Ghost picture needs debunking

[Ryokan]

I'm on a Norwegian woo forum, and someone posted this picture:

http://blink.dagbladet.no/community/files/o/ov/overnatu/130_3066.JPG

The only info I have is that the one who took the picture claims she wasn't smoking.

Any photography experts know what could've caused this, except a ghost?

[jimtron]

Possibly a smudged lens, which could be exacerbated by the streetlight kicking into the lens. And there are many other possibilities. If it's a digital camera, there could be something on the front or back or the lens, or on the sensor. If it was taken with a film camera, something could have happened during processing; with the chemistry, or printing.

Yes, there is something weird in the photo. But why a ghost? I mean, even if you're going to assume that it's something paranormal (which would take a huge leap of faith), why a ghost? Maybe it's phlegm from a martian? Exhaust from a nearby miniature invisible alien spaceship? Witch gas?

How is it that the poster knows it's a ghost?

eta: not only is there a direct hit from the light bulbs in the street light, but also it appears that a flash was used. Disposable and point-and-shoot cameras usually have the flash quite close to the lens. The flash could bounce off the fingers or hand and kick into the lens, causing lens flare, and/or making any lint or gunk on the lens glow.

[CLD]

I couldn't say for certain but I can guess. If you're on a dimly-lit public street and you take a photo, in the fraction of a second the strobe fires, it illuminates everything in the air around the subject: smoke, dust, water vapor, etc. i.e. things you wouldn't normally notice in a low light environment.

Go outside, away from streetlights, etc. some night when it's raining. You can't see the rain. You can hear it and feel it, but you can't see it because its not lit.

I learned this the hard way once on a movie project. We brought in expensive rain machines for several scenes filmed at night. The cinematographer had never shot a rain scene, so he failed to properly backlight the rain effect. We were horrified when we watched the dailies. Not one of the rain scenes had visible rain in them! :eek:

[Ryokan]

How is it that the poster knows it's a ghost?

Are you asking me for the reasoning of a woo?

Well, to be fair, he didn't call it a ghost. He called it a guest.

[jimtron]

Are you asking me for the reasoning of a woo?

Well, to be fair, he didn't call it a ghost. He called it a guest.

I'm challenging woo reasoning, not you. I'm curious what he means by guest, and how he came to that determination. Again, even if we accept that it's a paranormal phenomenon, how would anyone possbily know which one--without further evidence?

If there are creaking noises in the attic, it must be ghosts. Why ghosts? Why not martians?

[c4ts]

What's supposed to be the ghost? The little girl?

[CLD]

I'm on a Norwegian woo forum

I once had a girl, or should I say, she once had me
She showed me her room, isn't it good, Norwegian woo

[Mancman]

Definitely looks like a smudged lense to me.

[Ryokan]

One guys says he sees the faces of people from the past in the picture. He also sees a well dressed lady.

Not even with a lot of imagination, I can't see it. All I see are some blurs.

[Ryokan]

Heh...

I made a post asking if the picture was taken with a digital camera or a normal one.

The post was deleted.

I'm guessing I won't survive long on this forum.

[Dava]

I don't see anything even remotely anthropomorphic in the "smoke." Am I missing something? I see cloudiness like that all the time. It's usually a smudge on my glasses, LOL. ;)

I'm no photography expert, but I would guess either a smudge on the lens, or possibly a PhotoShop job. The smoke has that PS airbrush look to it. It doesn't even have any depth. I'd also guess that the camera was digital, since there's no lens flare by the lights.

[jimtron]

One guys says he sees the faces of people from the past in the picture. He also sees a well dressed lady.

Not even with a lot of imagination, I can't see it. All I see are some blurs.
Of course not. You're a closed-minded skeptic. ;)

I made a post asking if the picture was taken with a digital camera or a normal one.

The post was deleted.
You asked if the camera was digital or not? You monster!! Why don't you crucify the guy while you're at it. What a rude, insulting, inappropriate question.

I'd also guess that the camera was digital, since there's no lens flare by the lights.
There are a couple "orbs" in top left of frame; I'm guessing that's from the streetlights or flash kicking into the lens. But I don't know what that has to do with whether the camera was digital or not.

[jimlintott]

I'd say smudged, dirty lens too.

If it was film it could be couple of other things mostly related processing or film handling.

Either way I would call it a reject.

I took some ghost pictures the other day. I'll post one later when I get home.

[Miss Whiplash]

It looks like smoke or mist to me.

[Gr8wight]

My feeling is that if it were flare caused by the street lights, it would be yellow, like the streetlights. Because it is so white, it can only be something illuminated by the flash. My first thought was breath on a cold night, but judging by the way the little girl is dressed, it can't be all that cold. That leaves cigarette smoke. It is unlikely to be a smudge on the lens, as those are almost never visible as anything more than a defocusing of an area of the picture.

Did the photographer say she wasn't a smoker at all, or that she wasn't smoking at that time? As a former smoker, I can testify to the fact that I regularly smoked without being consciously aware of it. Also, was she alone, or were there other people around? Perhaps someone else was smoking.

Bottom line, of course, is that nothing you, we, or anyone else can say will change her mind, because she wants to believe that it is a ghost.

[chillzero]

I got very similar effects using my digital camera when I visited the butterfly farm.

The way the girl is dressed makes me think that the evening is warm - perhaps even humid, and the camera has fogged up because of a change in temperature.

[brettDbass]

It looks like mist from the photographer's breath to me.

[Azrael 5]

Looks like flash bouncing off smoke to me.

[Raphael]

Some haze or lens flare. No big deal. But the levitating girl is cool.

[Windom]

Yes, there is something weird in the photo. But why a ghost? I mean, even if you're going to assume that it's something paranormal (which would take a huge leap of faith), why a ghost? Maybe it's phlegm from a martian? Exhaust from a nearby miniature invisible alien spaceship? Witch gas?

Because according to different stories, ghosts look something like this. Martians must be green and little. :)

[EHocking]

I don't see anything even remotely anthropomorphic in the "smoke." Am I missing something? I see cloudiness like that all the time. It's usually a smudge on my glasses, LOL. ;)

I'm no photography expert, but I would guess either a smudge on the lens, or possibly a PhotoShop job. The smoke has that PS airbrush look to it. It doesn't even have any depth. I'd also guess that the camera was digital, since there's no lens flare by the lights.
Details from the photo:
Canon IXUS 400 (digital)
Original Image Date, Digitized Image Date and Changed Image Date are all:
11/06/2006 21:44:17 (European date - camera is ELPH in the US)
Color Representation: sRGB
Subject Distance:
Flash Used: Yes
Focal Length: 7.41 mm
F-Number: F/2.8
Exposure Time: 1/60 sec.
Metering Mode:
Exposure Compensation: 0 step
Component Configuration: Y, Cb, Cr, n/a

The photo's dimensions are 1704 x 2272 pixels at 180x180dpi resolution

The EXIF date info implies that the photo *hasn't* been PhotoShopped, but it is possible to edit EXIF data post-fact if you have the right tools.

ETA: On a recent trip to Greece I took flash photos inside a beehive tomb (Aggamemnons?(sp?)). My digital registered "orbs" from dust, my film SLR did not. Flashes are in different positions relative to the lens on my cameras.

[Ladewig]

I don't see anything even remotely anthropomorphic in the "smoke." Am I missing something? I see cloudiness like that all the time. It's usually a smudge on my glasses, LOL. ;)

I'm no photography expert, but I would guess either a smudge on the lens, or possibly a PhotoShop job. The smoke has that PS airbrush look to it. It doesn't even have any depth.


The "smoke" in the upper left corner has a constant width which makes me think of PhotoShop as well. On the other hand, I am not saying that it must be PhotoShop - my position is that I am not sure anything needs to be debunked at all. It is a bad photo, not evidence of the supernatural.

[Deetee]

Details from the photo:
Canon IXUS 400 (digital)
Original Image Date, Digitized Image Date and Changed Image Date are all:
11/06/2006 21:44:17 (European date - camera is ELPH in the US)
Color Representation: sRGB
Subject Distance:
Flash Used: Yes
Focal Length: 7.41 mm
F-Number: F/2.8
Exposure Time: 1/60 sec.
Metering Mode:
Exposure Compensation: 0 step
Component Configuration: Y, Cb, Cr, n/a
How do you extract all this info, Ed?

[EHocking]

How do you extract all this info, Ed?Fortunately, this jpeg hadn't been reformatted for internet, but even if it had, there is sometimes a chance (depending on the program used) that the EXIF data is retained in the jpeg.

In this case, I copied it to my desktop.

In XP, you can get limited information from MSOffice's Picture Manager. But any camera software should be able to give you this info - via file properties.

Other options are viewers such as ACDSee, but your best bet is a (free) viewer called IrfanView.

Many times, though, by the time a jpeg is posted to intranet someone's tinkered with it in a program that does not retain the EXIF data with the "new" image. Lucky this time that the poster didn't have those "skills".

ETA: Your psychic skills have failed you, DeeTee - it's not "Ed" :p

[jimlintott]

How do you extract all this info, Ed?

I myself forgot about exif data for a bit. Just download and save the image. In WinXP select the file and right click, select properties. Select the summary tab and then click the advanced button. Voila, the exif data.

I forgot about checking it earlier.

I promised a ghost pic.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1958746#post1958746

[Big Les]

To me the "mist" looks like a mesh, in that there are regularly sized and spaced apertures in it.

[EHocking]

Some haze or lens flare. No big deal. But the levitating girl is cool.And she doesn't cast any shadow from the camera's flash.

While I guess that may be possible, I'm beginning to doubt it. The camera is a relatively basic point and shoot with the flash above and to the left of the lens (viewed from the back) and you'd expect it to throw shadow.

Oddly, the only "shadow" that appears "behind" the girls dress is the dark outline on the left of the photo (direction she's facing). There is also a possible masking "artifact" in the background of the hair strands falling in front of her face.

(ETA) Metering Mode and Distance to Subject sections of the EXIF data is missing - a default with this camera. Looks like someone may well have played with the jpeg.

Don't know why anyone would go to so much trouble though - it's a wholely unconvincing photo, child or no child...

[Deetee]

ETA: Your psychic skills have failed you, DeeTee - it's not "Ed" :p

My spirit guide "Heapum big buffalo s**t" has duly been sacked.

I now hear someone telling me it is a short name...., begining with an E still....

Thanks for the info Eric.

[EHocking]

My spirit guide "Heapum big buffalo s**t" has duly been sacked.

I now hear someone telling me it is a short name...., begining with an E still....

Thanks for the info Eric.Yes. Eric is a much shorter name than Ed:D

[lister]

I think perhaps people are trying a little to hard to debunk this.

I see a perfectly ordinary photo with flash bounce off some kind of moisture or smoke in the air. As others have said, this wouldn't be visible in the dark.

[EHocking]

I think perhaps people are trying a little to hard to debunk this.

I see a perfectly ordinary photo with flash bounce off some kind of moisture or smoke in the air. As others have said, this wouldn't be visible in the dark.Agreed. Although the EXIF derail provided me with a few minutes entertaining browsing...

[Miss Whiplash]

f- stop: 2.8 Wide aperatures have poor depth of field.

As for shadows - the camera is too far way, the stobe is too small and the subject is under a street lamp. The light from the street lamp takes care of any shadows. It's the same reason I use a back light in the studio.

I agree people are trying to hard on this. It simply looks like smoke.

[jimtron]

It could be any of a number of common, mundane things. The point is, where is the evidence that it's a ghost, or a "guest"? It seems to me that believers of ghosts and other weird stuff are too quick to assume something paranormal whenever something like this pops up that isn't (to them anyway) readily explainable.