has anyone ever tried to photograph a ghost?

Some people have faith in ghosts and the paranormal, some have faith in god/Jesus/spaghetti monster, all are equally unproven, so maybe we should give them all the benefit of the doubt, or dismiss all of them with the same judgemental piss taking in this thread?
 
Just some suggestions. Use a wide angle on your main camera, you shouldn't know where the ghost will appear. Bring a second camera with a 50 or a tele on it for a nice bokeh after you spot a ghost.

Don't bother telling "it" to cheese, and don't flash. Flash doesn't work on smokey objects unless you flash it from the back but since you don't know where it'll appear it's best to avoid flash altogether. Though, if you shoot indoor it might be possible to bounce. Don't gel though.

I've also heard a rumour that, ghosts generally don't like to imprint themselves on digital sensors. I have not been able to confirm this as I don't shoot ghosts. But you might want to bring a film body just in case. Stay away from black and white films as that's over used for ghost photos. Feed some portra or ektar (depending on lighting available) in it if your client's got the budget. Else, Fuji's not bad for some cheap action.

Don't worry about skin tone, they are usually pale looking. Actually, most of them come in white, so some Reala 100's would really bring it home. Pro400H isn't bad to shoot pale things either.

If you don't plan to shoot videos along with it, don't use interval shooting. Ghosts are generally nefarious and will appear between your shots just to spite you. Even the fps of a Nikon D4 won't help you. You must be ready to shoot it by hand. After all, the ghost was there to meet you, not your tripod interval shooting toy.

And if you must take a bio break, I suggest always face the east.
 
Hjortsberg said:
there might be $ involved. hard to believe that my first paying gig as a photographer is to try to photograph a ghost
Click to expand...

First of all, I agree with rxmd.. it's an assignment that to me sounds very much like a lose-lose situation and one which I would be hesitant to take. But if you've decided to follow through with it, there are some things that you can do to mitigate the risk of the customer ending up unhappy.

Most important is to have the customer's OK that you're getting paid for the effort, not for the result. Then make a detailed plan (describing gear, set-up, time, approach etc) that tells what actions you do (e.g. "fire camera every 30 seconds"), and not in terms of outcome (e.g. "shoot ghost") and have that plan approved (in writing preferably).

As far as gear is concerned, a Wildlife camera (e.g. http://www.vegaoptics.de/Wildkamera-Doerr-Snapshot-MINI_c721_p5363_x2.htm ) is able to shoot stills and live video following an IR trigger, and may convince your customer that you're serious about your assignment..
 
:D
GHOST.jpg
 
If there are ghosts, they will only exist within ones mind. You can't photograph a dream either!

Outside of this there has never, and I mean never, been any real hard evidence for the spirit world and yet some of us still insist it is somewhere out there.

It isn't!

But if you insist, use film, it may be considered better evidence.
 
mugent said:
Some people have faith in ghosts and the paranormal, some have faith in god/Jesus/spaghetti monster, all are equally unproven, so maybe we should give them all the benefit of the doubt, or dismiss all of them with the same judgemental piss taking in this thread?
Click to expand...

I can agree with this: it's as unscientific to say they don't exist as to say they exist. It's all unproven (I'm an agnostic).

BUT why wouldn't we discuss it and have some fun discussing it ? The other subjects you mention are also often discussed in the same way ... I don't really consider it "judgmental piss taking", I don't read any malicious intentions in the comments.
 
gliderbee said:
I can agree with this: it's as unscientific to say they don't exist as to say they exist. It's all unproven (I'm an agnostic).

BUT why wouldn't we discuss it and have some fun discussing it ? The other subjects you mention are also often discussed in the same way ... I don't really consider it "judgmental piss taking", I don't read any malicious intentions in the comments.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we *should* discuss it, I just wonder if people would be as comfortable mocking Islam or Christianity. For the record, I don't believe in ghosts.
 
This thread made my day.

dotur said:
www.ivanlozica.com

Most people photographed throughout the long history of photography are now dead, including the photographers themselves. Photography is a ghastly business. The easiest way to obtain a photography of ghost is to shoot a living person and just wait.(...)
Click to expand...

On a more serious note, I like what dotur said : that is why I am not comfortable taking or looking at pictures of people. I always end up thinking that dead people are staring at me in the face. I do not like family albums for that reason.

It is really dumb, I know ... :bang:
 
I can't believe this whole thread went without mentioning the Noctilux. :D Everyone knows that people only see ghosts in the dark. Daylight spooks 'em, apparently.

So yeah, Sony Nex 5n for the high ISO, plus the Noctilux. That's my suggestion.
 
We have digital cameras.
Consider how much technological achievements are in there.
We have GPS, satellites, we have been on the moon.
We have cloned a sheep.

And still we discuss things like this ?

If spirits exist and we cannot scientifically prove they exist. Then they have no measurable physical properties (i.e. they do not exist in our "reality"). If everything (vision, smell,..., love, hate, ideas...) can be measured, then they cannot interact with us. Thus even if they exist, it would not change a thing and you cannot take a pictures of them.
 
Joosep said:
We have digital cameras.
Consider how much technological achievements are in there.
We have GPS, satellites, we have been on the moon.
We have cloned a sheep.

And still we discuss things like this ?
Click to expand...

Your comment made me think of this XKCD comic

As someone else suggested, ask your client to pay for your time, and not for results. I'll bet they will see in your photos whatever they want to see regardless of whether you think you photographed a ghost or not.
 
Oddly enough, I once had to photograph a corpse. It was for an Indian family who wanted to send the picture to relatives, back in the home village. Different people, different strokes.
 
I live in Brazil. Lots of people here believe in the paranormal and/or various religious phenomena, one not excluding the other. I've learned to take this seriously. Why ? Not because it's true or not. But because the fact that so many people take this for real creates facts in social life that we have to deal with: it leads to opinions, judgements, interpretations, conducts and behaviours. So maybe, as I believe to be the case with the existence of God or not, the actual truth is irrelevant - what matters is what we as society do with these beliefs, how we create them and what they lead to.

But this is a long way from photographing ghosts, I'm sorry. Lots of pics exist though from people incorporating spirits and/or godlike creatures. The 'carriers' all say that they're taken over in their trances.

My wife did a PhD on faith healing here in the northeast. You'd be surprised on how many people, including all kind of academics, state they've been healed by spiritual surgery.

Moral: don't be too sceptic. It's not all Descartes out there.
 
Every photo I take has at least one ghost in it.
They aren't easy to see, though. You need to look very closely.
Some are naked.
 
ghosts are extremely uncooperative.
folks have been trying to photograph them since the invention of photography and no one has come up with a real clear solid image - always there are alternative explanations. ghosts can outsmart silly human photographers, and it may be a bit arrogant on your part to think you can do what so many others have failed at.
ghosts, spirits and auras have a way of showing up in images by accident - when the photographer has other motives. personally I am agnostic, but I have seen very strong evidence of this in amateur photographs, taken by practitioners, of certain vodou-like rituals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom