|
Every day, hundreds of people report having photographed some kind of paranormal phenomenon. Ghost photos are reported most of all. That s because an apparition can presumably take almost any form; therefore, any abstract image, unexplainable by the photographer, can be seen as a potential spirit. In order to effectively analyze photos that show anomalies, you must first rule out strange effects that are frequently created by conventional means. There are many possibilities. However, examples of the most common misleading effects are included here. These examples can serve to help confirm, or deny, the likelihood that your photograph displays a genuine paranormal subject. Please compare your photos to these before sending them on for analysis. You must realize that different cameras can interpret the same subject in different ways. A digital camera interprets data differently than film; and two digital cameras can behave differently from one another. However, these pics can serve as a basic reference. They were taken with a Sony Digital Mavica (MVC-FD73) using the flash. There are pros and cons to every camera, and you can learn more about these differences below. Obviously, cameras of all kinds are helpful. An outstanding camera can be necessary if you are trying to capture something in space, or high in the sky. The space game is much more complex due to lighting and exposure issues. Examples of Conventional Phenomena:
Rain In addition to these things, something smeared on the lens, reflections, shadows, flares from light sources, and developing flaws can all create bizarre effects. A 3-D image is better than 2-D since it can rule out many of those things if the anomaly is clearly captured on both lenses, from two different perspectives. There are lots of people who will claim that one kind of camera is good, or reliable, for ghost photos and another is bad, or unreliable. That is pure hogwash. Each camera has pros and cons, and, at the level of scientific analysis, the entire technology of recording light and energy visually is complex, tedious, and inconsistent. Here is a quick comparison between film and digital cameras:
Cons Produces no negative, usually not as high-quality as film, pixel interpretation can create odd effects, such as colored spots and diamond shapes
Cons No instant feedback, more expensive to use, more difficult to capture infrared or ultraviolet Never forget that it is equally easy to fake a picture using traditional film techniques (with a negative) or digital manipulation. Neither type of image is inherently better than the other. If you feel you have captured an anomaly that cannot be explained by conventional effects, please click HERE if you d like us to examine it.
|