Idea for fake ghost pic

[McAvennie]

OK, costly and fiddly but possible for someone who can be arsed.

1) Find a room, or site, preferably indoor or somewhere where nothing will move (you will be taking 2 photo's).
2) Get someone to stand in the photo (dressed as a freaky faced freak for a scary pic or just as an olden day person). Take photo of them.
3) Take another photo of same scene. Photoshop the person onto the scene in a way so you can see thru them, makin them look like a ghost.
4) Get doctored 'ghodt' photo printed and blown up to full size. Must be exactly correct height/width.
5) Take cut-out to original scene and place in correct position so background of 'cut-out' matches with the scene it is placed in.
6) Take new photo, making sure no light source is shining on the cut-out, you will have a photo of a see-through person but it will be genuine under photo-shop conditions.

It's a bit Cottingley fairies and could prob look quite wank. If pulled off could be quite good maybe?

 

[Imperial_Call]

and the point of making a fake photo would be ... ?

 

[Pete Younger]

Surely you'd get the same result from a double exposure, ie, take a picture of the person with the camera in a fixed position then expose the same frame again without the person.

 

[TulipTree]

But I think the idea is to have experts approve it, right? That's why go to all the trouble. You can't have them say "It's just a double exposure, look at the negative." It's got to pass muster to get in the classic ghost photo annals.

edited for missing words

 

[Imperial_Call]

Hmm, I did something akin to a ghost pic when I first got my SLR by setting it up in a pitch dark room with the shutter open, then triggering the flash. You fumble around in the dark, position an object in front of the camera and trigger the flash again ... looks quite cool

 

[McAvennie]

and the point of making a fake photo would be ... ?

Everyone else is doing it so why can't I?

 

[Pete Younger]

But I think the idea is to have experts approve it, right?

I think experts are likely to have seen all these tricks before.

 

[Anonymous]

There are too many ways we could pull of hoaxes on our home PCs. Forget all the tricksy stuff, most mags come with trial software where you could conjure ufos, ghosts, bigfeet...whatever.. and create an image that would be questioned by certain MOP's (members of public) for some time to come.
I'd say don't do it. The Santilli stuff gave credence and a salary to many people at Bufora (now sounding like a low calorie car polish) for ages until it now seems they are arguing over who hoaxed it.

I know I have the capability to create 'The Blurry Monster Nepal' with my kit at work and damn believable it may look too.
Having read what analysts are looking for I can tweak the shadows, bend the lens, move the fur and create the mountain range behind so they'd never know..apart from the pixellation of the image...but then I'd say I'd shot it on a cheap camera or something.

No hoaxes please...we're British!

 

[Anonymous]

I kinda think I need a new conexxion to t'interweb.
Sorry all.
But it is the same point made...over and over again.(a bit like Icke)

 

[oll_lewis]

even if you had a real gnost photo then you would have a sceptic expert wheeled out saying that it was a double exposure or something anyway.

Personally I'm not to sure weather a ghost could be captured on film as standard cameras just capture an image of light... most ghost theorys sugests that ghosts are not there in person but you see them though your own mind (for example there are many storys where some people see a ghost but others looking in the same place at the same time do not).

 

[Imperial_Call]

... most ghost theorys sugests that ghosts are not there in person but you see them though your own mind (for example there are many storys where some people see a ghost but others looking in the same place at the same time do not).

So could you take a psychic photo of a ghost?

 

[oll_lewis]

So could you take a psychic photo of a ghost?

Nah, I don't have a camera that picks up thought waves :sad:

 

[MrRING]

One thing that's important to consider is that no scientist would consider a photograph proof of a ghost.

Now, on the other hand, I'm 99% sure that the Patterson Bigfoot film is the "real thing", but I also know that even it isn't much proof to the skeptic James Randi's of the world.

Plus, what you are describing is what the first fake ghost photographers did for years, and the basis behind optical printing, the favrite choice of special effect in Spielberg's Hollywood (late 70's to mid-90's). It is usually noticible when blowing up the photograph.

 

[Imperial_Call]

build one!

(camera that captures thought waves)

edited because someone got into the thread between mine and Flash's posts

 

[Anonymous]

maybe an easier way to do it than lining up the fractions of millimetres between the cut-out of the doctored fake ghost and the actual background, and also not involving the massive expense of blowing up a colour photo of a person to life-size, is doing a double exposure and then just taking another photograph of the resulting photo. no double-exposed negative. also, instead of blowing the photo of the ghost up to life-size you could just bring it very close to the camera and let foreshortening/perspective take care of the rest. it would also be easier to line up. the biggest problem you potentially face with this is differences in the lighting of the figure and the surroundings.

Not all ghost photos behave as they should. The picture of the "mother in law in the back seat" is apparently hard to disprove but if you look at it, part of her scarf overlaps the outside of the car window. something doesn't have to LOOK 100% real (i mean it is a ghost photo), it just has to be impossible to explain. Surely this will get even more attention as well, as everyone scratches their head, knowing you faked it but not knowing how . . .