Comments on: A Ghost In The Photo?

By: Aldis

Aldis — Sat, 29 May 2010 15:01:54 +0000

I assume there was a short flash to light the closer object and the longer exposure to get more of the background. If this is EOS 350D, then this is how it works (I still use the same camera myself). (The light reflection on the man’s glasses would also prove the same to me.) This would explain why there is a weak image of a person where it was first caught by the lens and then only a few lighter patches further on.
Two seconds is a LONG TIME, folks. The distance that “could not be travelled so fast” appears not to exceed 5 metres (sorry, I come from the decimal part of the world). Quite reasonable for 4 steps in the darkness, done in 2 sec. of time! Those who insist on the opposite – do a small experiment, try it yourselves.
Regarding no-one being behind the man during the shot: probably you considered closer distance (in the dark!) and did not pay attention to the person with the flashlight, as she appeared to be far in the background.
To those willing to believe in ghosts: sure there are ghosts. But not in this image.
This is my take on it.

By: Marcos

Marcos — Fri, 28 May 2010 10:49:42 +0000

There is a girl walking with a cell phone behind the ghost!

By: Marcos

Marcos — Fri, 28 May 2010 10:47:35 +0000

Beware! The ghost is the one in chair….

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:17:51 +0000

Nobody moved. I suspect this was a handheld shot and the camera itself moved, bringing somebody out of the shot into the shot.

By: bianca

bianca — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:20:15 +0000

hey i dont see it but i think that s scary to

By: Isela

Isela — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 07:28:44 +0000

Well, I believe that there was someone talking by cel-phone, look at the highest of the window, maybe. So, who knows jeje! also I want that you look at the light withouth movement; how it looks? pretty! (sorry about my english, It is a second language for me)

By: Beth

Beth — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:41:24 +0000

Yes Geoff. The focus locked upon her when she stopped and switched on the torch. The sudden appearance of brightness drew the focal lock to it.

What looks like a very bright porch (not torch) light is an over-long exposure of a possibly very dim, but stationary porch light, the flare around it being produced by the movement of the torch through its location. By then, the woman was also moving out of the frame too quickly to be defined in the overexposed flare section of the image.

It’s possible this could be a manufactured image of two others, who knows? But it can certainly be explained as one image easily enough. Why would anyone go to the trouble of mocking it up, anyhow?

Don’t be so cynical, guys.

By: Rey Roman

Rey Roman — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:34:16 +0000

It was a person with a torch trying to get out of the picture. The image in the chair is just coincidental design, and it was not that dark, there was a frontal lighting, note the reflection of light from the eyeglass.

By: zenobia

zenobia — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:15:46 +0000

at slow shutter speed blurred lights occur if shone when the shutter was open,and the shadow is probably of some one from the fly moving around not aware the shutter is open.

By: david

david — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:47:42 +0000

This picture is a total fake, looks to me like someone has been playing with the opacity of a image of someone singing karakoe hence the hand up to the mouth and the figure is looking down at the screen. Also look at the image everything is badly blured except the figure which would to me suggest a seperate image. tell me what height is a door because god she’s a tall women nearly the same height as the airocon unit. look at the whole image without zooming in her waist is well over the back of the chair when this image is a low level shot. lastly why would anyone need a torch when there is a porch light right there.