Caught On Camera (Ghost)

I was given this by a work colleauge who ensures me this is her daughter in the picture and that the picture is only a week or so old. Trust me if this picture has been seen months ago then i wanna be the first to know as ill have a little bit of ass kicking to do. I am confident in my friend that she is genuine. She has nothing to gain from pulling this little stunt. She doesnt even know im posting here on ATS she thinks im showing it to a friend.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What you have here is an image shot in indoor lighting so it is a relatively long exposure time. The ghost is someone who was walking very quickly behind the girls that are the subject. When the shutter opened the moving person was visible in the frame and when it closed they had moved behind the subjects. Everything in this image supports that and nothing refutes it.

Sorry but I do not support that whatsoever.

A long exposure time and a fast moving object does not make for a distinct image at all.

Fast walking?.. 2m/s?
Long exposure 1sec +?

you would have at the very least a two metre long blur behind the girls which would not resemble a human shape let alone a distinct face.Also the expressions on the girls' faces suggest a more natural/spontaneous photo which would be difficult to hold without some degree of blur.

Originally posted by AGENT_T

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What you have here is an image shot in indoor lighting so it is a relatively long exposure time. The ghost is someone who was walking very quickly behind the girls that are the subject. When the shutter opened the moving person was visible in the frame and when it closed they had moved behind the subjects. Everything in this image supports that and nothing refutes it.

Sorry but I do not support that whatsoever.

A long exposure time and a fast moving object does not make for a distinct image at all.

Fast walking?.. 2m/s?
Long exposure 1sec +?

you would have at the very least a two metre long blur behind the girls which would not resemble a human shape let alone a distinct face.Also the expressions on the girls' faces suggest a more natural/spontaneous photo which would be difficult to hold without some degree of blur.

Right! its okay and logical to think it might be exposure, but its just not..
Its logical to think of this as a photoshop..
But when taken in with photoshop 7, you can polarize, and subtain an image to see if layers have been used by other photoshop programs.. Its easy to tell a fake from something that is natural such as light bending, or relfection from the camera lens itself.. So I can sertinly say its no photoshop fake..
I can say it has something to do with the lighting in the room, and the way the camera lens recived this information of light...
And I cant stress enough how easy it is to pick out a fake photo in photoshop 7 with the many many effects you can throw in to define lines, and natural light.
My heart wants to belive in this.. yet my mind is racing!!! agin thanks for the post, this should be a good discussion

thesaint,

Thanks for your response on how the picture was taken. I have a colleague who I showed your pic to (he was quite impressed), he asked that I make the following request:

Could you get the people involved to take a second picture (phone in same location, lights on everything the same) WITHOUT the two girls in the pic? He would like to see the room with the lighting the same as the first pic with no obstruction of the spooky area.

Thank you for working with us!

Wait a minute...I just came to my senses.

Originally posted by thesaint
The picture ws taken with the phone cameras timer and wsa leant on a dvd box on a cabinet. Thats how they managed to take the photo.

This can't be true. Did they tell you this? If some one told you this, they are lying to you.



There's the shadow of some one's head on the girls' chests. Some one took this picture.

Originally posted by Valhall
thesaint,
Could you get the people involved to take a second picture (phone in same location, lights on everything the same) ....

Also if possible to download the image from phone direct to pc,without using the HP scanner,And posting the original as is..Thanks also

If the occupants wouldn,t mind.. A few pics with a higher res digital cam on varying exposures would be great too.

Originally posted by Valhall
This can't be true. Did they tell you this? If some one told you this, they are lying to you.
There's the shadow of some one's head on the girls' chests. Some one took this picture.

Interesting, but I have to disagree, the tops of the girls heads are lit from a bright light sourse, the "shadow" you are seeing on their chests are from their own heads.

Just my opinion.

Nope, it's a shadow made from some one standing directly in front of them. It's somebody's head.

Then their faces are covered by the same shadow Valhall... It looks to me as if the light source is above and a bit behind them, and the shadow starts at their forheads, down to their chests..

And what about that little bug on the girl's shirt.

Gotta go with Val on this one.
The shadow is from light cast behind the phototaker

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
Then their faces are covered by the same shadow Valhall... It looks to me as if the light source is above and a bit behind them, and the shadow starts at their forheads, down to their chests..

And what about that little bug on the girl's shirt.

Don't know about the bug...but it looks cute!

Nope - the shadow on their belly/chest area is MUCH darker than any other shadow on them. It's a head, and it's the person who took the picture unless we want to insert another spirit in the room and this one would have to be between the camera and the girls. Not impossible! Just very improbable.

I don't know that much about what girls that age are wearing these days, but to me this picture looks old, 80's or 70's

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
And what about that little bug on the girl's shirt.

Don't know about the bug...but it looks cute!

I think the bug is a little wad of dark thread.
I'm sure about the ghost being someone walking quickly through the frame.

I'm not sure where I saw this or when. It just looks familiar and I could have seen it in the last week somewhere else. I look at so many of these. It may have been copied from this thread?

I just want to clear something up. A moment ago you said:

She doesnt even know im posting here on ATS she thinks im showing it to a friend.

But then in your original post you said:

I was passed this photgraph today by a friend of mine who knew i liked paranormal stuff and thought she would show me this to which i asked if i could have it for some research here on ATS.

So, did she know it was going to be posted on ATS or not?

Sorry if this sounds like an attack on your integrity, but it does raise the question in my mind as to whether your friend expected you to post it here or not, and whether they are having some fun.

Originally posted by AGENT_T

you would have at the very least a two metre long blur behind the girls which would not resemble a human shape let alone a distinct face

What you would have is what is in this photo. An average of the information when the subject was still visible mixed with the background. I see this type of motion blur in images all the time in my work. If this is indeed a ghost I have deleted many ghosts out of frustration at not noticing there was someone walking in the background who ruined the shot. I shoot mainly objects and not people and those damn ghosts really piss me off (a weak attempt at humor and not a dig).

If the girls were concentrating on posing they may not have noticed someone walked behind them. The blur, if shot with a speed-light built into the phone, would represent about 1/60 of a second to 1/250 of a second. The blurred person probably only took one step. There is also evidence on the far right of the photo that a door was in the last fraction of a second of swinging fully open.

I have no doubt the OP is telling the truth. I'm just giving another opinion based on having processed and taken many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of photos over the last 20 years. I showed this to my wife who is a professional photographer and she agrees with me. Which is in and of itself very rare When she says I'm right I must be

edited for spelling

[edit on 10/23/2006 by Blaine91555]

I also work in the graphics industry.

I would say photoshop. With the image printed off and re-scanned. What would look okish as a photoshop image saved to disc, but re-scanning it and killing the resolution a little bit would be enough to make it look really convincing, and would make the edit un-detectable with basic photoshop filters as some previous posters suggested.

The shadow on the front is undoubtably someone else taking the picture, i would suggest the roughly the same height as the subjects.

Also it looks to me "suspect" that this came from a camera phone, aspect ratio looks a little wide, but if we can get the model number of the phone then we can varify?

Originally posted by ewan
I also work in the graphics industry.

The original file would be the best thing to have. These scans of prints sure muddy the water. It seems there is always a reason the original files or films are never available. I would not expect much from a camera phone though. As to the shadow? Could be from a person. That would be hard to say for certain. There was obviously multiple light sources. What type of speedlights do these camera phones have. Is it a group of LCD's? If there was no light other than room lighting then these girls must have held very still for the photo. Their image is fairly sharp. If the phone had a speed light then a person holding the phone would not cast a shadow as they would be behind the light. I have to appologize for my lack of knowledge on these camera phones. I have one cell phone I never use. If you want to talk about the new Nikon D2xs I'm getting for Christmas I think it will make me put away my film cameras for good. I never need anything over a 11x14 print.

I think the original would really help in this case as its a bit like trying to use a photocopied passport at an airport at the moment.

Going slightly off topic

Its LED flashes (mainly) the newer units can produce o 79 lux of light at one meter, compared to just 6-7 lux produced by conventional LEDs. Which means at 1-2 meters you can shoot virtually in the dark with new cameraphones. The technology is almost getting comparable to traditional flashes (but not quite yet.).

LED's are used due to size, and low power consumption.

I use large numbers of LED screens at work, and the differences in LED technology even over the past year is amazing. Don't get me started on organic led, or we will be here forever!

Sorry for high-jacking the thread.

Now that I know the details of how the speed-lights work, I'd guess the exposure at 1/250 second in duration. A moving person would take about 1 step or less depending on how fast they were moving. It would be enough to cause what you are seeing. Try and get the original digital file and I'm sure a few of us would be willing to look at it. Lot's of CG people on this site It would do no harm to ask your friend?

I personally get very excited when I find a ghost or UFO photo I can not explain. I've ran into a few but they are hard to glean out of the crowd. In most cases its a matter of misinterpretation of an explainable anomaly. I'm always hoping for the smoking gun like most others here.

Not trying to start a fight myself, but the picture reeks of Photoshop! I use CS2 all the time, and with 'Layers' , and Brightness-Contrast Tool it would be easy to do this. Look at the tell-tale signs, where the Clone Tool has obviously been used! It looks like Happy Halloween has come EARLY! (and yes even young girls can become quite proficient with Photoshop, it's a powerful image editing tool!) Thanks for the thread, and try not to be too hard on everyone involved!