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

The Only Ghost Photo I Ever Found Convincing. What Do You Think?

Thanks to my You Tube algolrithms on TV, it 'recommended' a documentary, narrated by Christopher Lee, called Ghost!: A Journey Into the Paranormal (1991).
Usual stock-in-trade, slightly creepy music, witness testimonies, stock shots of castles and graveyards etc. However, in the introduction it mentions the Enfield Poltergeist and shows ... the image being discussed! (At the 2:04 mark) :)
 
Thanks to my You Tube algolrithms on TV, it 'recommended' a documentary, narrated by Christopher Lee, called Ghost!: A Journey Into the Paranormal (1991).
Usual stock-in-trade, slightly creepy music, witness testimonies, stock shots of castles and graveyards etc. However, in the introduction it mentions the Enfield Poltergeist and shows ... the image being discussed! (At the 2:04 mark) :)
Ooooh, I love a good spooky YouTube tip off! I'll look this one up tomorrow (I'd do it today but I've got to go to work in a bit...)
 
The phrase 'photographic experts' is often bandied about, but we never hear about exactly who these experts are, or where the man-in-the-street got hold of one to ask their opinion.

I think, without actual testimony, from a named expert in exactly this type of photography, I'd take 'photographic experts' with a pinch of salt. For all we know he might just have asked his mate down the pub.
If anyone ever tells me they're an expert, I believe them.

Gullible? Me?
 
The phrase 'photographic experts' is often bandied about, but we never hear about exactly who these experts are, or where the man-in-the-street got hold of one to ask their opinion.

I think, without actual testimony, from a named expert in exactly this type of photography, I'd take 'photographic experts' with a pinch of salt. For all we know he might just have asked his mate down the pub.
This is a good point but I just want to highlight the difference between a double exposure and a long exposure.

A long exposure is when the shutter stays open for a longer time, allowing movement to occur within the photo. This is what I used in my photo a couple of pages ago.

A double exposure is when for whatever reason, the film does not wind on (usually the person just forgot) and so a second photo is taken on the same frame.

So it may be true that a real and bona fide expert looked at the photo and ruled out a double exposure. Though (strangely?) there is no mention a long exposure.

A long exposure almost certainly occurred in this photo as can be seen by looking at some of the other people. Specifically look at the left (her left) shoulder of the lady in blue right at the back. It is right up beside her ear. And the face and neck of the blond lady to the ghosts right. It is blurred and almost looks superimposed.
 
As a conclusion I am convinced the photo is not faked. It is either a ghost or a person who is really there.

The suspicious bit is that there is a gap for her between the others, but it is the two to the left who have moved, the girl on the right is in the same place.

There is obviously a gap behind the table and the people furthest away, so someone could be there.

She does look a bit large but some people are just big boned.

But there is something strange about her appearance, she seems a bit more blurred than everyone else, but from focus not movement, that is unusual. She also seems very one dimensional as opposed to being real in three dimensional space.

If it's staged it is a good one.
 
This is a good point but I just want to highlight the difference between a double exposure and a long exposure.

A long exposure is when the shutter stays open for a longer time, allowing movement to occur within the photo. This is what I used in my photo a couple of pages ago.

A double exposure is when for whatever reason, the film does not wind on (usually the person just forgot) and so a second photo is taken on the same frame.

So it may be true that a real and bona fide expert looked at the photo and ruled out a double exposure. Though (strangely?) there is no mention a long exposure.

A long exposure almost certainly occurred in this photo as can be seen by looking at some of the other people. Specifically look at the left (her left) shoulder of the lady in blue right at the back. It is right up beside her ear. And the face and neck of the blond lady to the ghosts right. It is blurred and almost looks superimposed.
I think a lot of us on here are using 'double exposure' to mean 'long exposure' to be honest. I think I am. And you're right, if you ask a 'photographic expert' to rule on a picture, what are you asking him or her to rule in or out? To add to my list of wanting to know their qualifications and area of expertise, I'd add 'and what question they are being asked.'
 
Thanks to my You Tube algolrithms on TV, it 'recommended' a documentary, narrated by Christopher Lee, called Ghost!: A Journey Into the Paranormal (1991).
Usual stock-in-trade, slightly creepy music, witness testimonies, stock shots of castles and graveyards etc. However, in the introduction it mentions the Enfield Poltergeist and shows ... the image being discussed! (At the 2:04 mark) :)
On about 35 minutes Maurice Gross goes through that and a few other famous ghost photos.
 
There was at least one photographic expert who verified it.
I don't have time to watch that, sorry (maybe later!) Is that the docu where the experts saw "scan lines" on the photo? Everyone else who'd seen it, including the original, saw no such thing and it's thought that for some reason these experts had been given a degraded copy.
 
Phil Walton, before he left the field completely was one who had seen the original photo. He's not a photographic expert but he had seen the original photo, and examined it under a magnifying glass in response to the docus claims, and he saw no "scan lines"
 
Funny how ghosts show up in photos.

My daughter tells a story at work that someone took a picture of the people in her working unit, and when the picture was passed around, a stranger was standing with their group.

There was no way this stranger should have been in this picture.
 
I Googled this photo today because it randomly popped into my head and I wondered if there had been a proper investigation into it – so it was a very impressive coincidence to see that this thread was started only five days ago, this discussion is pretty much exactly what I was hoping for!

After reading the thread I’ve registered to post this, because I have some more info on this photo that I recall reading in a book about the paranormal back in the 90s. It seems the details given in the book have not made it onto any websites featuring this photo, so it’s worth me sharing them here in light of the curiosity over the photo’s backstory and potential explanations. I recall reading about this photo in a book about the paranormal that I read back in my school days, in the school library. I can’t recall the name of the book, just that it was a coffee table-type book on the subject of the paranormal, and the last page of the book was about this photo. Bearing in mind this was around 25 years ago, my memory of the info in the book may not be entirely accurate, but I’ll recount it to the best of my recollection!

According to the book, the people in the photo were two families who met while staying in the Hotel Vierjahreszeiten on holiday. On the last night of the holiday, they partied together in the hotel restaurant, and the man on the far left – presumably ‘Mr Todd’ – set up his camera to take a photo of them all. As reported in other accounts, the first time the flash did not go off, so he went back and reset the camera to take another photo.

After returning home, Mr Todd got the film developed and looked at the photos. He noticed the blurred extra woman in the first (non-flash) photo, but assumed it was a double exposure and thought no more of it. A few months later, the second family came to visit the Todds to reunite for the first time since the holiday, Mr Todd showed them the photos, and one of the ladies was shocked when she saw the first photo, because she was convinced the extra woman in the shot was a ghost. She pointed out that the woman was clearly behind the glasses on the table, which would not be possible in a double exposure.

Confused, Mr Todd took the photos to be examined by photographic experts, who ruled out any possibility of double exposure. Unable to explain the mystery woman, the Todds went back to the Hotel Vierjahreszeiten on their next holiday the following year and showed the photo to the staff, but the staff confirmed there was no history of haunting at the hotel and no one recognized the mystery woman.

Mr Todd was reluctant to blame the photo on the paranormal, but in the absence of a rational explanation, felt there was no other choice. The dark-haired woman to the right of the ‘ghost’ was apparently Mr Todd’s wife (I think her name was Ella or Ellen, going from memory), and some people who saw the photo remarked that the ‘ghost’ looked like her. Mrs Todd had apparently been ill with cancer at some point around that same time, either before or after, and was given months to live, but made an impressive recovery against the odds and beat the illness, leading some to speculate that the ‘ghost’ was some sort of guardian angel protecting her.

That’s the story behind the photo as far as I recall! Of course, whether the story given in the book was entirely true or not is another question. Either way, great to see it being discussed here and some plausible explanations being put forward; hopefully some more info about it may come to light!
Thanks @Mosquitor that's very useful information.

I think we'll soon need a thread on mysterious books on the supernatural that contain information that's found nowhere else and which then disappear. Like the book with the Thunderbird photo. They are starting to become a phenomenon of their own.
 
If anyone ever tells me they're an expert, I believe them.

Gullible? Me?
You need an expert to tell you which person is an expert.
Funny, that, but I can recommend a couple of said experts. It'll cost you, mind ...
On about 35 minutes Maurice Gross goes through that and a few other famous ghost photos.
I know, and frankly, I winced. They're not in the slightest convincing.
 
I am in no position to comment on the veracity of the photo, but the image is out of proportion, or is it a trick of the eye?
 
I am in no position to comment on the veracity of the photo, but the image is out of proportion, or is it a trick of the eye?

I don't think it is out of proportion.

I think there's a tendency to assume that 'ghostlady' is part of the group of women, and make comparisons based on that assumption. But, as I said before, it seems clear to me that -

...The ladies behind her are not sitting at the table, they are sitting against a wall a little behind the table, and to which the table is set at an angle...

It seems equally clear to me that 'ghostlady' is not part of that group, but is in front of the other women, actually at the table: she's a real part of the foreground group, not a phantom part of the background group. And I'd say that she is in proportion with the men sitting at that table.

It's also worth noting that the motion blur associated with a longer exposure will make the edges of things appear mushy, which can affect our perception of the shape of individual elements, and the relative proportions involved within an image - this will be especially so with animate objects, where one individual may move more than another during the exposure.
 
Two tables.

Yes, I think so.

I think the layout of the 'ghost' photograph might be roughly ('rough' being the appropriate word) something like this - the arrow being the camera POV:

20231003_194404.jpg
 
I think part of the reason we're spooked by the photo, is because we've been told it's a ghost, or unexplained.

If, for example we crop the photo down, sharpen it up a bit and then ask someone "what do you see?" without mentioning any spookiness we might get very different perceptions and answers.

View attachment 69946

I also don't rule out the cardboard cutout explanation - the lighting on all the figures seems consistent with 'no flash' and the blurry-ness of the figure might be a side-effect of enlarging a photo of a missing member of the group up to 'life-size'.

I've seen others do that occasionally - if a regular member of a group of friends/family can't travel or attend a function a life-sized cardboard cutout travels instead!

Holding that steady on the table in front of the 4 ladies would mean it would appear larger than they.

I am somewhat suspicious that no other identifying info of the party of people, and no other photos from that film reel have been released - My 'gut feeling' is that it's an unstaged, chance earthly image, which someone thought was weird/spooky and released the 2 photos as a jape, a hoax or to make a few quid. The person(s) who made the images public may not even be connected closely to the 11 people shown in the photos.
She could also have been sitting on the lap of the woman behind her, she could have been always the 'zany' one in the bunch as the other women around her look like they're laughing in a 'look out! here she goes again' kind of way.

It is interesting thought that Mr Todd's camera flash failed to go off at his first attempt at taking this photo. Although not evidence in itself of anything paranormal, equipment malfunction is commonly reported at the same time as paranormal 'situations' ..
 
Last edited:
Two tables.
I like that idea, and Spookdaddy's diagram; but it's still odd that she's out of focus compared to the other people at her table and those at the table behind her.

And where did she nip off to between the two pictures? Presumably the photograph was intended to show the people at both tables, so why wouldn't they have waited for her to come back?

Though I've read a couple of detective stories which depend on witnesses not noticing that a servant, or in one case a postman, had gone into a room or building, because they're seen as part of the furniture rather than a person. Could "the ghost" have been a waitress serving the front table who tried to duck behind it to keep herself out of the first picture (explaining the odd positioning and the blur), and had succeeded in doing so when the second was taken?
 
I think the layout of the 'ghost' photograph might be roughly ('rough' being the appropriate word) something like this - the arrow being the camera POV

Thank you! I've been sitting here for a couple of days thinking

a) leave saying it for a bit in case it closes off any thoughts and discussion

and

b) I'll have to draw the damn thing

So your diagram is very well received! :oldm:
 
I don't think it is out of proportion.

I think there's a tendency to assume that 'ghostlady' is part of the group of women, and make comparisons based on that assumption. But, as I said before, it seems clear to me that -



It seems equally clear to me that 'ghostlady' is not part of that group, but is in front of the other women, actually at the table: she's a real part of the foreground group, not a phantom part of the background group. And I'd say that she is in proportion with the men sitting at that table.

It's also worth noting that the motion blur associated with a longer exposure will make the edges of things appear mushy, which can affect our perception of the shape of individual elements, and the relative proportions involved within an image - this will be especially so with animate objects, where one individual may move more than another during the exposure.
This post absolutely nails the whole thing as far as I'm concerned!

The woman's proportions only seem odd if you imagine (as most of us have been doing) that everyone in the picture is sat around the same table. Look again, however and consider the possibility that most of the women on the right of the picture are sat against the wall in a row and away from the table (probably with their own table in front of them) and the `ghost lady` is sat alone, with the men (and maybe one of the ladies on the left) around a table in the foreground. Suddenly the picture looks every bit as banal and explicable as I, for one, always felt it would be. No need for cardboard cut outs, double or long exposures or people leaning forward, etc.

The only slight mystery is why nobody seems to remember who she is and why she is only in one shot.

As regards the latter there could be multiple reasons. She may have required the loo or gone to get another drink Or, if she were a member of staff at the hotel she could have been called out on some duty. Or...perhaps she was the one who got up to fiddle with the camera....

It was a boozy evening amongst people who were only loosely acquainted. The development of the film may have taken up to about a month. It is worth noting that we don't know the opinions (on the film) of all the people featured in it. Their responses (as far as I know) have not been recorded. Perhaps some peoplle would have known, and remembered who the lady in question was. Perhaps some of the people in the shot never learnt that the film had subsequently become famous. So we might well not be getting the full story.

Good work Spookdaddy!
 
...The only slight mystery is why nobody seems to remember who she is and why she is only in one shot...

As I said before, I'm not even sure there exists proof of a first hand statement to this effect - or whether it's an internet created illusory truth.

I wonder if she may have been a member of the hotel staff who had built up a relationship with the group. It is not unusual for someone in such a position to be involved in the taking of photographs, and in the banter which often accompanies such a process. But - not being a core member of that group - it might also explain why in getting up to reset the camera, her omission from the final image would not be disastrous.

As with all such images, I'm left wishing that we could see those that bracket it on the original film.

...I think part of the reason we're spooked by the photo, is because we've been told it's a ghost, or unexplained...

I do wonder if this is the most important factor here.

As @Zeke Newbold states:

...The woman's proportions only seem odd if you imagine (as most of us have been doing) that everyone in the picture is sat around the same table...

It seems to me that in cases like this we often hugely inflate the value of information which is totally extraneous to the actual evidence presented, at the expense of our own judgement of the evidence in and of itself.

As disappointing as it is, I can't help feeling that when it boils down to it, this photograph is 'spooky' for the simple reason that we've been told it is.
 
I think there's another important thing to remember in regard to such images in general. It's a simple one, but the criteria are often conflated.

Simply put - an image itself does not actually have to be fake for it to not be the thing we are told it is.
 
Though I've read a couple of detective stories which depend on witnesses not noticing that a servant, or in one case a postman, had gone into a room or building, because they're seen as part of the furniture rather than a person. Could "the ghost" have been a waitress serving the front table who tried to duck behind it to keep herself out of the first picture (explaining the odd positioning and the blur), and had succeeded in doing so when the second was taken?
It always astonishes me, the number of photographs that purport to be 'ghost' photographs, simply because of the photographer's assertion that 'there was nobody else there when I took the picture', when the ghost is quite obviously a living breathing person who is blurry because they are trying to get out of the way of the photographer's picture... but when you are looking at a view through a viewfinder, it's incredibly common for any people present to be 'screened out' by the focus and desire to take the picture.

For that reason, I think 90% of 'ghost' photographs are just 'Inattentive Photographer' photographs.
 
If you also note the second person on left of the pictures, she is not even looking at the camera area in the "ghost" pic. I have a suspicion that the camera may have just gone off by mistake and took the first picture. She still isn't in the frame proper for a "group" photo in the second picture.

We don't know who were supposed to be in the picture to begin with. I also suspect that the ghost person was not supposed to be there and was caught when the camera accidentally went off.

The two tables idea is a good one. Once you distance the women behind the "ghost", it becomes clearer. The ghost looks like a woman who is sitting at the forefront and is leaned forward against the table.
 
The two tables idea is a good one. Once you distance the women behind the "ghost", it becomes clearer. The ghost looks like a woman who is sitting at the forefront and is leaned forward against the table.

*nodding* It was what I saw when I first looked at it. Once seen, I couldn't see the content others were seeing. This is a great thread!
 
Back
Top