Explore the Unexplained
Want a 12-Month Digital Subscription to Paranormal Underground Magazine? Click here & save more than 15%!
Topic RSS
Offline
Anyone intersted in talking photography?
I've never specifically gone out to shoot spirit photography. I know how to shoot in normal situations. I'm more interested in all of your personal experiences doing it. You can read all the books in the word, but nothing compares to actually doing it. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
For this "genre" of work specifically with a ("normal") still camera -- What kind of equipment have you had the best of luck with? Certain kind of lens? Camera mode? Manual settings? Digital vs. print film? Tips or tricks? Ways to minimize "fakes"? Is it mostly luck of the click? Day vs Night?
Do you have a favorite spirit photo that you've personally taken? What were the conditions?
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
I write books. I take pictures.
I sometimes try to tap into my Jedi powers.
~Michelle Pillow Author Website~
The Raven Books
Offline
Anyone intersted in talking photography?
I've never specifically gone out to shoot spirit photography. I know how to shoot in normal situations. I'm more interested in all of your personal experiences doing it. You can read all the books in the word, but nothing compares to actually doing it.
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' />
For this "genre" of work specifically with a ("normal") still camera -- What kind of equipment have you had the best of luck with? Certain kind of lens? Camera mode? Manual settings? Digital vs. print film? Tips or tricks? Ways to minimize "fakes"? Is it mostly luck of the click? Day vs Night?
Do you have a favorite spirit photo that you've personally taken? What were the conditions?
/smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Well, I would have to say that if someone is going to go out to deliberately try to photograph a ghost, entity or what ever you want to call it. Instead of just flashing off photos hoping to catch a mist or orb. Then in my opinion people need to remember that what prompted their investigation was personal experience. Meaning that someone saw something with their eyes and now wants to see if they can catch it on film. We also must remember that the camera works like your eyes but not the other way round. So the most simple of cameras would probably be the best for capturing what people have seen.
The new fancy cameras are real nice but they do offer more chances for something to go wrong. Now orbs and mists are not exclusive to the digital camera by any means but like anything. The more complex the more room for error.
For me, I use both types of camera. I have digital cameras and even use disposable film cameras on occasion. I also use a double camera outfit that I have posted a photo of here before.
My favorite spirit photo can be seen here. http://www.hauntedamericatours…..om/ghostph…S/effortinn.htm
Sure a lot of people try to explain it away but in all my years of taking photos this is the only one so far that fits the story surrounding the building. A woman in a red cloak. It was an overcast day, calm and in the afternoon. Taken with an olympus SP-500UZ. Not that I think that matters.
Offline
Well, I would have to say that if someone is going to go out to deliberately try to photograph a ghost, entity or what ever you want to call it. Instead of just flashing off photos hoping to catch a mist or orb. Then in my opinion people need to remember that what prompted their investigation was personal experience. Meaning that someone saw something with their eyes and now wants to see if they can catch it on film. We also must remember that the camera works like your eyes but not the other way round. So the most simple of cameras would probably be the best for capturing what people have seen.
The new fancy cameras are real nice but they do offer more chances for something to go wrong. Now orbs and mists are not exclusive to the digital camera by any means but like anything. The more complex the more room for error.
For me, I use both types of camera. I have digital cameras and even use disposable film cameras on occasion. I also use a double camera outfit that I have posted a photo of here before.
My favorite spirit photo can be seen here. http://www.hauntedamericatours…..om/ghostph…S/effortinn.htm
Sure a lot of people try to explain it away but in all my years of taking photos this is the only one so far that fits the story surrounding the building. A woman in a red cloak. It was an overcast day, calm and in the afternoon. Taken with an olympus SP-500UZ. Not that I think that matters.
what am I looking for, Kim?
Edited: Oh – wait! I think I've got it. Second story, middle grouping of windows, window on the left?
Offline
Well, I would have to say that if someone is going to go out to deliberately try to photograph a ghost, entity or what ever you want to call it. Instead of just flashing off photos hoping to catch a mist or orb. Then in my opinion people need to remember that what prompted their investigation was personal experience. Meaning that someone saw something with their eyes and now wants to see if they can catch it on film. We also must remember that the camera works like your eyes but not the other way round. So the most simple of cameras would probably be the best for capturing what people have seen.
The new fancy cameras are real nice but they do offer more chances for something to go wrong. Now orbs and mists are not exclusive to the digital camera by any means but like anything. The more complex the more room for error.
For me, I use both types of camera. I have digital cameras and even use disposable film cameras on occasion. I also use a double camera outfit that I have posted a photo of here before.
My favorite spirit photo can be seen here. http://www.hauntedamericatours…..om/ghostph…S/effortinn.htm
Sure a lot of people try to explain it away but in all my years of taking photos this is the only one so far that fits the story surrounding the building. A woman in a red cloak. It was an overcast day, calm and in the afternoon. Taken with an olympus SP-500UZ. Not that I think that matters.
Thanks for the input. /smile.png' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=';)' /> And for posting the pic
The only reason I would hesitate with disposables is because I've had film exposure issues with them before. (Do they still sell them? I haven't seen them in stores for awhile--haven't looked either)
Interesting thoughts about the more extensive cameras. I can see on one hand the more things=more room for things to go wrong. But, I really like the large size of the files (on my 'fancier' camera -- not really sure what ppi/dpi the other models are shooting at now) that record more detail. Again this coming from a "other" photog POV, not someone whose done spirit photography.
I tend to go through a lot of frames no matter the job I'm doing, especially now that I've made the switch to digital. I love print, but digital is so much cheaper. It has even become hard to find a decent darkroom supplier. (but that's digressing, lol) On an investigation, I'd be snapping nonstop.
I write books. I take pictures.
I sometimes try to tap into my Jedi powers.
~Michelle Pillow Author Website~
The Raven Books
Offline
Cool house, one day….when I retire, lol I want a house like that.
As far as paranormal photography, goes, here are a few thoughts. Film vs. digital has been a debate that has been brewing since the inception of modern ghost hunting. Digital cameras have advanced leaps and bounds since the late 90's, and are a lot better than the days of the old FD Mavica line that I cut my digital teeth on. Gone are the days of illuminating a scene with a flashlight to assist in the camera's focus ability then taking the shot. Ugh I hated that. With digital's these days, a good point-and-shoot camera with dark focusing ability is all you need. Film still has it's place, and I have never got positive photos like I did in my early days with b/w film on a cheap 35mm camera. Honestly I just cannot afford to process the amount of photos that I take. I am not kidding, if time permits, I can easily take between a thousand and 1500 shots on location. I like sticking to infrared or invisible spectrum photography these days, but still take out the standard digital as well.
If you must have total control over your shots, exposures, aperture, etc.., then you cannot go wrong with a digital SLR. The learning curve can be a little steep for a novice used to point-and-shoot cameras, and the camera and lens accoutrements can certainly get cost prohibitive to someone on a budget. A good infrared filter and 20 second exposure shot (at night, shorter in daylight) would, IMO, be the best candidate for capturing photographic anomalies. I don't care for SLR's because I like a "grab and go" solution that I don't have to worry so much about settings when I might need to fire off some fast photos.
thanks
Andy
Offline
When we are at a clients location, we use out digital cameras during the normal base readings sessions so that we can get the layout of the house. ie reflective surfaces that may show up during video review. using film cameras would be pretty expensive because of the 1000 + pics we can take. We are experimenting with the IR and UV camera hacks, and also the add on filters. I think they will be an important part of any investigation but chances of catching something with them are slim.
Most Users Ever Online: 151
Currently Online:
13 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
norcalmonkey: 24961
HeidiAnn67: 15116
wrightghost: 8521
duckie7694: 5868
movieman1500: 3314
milomilford: 2589
pooperdooper: 2049
sympathyforthedevil: 1912
BornAware: 1741
ediaz65: 1447
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 3
Members: 2962
Moderators: 5
Admins: 3
Forum Stats:
Groups: 14
Forums: 47
Topics: 1893
Posts: 104956
Newest Members: zoinsimark, tymnBalaync
Moderators: NoWhammies (3983), almosthunted (1138), RyanNREMTP (7427), jackny46 (0), Jack K. (0)
Administrators: admin (0), MysticalKnight (5544), sithy (1330)
Paranormal Forum - Paranormal Underground