Quote
How about this...have you considered that film may NOT be capable of capturing Spiritography? For as long as film has been around, there seems to be no verified accounts that I am aware of. IMO, only digital images have produced actual images of a "spirit"...there are tons of orb images, but that seems like kid-stuff compared to the "entity portraits" that currently exist on digital.
Digital has a unique way of replacing analog, so by discrediting the only process that works, you may discredit yourself. As Will Rogers once said...If you're riding' ahead of the herd, take a look back every now and then to make sure it's still there.
First let me just say that I don't take a firm side either way because I'm far from being an expert. I also have no interest in arguing about it. I HAVE thought about what you just said about what if digital cameras have some ability to capture things that analog won't though. The problem is, I've never heard a good scientific theory of why that should be. And unless anyone knows of one then I would caution against claiming that, because if it's just a matter of how digitals work that leads to film mistakes, then claiming them to be paranormal and captured by the magic of digital cameras discredits the whole field. I've done enough experiments on my own to prove to myself that digital cameras will always capture more dust orbs than regular old film. So I'm much more inclined to believe that the multitude of random captures by digital cameras has a LOT more to do with the cheaper ones being inferior and having more mistakes than a 35mm. I'm not talking about the ones that people take on searches and use to capture what they think is paranormal. Just the fact that a whole slew of orb pics have come about since the invention of the digital camera in random everyday photos. (and yes I am aware that there are expensive and great digital cameras on par with film! though the way they work is still a different thing then the way a film camera just captures the real image.)
Now I have a question that I've been wondering about for some time and I'd love opinions on it. Why should film, digital or 35mm EVER capture something you can't see with your own eyes? Outside of it capturing a moment in time that goes by so quickly that you can't see it with the naked eye, I can't think of any other reasons it would. If that's how most spirits are captured on film, then it's no wonder so few of them have been captured. But is there any other reason why film or a digital camera could see something my eyes can't? I don't usually put much stock in any photos of things that weren't also seen by the photographer. Unless there were other reasons to believe something was there! Please don't get mad at that folks, it's just my opinion and maybe it's ill-informed. I'm definitely an amateur when it comes to this stuff.
KRCguns seems to be taking a beating for his hard stance here lol...but I think he makes some good points. I know that film hasn't captured the Holy Grail photo of proof, but neither has digital and digital film really will get written off as fake sooner than regular film. No one has ever captured anything that was taken seriously by the scientific community with either type. Personally I do think he makes a good case that for "proof" you should use old school film.
BUT....with that said, I'm no scientist and I don't even care to prove anything to the world. What I do, I do for myself and so I do use digital. It's simply cheaper and I especially understand why someone who wants to snap off random pics in the hopes that it will capture something would use digital instead of a ton of film. I use digital for normal photography, and I use a digital video recorder when trying to capture something paranormal. I really don't use cameras at all anymore, because it seems like with the film rolling you have a better chance of getting something if it happens fast. And I think there are ways for people to look at the video and analyze it for fraud. I may take still pics of the site just for references or memories, but that's about it. But I do understand what KRCguns is getting at with the hard copy of a photo and negative thing...and I agree with him that those constitute better proof than a digital image. I see no reason to get mad at his opinion and I see no reason for people that hold that idea to be condescending to the folks that use digital.
5
krcguns, on Jul 31 2007, 10:31 AM, said:
