146 replies to this topic

[krcguns]

I am sorry for being offensive to you. I didn't mean to do that, I was just stating my opinion as well as the facts of the matter. We can surely agree to disagree. That is not a problem at all. As far as being on the Town Council...I do my job here at GV and have been for a very long time but I also am a serious paranormal investigator that is indeed entitled to have an opinion also based upon years of experience not just of my own but the years that have been accumulated by a lot of people leading in the paranormal field. I have made my statement here on this subject and am done with this thread, I am not going to stand here in a contest of wills with anyone. It isn't that important to me to do so. I will continue to have my opinion and educate where I can.

[JimDe]

I accept your apology.

But I myself am not done with this thread. At times it is necessary to state the facts. It should happen more often as we’d all be better off in the long run (I think we can agree to that). I believe digital equipment is an excellent medium for the practice of spirit photography, EVP and video capture. I think many people can capture an anomaly without seeing one first, but I also believe that if you can’t see a ghost then you can’t call it a ghost. In this business all a person has is integrity or nothing at all. Police officers are not the only individuals who are recognized as being honorable enough to provide truthful testimony, so that part where you said I can’t, I already did. Now I’m done.

Semper Fi

JD

[Roadkill]

Here's one argument For Digital Cameras

Look at this image I took at the old Western State Sanitarium in Lakewood, WA. Please note that I have not altered or modified any images:



Note the Yellow/Orange Line going from the top of the boiler to the post! There was no direct light source in the shot as the sun was on the far side of the building. There was nobody inside the structure to stir anything up. Now, here's the same area taken just mere seconds before:


Notice no line???

it is also possible to make a negative image of a digital photograph if you have an image processor capable of doing so (like I do), here's the negative of the first image:



The Line still appears in the negative as a blue line in the same area.

[aloha_spirit]

Roadkill, on Apr 11 2007, 09:15 PM, said:

it is also possible to make a negative image of a digital photograph if you have an image processor capable of doing so (like I do), here's the negative of the first image:

This negative effect available in most image manipulation software isn't what KRC was arguing. When he talks of negatives, he's talking physical proof. Polaroid photos also lack a physical negative to examine.

I think both digital and analog cameras have advantages and disadvantages. You surely need to recognize the limitations of the equipment you use.

Digital images have a discrete number of pixels. This is true if you're talking photos taken by a digicam or photos scanned onto a disk. The more pixels, the bigger you can blow it up without significant pixelization. Also, most digital cameras have both optical and digital zoom. Optical zoom is when the lens itself moves, whereas digital zoom is a software algorithm. Digital media means you only do a physical print of photos you want (vs having to develop an entire roll of film). However, you must never reuse the same spot on digital media, because you rarely get rid of all traces of the previous image (this is how cops can read "deleted" files off disks).

[Roadkill]

The main point I was trying for was not negative imagery per se, but more the practical use of Digital cameras for paranormal photography. I never use the digital zoom on my camera when doing such photography. My camera is made in such a way when you zoom, you got this line in the zoom indicator (not sure if others' camera's have the same thing) you stay under that line you are using optical zoom, go above it and it's digital. The pics of the boiler didn't use zoom at all. If at all possible I avoid using zoom in paranormal photography.

[Grim Undertakings]

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 10 2007, 12:56 AM, said:

Digital is taking over.

I agree with what Les said here and she is correct.

I'm finding it increasingly harder to track down tapes for my Sony video camera which takes those small High 8 analog tapes. Future Shop doesn't even carry them anymore. I'm also finding it harder to track down analog tapes for my analog recorders, also.

My point is is that eventually analog is going to become obsolete, or if not completely obsolete, very expensive to use (look how expensive black and white film is to develop). I could be wrong, but I do believe I've heard that they've discontinued polaroid cameras.

So when it basically all goes digital, does data that may be considered unexplainable become inconclusive? Are we done?

I try not to say that any anomalies in pictures are ghosts. On our website we made it a point to stay away from proving or disproving things. Our goal was to present odd data that we've collected over the past five years that we consider unexplainable. All of the odd pictures were taken with analog film. I brought the negatives to a man who owns an Econo Color to make sure that we weren't going to be another one of those websites that seems to post every anomaly that appears in a picture, digital or analog.

Does this make us experts or professionals? No. I would say that we're serious hobbyists, but that's all. I think we all contribute in some way or another to the pursuit of understanding ghosts, including the people just out for a scare. I think we all learn from each other in one way or another. Even fake ghost videos on the internet. As much as I can't stand them, it still teaches me what to look for in a fake.

Since I'm rambling I'll try to wrap this up.
Digital is here to stay. I think this means that we'll have to be even more scrutinous of possible findings. However, if I take a picture of a figure in front of me, or something close to it, I'm not going to dismiss it because it's a digital picture.
I agree that there are a lot of serious ghost researchers out there, but I think there are even more people who are just in it for a scare. Which is fine, I guess. As long as they're not trespassing or doing anything else to give the serious people a bad image. However (and unfortunately) I think ghost research will ever only be taken really seriously if someone like National Geographic or another scientific institution becomes involved. The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of amateur astronomers who really know their stuff and are serious about what they do. They even discover new things at times. But space exploration wouldn't be where it is today if it wasn't for NASA, etc. Yes, there are some very established ghost research groups in the world who I respect and learn from, but I think the world still views us as the amateur astronomers without a NASA.

I have to go back and read this post now because it is really long. I hope it made some sort of sense though.

[JimDe]

I also owe an apology; to the groups that felt my crack about 'contributing zilch' was out of line. I'm sure many are well intentioned and you deserve an apology. So you got one.

JD

Edited by JimDe, 12 April 2007 - 11:19 PM.

[leslie_dragonlvr]

That was well said Grim!
That has been what I've wanted to say for a long time, you put it in the right words, thank you!

We do need to learn from each other, not just take one stand and only one. We can all be stubborn in our ways, but no progress will be made if we can not accept others efforts in this changing world.

No proof is going to be absoulte, not even a negative.

We are all working with energies that can and will do some amazing things. Using a digital camera, for what ever reason, is capturing spirits because they seem to be more sensitive to this type of energy source. When we can tell what these anomolies are and look carefully at them, we are opening up a whole new world. This can not be dismissed just because its a digital camera.

There is a need to look at it all and accept it.

[randystreu]

Here's the thing about negatives:
Negatives prove authenticity, at least of the photograph itself, by virtue of being a true, unaltered copy. A print could have been changed at any time. If there were no charlatans in the world of paranormal investigations (meaning, if this was a perfect world), then indeed there would be no need for a negative. But it's naive to suggest that paranormal evidence is beyond reproach by virtue of its merely being presented... and that's exactly what's being suggested when you say we need to be willing to simply "accept" digital evidence because it's "taking over".

I have no problems at all with digital cameras; they're extremely useful. But I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone would ever -- or even should -- just take my word on it when it comes to the photo's veracity.

[leslie_dragonlvr]

If anyone is smart enough they can fake a 35mm picture and the negative too, if you really think about it.
So, what I am saying, I'm not talking about the digital as absolute proof, proof is not going to happen to those who are absolute skeptics. We could go round and round the merry-go-round on all of that.
I'm talking about using what IS happening on the digital cameras apposed to that on the 35mm as a learning tool for the progression of paranormal investigator etc.
If we can learn what we are looking at and begin to understand it, we can go a little farther, if we work together instead of butting heads on it.
I find this issue rediculous to continue. No one is going to get a prize for getting "real" proof on film.
We all know and believe spirits exsist, if we didn't why are we doing this? I'm not looking for a prize, I'm looking to understand more of what they can do and perhaps how, and when needed help others understand what may be going on in their own home etc.

I have worked on investigations that I was not even taking pictures, I happened to be 3000 miles away from them, it was all communication directly with the spirit. That was more important to me and to the people I worked with. Knowing things that there was no way to know and giving messages to help both sides.
Not everyone believes in that either, and there is no way to have absolute proof of it unless your there to witness it, and even then, well the skeptic would find a way to disprove that too.

I'm not trying to argue anything, I'm trying to get both sides of the table here to work together and accept each other's work to learn and to progress.

[Grim Undertakings]

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 13 2007, 02:07 AM, said:

That was well said Grim!
That has been what I've wanted to say for a long time, you put it in the right words, thank you!

We do need to learn from each other, not just take one stand and only one. We can all be stubborn in our ways, but no progress will be made if we can not accept others efforts in this changing world.

No proof is going to be absoulte, not even a negative.

We are all working with energies that can and will do some amazing things. Using a digital camera, for what ever reason, is capturing spirits because they seem to be more sensitive to this type of energy source. When we can tell what these anomolies are and look carefully at them, we are opening up a whole new world. This can not be dismissed just because its a digital camera.

There is a need to look at it all and accept it.

Thanks, Les, I'm happy to hear that you were able to get something out of my ramblings!

I also agree with what you're saying in a later post. I think anyone who is involved in ghost research solely for obtaining a reward or "I'm the best" status is sadly in it for the wrong reasons. Sure, it's okay to strive for excellence in what you do as long as you don't turn it into a competition. As time passes I become more serious about ghost research but I'm still in it for the same goal: to personally understand this unexplained phenomena that, for whatever reason(s), seems to be occuring in our world.

Plus, the adrenaline too when something does happen when you're on an investigation!

Edited by Grim Undertakings, 14 April 2007 - 11:12 AM.

[krcguns]

randystreu, on Apr 13 2007, 06:49 AM, said:

Here's the thing about negatives:
Negatives prove authenticity, at least of the photograph itself, by virtue of being a true, unaltered copy. A print could have been changed at any time. If there were no charlatans in the world of paranormal investigations (meaning, if this was a perfect world), then indeed there would be no need for a negative. But it's naive to suggest that paranormal evidence is beyond reproach by virtue of its merely being presented... and that's exactly what's being suggested when you say we need to be willing to simply "accept" digital evidence because it's "taking over".

I have no problems at all with digital cameras; they're extremely useful. But I'm not naive enough to believe that anyone would ever -- or even should -- just take my word on it when it comes to the photo's veracity.

Brilliantly stated Randy! That is the whole just of the entire thing. Sure there are a lot of honest people in the world that will tell the truth but there are tons that don't. The minute that we just accept things as we see them at face value is when the skeptics run all of us out of bunisess.

Film is not going anywhere. Things like Poloroids may disappear because they are a horrible cost to use but the 35mm is here to stay. It is necessary for anything requiring "proof" of the shot. If it ever were to disappear, it would simply be the end of spirit photography as it would no longer be credible.

[damckie]

JimDe, on Apr 10 2007, 10:00 PM, said:

As I said everyone is entitled to an opinion, here is mine:
First of all, Ghostvillage (Jeff Belanger) needs to address the fact that a member of his esteemed Town Council and Moderator of the ‘Spiritography’ forum sees fit to refer to digital photography as ‘digicrap’ which I find derogatory, insulting and incredibly unprofessional behavior towards a member(s) of this site most of whom probably own digital cameras. (Not to mention one of those ‘digicrap’ photographs is on the cover of Jeff Belanger’s Communicating with the Dead). I have nothing against a 35mm camera, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it doesn’t matter what kind of camera you choose to shoot with, because what needs to happen is a spirit occurrence. As I see it, hundreds of ghost hunter groups like TAPS have contributed zilch to the advancement of paranormal research. What they have contributed to is the marketing aspect of hype, conjecture and wishful thinking. And one last point for the gentleman from Minnesota, I’ve seen dozens of them before and during the time the photograph was as you so eloquently stated ‘snapped’ (I don’t count orbs). But hey that’s just me; and I’m more than willing to stand behind my claims so anytime you want to put your money where your mouth is...
There is a DVD available for sale from the A&E Network; you can buy it here for $30
http://store.aetv.co....jhtml?id=74704
In it you will find a segment on spirit photography, all the photographs are mine (except 1). If you think you can disprove my claims then you should take me to court and sue me for fraud, I’ll bring the evidence you can bring TAPS, let’s see who wins.


Jim DeCaro
http://www.spiritography.com

Lol! If I am not mistaken, doesn't Taps use digital? I have never seen the team use 35mm. Dead subject again! Dave

Edited by damckie, 14 April 2007 - 11:01 PM.

[krcguns]

Yep, TAPS does use some digital but have you ever seen them offer any photos as evidence? Not one time have they ever offered a digital photo as evidence on an investigation that you would have seen on TV. In fact Steve Gonsolves said it best..."If you want to look at the pictures yourself or among your group, digital is fine, but if you want to show others outside your group you need a negative."

[cathylj73]

Grim Undertakings, on Apr 14 2007, 12:09 PM, said:

leslie_dragonlvr, on Apr 13 2007, 02:07 AM, said:

That was well said Grim!
That has been what I've wanted to say for a long time, you put it in the right words, thank you!

We do need to learn from each other, not just take one stand and only one. We can all be stubborn in our ways, but no progress will be made if we can not accept others efforts in this changing world.

No proof is going to be absoulte, not even a negative.

We are all working with energies that can and will do some amazing things. Using a digital camera, for what ever reason, is capturing spirits because they seem to be more sensitive to this type of energy source. When we can tell what these anomolies are and look carefully at them, we are opening up a whole new world. This can not be dismissed just because its a digital camera.

There is a need to look at it all and accept it.

Thanks, Les, I'm happy to hear that you were able to get something out of my ramblings!

I also agree with what you're saying in a later post. I think anyone who is involved in ghost research solely for obtaining a reward or "I'm the best" status is sadly in it for the wrong reasons. Sure, it's okay to strive for excellence in what you do as long as you don't turn it into a competition. As time passes I become more serious about ghost research but I'm still in it for the same goal: to personally understand this unexplained phenomena that, for whatever reason(s), seems to be occuring in our world.

Plus, the adrenaline too when something does happen when you're on an investigation!

WOW you two feel like I do... I agree.
There is so much debate out there on Film vs Digital. Who to say WHO is right? This debate can go on and on for years. IT is a matter of preference to whom ever is taking the photos. KRC stated how Negatives are great well they can be touched up just as well as a digital camera. I have negatives that faded over time, I have had poor film development from negatives to print, I have seen pictures fade over time, With Digital you can back up your work on disks and have them forever. Below is a link I found on just this Digital vs Photo.

Here is a quote from a page on the web that is a digital vs 35mm camera:
So why the debate? I suspect the debate is among amateurs who've really only shot 35mm since it's been the only popular amateur film format for the past 25 years. Pros never say "film," they say a format like "120," "4x5," "6x17," "8x20" or "35" since "film" could mean so many things. Amateurs say "film" since they only use one format and presume 35mm. Therein lies the potential for debate when people don't first define their terminology. Today's digital SLRs replace 35mm, no big deal. Most people will get far better prints from a 6MP DSLR like the D70 than they will paying someone else to print their 35mm film.

Here is a link to the full article.

http://www.kenrockwe...ech/filmdig.htm