 |
The most common type
of all alleged spirit photos is the notorious "orb", which some
ghost hunters consider to be little balls of energy (consciousness "bubbles"
perhaps?) in their most simple form (before they acquire enough electrical
energy to manifest themselves into something more recognizable). Unfortunately,
they are uncommon enough that many people are stunned when they pick up
something like one on a photo.
Of course, most orbs
are a result of camer'as own flash reflecting off dust particles, insects,
and precipitation immediately in front of the lens. Other causes are lens
refraction (sometimes also called lens flare) which is a result of light
hitting the lens at unusual angles, resulting in various colored glowing
spheres (and sometimes other shapes) appearing in the picture (shown at
right). Of course, that's not to say that ALL orbs are dust or insects,
but the majority really are nothing to worry about. I do wonder, however,
why they mostly show up only in photos taken at supposedly haunted locations.
I seldom see them anywhere else... Hmmm. (Lens flare photo used with
permission, Rocky Mountain Paranormal)
|
 |
|
 |
An
especially common photo anomaly is known as a "vortex", which
is those misty, filmy little clouds of ectoplasma commonly mistaken for
manifesting spirits. Most are the result of exhaled breath (usually as a
result of the photo being taken at cold, outdoor locations at night) or
cigarette smoke, which is why expert ghosthunters always ensure that there
is no smoking while hunting ghosts and that one always holds their breath
when taking photos on cold nights. The biggest problem is that it isn't
difficult to make out objects—usually faces—in the mist. Notice
the apparent skull in the left center of the photo (closeup at right); a
manifesting face or a trick of the eye? You decide! (Used with permission,
Rocky Mountain Paranormal) |
 |
|
 |
Another
type of vortex is the more solid types, to examples of which are shown here.
On the left the camera strap is caught in the flash (which is why expert
ghost hunters always ensure that the camera strap is removed while hunting
ghosts) and on the right, a strand of hair (which is why most ghost hunters
are bald). You would be amazed how easily these effects can scare the bejeebers
out of someone! (Used with permission, Rocky Mountain Paranormal) |
 |
|
 |
Left:
another unusual vortex—this time sualight reflecting off a sprinkler
in a cemetery. And on the right is another great example of human hair being
mistaken for a ghostly manifestation. (Used with permission, Rocky Mountain
Paranormal) |
 |
|
 |
These
photos show what is known as an "in camera double exposure", which
is a one of the new types of photographic errors (and sometimes hoaxes)
that is becoming more prevalent these days. The idea here is that the companion
or blurred image is supposed to be the manifestation of a spirit that is
attached to a person (supposedly that of either a deceased relative, a spirit
guide, an angel or, in some cases, even a demon).
The reality behind
the image is that the camera (usually a Polaroid, but it can occur on
any type of camera) is using a flash while at the same time using a slow
shutter speed. This can be caused by partially blocking the flash on an
automatic camera or by manually setting the camera to night portrait mode
or the wrong manual settings, and just slightly moving the camera while
the shutter is open. This causes the image to contain two images of the
subject, one that is reasonably sharp and another that is similar but,
due to the transparency and blur created by the technique, will not always
match the subject exactly. The fact that the blurred image doesn't look
exactly like the subject makes the suggestion that the image is a "companion
spirit" easier to pull off. (Used with permission.)
|
 |
|
 |
Another common effect
frequently misinterpreted as a ghost picture is motion blur (sometimes
called "streakers"), shown in these two very cute examples.
This occurs when the
camera tries to compensate for shooting a dark subject (or someone in
a dark place--usually using the "night portrait" mode) by using
a slower shutter speed. What happens is that once the flash goes off,
if the photographer unconsciously moves the camera ever so slightly, he
or she will create the motion blur effect that you see in the pumpkins.
The blur is only noticeable with especially bright colors since that is
the only light source the camera can pick up without a flash, which is
why the children do not appear similarly "smeared". The "lightning
bolt" coming out of the pumpkin in the picture on the left is actually
a blur of the candle flame itself--the bolt effect being the result of
the camera being jerked slightly upwards immediately after the flash went
off. Cool effect, though, and one easily reproduced with practice. (Used
with permission.)
|
 |
|
 |
Oh no, it's pareidolia!
For those unfamiliar with the term, pareidolia (sometimes referred to
as "matrixing") is the brain's attempt to make out recognizable
shapes where none exists. In effect, you are seeing what appears to be
a face/form because that is what the brain is wired to do when confronted
with random patterns of light and shadow. This is the same phenomenon
we experience when we see faces or animals in the clouds, and is also
the reason that the more you stare at the picture, the more "face"
you see. It's really just an optical illusion. Here are a couple of really
good examples.
On the left is a wonderful
face of an ancient Chinese philosopher looking out from the billowing
smoke of an especially nasty fire. On the right, a "demon" hiding
in the rock face, obviously intent on mischief.
|
 |
|
 |
This
is perhaps one of the best examples of pareidolia on record. In the original
photo on the left (probably taken sometime in the late nineteenth century)
we can clearly see the face of Jesus (see, and you thought there were no
pictures of the Savior). On the right, however, once the subjects are highlighted
by some heavy-handed coloring, you can begin to see exactly what the picture
is showing. Amazing! |
 |
|
 |
Left: This photo was
sent to me by a guy taking a few photos of his friends at some resort
in Cancun, Mexico. Notice the fuzzy, half image of what appears to be
a man sitting at the table in front of them. No, it's not a double exposure
but most likely an article of clothing flapping up in front of the lens
just as the picture was snapped. Cool effect though. (Used with permission.)
Right: You gotta love
Photoshop and Civil War reenactments. Here our intrepid photographer took
a picture of a Civil War era wagon and then waited for someone in period
costume to walk by, at which point he shot a second photo. Then it was
simply a matter of cutting the figure out of the one photo, turning the
transparency up, and splicing it into the wagon alone picture. Such fakes
are easy to do and can look pretty authentic to the untrained observer.
The biggest giveaway is the consistency of transparency of the figure;
real ghosts tend to be either very solid in appearance or more solid at
some points than at other points (i.e. the upper torso might appear nearly
opaque while the legs and head may be transparent or even missing). They
don't often appear this evenly transparent.
|
 |
|
 |
Left: Interesting
effect of girl being caught in midstride just as the camera shutter malfunctions,
giving her a blurred image. The giveaway on this is the fact that all
the people in the picture appear to be blurred to some degree; by remaining
relatively still, however, they don't take on the semi-transparent effect
of the fast moving girl in the center. (Used with permission.)
Right: Another example
of the wonders of Photoshop. Dead giveaway here is the "spooky"
melodramatic pose, the cast shadow, and the composition of the photo.
|
 |
|
 |
Photo
shot in Evercreech, near Somerset, England in 2003 shows what appears to
be a boy in Medieval-era clothing staring at the camera. Photographer claims
she saw no one when she snapped the picture and that the figure simply appeared
when developed. Since the photo made international news and the lady was
even identified by name (unlike most hoaxers, who remain anonymous) I bought
off on it and posted it as an authentic capture. I later had several people
insist it was a Photoshopped image of Anakin Skywalker from Star Wars Episode
I, but since I couldn't find the matching image and thought that
the ladies' story had been checked out, I was not predisposed to accept
the explanation. However, recently a friend sent me the photo at right which
appears to be a perfect match for the image on the photo, demonstrating
that once again I've underestimated the cunning of hoaxers and the veracity
of British newspapers (which appear to be no more accurate than our own).
Lesson learned. |
 |
|
 |
Speaking
of hoaxes, here are a couple brought to you by the folks at iPhone, who
cleverly introduced a new application called "Ghost Capture".
Now anyone can create their own ghostly image with the click of a button,
thereby filling my e-mail with all manner of garbage. The problem is that
these are actually pretty good quality images generally better than one
can achieve with Photoshop, making them especially pernicious. They're so
good, in fact, that recently a noted Australian psychic was fooled by one
of these iPhone photos when he declared it authentic on an Aussie radio
program, even managing to come up with a whole story about the child in
the image, which obviously hurt his credibility to no end. There's an old
adage among ghost hunters that if it looks too good to be true, it probably
isn't. The problem is, what happens if someone should really manage to get
a good "capture"? |
 |
|
 |
At first glance it
looks like another wispy "vortex" shot of either exhaled breath,
hair hanging in front of the lens, or the flash reflecting off of cigarette
smoke, but look closer. I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't see it at first,
but the mysterious filmy haze is actually a close-up of a dog (in this case,
I'm thinking a Golden Retriever). Why is it transparent then? Is it the
ghost of a dog, perhaps? No. It's simply a long exposure time and a jumpy
dog who turned its head just as the flash went off. (He was probably startled
by the flash and instinctively turned away from it.) Cool effect, though,
and it taught me to be a little more observant and not so quick to rely
on stock answers when examining spirit photos. (Used with permission.) |
 |
|
 |
Not
a Photoshop trick but a good example of how a person walking quickly in
front of a camera (the girl with the white pants on the left--closeup at
right) at night and with a slow shutter speed can appear transparent and,
as such, quite ghostly. Would have been an especially stylish ghost had
it been a genuine capture. (Used with permission.) |
 |
|
| All
right, so you might recognize two of these guys. That's Jason Hawes and
Grant Wilson of Ghost Hunters fame (along with yours truly in the middle
) apparently interrogating a ghost at the Stanley Hotel in Estes Park, Colorado.
Actually, it's a bit of trick photography (gasp!) produced by having us
pose around an empty chair in a darkened room while the photographer (in
this case, one Adam Blai—see other samples of his work at www.happyvalleystudio.com)
opens the shutter and "paints" the entity with a light wand while
we stood very, very still. If only all ghosts were that cooperative! |
 |
|