointed with that - most of the pictures were "and here is why this isn't a ghost".

It's pretty much presented as a manual on how to try to get ghost pictures.




I don't know... I think that if ghosts were real, a camera is probably not the best tool to detect them. And I don't really get how the whole "orb" thing even got started. In most 'orb' pictures, it's fairly obvious what is happening. It would be different if there were some ball of light floating around in front of me *and then* I took a picture of it - but that's never how it happens. The "orbs" just magically show up in the pictures, lol.

 

[Dikkie]

Purely for the sake of discussion, not to antagonize -

Break light down and you get a photon - a particle of energy (yes, we typically think of the visible spectrum). But turn up your ISO and you get noise - misfires that can be triggered even by excess heat (non-visible energy) from the electronics of the camera. SO, while not necessarily designed to do so, cameras CAN register other forms of energy.

Yes? No? Thoughts?

True. Quantum Physics
And if you try to measure it, it stays normal, if you don't it's weird.

 

[Dikkie]

I am open minded to that idea that we do not know everything.

I'm not so sure about that, if you're saying science can analyze all already.

Nope, we are able to analyze all "rays". Science is pretty amazing if you read into it.

Until they discover something new, in scienceworld. Pretty amazing, if evolution still continuous

 

[rolenz]

I feel sorry for those who do not believe 'ghosts' exsist when they see their first. They do not always appear as we expect them to, the 'light' is something else as well. It is like no other light I have seen. I am not standing on a soapbox, just my view.

 

[esselle]

Doesn't anyone believe their findings on the show "Ghost Adventures?" Sheesh! Lol :}

I'm pretty open minded about ghosts and such. Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.

 

[runnah]

Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.

Such as?

 

[esselle]

Frankly, I think there is more evidence to support the "existence" of ghosts than there isn't.

Such as?

people's eye witness accounts...documented film activity (verifiable orbs are evidence), they can be detected through various electrical mediums, drastic temp changes (very cold) in the presence of ghosts, etc...

Some stories I'm sure are fabrications, but to me, there is too much reported "evidence" to be discounted.

 

[esselle]

I feel sorry for those who do not believe 'ghosts' exsist when they see their first. They do not always appear as we expect them to, the 'light' is something else as well. It is like no other light I have seen. I am not standing on a soapbox, just my view.

I like your view.

 

[runnah]

people's eye witness accounts...documented film activity (verifiable orbs are evidence), they can be detected through various electrical mediums, drastic temp changes (very cold) in the presence of ghosts, etc...

Some stories I'm sure are fabrications, but to me, there is too much reported "evidence" to be discounted.

Being open minded doesn't mean that you have to take things at at face value, it means that your view is changeable given enough evidence to convince yourself. Some people take very little convincing to believe something, a piece of dust lit up by the flash is enough to make some people believe that it is spirits. A drafty house and electronic measuring devices used incorrectly will make people think a house haunted. Personally I require very strong, testable evidence to convince me of such claims.

You could change my mind with enough good evidence but could I ever change yours with the same? Who is open minded then?

 

[esselle]

I'm open minded to believe either way, given enough "proof."

Dust particles don't produce visible light circles ...dust can be *seen* in light, but they don't resemble orbs. Dust is not translucent. Orbs give off that "effect." Putting things in quotes because I'm not sure of a better word to use. Lol

If it were just eye witness "reports" then ok. But there is science behind at least disproving the skeptics. My opinion.

 

[esselle]

Lol @ drafty house comment
:mrgreen:

At the risk of splitting hairs, the cold temps don't come across as drafts. Just a sudden temp drop.

 

[esselle]

Keeping in stride with the OT, I don't think photography is the "best" method to "prove" paranormal activity. Video yes, not still shots. If someone is hanging their hat on that on either side of the fence, it's not solid enough. (To me)

 

[runnah]

Lol @ drafty house comment
:mrgreen:

At the risk of splitting hairs, the cold temps don't come across as drafts. Just a sudden temp drop.

So the best most simple explanation for a "cold spot" is a ghost? There is no other thing that could be causing that besides a ghost?

Orbs, is seriously the worst "evidence" brought up for ghosts. Every photographer who has worked in dusty conditions with a flash knows this. I have tons of photos I've taken that show "orbs". Most are from dark and dusty constructions sites, none of which were built on old burial grounds.

 

[Josh66]

All I'm saying is, show me an 'orb' picture where the flash didn't fire. I don't think I've ever seen one. It just just seems to me like that's the best way to prove that it's not caused by the flash.