caddyman: (Default)
[personal profile] caddyman
The photograph below was taken by my niece, Hayley on her mobile phone last week on Mothers' Day. The event was the baptism of her friend's baby, both pictured.

It is not the best of photos even for a phone camera: it is shaky and not well focused. What is interesting though, is the background. There appears to be the blurred image of a the head and shoulder of a man, possibly an old man, wearing glasses between the camera lens and the plaque on the church wall. My first thought was that it was a reflection on the plaque, but it is too large and seems to partially obscure the wreath below.



Apart from downloading it from my phone to my computer and uploading to Photobucket, all I have done is rotate the picture ninety degrees.

Do any of the fair number of photographers on my friends list have any thoughts as to how the image might have got on to the picture and what it may be? I am informed that there was no-one there behind the woman and baby when the picture was taken.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 08:32 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladkyis.livejournal.com
It's your dad.

I believe in spiritualism - my parents were spiritualists. I am very sceptical about a lot of the hokum someof them spout but... when spirit wants you to know something they show you.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 10:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ash1977law.livejournal.com
It's a digital 'ghost'. They happen sometimes. Basically it's another image that the phone has captured at some point and has been partially stored in the memory. When it took the photo the camera got confused and combined the two images into one when it stored the photo. It's rare but not unheard of.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 12:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nyarbaggytep.livejournal.com
I don't know, but more to the point, who's stolen the baby's leg!

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 01:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caffeine-fairy.livejournal.com
I'm afraid I have to go for the old "There was someone behind them and they didn't notice".

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ash1977law.livejournal.com
Examining the picture it appears to be a man in a gray shirt and white dog collar such as is sometimes worn by CofE Vicars and the trendier Catholic Priests. I think that it is likely that he walked past as the photo was being lined up and the camera phone (being essentially a video camera that takes stills) recorded several frames of the priest in it's temporary memory, and due to a glitch combined those with the actual picture.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-08 08:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] failing-angel.livejournal.com
I have no idea about how it got there, but it does lead to an interesting effect.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 01:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caddyman.livejournal.com
To my surprise, that seems to coincide with what many of my family seem to believe.

Myself, I know what it looks like, but am rather more skeptical about the mechanism of arriving at a picture like this.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 01:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caddyman.livejournal.com
I like that explanation: it is believable and seems to fit rationally with what little I know about the technology underpinning digital cameras.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 01:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] romney.livejournal.com
...so why can't the "spirit" show up in focus and without blurring?

This is a photo taken using something that is not really a camera.

Assuming spirits, and assuming they frequent events that are of interest to them, and assuming that they are (somehow) visible on camera when not to the naked eye, why are not ALL the photographs taken at funerals/weddings/baptisms/whatever chock full of them? I have photographed many events over many years, and never spotted anything odd that can not be identified as due to my bad photography.

I don't wish to be critical of your faith - but my understanding is that one's faith does not need anything - least of all ambiguous photos - to support it.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 02:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ladkyis.livejournal.com
Be as critical as you like it's not my "faith". I don't know how to explain it or even if it needs explanation. Stuff happens. If it was a clear and in focus image then everyone would say that it couldn't be spirit because it is too clear, and it must be someone that the photographer didn't notice.

you can believe or not. Either way I am content.

While I believe in spirit my 'faith' is a completely separate thing.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 10:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lucyas.livejournal.com
That is so wierd. Do you mind if I use the picture on my blog some time soon?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-09 11:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] caddyman.livejournal.com
Feel free.

Send me a link if it's not LJ?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-03-11 10:29 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] lucyas.livejournal.com
Hi

I have written about your picture on my blog - www.badwitch.co.uk

You can add www.badwitch.co.uk as a livejournal feed if you want to view it in livejournal - or you can just visit the site.

Thanks for letting me use the pic. Do let me know if I have got anything incorrect and need to change it,

Profile

caddyman: (Default)
caddyman

April 2023

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617 1819202122
23242526272829
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags