Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Ghost Photos


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#81 Snowlord

Snowlord

    Ghoststudy's Official Photo Expert

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada
  • Interests:Photography ... Chess ... Nature ... Astronomy ... Kicking Butt...stuff like that.

Posted 12 March 2009 - 02:25 PM

Not to mention the intimidation and insults. I can do without that, thanks.

Edited by Snowlord, 12 March 2009 - 02:42 PM.


#82 Ms. Tify

Ms. Tify

    Incubus

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 874 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:mired in the midwest
  • Interests:Spending time with my family, art, scrapbooking, listening to loud music, reading, photography, writing, are you still reading this? Seriously?

Posted 13 March 2009 - 02:51 AM

I didn't even notice he was gone.
Life's a match in a gas tank, don't ever mourn the ebbing tide, just dance on fire and enjoy the ride.

#83 Vlawde

Vlawde

    Exorcism

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fair Oaks Ca
  • Interests:Music, games, movies, the paranormal

Posted 13 March 2009 - 10:49 AM

Ah, so THAT"S why the forums are loading faster!     wink.gif

It's amazing, the things you can find using google
Posted Image

#84 mairmoe

mairmoe

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 13 March 2009 - 11:50 AM

QUOTE(Vlawde @ Mar 13 2009, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Ah, so THAT"S why the forums are loading faster!     wink.gif

It's amazing, the things you can find using google

I would be happy to send anyone who wants the original photo . also did anyone ever think that it could be possible if it is a ghost, that he choose  to be seen through this light or flare?  hmmmm...could happen. whistling.gif

#85 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 13 March 2009 - 12:42 PM

QUOTE(mairmoe @ Mar 13 2009, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
also did anyone ever think that it could be possible if it is a ghost, that he choose  to be seen through this light or flare?  hmmmm...could happen. whistling.gif


Marimoe, I know you are being facetious, so do not think I am trying to slam you or anything like that.  I just wanted to use the opportunity provided by your post to discuss some tools of critical thinking.  So please bear with me and remember that my post is not really about you.  

It has to be acknowledged that the idea presented here is possibly true.  At the same time, we also have to ask ourselves if it the most likely explanation for a lens flare.

Following the principle of Occam's Razor, we should seek out the answer that requires the fewest assumptions.

Therefore, it makes the best logical sense to accept a lens flare as being a typical natural lens flare, and not a ghostly manifestation.  We could still be wrong, but the odds are vastly against it.  So we have protected ourselves as much as humanly possible from accepting a mistaken belief as true.

As an aside, this idea is an example of an "Ad Hoc Hypothosis"; changing your theory or claim to accomidate facts that disprove it.  

An "Ad Hoc" chain of logic would go like this:
I might have a ghost photo.
I can't prove it is a ghost.
I will try to disprove other explanations instead.
The photo is actually consistant with a natural lens flare.
Ghosts might manifest through lens flares.
I might have a ghost photo.

A sound chain of logic should go like this:
I might have a ghost photo.
I can't prove it is a ghost.
I will try to disprove other explanations instead.
The photo is actually consistant with a natural lens flare.
I do not have a ghost photo.

These are somewhat simplistic examples, but I hope that they convey my point.

If you invest some time in adding new ideas and methods to your critical thinking toolbox, I believe you will find it to be more than worth the effort.  These methods are about so much more than skepticism of the paranormal.  I am not even trying to really argue anyone out of a belief in ghosts here.  I find this way of thinking useful almost everyday of my life to gaurd against false beliefs and making mistakes in judgement.  Despite appearances, This is not just about nay-saying, either.  it is about finding out the truth.

Alright, I will get off of my insufferable soapbox now.  

Regards, Canis

#86 ljcygnet

ljcygnet

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 17 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 12:03 PM

I'm new, but I actually have some experience shooting bright objects with multiple identical cameras. (Used to do a lot of lightning photography, and I'd often have multiple Minolta SRTs set up pointing the same way.)

Just to add to the discussion here -- you can have multiple cameras with identical lenses pointing at the same image and get lens flares on some images and not on the other because of two more factors.

1) Zoom -- the distance between elements inside the lens affects lens flares

2) Shading of the lense from objects in the foreground that are just outside the field of view. (I personally hate lens flares -- my background is as an amateur landscape photographer -- and I spend an awful lot of time holding a hat up to cast a shadow on the camera. There's a reason why I wear a cowboy hat when shooting ...)

If one camera has a polarizing filter on it and another doesn't, that can also affect lens flares depending on how the filter's lined up with the light. (Obviously not a factor with a Powershot, but something I'd note in case someone else in the OP's group had an SLR and didn't get any flares.)

BTW, in the OP's picture, the sun is in front of her, if I'm not mistaken. It's to the top left of the picture, and probably not far at all past the edge of the pic.

-- Leva






#87 mairmoe

mairmoe

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE(CaniswalensisGStudy @ Mar 13 2009, 01:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Marimoe, I know you are being facetious, so do not think I am trying to slam you or anything like that.  I just wanted to use the opportunity provided by your post to discuss some tools of critical thinking.  So please bear with me and remember that my post is not really about you.  

It has to be acknowledged that the idea presented here is possibly true.  At the same time, we also have to ask ourselves if it the most likely explanation for a lens flare.

Following the principle of Occam's Razor, we should seek out the answer that requires the fewest assumptions.

Therefore, it makes the best logical sense to accept a lens flare as being a typical natural lens flare, and not a ghostly manifestation.  We could still be wrong, but the odds are vastly against it.  So we have protected ourselves as much as humanly possible from accepting a mistaken belief as true.

As an aside, this idea is an example of an "Ad Hoc Hypothosis"; changing your theory or claim to accomidate facts that disprove it.  

An "Ad Hoc" chain of logic would go like this:
I might have a ghost photo.
I can't prove it is a ghost.
I will try to disprove other explanations instead.
The photo is actually consistant with a natural lens flare.
Ghosts might manifest through lens flares.
I might have a ghost photo.

A sound chain of logic should go like this:
I might have a ghost photo.
I can't prove it is a ghost.
I will try to disprove other explanations instead.
The photo is actually consistant with a natural lens flare.
I do not have a ghost photo.

These are somewhat simplistic examples, but I hope that they convey my point.

If you invest some time in adding new ideas and methods to your critical thinking toolbox, I believe you will find it to be more than worth the effort.  These methods are about so much more than skepticism of the paranormal.  I am not even trying to really argue anyone out of a belief in ghosts here.  I find this way of thinking useful almost everyday of my life to gaurd against false beliefs and making mistakes in judgement.  Despite appearances, This is not just about nay-saying, either.  it is about finding out the truth.

Alright, I will get off of my insufferable soapbox now.  

Regards, Canis

Are you a hipnotist? lol thatks but still not convinced, Go to the castle yourself. and see if you can capture lens flares with a face.
lollollol


#88 Caniswalensis

Caniswalensis

    Spongebob Swearpants

  • GS Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,784 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The bleak, cold world of disbelief
  • Interests:History & the study of anything paranormal.

Posted 14 March 2009 - 01:08 PM

QUOTE(mairmoe @ Mar 14 2009, 03:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Are you a hipnotist? lol thatks but still not convinced, Go to the castle yourself. and see if you can capture lens flares with a face.
lollollol


LOL!  No, I'm not a hypnotist. Why, are you feeling sleepy after reading my post?  sleep.gif  biggrin.gif

I just am a devotee of logic, and choose to let it be my guide whenever I can.

For instance, logic tells me that just because I cannot duplicate your results, that does not prove they are supernatural.  It only proves my conditions were different then yours at the time of taking a picture.

It is also entirly possible that I would be able to take a picture with a lens flare in it, and then use my imagination to find something that resembled a human face in it.  Logic tells me this is a subjective process and not good evidence.

That is why I can not accept the purple blotch in this photo as being a ghost.

I think the difference here is that you require convincing that it is not a ghost, and I require convincing that it is one.  That is Ok as far as I am concerned.  We can agree to disagree and still be buds.

Take care, Canis

#89 mairmoe

mairmoe

    Cold Spot

  • GS Member
  • 24 posts

Posted 14 March 2009 - 01:20 PM

QUOTE(CaniswalensisGStudy @ Mar 14 2009, 02:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LOL!  No, I'm not a hypnotist. Why, are you feeling sleepy after reading my post?  sleep.gif  biggrin.gif

I just am a devotee of logic, and choose to let it be my guide whenever I can.

For instance, logic tells me that just because I cannot duplicate your results, that does not prove they are supernatural.  It only proves my conditions were different then yours at the time of taking a picture.

It is also entirly possible that I would be able to take a picture with a lens flare in it, and then use my imagination to find something that resembled a human face in it.  Logic tells me this is a subjective process and not good evidence.

That is why I can not accept the purple blotch in this photo as being a ghost.

I think the difference here is that you require convincing that it is not a ghost, and I require convincing that it is one.  That is Ok as far as I am concerned.  We can agree to disagree and still be buds.

Exactly!!! I agree 100%, nicely put!  Thanks! and I am not trying to convince anyone, fun to hear all the experts though give me their opinion, is ok everyone has one.  I just think it is what it is, as I see it, as something, unique, also I have seen many spirits in my life,starting at age 4, I saw and heard my grandmother calling me under a tree during her memorial,kinda freaked out the relatives that day. lol  and don't care if anyone believes me or not. It's not something I go around and talking about either BTW. Thus is why I joined this website.


Take care, Canis



#90 Crush

Crush

    Spirit

  • GS Member
  • 42 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:In a bottle of aspirin

Posted 23 March 2009 - 08:44 PM

QUOTE(Vlawde @ Mar 12 2009, 09:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Suuuure.....the board would be more exciting with thread after thread packed with pixelated junk   wallbash.gif


lol.
  ghosts circled in tree trunks, leaves, dirt,  stones, in grass, glass, furniture, statues, rain, mud, trees, limbs, etc....,