Eerie photograph I took, analysis needed.

For what it's worth:

The story goes that a young woman, known to us as Leentjie, the diminutive of Lena, worked as an oyster gatherer on the rocks at the end of the beach and around the point to the mouth of Kaaimans.
She had a boyfriend, whose name is lost. As sometimes happens, he jilted her for another woman. Leentjie, shattered by the news, drowned herself from the rocks which ever since have borne her name.

Also, I believe you can see the rocks where this picture was taken, in
this picture of the beach
Personally, the water looks like if someone was standing there, they would be about ankle deep, but then again, it could just be low tide.

Lastly, I would just like to put this out there.. Imo, it almost looks like the figure to the right has his back to the camera and his right arm raised, as if he was about to hit the other "person" over the head with something. I've never really believed in ghosts but a very interesting picture nonetheless, imo. Thanks for sharing.

a reply to: PassingThru

Thats very interesting. I live in this area, and was not even aware of this legend.

Thank you so much for sharing.

vvv

The ghost on the right has a big one lol

An interesting shot, but it looks to me like a wave has hit a pocket in the rocks, and thrown up some sea spray.

You could be reading far too much into a cloud of mist being caught by the wind.

I'm going to reach way out there on this one.

Anyone familiar with "shadow people" then this photo might make some sense. Also people that understand OBE's or the Astral world know that it vibrates at a higher rate and beings take on different form without physical bodies.

Quantifying something that vibrates at higher/different rates is next to impossible with our eyes and cameras, but this picture seemed to capture part of something.

Looks more like a double exposure from film days than someone walking into a long exposure. If some walked into then back out of the shot would they not leave a blur in and out and a mess in the area they stood?

Not sure how a double exposure could happen with digital exept maybe with a software issue. Would certainly be a stretch to blame the camera here.


If you remember the time you took the pic, or that info is in the exif you could try going back and try to recreate it maybe at the same exact time of day, day of the week etc. if you could get it again, perhaps even with a different camera you would have something akin to proof to even the most scepticaly minded.

Nice shot btw

originally posted by: BuzzCory
a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Ah, if this was a longer exposure, is it possible a guy & his dog walked into the frame, stood still long enough to show, then walked off? If they were moving fast enough before & after, they could have left no trailing images. Was your attention diverted away from the scene long enough that this could have happened?

A long enough exposure to accomplish that would have affected the detail clarity of the waves behind the artifact in an obvious manner. It's an intriguing photo.

Looks like a shadow thrown down onto the surface and make visible by the longer exposure.

I have been in the mountains and seen giants strolling across the fog below, only to turn around see my hiking partners cracking up with laughter.

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

What I like about this photo is that it's clearly a shot that was worth taking in the first place. It's not a photo of nothing whatsoever, with an artifact in the photo. Those kinds of shots reek of intentionally providing a backdrop for the artifact in question. These photos are definitely meant to showcase the rock formation and its place in that specific setting.

I do not see two people. Like others have said, I see a young man and some kind of large bird with a long neck.
Intriguing.

a reply to: caterpillage

If you remember the time you took the pic, or that info is in the exif you could try going back and try to recreate it maybe at the same exact time of day, day of the week etc. if you could get it again, perhaps even with a different camera you would have something akin to proof to even the most scepticaly minded.

This might be possible. The shot was taken at 16:59 according to exif data. I might just go back there and take a couple of shots again.

vvv

originally posted by: NorEaster

A long enough exposure to accomplish that would have affected the detail clarity of the waves behind the artifact in an obvious manner. It's an intriguing photo.

What are you talking about? It IS a long exposure, as stated by the photographer. The long exposure is deliberately used to make the waves totally blurred, as seen in this image. It is a commonly used technique.

As the OP himself says:

I love taking long exposures of water, to get that silky smooth effect.

OP - could you please state the exact exposure you used? Certainly it appears to be several seconds, maybe even 15-20 seconds?

As for the figure - in the enhancement posted earlier you can see that it is just one person who stands in slightly different places, with the images "overlapping" in places:



Looks to me like he walked in from the right, stood there briefly, then bent at the waist with his arms reaching down to the water, then straightened up and stood facing to the left for a while longer, possibly turning their head back to look towards the photographer.

Just one person. The only mystery seems to be why the photographer didn't notice him.


Edit: Here's a time exposure that gives a similar effect, but with the person only standing in one spot, not stopping in several places.

a reply to: Rob48

What are you talking about? It IS a long exposure, as stated by the photographer. The long exposure is deliberately used to make the waves totally blurred, as seen in this image. It is a commonly used technique.

I think you misunderstand him. He means if there was movement, from someone the waves and background behind the artifact, would have been more blurred because the "person" would obstruct the view in that area.

As for the exposure: 18-55mm Nikon, at 18 mm, f22 aperture, 4 seconds.

vvv

a reply to: Rob48

Just one person. The only mystery seems to be why the photographer didn't notice him

Simple. Because there was no one there! Look mate, I know you trying hard, but seriously, there was no one in frame. Do you think i would look through my viewfinder, see someone there, and still release the shutter. The beach was empty. And I was watching the direction of the rocks, actually more than what you see in the frame.

vvv

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48


As for the exposure: 18-55mm Nikon, at 18 mm, f22 aperture, 4 seconds.

vvv

Thanks. So, plenty of time for one person to make those movements. It's that enhancement that nails it for me - the way you can see darker areas where the two positions "overlap", where the person is blocking out the background for longer, and allowing less of the sea to be exposed in those regions.

Edit: fine, you say there was nobody there, but your camera, which presumably doesn't lie, captured a totally consistent view you might expect with a time exposure of a person walking in the edge of the water.

There's not much else that can be said. Either you're mistaken, or something weird is going on.

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: BuzzCory

Not possible mate, I would have noticed.

Here is the images taken, seconds before and after the one in question.

If there was anything in the frame, it would have showed on the others too.

and that was taken, maybe within 10 to 15 seconds. I usually take many pics of one scene, so later I can pick the best one.

vvv

Just wanted to say - these two images are identical: a 5-second exposure taken 21 seconds after the one with the strange figure. I'm sure this was just an error on your part (as everything else checks out with what you say) but do you have the frame taken before the "odd" frame?

To me, it looks like a dad with 2 children, 1 child in line or just behind the dad & the other say a pace behind.

Lots of sadness in the posture.

a reply to: Rob48

Ok, gonna make it clear for you:

SHOT DIRECTLY BEFORE:



SHOT WITH AFRTIFACT:



SHOT DIRECTLY AFTERWARDS:



Furthermore, the water there is not ankle deep. As I stated earlier.

Edit to add: My camera was on a tripod, shots taken in short succession, thus, most will look the same, calm sea, thus most likely to look the same.

vvv

originally posted by: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
a reply to: Rob48

Ok, gonna make it clear for you:

No need for the attitude - I was just pointing out that both of the images you presented as "before and after" were actually the "after".

It's not a case of them "looking the same" - they WERE the same, as shown by the EXIF data. Time was 18:59:44.

Like I said, I'm sure it was just a mistake. No big deal.

So now we see that the time from first shot to last shot was 40 seconds. I think that is plenty of time for somebody to walk into the frame and back out again.

18:59:04 - 5-second exposure

18:59:23 - 4-second exposure with figure in

18:59:44 - 5-second exposure.

And it certainly looks to me like the water could well be ankle depth right there. These are the rocks, aren't they?

a reply to: VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

It's a classic long or double exposure. This is proven by the fact the water looks 'misty' /yawn

Whoever took this KNOWS this and is trying to pull a hoax