Articles

Photographic Anomalies

by Christopher Orapello

The numerous anomalies found in photography, and the potential it offers the individual to intentially produce fraudulent material, makes photography practically useless as far as evidence of the paranormal is concerned. As with all documented paranormal phenomena regardless of the medium, the viewer is subjected to the presenter and is a virtual victim in a mild sense. After all, every bit of presented documented material is simply a claim made by the presenter and the viewer is expected to take the presenter's word for it because in most cases the viewer was not present during the time of documentation, which means that the presenter has a slight advantage over the viewer. It is the intent of this article to provide people with insight in regards to paranormal photography so that they are able to determine which presenter actually knows about what they are presenting and which don't.

Fig. 1- Eugène Thiébault (French, b. 1825) Henri Robin and a Specter, 1863. Albumen silver print; 22.9 x 17.4 cm. Collection Gérard Lévy, Paris. A double exposure effect.The art of photography in itself is an art of light manipulation and usage along with pictoral composition and content. A good photographer can convey a host of intended messages and meanings with the right arrangement of such elements. The photography of seemingly paranormal phenomena has been a part of the history of photography since the early days (1). The manipulation of light, exposure, and camera perspective has often been the key to some of the greatest camera Fig. 2 - The devil looming over a village in F.W. Murnau's 1926 silent film, "Faust." Scale shots and miniatures were used a lot in this classic film to create the visual effects.effects and visual experiences found in early photography and in silent cinema. For example, cameras can distort size and spacial relationships within an image as taken advantage of by F.W. Murnau in his 1926 silent film Faust (2). As shown here, miniatures are often utilized in the film industry to create a visual illusion. Often as a result of such images, the viewer doesn't know the difference unless something recognizable and seemingly out of place is included in the image, in which case such an object would destroy the illusion.

Fig. 3 - Two girls from Cottingly, England fooled the world with thier fairy images in 1917.People always ask us why we don't have any photographs on our website. The initial reason for this is that photographs of actual paranormal phenomena are extremely rare, despite what one may see on approximately 99% of the websites found online. Most, if not all, of the images found on these websites will be collectively addressed and debunked within this article. The other reason for our problem with photography is due to its momentary nature. Logically speaking, a photographic anomally is captured within fleeting fractions of a second giving the observer no point of reference or opportunity to analyze the occurence since it happens so fast. By the time you have the image to look at, the moment is long gone, even with digital cameras that have a viewing screen, since the exact moment an image was taken has vanished by the time the image is viewable on the screen. In a contrary scenario that occured back in 1917, the fairies found in this image (3) were present before and after the photo was taken, but no one else was present to know that these images were actually fabricated. It wasn't until years later that one of the girls confessed that the fairies depicted were simply paper cut-outs held up by hat pins. The momentary nature of the photograph created the illusion which fooled the world.

Fig. 4 - Famous image of 14 year old Tina Resch and the flying phone.As stated previously, those photographs that happen to be considerable are few and far between and even then are suspect. Even with the better images, often times one is unable to make any direct connection between the image and what caused the anomally, meaning no paranormal connection can be established to validate the photo as being an actual image depicting a paranormal anomally. Even if EVPs, cold spots, and an anomalous electromagnetic field is present at the time the picture was taken, there is no direct connection between them because they each detect separate things and none of them are proof in themselves of paranormal activity. The contrary situation being if one witnessed the occurence as it was photographed and then investigated how or why it may have occured. Like in the poltergeist case of Tina Resch, where an object was caught in motion (4) in front of several witnesses, a phenomenon such as this can atleast be photographed, or caught on video, for documentary purposes and even claim to be paranormal since it was witnessed by others.

Before I touch on the modern forms of 'paranormal photography,' let me first state that all the following images displayed below are depicting and addressing the recent forms of alleged paranormal photography found on a majority of the paranormal / 'ghost hunter' websites available online and so the following images have been created for demonstrational purposes to illustrate how the camera reacts to certain situations and so are not depictions of paranormal activity. They were made and are here to address the once popular, but still lingering examples of alledged paranormal photographic imagery that still remains to this day which stemmed from the craze that erupted during the 1990's. All of the commonly claimed paranormal photographic anomalies (orbs, ectoplasm, mist, and vortices) can be attributed to camera error in one form or another, and therefore can be recreated rather easily and so are not paranormal.

"Orbs" are actually minute reflections of the camera's flash off of air born matter (dust, pollen, debre, dander, insects, moisture, etc.). The viewers understanding of distance and scale is often also distorted in such images much like the above image from F.W. Murnau's movie. Generally, things close to the lens are larger while images further away appear smaller, but even the amount of flash feedback reflected from an object can effect how large it seems in the image. Most often the air born matter is not noticed by the photographer until the image is taken and when such images are intentially recreated using some form of debre, the results are unmistakable.

Fig. 5 - Thrown debris into the air.

  

Fig. 6 - A small insect that was 7 to 10 feet from the camera.

  

Fig. 7 - Sprayed water into the air.

"Mist and ectoplasm" are often the result of the flash embellishing smoke or some form of moisture (ex: one's breath) that is present in the air during the time the photo was taken. The term ectoplasm is more often associated with seances from the 19th century and the Ghostbuster movies from the mid to late 1980's. One can see below how light can manipulate smoke to create a variety of looks and textures dependent upon air flow and smoke density.

Fig. 8 - Combination of campfire and cirgarette smoke.

  

Fig. 8 - Two textures of cigarette smoke.

  

Fig. 10 - Combination of campfire and cirgarette smoke.

"Vortices or vortexes," often claimed to be doorways or portals between this world and the next (a horribly gross assumption), can be created by an object being too close to the lens of the camera. More often these are caused by camera straps, hair, pet dander, etc. These objects, like the previous images, reflect the flash of the camera even when they are directly in front of the lens and will often cast a similar shaped shadow appearing in the background of the image (19), which I have often seen mentioned as another mysterious or 'paranormal' aspect of the image, which it is obviously not. Objects being too close to the lens will obstruct the flash and therefore bleach out the object which is why it appears white, while also making the photograph darker and even creating a shadow (16, 19) of the object visible in the background. Camera straps can often be recognized by some form of patterning appearing on or along the object, which is the weaving of the strap material (12). You may also notice what appears to be orbs along the side of the strap (12, 19) which is actually strap fuzz due to wear and tear of the strap material. Perhaps this visual is what caused someone to assume that the vortices were portals since the orbs were seemingly coming out of it? Which could not be further from the truth unless of course it somehow also involved aliens and gnomes.

Fig. 11 - Gray camera strap.   Fig. 12 - Gray camera strap.   Fig. 13 - Hair stick.
         
Fig. 14 - Hair stick part duex.   Fig. 15 - Hair stick returned.   Fig. 16 - Revenge of the hair stick.

Though these images are fabricated, it is plain to see how they appear against alleged paranormal imagery one often finds online and because they can be so easily created, compared, and even interchanged with one another. It can only be concluded that none of the above types of imagery that can be found online are paranormal and are the result of camera misuse or complete charlatanry.

Other anomalies can also be created by simple carelessness on the part of the individual and in the hands of a researcher who first doesn't attempt to address what it is they are seeing by cross-referencing the image with other material (video, audio, other cameras, people, etc.) and placing it in the context of the time it was taken. When one doesn't do this, mistakes can be made in the form of a false claim, which are often made by a lot of investigators.

For example, mysterious faces caused by reflections are often found in some images and are claimed by some to be paranormal. Case in point, while conducting an investigation in a private residence, one of the other individuals present was allowed to use the digital camera during the investigation. After all, we figured that we would get more images by doing so and thought there was no harm in allowing them to use it. Thankfully, when the below image was discovered, I had enough sense to cross reference it to reveal what it was and how it was created.

Fig. 17 - The mysterious red face.

Debunking: Upon first seeing the above image (17) I knew something wasn't right. It stood out from the rest of the pictures taken since it was all black and contained a red face in the bottom of it. What had occured? As I placed the image in the context of when it was created, all was revealed to me. On the audio recording, the menu buttons of the camera can be heard so the settings had been changed during this time. The file notes which can be read via the camera download program indicated that the flash had been turned off at the time which accounts for the darkness of the image. Also another individual present was wearing a red headlamp, which accounts for the red coloration of the face. By viewing the video footage, it could then be concluded that this image was taken directly into the semi-reflective surface of the black refrigerator found in the kitchen which accounts for the face that, upon understanding this much, resembles the individual using the camera at the time. Can you believe all that produced the above image? It pays to cross reference material.

More imagery: The Images depicted below contain further examples of are born matter and lens obstruction. Images 21, 22, and 23 depict an effect described as motion blur. This occurs when the camera, or an object, moves while taking a picture. In the three images below the flash was turn-off and the camera was focused on two individual torch lights (21, 23) and a campfire (22) and moved in various directions which is what created the trailing light effect in the images. The camera shutter was open taking in all the light it could for a short amount of time and with the light sources changing position in the viewfinder it created forms of identical movement.

Fig. 18 - Dust
  
Fig. 19 - Camera strap with shadow.
 
Fig. 20 - Human hair
         
Fig. 21 - Torch lights, using no flash and moving the camera.   Fig. 22 - Campfire, using no flash and moving the camera.   Fig. 23 - Torch lights, using no flash and moving the camera.

Strangely enough, there is a theory which addresses why paranormal phenomena, like visual apparitions, are rarely photographed. This idea basically states that the mind is a receiver of a signal. The signal is the apparition and your mind receives it, and depending on how it interprets that signal determines as to how one experiences the phenomena whether it takes the form of a sound, a smell, or visual experience of some kind. So, according to this theory when we experience something, we're not actually experiencing something in a physical sense, but instead we are experiencing it in a mental sense and the mind is placing the activity into our sensory perceptions, making our senses play tricks on us. So to put it plainly, the anomalies occur in your mind which also explains why different people experience different aspects of an occurence. Some may see something while someone else hears something. So, since a camera is completely physical, relying on physical light to create an image, it would make sense as to why there are not a lot of photos of apparitions if they possibly manifest on a mental level.

Q: So, if you are taking pictures and you think you have photographed something paranormal that has not been explained away by this article, what do you do?

A: Before claiming you have photographed something paranormal, you should consult a professional photographer or the manufacturer of the camera that you are using. They should be able to provide you with further information regarding your photograph and help you to determine what it is. If they are unsure, show the picture to an accredited parapsychologist to see what they think of the image. A good researcher would do no less.

Doing the above and keeping this article in mind will better assure the quality of the material available if not eliminate false claims of paranormal photography all together. As researchers it is our responsibility to be as accurate and as truthful with our findings and research as we can, because our pursuit of science and understanding allows us no other alternative.

 

Related Article

Concerning Evidence and Evidential Responsibility by Christopher Orapello