Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

The outline of the person also has a long dong. You have to admit that.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
It looks like a young boy, and his dog.

originally posted by: Taggart

I suggest you get your eyes tested or do you mean, it looks kinda like.. etc.


What I see

I see a centaur as well.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Thank you. If the photographer was only viewing the scene through the limited field of view of the camera's viewfinder (as was the case with Jim Templeton and the Solway Firth spaceman photo),he could be excused for not seeing something in the scene he wasn't specifically concentrating on. But in this case standing back from the camera and watching the scene directly with his own eyes,he would HAVE to see a real flesh and blood person walk in front of the camera,especially in this case as who ever it was stopped there for long enough to capture an image of him where he appears to be stood still.
Don't forget though everyone,we're talking about a digital image sensor here that has to have light fall on it from objects that are present in it's field of view to generate an electrical signal that is then converted by a microprocessor into computer code that needs to be converted before we can view it as an image. To simplify this,if something solid and real is there when the photo is taken,we will see it when we view the photo after it was taken. If it's not there but is in alternate reality that so far is only proven to exist in science fiction stories,we obviously won't see anything. Remember that out here in the real world,the eye and the camera see exactly the same thing.

a reply to: Imagewerx

The camera can see things that we cannot see with our eyes. Another member of ATS actually opened my eyes to this by suggesting a simple experiment...

All I needed was a camera (my iPhone) and a television remote control. I pointed a television remote control at my camera and pressed a button on the remote. When looking at the remote control with my eyes, I saw nothing. When looking at the remote control through my camera, I saw a very bright white light shining at me.

Of course this isn't proof of ghosts, other dimensional beings, or anything paranormal. It is simply evidence that cameras can indeed take pictures of things that we can't see with our own eyes.

originally posted by: VegHead
a reply to: Imagewerx

The camera can see things that we cannot see with our eyes. Another member of ATS actually opened my eyes to this by suggesting a simple experiment...

All I needed was a camera (my iPhone) and a television remote control. I pointed a television remote control at my camera and pressed a button on the remote. When looking at the remote control with my eyes, I saw nothing. When looking at the remote control through my camera, I saw a very bright white light shining at me.

Of course this isn't proof of ghosts, other dimensional beings, or anything paranormal. It is simply evidence that cameras can indeed take pictures of things that we can't see with our own eyes.

It's a valid point.

And also a way of testing if your remote control is really broken or not.

You guys seem to know little or nothing about shutter speed.
You think you can get that ghost figure with 4 second exposure? Oh dear, go outside your living rooms and try to make a photo outside with your friend whether it works of not.
You will quickly realize that it's not possible.
Everyone stating that somebody walked into the frame is fairly wrong with poxy judgement.
You guys think that OP is a total freak not noticing a person on abandoned beach? Come ooon.

OP you have my full support. This is not caused by anyone entering the picture.

a reply to: WideOpenSpace

That's what I see. If I were that ghost I would be running!!

But seriously, interesting photo, to say the least. I def. see the guy standing there. I think you may have caught a spirit here. I don't know any other explanation that would explain it other than hoax, but I find you very credible. I've got photos of them too.

originally posted by: Necrose
You guys seem to know little or nothing about shutter speed.
You think you can get that ghost figure with 4 second exposure? Oh dear, go outside your living rooms and try to make a photo outside with your friend whether it works of not.
You will quickly realize that it's not possible.
Everyone stating that somebody walked into the frame is fairly wrong with poxy judgement.
You guys think that OP is a total freak not noticing a person on abandoned beach? Come ooon.

OP you have my full support. This is not caused by anyone entering the picture.

Always up for a challenge lets see what the ghost hand thinks of your claim



4 seconds f22 iso 100 same as op pic background correctly exposed hand moved in front during exposure.

Exif data from picture

Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) [0x829A] = 4/1 second ===> 4 second
Lens F-Number / F-Stop [0x829D] = 220/10 ===> ƒ/22
Exposure Program [0x8822] = manual control (1)
ISO Speed Ratings [0x8827] = 100

a reply to: wmd_2008
Does it look as transparent as OP's figure?
You can clearly see your hand's colour whereas you can't see any colour change at the OP's photo. The thing is that your photo shows how your hand was pulled out of the frame, yet we can't see a person going out or into the OP's frame.
Not saying that your hand is definitely distinguishable, whereas we can't say what is the thing we can see standing next to the rocks with such confidence.

I am not saying that it's not possible to make a similiar effect. I am saying that you can't make the very same effect i.e. Transparency, colour change, shadow...
Also, try it outside, not inside. Huge difference, regarding the exposure.

+
Nobody would be able to enter the frame in a fraction of second, then stand there for a second, then move around with something on it's back or with something in their hand and then go out of the frame in a split second...
It's just not possible.

But I love your attitude and your challenging character.

If I had taken a photo like the OP here and somebody would try to convince me that I am a freaking idiot, not noticing something entering the frame and walking around, I would have gone bonkers.

a reply to: Necrose

Do you think I knew the exact speed to move my hand to match the person in the picture do you think my hand in a CLOSE UP situation could move the SAME distance as the person in the picture.

YOU said it was impossible to get a ghost image with a 4 second exposure YOU were WRONG and proved so!!!!


4 SECONDS AT F22 AT 100 ISO giving a CORRECT exposure is the same inside OR outside

a reply to: wmd_2008

It must have been Usain Bolt then

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Necrose

Do you think I knew the exact speed to move my hand to match the person in the picture do you think my hand in a CLOSE UP situation could move the SAME distance as the person in the picture.

YOU said it was impossible to get a ghost image with a 4 second exposure YOU were WRONG and proved so!!!!


4 SECONDS AT F22 AT 100 ISO giving a CORRECT exposure is the same inside OR outside

Try different speeds you seem like you have some spare time...

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorweplooks like a figure looking out to sea!! not sure whats next to him ?

originally posted by: Necrose
You guys seem to know little or nothing about shutter speed.
You think you can get that ghost figure with 4 second exposure? Oh dear, go outside your living rooms and try to make a photo outside with your friend whether it works of not.
You will quickly realize that it's not possible.
Everyone stating that somebody walked into the frame is fairly wrong with poxy judgement.
You guys think that OP is a total freak not noticing a person on abandoned beach? Come ooon.

OP you have my full support. This is not caused by anyone entering the picture.

originally posted by: Necrose
a reply to: wmd_2008


Nobody would be able to enter the frame in a fraction of second, then stand there for a second, then move around with something on it's back or with something in their hand and then go out of the frame in a split second...
It's just not possible.

But I love your attitude and your challenging character.

If I had taken a photo like the OP her and somebody would try to convince me that I am a freaking idiot, not noticing something entering the frame and walking around, I would have gone bonkers.

They DON'T have to leave the frame, this picture would have been taken on a tripod and if the op knows what he is doing the shutter will be released by a remote control or using the delay timer so the camera is not moved, if a person moved into the field of view during the 4 seconds of exposure they don't have to leave once the shutter closes that's it.

Sometimes people get so engrossed in what they are doing they don't notice things going on around it has happened while I have been on field trips and in the studio with other photographers.

originally posted by: Necrose

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Necrose

Do you think I knew the exact speed to move my hand to match the person in the picture do you think my hand in a CLOSE UP situation could move the SAME distance as the person in the picture.

YOU said it was impossible to get a ghost image with a 4 second exposure YOU were WRONG and proved so!!!!


4 SECONDS AT F22 AT 100 ISO giving a CORRECT exposure is the same inside OR outside

Try different speeds

you seem like you have some spare time...

Why the settings are the same as the OP PICTURES?

Here is what I do not get by some peoples critical thinking.. A 4 second exposure , someone would have to run as fast as they could to reach that spot in the photo and that is hard to do in water . There is no blurring from the right side where the figure would of entered the photo there is no water disturbance just a shadow floating on water . There is no possible way to have some one enter the picture and travel all that distance without any sort of blurring from a 4 second exposure even to entertain the idea seems rather silly .

Or I could be completely wrong I really know nothing about exposures and camera and sit here looking like a douche

It is something paranormal or a cgi hoax

I don't think VVV is being dishonest I think he really captured something unexplainable .. regardless still a nice picture

a reply to: freedomSlave

So you know what direction that person would have run from ? You know how deep the water is? If the person moved in fast from the right they would have NO effect so you are correct you don't know enough about exposure and movement.

originally posted by: freedomSlave
Here is what I do not get by some peoples critical thinking.. A 4 second exposure , someone would have to run as fast as they could to reach that spot in the photo and that is hard to do in water . There is no blurring from the right side where the figure would of entered the photo there is no water disturbance just a shadow floating on water . There is no possible way to have some one enter the picture and travel all that distance without any sort of blurring from a 4 second exposure even to entertain the idea seems rather silly .

Who says they would have to run into the frame? From the blurred image, they were likely in shot for the entire time, either starting or finishing in the spot at the furthest left, where they were stood fairly motionless, creating the most solid image. They either walked from right to left, perhaps crouching/bending briefly, and were stood there at the end of the exposure, or they were stood at the left and then turned and walked off towards the right. I think the former is more likely and fits the image better.

Remember, with a four-second exposure, the person would have to be in a given place for a significant proportion of that time in order to cast an image. There are some slight dark overlaps where part of their body was covering the same part of the image for a longer period.

Absolutely nothing about this image looks in any way unusual for a time exposure of a moving person. The only reason it is "unusual" is that the photographer didn't see the person at the time.