Is this camera sufficient?
Posted 18 April 2006 - 01:36 PM
Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:52 AM
Check out my artwork at:http://www.jimdemick.com/
and on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Art-of-Jim-Demick/261669903877527
"There are some things money can't buy...A good imagination is one of them
Posted 28 April 2006 - 05:49 PM
you should have at least a 5MP camera.
I have a Fujifilm FinePix 4.1 meg digicam.... is that okay to use?
Posted 28 April 2006 - 07:28 PM
I know digital is cheaper in the long run with no developing cost but if you are going to try and collect any paranormal evidence, you should do it right.
I invite you to read an article that I wrote for ghostvillage a couple of months ago. It pretty much give you some good information about how our group does things and why.
oh, by the way...I have the same camera that you mentioned in your post. I took 33 photos this past Christmas with it of the kids in school at their programs. Out of those 33 photos...26 had orbs in them. Digitals and paranormal evidence don't mix very well at all in my opinion.
Edited by krcguns, 28 April 2006 - 07:30 PM.
Posted 29 April 2006 - 11:17 PM
Posted 30 April 2006 - 12:35 AM
I mostly agree with guns on this one. If you use Orbs as your primary evidence, digital "makes" orbs in a lot of pictures. Also, if not properly focused and steady, they very easily cause ghostly streaks that are anything but paranormal. However, digital can be used and has been used to capturefigures. In this respect, you can not accidentally "create" a see-through person by acciedntally double exposing like you can on a 35 MM. Ans that post about you needing at least a 5 Megapixel....nah. We believe it is ok to use digital, just not as your primary source of evidence. And almost all orbs can be ruled out with digital.
We did have a photo posted here on gv not too long ago where a double exposure happened on a digital camera. That is of course if the entire story was accurate. It sure looks like one and I am sorry but I can't remember the title of the post at this time.
I have never had a douible exposure on any of my 35mm because I have an auto advance camera. With the manuals you can surely have that happen quite easily and even intentionally. No camera is the ultimate proof of the paranormal. That can only be achieved by persoanal experience. I simply try to eliminate as many mundane factors as possible.
Posted 01 May 2006 - 10:30 PM
I prefer 35 mm also i used to use an advantix they take awsome photos but are like 10$ a roll to develop last investigation i used it on cost me 60$ just in developing fees.
Its very nice to have Negatives to help back up originals plus you have Hard copy to store away in case you lose the original.. or your hard drive crashes if you have a digital =P
If that is the only camera you have acess to then yes it would work .. just scrutinize every orb photo carefully before saying its paranormal.
for pics that are not orb oreiented they work just as well as any other.
Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:09 AM
Digital cameras are good for getting a "feel" for a spot also. If you feel that something notable may have turned up you can always return with a 35mm. This way, if there's a possibility that the spot probably isn't haunted, you didn't waste a bunch of film and money!
Hope this helps.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users