lynnb
Veteran
Perhaps it would be helpful if you can tell us about your experiences. Even better, since this is for a client, presumably the client has told you why they believe a ghost exists and what evidence they have to substantiate the claim. Also where they expect the ghost to appear and in what lighting conditions.
This sounds like an ideal job for an instant film camera using Impossible project film. Be careful of expired instant film, which often appears to have ghosts built in. On second thoughts maybe that's a good idea, as you would be guaranteed results, and therefore payment. I think you can still get ISO 3000 instant film for Polaroid cameras and backs. Alternatively one of the special data evidence packs available from Canikon, used by law enforcement agencies, which guarantee the image files will show any evidence of tampering.
I must say this is the strangest request I have ever come across. Not being a believer in ghosts myself, I would be very interested to see the results, along with proof they were not faked!
dave lackey
Veteran
We now have a new photography category...
Sheet Photography!
BTW, ghosts do exist.
Sheet Photography!
BTW, ghosts do exist.
zvos1
Well-known
One way to take a photo of a ghost is to badly underexpose the photo and then "lift" the shadows in pp. You'll find all sort of things lurking in the shadows.
What do you mean Ghosts don't exist...
You mean, the internet, TV shows, and books lie?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ghos...ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi
You mean, the internet, TV shows, and books lie?
http://www.google.com/search?q=ghos...ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
For the record, I don't believe in ghosts, but I don't DIS-believe either... if someone came up with hard proof tomorrow I'd be totally willing to hear them out, just because we don't have the evidence of, or science to prove the existence of something, doesn't mean it's not real. It wasn't that long ago (relatively speaking) that you would have got stoned for saying the earth was round or excommunicated for saying it wasn't the center of the universe. If you really believe in science you can only believe in things that we can prove, you can't say an unproven hypothesis is definitely wrong, we discover new and crazy stuff every day.
That being said, lets assume for a second ghosts exist and are in some way susceptible to the laws of physics (if they can be seen, they can be photographed, they're not just projected straight into our minds)
- first off, I would have it VERY explicit in your contract that payment in no way depends on actually producing a photo of a ghost. You are being contracted for X number of hours or Y number of shoots and you're being paid for the ATTEMPT to photograph a ghost.
- with that clause though comes some trust, you will have to be perceived as actually trying to photo a ghost for the entire time you're contracted. No slacking off and saying "ooops, guess no ghost" at the end. So make a list of all the things you are going to attempt and get a list from your employer (whom I'm hoping has some paranormal background you can draw from) of what s/he wants you to do.
- along with still photos, I would employ video. There are subjects we KNOW exist that are hard to capture with stills, which require video to ever hope to catch a few frames. If you don't have the equipment, take a look at getting a few GoPro's and pass the bill to the employer if possible.
- how to actually photograph them, the only suggestion I have is to use nothing but natural light, as any kind of artificial light source could be used to disprove your photo by causing weird light artifacts, reflections, halos, flares etc.
Now lets take the other situation, ghost exist but are projected directly into our minds, they have no physical presence that can be photographed. In this case the only way to "photograph" them would be to hook up a monitor of some kind to the brainwaves of the subject and record their reaction during a sighting. You would need a baseline to compare with. Lets assume the subject feels fear when they see a ghost, you'd need a recording of their brainwaves during times of different levels of fear, then normal fear activity (adrenaline, flight/fight responses etc) can be eliminated from the "ghost" reading and see if any areas of the brain are being activated that aren't during normal fear responses.
That being said, lets assume for a second ghosts exist and are in some way susceptible to the laws of physics (if they can be seen, they can be photographed, they're not just projected straight into our minds)
- first off, I would have it VERY explicit in your contract that payment in no way depends on actually producing a photo of a ghost. You are being contracted for X number of hours or Y number of shoots and you're being paid for the ATTEMPT to photograph a ghost.
- with that clause though comes some trust, you will have to be perceived as actually trying to photo a ghost for the entire time you're contracted. No slacking off and saying "ooops, guess no ghost" at the end. So make a list of all the things you are going to attempt and get a list from your employer (whom I'm hoping has some paranormal background you can draw from) of what s/he wants you to do.
- along with still photos, I would employ video. There are subjects we KNOW exist that are hard to capture with stills, which require video to ever hope to catch a few frames. If you don't have the equipment, take a look at getting a few GoPro's and pass the bill to the employer if possible.
- how to actually photograph them, the only suggestion I have is to use nothing but natural light, as any kind of artificial light source could be used to disprove your photo by causing weird light artifacts, reflections, halos, flares etc.
Now lets take the other situation, ghost exist but are projected directly into our minds, they have no physical presence that can be photographed. In this case the only way to "photograph" them would be to hook up a monitor of some kind to the brainwaves of the subject and record their reaction during a sighting. You would need a baseline to compare with. Lets assume the subject feels fear when they see a ghost, you'd need a recording of their brainwaves during times of different levels of fear, then normal fear activity (adrenaline, flight/fight responses etc) can be eliminated from the "ghost" reading and see if any areas of the brain are being activated that aren't during normal fear responses.
zauhar
Veteran
OK guys, fun is fun, but the OP was asking a serious question.
As one of the credentialed scientists in the room, I am compelled to speak -
There is no reason to expect that ghosts, if they are real, need to obey the laws of optics to be "seen". There is a conscious observer in your head (that's you) which can form visual impressions that do not rely on the retina. The "ghost phenomenon" would be supported if multiple observers independently form the same sort of visual (or aural) impression, either simultaneously or separated in time, at some particular location, whether or not said impression could be recorded.
I also have a credential in anthropology, and would like to add that paranormal phenomena are part of the grist of life in all places and at all times. They are individual and ephemeral, and difficult to verify by conventional means. That does not mean that they do not exist.
For added interest, here is a popularized account of a fascinating study by a respected, mainstream psychologist (Daryl Bem) that has gotten a lot of attention:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possible/
Randy
(Molecular Biologist, Anthropologist, and good looking too)
P.S. After I typed this, I see that "Disaster Area" makes a similar observation!
As one of the credentialed scientists in the room, I am compelled to speak -
There is no reason to expect that ghosts, if they are real, need to obey the laws of optics to be "seen". There is a conscious observer in your head (that's you) which can form visual impressions that do not rely on the retina. The "ghost phenomenon" would be supported if multiple observers independently form the same sort of visual (or aural) impression, either simultaneously or separated in time, at some particular location, whether or not said impression could be recorded.
I also have a credential in anthropology, and would like to add that paranormal phenomena are part of the grist of life in all places and at all times. They are individual and ephemeral, and difficult to verify by conventional means. That does not mean that they do not exist.
For added interest, here is a popularized account of a fascinating study by a respected, mainstream psychologist (Daryl Bem) that has gotten a lot of attention:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/feeling-the-future-is-precognition-possible/
Randy
(Molecular Biologist, Anthropologist, and good looking too)
P.S. After I typed this, I see that "Disaster Area" makes a similar observation!
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Randy, is it the case that ghosts might fall into the same category as the placebo effect? There's no doubt it works and, sometimes spectacularly, but it's a function of the mind, as opposed to the brain.
Could ghosts exist, only not as independent intelligences but as a function of the observer(s)?
Could ghosts exist, only not as independent intelligences but as a function of the observer(s)?
literiter
Well-known
Might be a tad hard to photograph, eh?
zauhar
Veteran
I think it would be different from the placebo effect if independent observers have the same perception. For example, if you and I both see an apparition and report the same experience, it is "real" irrespective of whether it was captured on film.
But I agree that it's then a function of "mind" as opposed to "brain". Unfortunately, many educated people are remarkably unsophisticated nowadays and don't understand the difference. ;-(
Randy
swoop
Well-known
I did an assignment in October where these paranormal investigators were searching for ghosts in a city historical house. But I didn't get any ghosts on film.
Hjortsberg
Well-known
i respectfully turned the job down. I met with the woman and told here I could barley take good photos in general. photographing a ghost was out to the question
dreilly
Chillin' in Geneva
You saved yourself and your gear a potential nasty coating of ectoplasm!
--s
Well-known
aah, the guy on the right is working on the red ghost-o-matic detector by paranormal.inc. but that´s antiquated compared to the mind-cmos- interface zuckerberg is developing now. as a side effect that new device could record mind-created ghosts as visible images.
Hjortsberg
Well-known
the woman seemed genuinely upset about whatever spirit activity she believed to be happening.
n5jrn
Well-known
I can't believe this whole thread went without mentioning the Noctilux.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.
Cost-plus contract, baby! NEX 5n? Forget that, how about an M9?!?
Black
Photographer.
Ghosts are as possible to photograph as God is. No one has ever managed that though, have they?
Also, I don't see where calling members "asses" because they provide a legitimate answer to a question being asked is proportionate or justified.
No. You can't photograph ghosts because they don't exist. If they did, photographs of them would be ten a penny - and I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be shadows, smokey figures, or the legends that are "orbs" either.
I'll qualify that answer with the stalwart of abject lessons in fence sitting: IMHO
Also, I don't see where calling members "asses" because they provide a legitimate answer to a question being asked is proportionate or justified.
No. You can't photograph ghosts because they don't exist. If they did, photographs of them would be ten a penny - and I'm fairly sure they wouldn't be shadows, smokey figures, or the legends that are "orbs" either.
I'll qualify that answer with the stalwart of abject lessons in fence sitting: IMHO
Last edited:
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
Hjortsberg, why don't you talk about what you have seen; and then could you give a little more detail about your assignment, like what kind of setting it is, whether it's light or dark in there; what the ghost is thought to look like (eg. translucent, more solid, or whatever). There might be some info available, since in order to think there is a ghost there, presumably someone saw it (or thought they did).
Leica0Series
Well-known
I would have tried it, thought not sure how ... if you could pull off the first ghost shot, and prove it, you'd be set for life, at least until EVERYBODY started shooting them with DSLRS and cell phones and whatnot ...
Come to think of it, I would try it with a cell phone and Hipstamatic.
Come to think of it, I would try it with a cell phone and Hipstamatic.
That sucks... I've never seen a ghost, but if they do exist...I'd like to. I would have done it for free just to spend the night in the house.
dave lackey
Veteran
Seriously, why not have an RFF project to do something like a group visit to a local haunted establishment/house? I am sure every region has a few selections.
This could be soooo cool.:angel:
This could be soooo cool.:angel: