OT: Paranormal Photos

XAos said:
My Pentax Z-20P has a Paranormal mode but it just makes the pictures skinnier. I didn't get a single ghost on film. Maybe because it's SLR (and they wouldn't show up in the mirror)
Click to expand...

LOL.

My impression of the photos was flare and dirt on film. Granted, I am looking on a crappy monitor at work, so I may not be able to judge well. And that was only on the last two. The first two you showed, I couldn't see anything.

What do others see?
 
All very interesting explanations. I should point out that the camera is not new. It has been used to take many photos, with flash and without, in other indoor and outdoor locations, in dusty locations (no barns, though), under the same, and different weather conditions, altitudes, etc, with nothing out of the ordinary seen. If these are indeed from dust spots, reflections, etc, I would think that they would have been seen at other times.

Well, as I said, judge for yourselves 😉
 
http://www.hollowhill.com/guide/sparkles.htm


Didnt read the whole article since it seems like its basically a load of trash, but this guy is decrsibing the same artifacts you're getting... I think is basically particles reflecting the flash straight into the lens causing massive flare over a small area. In any warm dusty room you should get these (warm: more small stuff floats around 😀 yes thats about all I've remembered from the extensive chemistry rubbish I studied before studying photography 😛 ).
 
ray_g said:
All very interesting explanations. I should point out that the camera is not new. It has been used to take many photos, with flash and without, in other indoor and outdoor locations, in dusty locations (no barns, though), under the same, and different weather conditions, altitudes, etc, with nothing out of the ordinary seen. If these are indeed from dust spots, reflections, etc, I would think that they would have been seen at other times.

Well, as I said, judge for yourselves 😉
Click to expand...


Not necessarily. Dust might have gotten into the camera and has taken awhile to migrate to the sensor, etc.. Under the right conditions or circumstances, they may or may not be seen. I'm pretty sure if you have a look at some previous shot image files, adjust the curves, levels, etc., the dust will be apparent.
 
I probably should stay out of this since I'm skeptical of anyone claiming to get physical pictures with physical cameras of non physical phenomina. What color is a volt? What does a kilogram taste like? How long is a Gauss?

But..., and I mean this in all seriousness, even though I'm an outsider skeptic.... Don't most people who "get into" this stuff all insist that you can't get pictures of ghosts with digital cameras? That it _absolutely_ has to be film?

I always suspected that it was because 1) From the time of Jurassic Park onward... nobody would believe anything they saw in a digital image. Most people are quite aware of digital editing and have no clue that most of this stuff comes straight out of old fashioned manipulation, and that you can do a lot of the same things only its much harder. 2) The cynical reflexive of 1).
 
Last edited:
The spectral response of a Silicon CCD is much more than film and goes out to 1.1um, but you must remove the IR cutoff filter. With the filter, the response drops about 20dB. That must be why the pictures of the ghost-heads came out so under-exposed.
 
Not claiming that these photos are one way or the other. Just thought it might be interesting to share these with the forum, and see what you thought. Either way, it makes for a "spirited" thread 😉

BTW, if you are interested in a scary horror flick for photogs, check out the movie "Shutter." It is a recently released foreign (Thai, I think) film in the vein of "The Ring" and "The Grudge." I don't know if it is available in the US yet.
 
Ray,

I think it is interesting too. I have seen some things that scare me - I suspect that there are reasonable explanations for all of them, but I keep an open mind.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
there wasn't any reasonable explanation for my incident in a restaurant.. my silverware had a habit of moving a foot sideways off the table and smacking the floor very hard (much harder than it would hit just by gravity).. my date and I were the only ones in the room at the time.. and it happened directly underneath my arm (twice) as I was reading the menu.. literally in the blink of an eye each time

my date and I both knew I didn't move my arm either time.. it was very clear to us that it was a poltergeist.. not scary at all.. just weird
 
Well, since the picture is from Dominic, that may not be a soap bubble but an artifact from his latest homebuilt lens. Are you grinding your own lenses now?
 
XAos said:
Well, since the picture is from Dominic, that may not be a soap bubble but an artifact from his latest homebuilt lens. Are you grinding your own lenses now?
Click to expand...

No, I was actually using a real, manufactured lens this time! I couldn't fool you guys; its a giant soap bubble. I thought it was a good one for the July photo project which is "thin and the letter 'b'." What could be thinner than a bubble? 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
Tincup
T
Avotius
4 years late, a Leica M8 at last
2 3 4
Replies
65
Views
11K
MrDan
M
Back
Top Bottom