Articles Technical Articles Spirit Photography: Why I Tend to be Skeptical
Spirit Photography – Why I tend to be skeptical
I’ve wanted to write this, not as an expert, but as an avid enthusiast of photography in general, and also of paranormal events. I taught photography for about 15 years. Even as a believer in the paranormal, I find my credulity stretched when it comes to most of the so-called ‘proofs’ offered in the form of spirit photography.
I thought I’d break it down into categories, and deal with each one separately.
CAMERAS:
First, it might be interesting to note that cameras have been around for literally centuries. These cameras were not able to record a picture because there were no practical light sensitive materials that the sun could change to hold the image. So, the early cameras (mentioned as far back as the 12th century AD) were essentially dark boxes with a pinhole in them that let in light. The light would travel in, and project an upside down image faintly on the inside wall. They eventually had lenses put on them to intensify and focus the light (around the 1600s). But the first cameras (camera obscuras) were the precursor of the modern camera.
Film cameras are the same concept, except when the light goes in, it falls on the film, which is a light sensitive material. Film is coated with silver salts, which, when hit by light, turn dark. It is light that does this, not temperature, or moisture or ghosts. This is why the lightest things in the photograph are the darkest on the negative.
Digital cameras also measure light, focused by a lens, and convert it with an electronic CCD rather than by chemical means as in film cameras. A CCD absorbs light photons and translates them to represent sensed pixels. It reads these charges and turns the information into a photograph. So, the method for measuring light is different between digital and film cameras, but the result is the same.
They are both able to record light at around the same range of visible light we see with our eyes. (From about 380 nanometers to about 740 nm) Visible light cameras record from 450 -750-nanometer range.
I’m not delving into infrared cameras here. These devices work in a similar way, but measure the longer waves of the electromagnetic spectrum that are a function of temperature. They are interesting because one of the recurring reports of paranormal events is the feeling of sudden temperature changes for no reason during a time when a spirit is sensed or other paranormal things are occurring. These temperature drops are measurable with a thermometer, so picking up shapes created by these spots of low or high temperature is kind of interesting.
But the bottom line is that essentially, a regular camera is basically a tool to measure and record light that ranges closely to the visible spectrum. It directs reflected or direct visible light of a certain spectrum through a lens, which focuses and intensifies it, and records it on some kind of sensitive surface. It is not magic.
In order for a photograph of a ghost (or anything else) to be recorded, light coming from it or bouncing off it must be of a certain wavelength; must be recorded on the sensitive surface by passing through the lens of the device.
Unless you believe that the spirit has the ability to somehow ‘paint’ an image through some kind of magic inside the camera, then we have to go with the known capabilities of the tool. It measures and records light.
IF the manifestation of the spirit is by way of visible light, or light that falls within the spectrum of wavelengths that can be recorded by this device, then it would be possible to record it. This is a big “if.” Most people who claim paranormal pictures say, “Nothing was seen there at the time, but it came out on the photo.” Red flags pop up at this point to me.
In order for the ‘ghost’ to be recorded with a regular digital or film camera, it would need to have a visible, measurable light or reflective surface. Possibly they weren’t paying attention? More likely is that they were and there was nothing PHYSICALLY visible to the eye.
I believe that if you consider most reports of people ‘seeing’ ghosts or apparitions, that this is mostly a personal, psychic impression. The brain tends to take information and try to make sense of it. A paranormal event could be translated by the brain into seeing, or hearing, or even smelling something, though nothing measurable by normal means is there. Hence, paranormal! Some people are more sensitive than others.
A camera is not a magic thing. It hasn’t got a sixth sense, nor does it have a brain. It is just a tool, albeit a high tech one with all the newest bells and whistles. But, nowhere in the tech literature does it claim to be able to sense or record anything other than light.
And it should go without saying, if the photographs are not in high resolution, in focus, and with the proper exposure, then they probably should be discarded as evidence. Not that you’d throw away a great shot of something paranormal, but learning to use a camera, and using one properly for every shot will lessen the likelihood of needing to try to make sense of pixilated blobs.
Shooting in the dark? Use a tripod. Use a remote to trigger the shutter. And use highest resolution setting. Buy a good camera with night capabilities and manual over-ride. A cell phone camera is probably not a tool of choice here.
So, in my opinion, it comes down to these 3 things as explanation for paranormal photos:
- Photos of ghosts are explainable by other means.
- Photos of ghosts are fakes.
- Photos of ghosts are made by magic ghost abilities to go into a camera and paint their picture on the CCD or film.
- Photos of ghosts are possible because ghosts give off measurable light.
That’s about it.
I tend to believe #1 is the most likely explanation for ghost images. #2 comes second. #3 is silly. And #4 is rare, but possible, as in the case of glowing light anomalies that appear in dark rooms during paranormal events.
Next, I’d like to look at non-paranormal possible explanations for many ‘ghost pictures.’
CROSS CONTAMINATION FROM OTHER DEVICES
If you have an auto-focus option on your still camera, most people don’t realize that this is sometimes accomplished by using infrared light to triangulate the location of the subject. Our eyes don’t see it, but it is measurable by devices that do. It can give a false reading to other devices nearby. Nikon and Canon, among others, used this method.
Some video cameras have used this method as well. So, when panning with a video camera, the infrared beam will move around the room possibly being recorded as a moving light anomaly by other infrared devices. (FLIR cams)
ORBS = DUST, POLLEN, MOISTURE, INSECTS
If I could have my wish, so-called orbs would be forever debunked in the quest for paranormal evidence. They are a recognized and easily reproduced photographic phenomenon.
There is a thing called “Circles of Confusion.” Here is a link that discusses it in depth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion This optic phenomenon occurs when the camera lens cannot focus tightly on a speck, and translates into a round blur.
Also of interest is this article discussing ‘backscatter,’ the cause of orbs with flash photography: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orb_%28optics%29
If you use a flash and especially a compact digital camera with auto focus, you WILL get “orbs.” These are not paranormal.
Rain droplets
LENS FLARE, FOGGING, LIGHT ARTIFACTS
In infrared film photography, often there are photographs that are taken, and when developed, show masses of dark blobs or areas. Photographers can get excited, thinking that this was certainly not visible at the time the shot was taken.
It needs to be realized that this is caused by fogging of the film due to improper loading and unloading of the film camera. Infrared film MUST be loaded and unloaded in darkness. Exposing the canister to light, even for the short time it is loaded into the camera will fog it. It is not like regular film that can be loaded in regular light.
Digital infrared is another story. Camera light leaks are not a problem with digital infrared.
Loading Infrared Film into a Camera
Lens flare occurs when the camera is pointed directly toward a strong light. The light reflects off the surface of the lens and causes spots or blow out. It can appear to be almost like hexagonal spots, or lines of spots. This is not paranormal. It is also one of the most easily faked shots. Photoshop even has a “Lens Flare” filter
Lens Flare
Light streaks that are all running in about the same direction, and are parallel, are caused by photography in low light. The flash illuminates for a fraction of a second, lighting up the foreground and freezing any motion. But the aperture (opening in the lens) remains open for much longer.
If there are incandescent lights in the distance or even in the vicinity, then the person holding the camera, thinking that because the flash went off the shot was done, will move the camera and the lights will paint streaks onto the sensor because the shutter is still open.
This can also happen with photographs taken without flash. If it is in low light, then the exposure time will be very long – even many seconds! If the aperture is open for long periods, any movement in the presence of even tiny pinpricks of light will create this phenomenon.
.
Light Streaks
It is very important to rule out camera movement in any shot. This is a good reason to always use a tripod and a remote to trip the shutter, not rely on hand held shots. Parallel light streaks are caused by movement-usually of the camera.
Sometimes, in the case of ‘bulb’ exposures where the shutter is left open for long periods, streaks can be caused by movement of the lights themselves. This technique is often used to photograph headlights at night or fireworks with the camera held still on a tripod. Only the moving lights are recorded as streaks. The rest of the stationary objects remain in focus.
Bulb Exposure
SMOKE, FOG, MIST
Often, there are shots presented as evidence of spirits that have the look of white, smoky, or misty stuff floating over the surface or through the air. There are numerous reasons for this that have little to do with the paranormal.
One is the use of a flash at night. The flash can bounce off small fog or smoke particles and make them visible, where they are invisible to the naked eye. This is one reason not to smoke on investigations if you want to prevent this contamination. On a still night, smoke can linger in layers in the air around you for a long time.
Once again, using flash can give you some false readings. Just like with the so-called orbs, the flash is capable of illuminating physical things and causing confusion.
PAREIDOLIA
We are hard-wired in our brains to recognize pattern. One of the patterns we respond to is the one that represents a face – two dark horizontal spots over two dark vertical ones. (Eyes over nose shadow and mouth) This set up is a trigger for seeing and recognizing faces. We don’t see or recognize faces upside down. (Try it!) But right side up, even blurry or minimal shapes in this pattern allow recognition.
Unfortunately, this is what leads us to ‘see’ faces that are not actually there in all sorts of places, in photos or in objects. Remember the Mother Theresa cinnamon bun? The Jesus face in burnt toast? The man on the moon? All are examples of our ability to translate pattern into meaning called pareidolia or matrixing.
Unfortunately, it is very unlikely that these objects actually represent the thing we see in them. I used to have a closet door when I was a kid. It had wood grain that looked like a face with big bugging eyes to me. I used to like it a lot, my secret face. But it wasn’t REAL.
I see so many hopeful people posting pictures of what they think are faces, or figures. When in fact, what they have is the pareidolia effect causing them to see things that are not there, or misinterpret things as paranormal that are not.
Something that is VERY helpful in debunking (or proving) these is to take a photo from the exact same location in full light. Also, it helps to take more than one photo at the same time in sequence and compare.
It is easy to read meaning into things where there is none. Add this to the usual poor, blurry quality of most night shots taken by people who are not professionals or have poor equipment, and you get a situation that is ripe for mistaken identification.
ECTOPLASM
Long ago, during the beginning of the Spiritualist movement, may ecto shots were promoted as proof of spirit. In today’s more sophisticated, Photoshop-aware world, we would laugh out loud at the obvious fakes that were made with cruder tools to convince the faithful.
But even as we laugh at these obvious fakes, we need to realize that during the day, many found them to be proof positive. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of the very intelligent and clever Sherlock Holmes, was fooled. He wrote many defenses for the movement, and was a big fan of these shots as evidence of spirits.
Please pass the tissue. Ectoplasm (…or something)
DISCLAIMER:
I have personally only seen one shot that I felt could possibly represent ‘something’ manifesting. It was taken by a Spiritualist Medium (oddly.) She was in a graveyard (oddly again. I’m not sure graveyards are more haunted than any other place). She hadn’t realized there was anything in this picture when she saw the photo, but said she was overwhelmed by something when she took the shot. With the exception of the foreground, the picture was black. It was taken with a flash. (Big no-no)
I worked to enhance it using LEVELS in Photoshop to lighten the mid-tones, and there was this grey-black, form that clearly revealed itself on the path in front of the camera. The shot appeared all black before enhancing. After lifting the mid-tones, the black swirling form was there. Note that this form is lighter over the dark sky and darker over the lighter path in the front.
So, I’m not sure what it was, but the fact that she felt it, and that something was later revealed is interesting. She saw nothing in the original picture except orbs, which as I’ve mentioned, are not paranormal. But ii is my belief that in order for this thing to have been recorded, it was physically solid enough for it to register as a dense mass on the cameras CCD when hit by the flash.
I can’t explain this. Let me know if anyone can.
AND (MORE) FAKERY
Today, despite our more sophisticated understanding, many are led astray by the forgeries and fakeries of people who are good with Photoshop or image editing software.
I have looked at what are termed “The Best Ghost Shots Ever,” and most, if not all can be debunked. Even if the person takes it and swears it is real, we need to use a little bit of analytical thinking to determine if what we are seeing might be ‘shopped.’ And the old ones are easier still, to debunk, because these things had to be done by hand.
Ghost of Combermere Abbey, 1891
In 1891 when Sybell Corbet took this shot, photography was still in relative infancy. 1888 was the date when George Eastman introduced the Kodak. And people could, by this date, take images with their little Kodak boxes, and send them off to be developed. The exposure times needed were long. And the understanding of how the film was exposed was not very sophisticated.
This is a shot of a guy who got up and walked off – or wandered in during the exposure. Partial transparency is because he was moving during the shot and the things behind him got exposure time too. His hand was sitting still for the longest time. It is the most clear.
If my students could make these double exposure ghost shots with primitive pinhole cameras, then they are not all that difficult to do. Perhaps the photographer didn’t know until her pictures were returned that the guy did that. But this is nothing but a simple double exposure. If he had moved just his head for half the exposure, he would have had two transparent heads! Cool, but not paranormal.
Specter of Newby Church
This is also a clear double exposure, but the costume is over the top in this one. Nice mask, though. This is something my students would do, if they had a good costume left over from Halloween and too much time on their hands.
There are many other explanations and ways of faking a picture. Using a dodge tool to create mist is one. Using the burn tool to darken eyes and mouth shadows is another. There are ways of pasting transparent layers over a picture. And of course, there are the ghost apps.
I believe that most people are honest and do not try to pull a fast one. I think they believe that the photos they post are genuine, or wish them to be. I would not like to accuse anyone of being a fake.
But sometimes what happens is that we get carried away with the first impressions, and don’t dig deeply enough to try to find other reasons for the things we see.
I think we all need to be skeptics. Then if and when something good shows up, it’s pretty sweet.
If you read this far, I’d like to thank you for your patience. I’d love to hear alternative views and if I’m wrong, I’d invite correction because I’m learning all the time and these are just my current opinions. I intend to edit this as I get corrections or learn more.
Gizmo, Modertor and Contributing Author
©2011 The Paranormal Society. All Rights Reserved.
No portion of this article may be published or reprinted without expressed written permission from the author.