tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post2443242483877045614..comments2023-07-06T10:48:53.589+01:00Comments on Marchway Memoirs: Lights, camera... where'd he go?Romulus Crowehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09275578435620952450noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post-52746607016373356772008-01-29T23:07:00.000+00:002008-01-29T23:07:00.000+00:00Hi LesiaI took a look and was impressed to find th...Hi Lesia<BR/>I took a look and was impressed to find the figures didn't vanish when you processed the image. Artefacts often do (though not always). It does suggest there might be something more than a trick of the light.<BR/><BR/>There are a few things I always keep in mind with internet photos -<BR/>1. The possibility of deliberate fake. Some people do it for a laugh, some for attention and some to try to catch out ghosthunters. There are many deliberate fakes and they're not all easy to spot. I don't, at the moment, think this one is a deliberate fake. If it is, it's a good one.<BR/><BR/>2. Mistaken identity, and camera artefacts. Mistakes are easy - the 'Boot Hill' photograph has someone in the background. The photographer didn't see anyone. Well, the photographer was focused on their subject - in the foreground - and paid no attention to the background while taking the photo. The Boot Hill one could be mistaken-identity. <BR/><BR/>Camera artefacts are much more common with digital than film. Digital images are far more coarse than film and are made of pixels. They don't have the gradation of the chemical-reaction image in film so edges can appear sharper than they were in real life. <BR/><BR/>While I don't think that girl photo is faked, I can't rule out the possibility that false edges formed in the falling snow due to the nature of the pixels in the camera. While the chances of those edges forming a figure are slim, the possibility still exists. <BR/><BR/>What would have been great would be a series of shots showing the figure in motion. But then the photographer wasn't looking for ghosts and didn't see any while photographing. If he'd done a 'bracketing' (where the camera takes three shots, one at 'correct' exposure, one at just below and one at just above) then he might have found the figures in three different positions. Now that would have been impressive indeed.<BR/><BR/>That's the power of hindsight. If only...<BR/><BR/>It's still an impressive picture. One of the best I've seen in a while. I wonder if it <I>was</I> a digital camera? I don't think the camera type is specified in any of those pictures. If it wasn't digital, it'd be much better evidence.Romulus Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09275578435620952450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post-32217440055121143812008-01-29T14:54:00.000+00:002008-01-29T14:54:00.000+00:00Rom, I’ve been playing with that picture, trying t...Rom, I’ve been playing with that picture, trying to enhance what I can see, although I’m not sure I see what everyone else sees. Anyway, I posted some of the efforts here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.freewebs.com/lesia/girlonalog.htm<BR/><BR/>I'm only going to leave them there a few days, as obviously, I "borrowed" the original from Ghosthounds.astrologymemphis.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08094432734141490681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post-34446740423463587082008-01-29T02:59:00.000+00:002008-01-29T02:59:00.000+00:00I like the picture, but didn't see the log, much l...I like the picture, but didn't see the log, much less the girl on it. There appears to be "something" on the right, so I'm wondering if the person who wrote the caption knows their left from their right, or if the picture was printed backwards. I just don't see whatever it is. How irksome. <BR/><BR/>I have another picture from the other day that has a bit of purple light in it that I'm going to send to you, and ask you to explain, if you would please. I don't think it's anything paranormal at all, but would like to know what causes it. Have to go to work first. Will try to remember to send it tomorrow. Sorry about that other one. It had me going for a while.astrologymemphis.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08094432734141490681noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post-32921388107301005572008-01-27T19:58:00.000+00:002008-01-27T19:58:00.000+00:0013-year-old... yes, that sounds right. The average...13-year-old... yes, that sounds right. The average 13-year-old doesn't realise how they really look when they do that, and neither do some of these folk.<BR/><BR/>I'd like to say that academics are better behaved, but on the whole they're pretty much the same. There's plenty of 'yah-boo, you're wrong' in all branches of science.<BR/><BR/>It's probably just a human thing...Romulus Crowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09275578435620952450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13423684.post-85701999396652252172008-01-24T00:56:00.000+00:002008-01-24T00:56:00.000+00:00Au contraire, Rom! My HEAD is an orb. Don't tell...Au contraire, Rom! My HEAD is an orb. Don't tell me that spheres of dust don't merit further investigation! =)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, you're right. The problem is of course in every group--each wants to be the first, best, or most legitimate. Somehow, with a clarity of thinking that rivals the average 13 year-old's, it's thought that trashing the work of others will make them look better. Sad.ThatGreenyFlowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10464818533143531044noreply@blogger.com