Paranormal Photographer needs help please!!

[Aussiegirl]

March 17, 2009 at 7:27 am

I have been ghost investigating for a few years now and have 3 photos taken by myself in 2007 that have been baffled. Most people on ghost forums do not understand exactly how a camera works and everything is a ghost to them. I am not stating anything with these pics, but would love someone who is knowledgable on photography to check out the exif data and let me know why such photos came about. I have the 3 original photos that all appear different to each other and were random captured amongst other normal photos. There are lots of things going through my head, being that I could have knocked a setting to it being paranormal activity captured. I really just want to get to the bottom of the photos because i do understand about shutter speeds and tripod use and lines being caused but I just cant work these photos out. I am no expert and dont really know how settings can work against each other in some instances. I was thinking if someone could look at the data and tell me what happened and why?

If there was somebody out there that would be happy for me to send the 3 originals to them along with 1 normal photo from the lot and also the details of the environment the photo was taken in etc and check out the exif data, I would be more than pleased. I just really need some constructive advice on these.
I dont use the camera anymore that i took them on. Well, I do sometimes if i want an extra camera.It wasnt a very expensive digital but it did the job there for a while.
Could you reply to this post if you would like to take a look at them for me please and give me your advice. I need advice of experienced photographers please.

Also, any advice on what setting woudl be best for ‘spiritography’ I dont like grainy pics and woud rather have more darkness and less grain if need be. I can choose a few things on my current camera which is an olympus. What would be the best settings for outdoors and for indoors in areas like gaols blocks etc?

Thanks for your help

Aussiegirl (Tracey)

[Aussiegirl]

March 17, 2009 at 7:55 am

Sorry me again.

I decided to link them here because i think you check the exif date from the linked photos is that right?

This is the very first photo of the night I took. I was trying to get a house in the background that has no electricity on it. It has a palm in front of it. I didnt get much except the grass in front and a small shrub as it was dark and coudlnt see properly. There were no lights in front of me in the house or on the ground. I make a point of cleaning my lens before and during taking shots. I recall at the time , the camera was acting stupid and the flash wouldnt go off. This photo was taken at 8.34 pm.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/DSC00769-1.jpg

Next there were 12 normal photos. Then I got these two successively at 9.06pm and 9.10pm. They were taken in two different areas within a short walk of each other. These buildings i have taken photos of for years and never got anything like this. The only light source is the flash and its reflection in the window of the first one and no light source in the second one. That is why i posted the second one to show you the area.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/DSC00782-1.jpg

and nothing

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/CopyofDSC00784.jpg

This is the subject of the shot with the squiggles in the first one. All dark area. The first photo shows the left side of the house in the very back and the second shot shows the very tip of the shrub on the left that you can see in the squiggly shot.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/PICT4306.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/PICT8059.jpg

You will notice if you view the exif data that the settigns appear to be different on these shots but I have no idea how. This hasnt happened before.

What i am wanting to know is if those settings caused this? I need to know this for future reference. I know that slow shutter speeds can do this. I am thinking the shutter speed in these pics is slow though dont really understand this. I cant figure out that first one becuase i would think to get an effect like that you woud need a light source in front and i dont understand in the 3rd shot how it is only in the centre and out of focus and the rest if fine like a normal pic

Any ideas????

[randomway]

March 17, 2009 at 8:41 am

I didn’t check the exif, but I have some ideas for a start:

1. Long exposure shot, light trails… just like the night photos you see with the cars headlights and brakelights leaving a trail.
2. I think, it’s just flare caused by the flash light reflected by the window.

In the last photos you used flash, so the shutter speed was automatically higher, and the “squiggling” – camera movement – was not present. If you want to photograph those scenes without a flash, you need to put your camera on a solid stand, like a tripod and use long exposure times (a couple of seconds in some cases).

The first one is definitely a photo of ghosts – I would be vary of that place, looks like there is a high “otherworld activity” there. Happy hunting!

[jb7]

March 17, 2009 at 9:37 am

Damn, now I’ve got the theme from Ghostbusters going off inside my head-
it’ll be there all day-

Do you actually believe in this stuff?

I assumed it was an industry designed to extract cash from the gullible and the vulnerable-
those premium rate telephone lines sound particularly odious-

All of these pictures look like mistakes of some sort-
the kind of prints you might throw away on your way back from the chemist-

The first shows two light sources, probably a street lamp, the bluey dotty one running on a/c,
and the other a low power incandescent, probably a torch.

The crescent shaped one, another electric light source, but, bin.

The others, flashlit pictures where the flash wasn’t powerful enough-

Sorry if I seem a bit skeptical, but photography has been used by charlatans for their own ends almost since the medium
(sorry, no pun) was invented-

Welcome to the site-
Not sure if we have anyone else from Oz here…

joseph

[Brian_C]

March 17, 2009 at 9:39 am

I have to agree with most of what’s been said by Randomway.

I haven’t looked at the exif data, I can’t see it here in work, if anyone wants to give the following data for each shot, it would be good:
shutter speed
aperature : that’s the f-number (like f4 or f16)
ISO
flash on or off

1.
The 1st shot is the result of a long exposure, that’s were the shutter opens for say 4 secs due to there being very little available light. It’s the same principle as this one where the car light leave trails, the shutter speeds was about 8 seconds on this. No flash was used. Because you camera wasn’t on a tripod and it was moved around the light trails look a little mad and all over the place.

2.
This is probably just a bit of light bouncing off the glass window in the little house. Thus resulted in the light boucing back in an uncontrolled manor which caused the flare on the lens of your camera.
The reason for no flash reflection in secong window is probably due to the window pain now directly fascing the lens, you’ll probably find the window pain is slightly facing away from the camer (either up, down, left or right)

[RaV]

March 17, 2009 at 11:57 am

1st – # Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 300/10 second = 30 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 28/10 = F2.8
# Exposure Program = manual control (1)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 100
# Flash = Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, return light not detected

2nd – # Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 300/10 second = 30 second
# Lens F-Number/F-Stop = 28/10 = F2.8
# Exposure Program = manual control (1)
# ISO Speed Ratings = 100
# Flash = Flash fired, compulsory flash mode, return light not detected

For some reasons the photos wont open for me anymore(Im using a firefox plugin to see exif data), will try again latter.

But when i glanced at them all 1st, the 3rd ones shutter speed was some fraction of a second, so the flash worked properly hence you can see the grass and bush.

Did you know the 1st two were 30second exposures when you were taking them?? could have been it was still taking the exposure and you started walking around again thinking it had finished?

[Aussiegirl]

March 17, 2009 at 11:26 pm

First of all, thanks everyone for your comments

Yes I have been investigating for a few years now seriously. I do it as a hobby and have much evidence of the afterlife. Some of my photos are very very interesting. We also have IR video footage and I do evp (electronic voice phenomena) and have some very good ones in controlled situations.

I really really want to get to the bottom of these photos as I dont understand why this happened. I understand why these things do happen with certain settings but am not understanding with the settings i had why it happened. Sorry if that sounds confusing.

I realised in my first post that i hadnt linked the 3rd anomalous photo this is it

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/DSC00783-1.jpg

and this was the very next photo taken

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v390/feusurlaneige/CopyofDSC00784.jpg

I never use night mode on my camera as i know what happenes with that with no tripod.

I know I didnt walk off when taking these shots. Its not really practicle to use a tripod when investigating . I very rarely get blurred photos. I try mostly to set my camera on what i want and not use automatic as it chooses settings that make grainy photos which i hate.

I cant figure out why these particular photos changed from the others that were normal. I didnt do anything to change them. They were just so random.

In a 30s exposure, i assume the camera would need to be on a tripod. I have seen those photos of the traffic. If i had moved onto the next photo and taken the camera with me, would not if have been still taking the photo with the shutter open and make the picture a complete blur. 30 s seems a long time.

IN the first one with the squiggles, did there have to be some sort of light source in front of the lens to do that or would a flash do that?

The exposure time for the same photo of the building in the 3rd shot which is normal is 10/400. Is that 40seconds and if it is shouldnt that photo looked weird also?

To sum it up, the strange photos have an iso of 100, f/2.8 and in the camera data1 it says the exposure was manual which was 300/10 which is 30 seconds. No light source except for the flash. The camera was directed at the ground. You can see this with the shrub. No torch as i cant hold a torch and take photos at the same time. I dont use it. That is the part i dont undestand. There was no light in front of me except that from the flash. I cant see that the flash would reflect off the grass.

The photo that I took after was the second one in this reply . It has nothing like that. I dont know why the settings are changed. I cant for the life of me work that out unless I accidently moved the dial but i have never done that before. There was no difference in the light sources, The only light source was the flash.

Its info is iso of 250, f/2.8 and the camera data1 says normal programme which was 10/400 which I understand is 40seconds or is it 4 seconds?

So what i want to know is

1. does this look like I could have accidently moved the dial from maybe auto to manual?
2. could a change like this make such a difference to a photo and cause anomalies like this?
3. if i did move the dial accidently, and caused a different exposure and iso sensitivity, why did the background not blur and cause the photo to be in focus in some parts and not others and why did the good photo not get anything in it when it was a long exposure too. Did the iso difference prevent this?
4. Dont you have to have some sort of light source in front of you to get that squiggle affect in a long exposure?

So many questions and sorry about this but i have to get this right in my head. You see, I scrutinise all the photos and video and audio recordings i get and i wont assume things unless i have disregarded all scientific explanations. If these are camera malfunctions from wrong settings, then so be it. Its good for me to know this if other photos similiar to this come up.

I do this as a hobby and do not do house investigations etc or get paid for what i do like they do a lot in america. We do this for a hobby and there are only 5 of us.