though he'll hate me for this. One for DMpoole

[ethan]

14 year old claims to have "captured" ghost.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1216051.ece

Happy Birthday DMPoole.

 

[ethan]

Dentist says she is a sweet girl haha

 

[ethan]

Honestly. Whatever it is you can make out something that looks like a hand though.

 

[ethan]

This picture is slightly better. I am not saying it is a hand only that it looks like one:


http://www.rense.com/general82/scot.htm

 

[ethan]

some girl in a wedding dress by any chance. Some sort of exposure error/reflection.

Possible but personally I would put this down to a curious and accidental anomaly. Really I don't know.

 

[ethan]

Wouldn't a double exposure give the same kind of detail to other areas as that shown by the assumed picture of the hand?

Edit: I think Messiah kahn could answer that.

 

[ethan]

why not millions of photos are taken everyday. There has to be loads of "interesting" photos from double exposure and other anomalys.



spot on

Because I don't know what it is I can only refer to it as curious. You may be right

Edit: The blurred image is indicative of some kind of a movement. If it is trickery then the camera would have needed to have been on a tripod and the shutter to have been open longer than it otherwise would have to be for a snap-shot. We only have the boy's word and his family.

 

[ethan]

Good thing the Sun has conclusively ruled out any foul play though.

The Sun would probably be the only paper to print it. Could be worth fifty quid to the kid.

 

[ethan]

Yes it is. But I have forgotten how it is done. Easy in Photoshop though.

 

[ethan]

This effect happens all the time!

The picture has been taken indoors so the camera will have set itself to use a long exposure in order to take the picture (i.e. it's recording the image for 1/20s or something like that). Whilst the picture was taken someone was walking down the stairs, their body was moving hence it blurred in the shot, but the hand remained still on the banister which is why you can see some detail in it.

For example see the following picture taken from http://www.photoaxe.com/motion-blur-panning-and-zooming-tricks-in-photography/

As you can see the people walking/moving are blurred, but the people who are not moving/sat down are not blurred. The faster someone is moving the more they will appear to blur (when camera settings remain consistent!!!)

If the exif data does not conicide with what either of us have said-then we can throw that theory out of the "window". Admittedly this is the info I would accept in the abscence of any data.