Posted by David Peterson on 28 Oct 2006 as Exposure, Night, Tips
I received an interesting email last week from Jo-ann, a quite concerned subscriber…
“My family and my parents were camping at the Lower Sabie Camp in the Kruger National Park. There, at about 8pm, my mother took the attached photo, using automatic focus and the ‘night time’ setting on her camera.
“When we looked at the picture on the camera’s LCD screen, we noticed the
funny ’squiggly’ light and figured it was a moth or something.
“Today, my 15 year old daughter was looking through our holiday photos and
noticed a woman standing behind my husband. When I looked at the picture, I couldn’t believe my eyes as there definitely was nobody behind us when the photo was taken.
“Could you perhaps explain to us what the ‘vision’ could possibly be?”
Sure Jo-Ann. Rest assured, it’s not a ghost or spectre!
Looking at the EXIF information for the picture, I can see that the shutter was open for 2 seconds. Because there wasn’t much light (and no flash was used), the camera set a long shutter speed to ensure enough light entered the camera to expose the shot correctly.
What happened was someone moved from left to right in the back of the photo while the shutter was open. You probably thought no one was there because most of the time people were not walking behind the subject.
While the shutter was open, the person moved from directly behind the subject towards the right. As the shutter was open for the whole time, you see not only the person, but what was behind them as well.
The squiggly line is caused by the moving person holding a torch (probably so they could see where they were going). It’s squiggly because the walking motion moves the torch up and down as well as to the right. If you look closely, you can also see the brighter patch of dirt where the torch shone.

The long shutter time has also contributed to the shot being blurry. There’s two ways to fix this for next time:
Although the effect was unwanted here, slow shutter speeds can be used for some cool special effect photos, like this Rhino shot. Place your camera on a tripod, set the shutter on a long (15 second exposure) and ‘paint’ around the object using a torch or colored light (or in this case a LED light).

Thanks to Jo-Ann Meiring, her mother, Lucy Wagner, and Søren Ludvig for the use of their images.
24 Responses
Alisha
October 29th, 2006 at 6:45 am
1I’ve done this many times and have gotten back the same results, bar the human looking figure. I took a photo of my brother in pitch black darkness in our drivewar and there was a squiggly line beside his head. I still dont know what it was but I’m guessing it might have been lint.
Chyne
October 29th, 2006 at 10:31 am
2That is spooky but it looks like a ghost, and I believe that they come.
Kelly
October 29th, 2006 at 11:22 am
3here is a link to one of my images that I purposely did this too! http://www.pbase.com/digital_kelly/image/65504746 if the link breaks please paste it back together and you will go to a ghost shot!
Peter
October 29th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
4Yea - Well who knows ??
Srinivasan
October 30th, 2006 at 1:51 am
5Thank U for the indepth investigation
Diane Kniskern
October 30th, 2006 at 2:43 am
6This does not make sense to me - a person could not have walked that far in two seconds, especially if each squiggle was a step. And why is part of the image on the chair in which the subject is sitting?
Aycal
October 30th, 2006 at 4:51 am
7Try shot with different type of camera.
Adelaide
October 30th, 2006 at 5:45 am
8Ghosts are not solid matter therefore cannot cast shadows.
marie
October 30th, 2006 at 10:23 am
9I HAVE AN IMAMGE OF A SKY AND SUN MIXED TOGETHER BUT IT WAS FILM CAMERA AND IT CAME BACK AS JESUS IN THE CLOUDS ?
ROHAN
October 30th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
10I have experience with Ghost Photographs.
What you say is also correct. This Photo could have some body moving with a torch. I agree with it.
But Ghost photos are also available.
That is also true.
James Rowson
October 30th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
11You’re all nutters …. ghosts? Look to the left, you can see Santa too!
Richard J Foster
October 31st, 2006 at 4:50 am
12For the person who didn’t understand why there is part of the “ghost” image visible behind the chair… I suspect the chair in question was probably not solid. A lot of patio furnature (at least around here) is constructed of mesh-like material which would adequately explain the image. Also, 4 steps in two seconds is hardly “moving too fast”. A quick test with a watch indicates that at my normal walking pace I take 9 steps in two seconds.
Cynthia A. wilson
October 31st, 2006 at 9:28 am
13The photo is a double image due to the slow shutter speed. Notice the date on the double print, to the right under the floor lamp (3
is visible. The light flash is also due to the shutter speed. This was very common with film cameras. I’m going to work on it and get the rest of the date visible to me in the near future. now everyone can stop SHUTTERING now. Have a nice day.
Cynthia A. wilson
October 31st, 2006 at 9:31 am
14A couple of errors happened in my last comment but I’ll only fix one. in parenthese it was suppose to say (3 8). Sorry about the rest.
hueyna
October 31st, 2006 at 10:42 pm
15Do you have another tips for making it?
for creating ghost, double or mirror image..
a person with many hands… etc..
What I know is making it with analog camera. How if I use digital camera?
Thx
Ian Simpson
November 2nd, 2006 at 12:35 pm
16“Diane Kniskern says:
This does not make sense to me - a person could not have walked that far in two seconds, especially if each squiggle was a step. And why is part of the image on the chair in which the subject is sitting? ”
October 30, 2006 @ 2:43 am
I am in full agreement with Diane’s statement on both points.
David Peterson
November 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
17I have a larger version of the image here and there is not part of the ‘ghost’ that is in front of the chair. It just looks like it from the angle and shadows.
David.
cub
November 4th, 2006 at 5:34 am
18Diane Kniskern, I’m with you on this.
Call me an amateur if this isn’t right, but even if somebody DID move that fast across the scene, you wouldn’t just get 1reasonably detailed ’snap’ of them, you should get an effect similar to the wavey line, but in the shape of the woman.
Also, if she’s wandering around with the torch lit in a dark environment, she is not going to be moving so fast as to be able to cover that distance in 2 seconds. She’d be going slowly, watching her steps… Maybe she’s looking for something so she’d be scouring the entire ground!
This is either a) a photoshop job done to get a good lesson across, and it is a good lesson with good points, or b) an inaccurate assessment of the anomaly.
Geoff
November 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
19Cub is right to the extent that she is too well-defined to have been moving in the dark.
Hows this:
She was probably standing still in the gloom behind the subject, and then ran out of shot to the right, possibly realising that she was in someone else’s photo. She switched the torch on as she went, to illuminate her way!
The environment isn’t all that dark, especially to a dark-adapted eye.
Of secondary interest is that the camera seems to have locked focus on her, rather than the subject.
david
November 6th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
20This 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.
zenobia
November 8th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
21at 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.
Rey Roman
November 12th, 2006 at 9:34 am
22It 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.
Beth
January 9th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
23Yes 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.
Isela
January 10th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
24Well, 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)
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
Search
Categories
Archives
Links
Meta
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
© 2009 Digital Photo Secrets All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us
No part of this page may be reproduced without express written instructions by David Peterson.