Daily Fail: Ghost outside of Parliament?

Hyburnate

Hyburnate

Hyburnate

Soldato
Joined
29 Jul 2011
Posts
15,682
Location
Near Northants / MK
Ok, I seen this on /r/photography but feel the need to post it here as I know everyone here loves Daily Fail.

article25337351A6A4B.jpg

A ghostly figure has been caught on camera standing outside Parliament on New Year's Eve.

The spooky image shows a transparent figure dressed in modern clothing gazing out over the Thames near Westminster Bridge in London.

Professional photographer Jules Annan took the image on New Year's Eve - but only noticed the ghostly apparition when he got home.
Click to expand...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ition-caught-camera-Thames-New-Years-Eve.html

What this simply is, is a long exposure in which time a guy has stood there for a short moment then walked out of shot, I wouldn't be surprised if the photographer perhaps did it himself. But really this is ridiculous.
 
Jesus christ, seriously Daily Mail? That has the most obvious explanation ever! How on earth can anybody not see that it's just a long exposure with someone stood in that spot for x seconds.
 
My favourite comment from the DM website:
I reckon it was a 6 second exposure. If the long thin light on Westminster Bridge was made by a vehicle doing 30mph then that vehicle was doing 13.4 metres/second. The bridge is 252m long with seven arches making each arch 36m long. The light trail looks at least an arch and a half long, but with the angle and the fact that one end of the trail goes out of shot, let's say it's two arches, or 72m. Length 72m divided by velocity 13.4m/s is 5.4 seconds. A 6 second exposure would give that blurring on the slow-moving river, and is time enough for the person to stop and stand during it to produce the 'ghost' effect. Of course, if the blue light on the bridge is actually a UFO doing 700mph then the exposure was 1/200 seconds and that figure is indeed a ghost. The DM should probably get some experts to look into the UFO thing.
Click to expand...

Aliens! The only logical explanation!
 
Although, if I reverse image search it, find it uploaded online, check out the EXIF info we should then be able to determine the exposure time...
 
Haha that's amazing! It's not photoshop because the chap said that was how the image turned out, ie he hasn't edited it.

With regards to the long exposure, how come it doesn't show the guy walking? (photography noob question)
 
dirtychinchilla said:
Haha that's amazing! It's not photoshop because the chap said that was how the image turned out, ie he hasn't edited it.

With regards to the long exposure, how come it doesn't show the guy walking? (photography noob question)
Click to expand...

Depending on how long the shutter was open for would determine how long you'd have to stand in a position for it to be visible, I'm not too sure on exact figures but for instance if it was open for 30 seconds, you walking across frame would not be slow enough for it to show you up (for example, light trails don't show the cars) you'd have to stand still for around 10 seconds maybe more for you to show up.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/92435716@N00/1218064965
This is a good example, the bride and groom are standing still whilst the shutter is open and therefore they are completely solid, yet the people moving behind them aren't. Now here the shutter was only open for 4 seconds. Not the best description of it.

tldr; The longer a person stands there the more light comes off them into the camereas sensor and therefore the more 'solid' they are on the image. If they're only there for 1/4 of the time they will be very opaque if there at all.

e; This is a better example: http://youtu.be/4ls7tnq8Uvs?t=13m
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom