Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Antraman

Real Ghost Photo

Recommended Posts

Heyas,

 

This photo is what I believe is a legitimate "ghost" photo. It was taken by a close colleague at my place of work, on December 14, 2011 at about 2am, with a Samsung Galaxy S2 phone camera. My colleague is a 22yo female with no computer, photoshop or camera skills whatsoever, so I cannot believe she faked this. Plus, knowing her as I do, I cannot believe she would want to fake it. In fact, this and other photos she took on that evening rather freaked her out a bit.

 

For now, I have to keep the location private due to Work Agreement requirements (our site rules are no unauthorised photography), suffice to say it is a famous Brisbane landmark building undergoing some restoration work....I am looking into the options for making this photo publicly and legitimately available. My colleague (and I) are part of a security team that provides guarding duties at this building. On the night in question, my colleague was on duty, and she heard what she described as an unusual banging noise in the main part of the building. She went to investigate but could see nothing. She decided to take some photos, partly out of interest, partly due to recording the state of construction work in the area in case there is a question over damage on site. She took around 80 photos.

 

Next morning while going through the pics on her camera, this and about 4-5 other pics revealed some imagery that was not visible by the eye at the time the photographing was carried out.

 

Posted Image

 

I was on shift with her a couple of days later, and after showing a few people onsite, she was surprised to learn that this building actually has quite a history of ghost sightings, which she was not aware of beforehand. I had heard something only very general but one of the council staff associated with the project is an historian, and had a wide knowledge of sightings and deaths over the years connected with this building, including sightings of a "lady in a long white dress". This historian mentioned that all the known sightings were attributable to various deaths that had occurred in the building over the years, except for the lady in a long white dress. She said she would do a bit more research on the matter.

 

A week or so later when she came back to the site, and both myself and my colleague who took the photo were on the front desk. She had some info for us that she thought we would find very interesting. She learned that there was indeed a news report of a lady who had drowned in the swamp on which this building was built, years before the building was constructed. She was wearing a white dress. Not many people knew this at all...

 

So as an experiment, I asked my colleague to take some more photos of the same stairway, at the same time as the original, and from the same position and the same angle. She did so, and of course, nothing showed up. Just a stairwell.

 

I thought I would play around with the pic a bit in Lightroom, so I made a higher contrast copy, and a black and white copy, to see if it would make anything clearer. I think the colour enhanced copy is quite revealing...

 

Posted Image

 

Posted Image

 

So, trick of the light or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show some more photos, and i might make judgement.

 

 

It seems too convenient that the light outside the frame above the photo is so bright, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bet is that it is a lens flare/dstortion type thing. If the 'ghost' wasn't aligned to the light above it I'd be less skeptical.

 

-X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the sign behind probably says no running on the stairs, but it did amuse me in the contexxt of this pic, No ghosts on the stairs perhapse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a pic from a similar angle at a later date, I note that there are similarities with the light flare from this and the original pic, however here, the light flare doesn't look anything like a lady in white...

 

My main criticism of the light flare explanation is that the left side of the whiter area is not dead straight, but curved with a dip in the central left side...the proper light flare on this pic has straight sides as you would expect.

 

Furthermore, this image was taken in daytime, and the light on the staircase is coming in from a window above, and that is what is creating the shadow from the hand rail down the right side of the stairs, which one could say is the same the original, however the original was taken at 2am so there was not light coming from a window which could cause the light - dark delineation down the right hand side. Also, in this photo you can see the flare edge down the right hand side as separate to the shadow of the handrail.

Posted Image

 

btw, I believe this image was taken with an HTC Desire...

Edited by Antraman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can clearly see there is some light in the original photo, on the middle-left side... It may have looked close to dark from the human eye's perspective, but in some cases a camera lens is much more sensitive...

 

That said, i wouldn't have picked a desire to be one....

 

 

Infact, the cause of the light flare in the first photo is due to artificial light coming from what appears to be an incandescent light below the window, which is causing the light flare in the daytime pic....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats some interesting post processing you've done there orcone, what did you do?

 

Caelum...there are no incandescent lights there, it is a single flouro. There is no window there either...its the interior of the building. The only light other than the fluoro in the photos is on the 4th photo, a daytime shot, where the light source is a window off over the photographer's right shoulder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antraman are you able to get another photo taken at 2am from the same spot again?

I will be able to in a week or two I think...

Edited by Antraman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet some money that you could replicate it again if you get the angle right. It's definitely a lighting error from the shitty filter in the camera-phone IMO.

 

Not saying ghosts don't exist (don't want to get any spiritual people upset), but I don't think this is proof of their existence, or that this even really looks like much more than a simple flare.

 

It could even be a bad piece of glass used in the camera that picks up the light different to other phones. Some good scientific testing and process of elimination should sort it all out and prove a glitch in photography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet some money that you could replicate it again if you get the angle right. It's definitely a lighting error from the shitty filter in the camera-phone IMO.

 

Not saying ghosts don't exist (don't want to get any spiritual people upset), but I don't think this is proof of their existence, or that this even really looks like much more than a simple flare.

 

It could even be a bad piece of glass used in the camera that picks up the light different to other phones. Some good scientific testing and process of elimination should sort it all out and prove a glitch in photography.

Go away with your scientific methods and opinions! Its quite obvious that this is a ghost. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Antraman are you able to get another photo taken at 2am from the same spot again?

I will be able to in a week or two I think...

 

very interesting, i love how things like this challenge the mind. is it a ghost, are ghosts real, what else could it be.. *brain overdrive*

if you do go back, maybe bring your camera & try camera phone/real camera see what you can see.

maybe bring your ouija board too :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet some money that you could replicate it again if you get the angle right. It's definitely a lighting error from the shitty filter in the camera-phone IMO.

 

Not saying ghosts don't exist (don't want to get any spiritual people upset), but I don't think this is proof of their existence, or that this even really looks like much more than a simple flare.

 

It could even be a bad piece of glass used in the camera that picks up the light different to other phones. Some good scientific testing and process of elimination should sort it all out and prove a glitch in photography.

Go away with your scientific methods and opinions! Its quite obvious that this is a ghost. :P

 

Hardly any scientific method in tomatos reply.

 

"bet some money that you could replicate it again if you get the angle right" - and if I don';t replicate the image again for you, I must not have got the angle right. There's an unfalsifiable proof.

 

"It's definitely a lighting error" - oh definitely...

 

"from the shitty filter in the camera-phone IMO." - shitty filter? What filter. There's glass cover, then the lens. And its an 8MP camera which definitely did not get a bad review...

 

...to offer a stable and impressive camera experience. We're not talking anything near the quality levels offered by the Nokia N8 – probably the best camera phone on the market at the moment – but it's certainly better than the Samsung Galaxy S and the HTC Desire, both phones with more than adequate cameras.

 

"IMO" - Opinion, not fact.

 

"I don't think this is proof of their existence, or that this even really looks like much more than a simple flare." - Simple flare? I showed you a pic lower down with a simple flare. The flare in the original pic is not simple. The edges aren't straight, and there are areas of dark inside the "flare" region...look again at the flare in the bottom photo I posted...smooth constant light, straight edges...as per normal for a lense flare.

 

"It could even be a bad piece of glass used in the camera that picks up the light different to other phones" - bad piece of glass? lol. This phone camera has taken heaps of other photos that are perfectly fine, in similar lighting conditions.

 

 

Its not that I am a fanboy trying to push this photo as proof of ghosts. I just hate fucking pseudo-scientific debunking touted as gospel, especially from a published writer who everyone is in awe of as he has a God level.

 

Sorry dude, I don't buy your scientific method.

Edited by Antraman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"from the shitty filter in the camera-phone IMO." - shitty filter? What filter. There's glass cover, then the lens. And its an 8MP camera which definitely did not get a bad review...

 

The antialiasing filter that sites between the lens and the sensor, perhaps? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I wasn't aware of these, but after a bit of research its clear to me this isn't the ontributing cause for the image in the original photo. In optical anti-aliasing filters, the trade off is sharpness which is smoothed out over the whole image, not the creation off localized flare effects or blemishes.

 

Antialiasing filters are a piece glass with birefringent properties, which separates a single ray into 2 rays ...causing a blur over the whole image. If it were a shitty filter, the effect would be permanent and would show on all pics. Since this effect wasn't observed in all other pics this camera took, I am pretty sure this image is not a product of a shitty filter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow way to attack me, I never claimed anything, I finished any opinion with IMO, knowing full well that it is just my opinion. I even went to the extent of saying Ghosts could very well exist, as to not step on your toes.

 

Your second shot includes more of the light source than your original does, it is also taken on a different camera, so they can't be compared.

 

Also, just because some review says a camera phone is "adequate" doesn't mean it is by any means a "good camera". I'm fairly sure the Galaxy has a few filters in place - at least digitally.

 

Believe in ghosts all you want, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

WTF does my working for Atomic or my forums status have to do with anything? If anything it should make me question this more than go "yup, dat dere must be 'dem ghosts!"

 

EDIT 1:Just because you say it is a good piece of glass with no defect doesn't mean shit. A small ripple or imperfection can take in light different to a genuinely good piece of glass. Why do you think people pay thousands of dollars for lenses and don't just use a $300 phone?

 

EDIT 2: On a second look the darker bits in the beam of light (ghost) are from the stairs behind it, not ripples in a fucking cloak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×