• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Ghosts & Cameras

C

colpepper1

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,255
If we accept the popular idea of ghosts and poltergeists as disembodied spirits of some kind, or demons perhaps (whatever they may be), why are they so afraid of cameras? The body of anecdotal evidence for sightings of every kind is massive yet the credible footage of 'spirits' in action is minute.
Is there some kind of barrier or interdiction that stops the critters performing for the camera? A ghostly Equity? Either they cease acting up or influence the equipment to fail. What is it about lenses and spooks that they don't get on?
 
Not to derail your thread, but an interesting book has just come through the library I work at that deals with ghost photography. It's called The Perfect Medium : Photography and the Occult, and here is the book description:
In the early days of photography, many believed and hoped that the camera would prove more efficient than the human eye in capturing the unseen. Spiritualists and animists of the nineteenth century seized on the new technology as a method of substantiating the existence of supernatural beings and happenings. This fascinating book assembles more than 250 photographic images from the Victorian era to the 1960s, each purporting to document an occult phenomenon: levitations, apparitions, transfigurations, ectoplasms, spectres, ghosts, and auras. Drawn from the archives of European and American occult societies and private and public collections, the photographs in many cases have never before been published.

The Perfect Medium studies these rare and remarkable photographs through cultural, historical, and artistic lenses. More than mere curiosities, the images on film are important records of the cultural forces and technical methods that brought about their production. They document in unexpected ways a period when developing photographic technology merged with a popular obsession with the occult to create a new genre of haunting experimental photographs.
Click to expand...

It's a huge book, and most of it is taken up with photographic examples, and some text surround each photo, as well as some early text review of the phenomenon.
 
colpepper1 said:
If we accept the popular idea of ghosts and poltergeists as disembodied spirits of some kind, or demons perhaps (whatever they may be), why are they so afraid of cameras? The body of anecdotal evidence for sightings of every kind is massive yet the credible footage of 'spirits' in action is minute.
Is there some kind of barrier or interdiction that stops the critters performing for the camera? A ghostly Equity? Either they cease acting up or influence the equipment to fail. What is it about lenses and spooks that they don't get on?
Click to expand...

Well if they've been caught then most of them probably might not be afraid.
 
The idea that they cannot or should not be recorded suggests their actions might be breaking a taboo. Crossing physical and etherial worlds is obviously not an everyday occurance but can be observed by individuals and small groups so long as it remains in the realm of heresay.

Poltergeists in their pomp stages seem able to manipulate all manner of physical phenomena but cameras still them completely, at least until they angrily redouble their efforts. The conclusion has to be either that physical artifacts only appear to move by manipulating the brain of the observer (unlikely as apports can be kept and retained out of place) or that evidence of their activities is breaking a universal norm by providing evidence of plains beyond the manifest one's.
I appreciate this might sound like stating the *!$ obvious but the disparity between ghostly anecdotes and evidence is a yawning gap.
 
Poltergeists might be linked to children and teenagers though.

The idea that they cannot or should not be recorded suggests their actions might be breaking a taboo. Crossing physical and etherial worlds is obviously not an everyday occurance but can be observed by individuals and small groups so long as it remains in the realm of heresay.
Click to expand...

If they can't be recorded or caught on camera then why have some be able to?
 
Well, cameras are physical objects that capture physical happenings. However, if a ghost is something in the ether, or something conjured up by the conjunction of a pyschical imprint of emotional event and the sensitive perception of a viewer --- well, that's not physical at all. In a way, that's a purely emotional event, and that cannot be captured on camera.
 
MaxMolyneux said:
If they can't be recorded or caught on camera then why have some be able to?
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm highly dubious about the majority, though by no means all spirit photography. Wraiths who happen to appear in the middle of a banal stairwell ('why exactly were you photographing such a boring subject?') and perfectly framed shots containing compliant ghosts set alarm bells ringing.
Given the amount of surveillance footage in every corner of our lives, from roads, to work, the bank, industrial premises, you name it, the number of spooky recordings is infinitesimally small compared to the anecdotal variety where almost everyone has, or knows someone who seen a spirit entity -and I use all the definitions in the broadest possible sense.
I'm aware of the various theories regarding poltergeist infestation but for convenience I'm grouping all spooks under the disembodied/deceased personality banner. Even footage claiming to be ghostly is fleeting and/or inconclusive. To my knowledge there are no clear, unambiguous and sustained image recordings of 'otherworldly' activity that can be evidenced without prejudice. Therefor I am drawn to the conclusion that there is indeed a barrier of some kind to the widespread recordings of such phenomena by imaging techniques.
 
Wraiths who happen to appear in the middle of a banal stairwell
Click to expand...

Wonder if the Brownlady one has been proven to be fake.

Shes on a stairway exactly like you say but it;s an old one so I don't know how they faked them back then.
 
MaxMolyneux said:
Shes on a stairway exactly like you say but it;s an old one so I don't know how they faked them back then.
Click to expand...
Usually double exposures, Max. The figure would b photgraphed against a plain, white background, then the same plate (glass "film", if you will) would be used to photograph the stairs, in this case.
colpepper1 said:
Given the amount of surveillance footage in every corner of our lives, from roads, to work, the bank, industrial premises, you name it, the number of spooky recordings is infinitesimally small compared to the anecdotal variety where almost everyone has, or knows someone who seen a spirit entity -and I use all the definitions in the broadest possible sense.
Click to expand...
That said, remember how many ghosts apparently appear as solid, living things - they're often only recognised as anomalous when recognised by someone who knows them to be dead. For all we know, there could be thousands on CCTV foorage, it's just no-one can tell :).
I'm aware of the various theories regarding poltergeist infestation but for convenience I'm grouping all spooks under the disembodied/deceased personality banner. Even footage claiming to be ghostly is fleeting and/or inconclusive. To my knowledge there are no clear, unambiguous and sustained image recordings of 'otherworldly' activity that can be evidenced without prejudice. Therefor I am drawn to the conclusion that there is indeed a barrier of some kind to the widespread recordings of such phenomena by imaging techniques.
Click to expand...
Again, something we've covered tangentially a fair few times, most recently here - if you'll permit me to quote myself:
stuneville said:
....the possible diverse nature of apparitions - could be hundreds of different causes, but only a few compatible with recording equipment. Different kinds may only work with different types of equipment.

I do like the idea that many ghosts (whatever their nature) are "transmitting" permanently, but you need the right receiving equipment to pick them up. Pure speculation, naturally.
Click to expand...
 
I think the Raynham Hall double exposure (if that is what we are accepting it as) was a deliberate fake as Stu describes, rather than an accident. Or a photograph of a ghost, for that matter.

Summary of historical possibilities of double exposures -

On very old cameras the image was produced on a glass plate which had to be removed every time a picture had been taken, and a new one put in for the next picture.

Later cameras had film which had to be wound on by hand, which is where the accidental double-exposures might happen. More modern cameras, especially ones with motors, were much less likely to have them.

So on the whole I'd be slightly more impressed by a convincing-looking ghost photo taken by a 1990s auto wind-on camera than by a Box Brownie or the sort with a glass plate, (dunno what they're called) because the operator of an auto wind-on camera normally has no control over the flow of the film and so cannot create a double exposure.

Digital cameras - pfft! Photoshop has killed off the tradition of ghost photography. It would be very hard indeed to convince anyone nowadays. :lol:
 
The link says the Rayham picture hasn't proven to be either fake or real.

Could be a dusty glass plate on an old camera but strangley shaped for dust or coincidently shaped like that too.
 
There are certain ghostly narratives that I have yet to see captured convincingly through the lens. The headless/faceless ghost, the half-bodied variety (e.g. York Treasurer's House), the re-enacted battle (July's FT, letters), etc. These persistent and largely consistent tales seem to illude photographers who are more likely to encounter orbs (spare me), insubstantial see-through cowled figures -that suggest both double exposure and an unwillingness for identification- and various process, technological or lens artifacts that are later 'discovered'.

Some images have the feel of authenticity but can still possibly be explained away. The face of the recently killed group member in the RAF Cranwell shot carries some weight. It is slight and somewhat distorted compared to the other's in the formal shot, it conforms in no sense to compositional awareness or adherence to a golden section and the expression is in kilter with the rest of the party while at the same time looking absent.
The argument for fake might go along the lines of it being a secondary print from the negative as a favour to a friend of the deceased, a memento mori or as a grim joke utilising a masked off earlier group shot. Also the back row gives some grounds for doubt, a mid group apparition might have proved even more astounding.

Another beguiling image is that of the distorted and over-large face of a young woman on the table of a party of diners in Switzerland (?, apologies for lack of links but some will be aware of both photos) which eschews any of the conventional ghost photo types, or the usual technical glitches and trickery though I've heard there is some doubt over its authenticity.
That still leaves a huge gap between the type of ghost stories we encounter and the equivalent photographic images.
 
Nah, the Raynham photo is a fake. You can see the edges of the stairs where the two snaps don't line up. ;)
 
escargot1 said:
Nah, the Raynham photo is a fake. You can see the edges of the stairs where the two snaps don't line up. ;)
Click to expand...

Too dark to tell when I look at it. :p
 
If paranormal energies (ghosts, UFO's, Nessie, Bigfoot)
do indeed affect electronics, drain batteries, etc...
does that explain why old-fashioned
mechanically-operated cameras were more
likely to catch paranormal activity?

Perhaps the current technology is not
operating "properly" when called upon to
capture a paranormal event.

Just a thought...
TVgeek
 
That could work the other way too, with electronics more likely to be affected to create paranormal pics or sounds.
 
Quite, especially if some ghostly activity is directly related to electro-magnetic effects (indeed, all might be, albeit on different parts of the spectrum.)
 
Seems likely apparitions are a combination of objective manifestation in the visible wavelengths plus energy derived from the observer in some form or another. I can't believe they occur entirely independently of third parties even if they appear to have a separate 'life' of their own.

For these reasons I suspect optical cameras are a lousy way of catching them, occupying a tiny part of the spectrum and if left to remote triggers, little of whatever living energy contributes to their appearence.
To enter further into conjecture the representation of Edge Hill's ghosts (letters, FT July) and similar cases suggests the events are not being re-enacted or recurring but are the observer seeing the original scene somehow, an extra temporal factor divorced even further from photographic imaging. All suppositional of course.
 
I've personally been curious about a few spirit photographs but the overwhelming majority seem to be simulacra, hoaxes or lens flares.

It's possible that spirits are not photographable at all and only manifest within the subconscious perceptions of the mind and filter to the conscious under the right circumstances. Even if there are "real" ghost or spirit photos on occasion they may be a latent Ted Serios like ability to impress perceived imagery on the photographic medium.
 
I have read all this but want to put foward my own thoughts on this subject.
What IF people on the other side are NOT allowed to communicate with us???
we just see the odd sneaked through communication ie ghosts!
poltergiests .etc..
that would be mental :O
its a thought .. a mad one i grant you but still its a thought.
 
When it comes to ghosts, assuming that they are either (a) intelligent entities and/or (b) recordings in time/space, then in the case of (a) personally I don't think that we "catch" ghosts on film, but that they allow themselves to be photographed for whatever reason, just as they allow themselves to be seen. Otherwise, as someone has already pointed out, CCTV would have substantially increased the number of such images.
 
I have to say that, no one in their right mind is going to
sit and actually watch hours and hours of security video footage
(which is normally taken one frame every so-many seconds)
unless a crime is committed at some point.
From my experience, it is really tough to see what
is going on and follow what is happening at the best of times.

Which security guard is going to attribute an open door or
activated motion sensor to a ghost? Much less point out something
anomalous captured on camera.

I WISH they would be open minded enough to keep
copies of the strange stuff...

FWIW
TVgeek
 
TVgeek said:
I have to say that, no one in their right mind is going to
sit and actually watch hours and hours of security video footage
(which is normally taken one frame every so-many seconds)
unless a crime is committed at some point.
From my experience, it is really tough to see what
is going on and follow what is happening at the best of times.

Which security guard is going to attribute an open door or
activated motion sensor to a ghost? Much less point out something
anomalous captured on camera.

I WISH they would be open minded enough to keep
copies of the strange stuff...

FWIW
TVgeek
Click to expand...

A fair point but OTOH if an intruder were noticed in the building/ premises/ site you would expect it to be followed up as a potential crime taking place like any other. The fact remains that almost no such events are seen.

As has been pointed out above, ghosts seem to allow themselves to be perceived for reasons of their own. If the 'earthbound spirit' hypothesis is true, they may contain more of whatever it is that that makes them material and like us.
The grand scale hauntings like battles are more problematic because the viewer has little personal contact with the source and when people are seen fleeing the scene the 'guilty conscience' explanation also falls down. And with the sad increase in murder these days why isn't every such scene 'haunted'?
Tricky stuff.
 
interesting colpepper1 my personal theory about why recent killings dont
include hauntings is the same as my WWII battle field one.
1. the scale of death was so immense that it takes time to recreate
2. the event is so recent it will take some time to recreate
 
The time element certainly seems a factor. Apparitions appear (sic) to be grouped into post-mortem variety - the deceased seen as a farewell to known friends whether they're aware of the death or not- and long term hauntings.
Also, even the long haul spooks have a shelf life when they're at their most potent and within that group some disappear never to be seen again while others have the ability to pop up generations after they'd been forgotten (thinking of a certain Welsh road ghost from an old FT).

If you accept the idea that communication is being attempted and you see an injured civil war soldier on horseback cross a sunked road in front of you as was reported a few years ago what on earth are they trying to say?
Are they Christians inviting prayers for their sins in which case why the horsey' theatre'? Is the road itself marked out as a dangerous liminal space? Or is it as I suggested the viewer not seeing a replay or re-enactment but the original event taking place with time stripped away?

None of these things give themselves upreadily to a photographic camera which makes me suspicious of any ghostly snaps.
 
With all the effects and styles I got on my camera phone, it would be interesting to see what I could possibly catch.
 
You could catch al sorts. Good job you've got a camera phone.
 
You might end up starring in one of those 'information' fillums they show to Army recruits. :shock:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top