Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Is this camera sufficient?


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Wynki

Wynki

    Member

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Location:West Virginia
  • Interests:If I'm on this site, that should be evident.<br /><br />But I also enjoy music, movies, and other things you don't care about.

Posted 18 April 2006 - 01:36 PM

I have a Fujifilm FinePix 4.1 meg digicam.... is that okay to use?

#2 kats_god

kats_god

    Has a problem with gas?

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,367 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Downriver, Michigan U.S.A.
  • Interests:Art

Posted 19 April 2006 - 06:52 AM

I'm no expert but I would guess that it would be ok to use.
Check out my artwork at:http://www.jimdemick.com/
and on Facebook
Posted Image https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Art-of-Jim-Demick/261669903877527

Posted ImagePosted Image

"There are some things money can't buy...A good imagination is one of them

#3 Robert Hawkins

Robert Hawkins

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts

Posted 28 April 2006 - 05:49 PM

I have a Fujifilm FinePix 4.1 meg digicam.... is that okay to use?

you should have at least a 5MP camera.

#4 krcguns

krcguns

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,206 posts
  • Location:Keewatin, Minnesota USA
  • Interests:Well....investigating ghosts and finding out what lies beyond this life of course!

Posted 28 April 2006 - 07:28 PM

Not everyone agrees with me but use that digital to take pics of the family and friends. Get yourself a 35mm camera for paranormal use. With a digital you have no real "tangible" evidence that can be scrutinized by any kind of expert. The image only exists in your camera and on your computer. With film you have a negative that you can subject to scrutiny. Plus, digitals can fill in the photo...they are always trying to give the best resolution so when you push the button, you have a photo that has been tampered with. With a 35mm you get a photo of what the camera saw at that moment.

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.

http://www.ghostvill..._02162006.shtml

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 ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#5 nnyprs

nnyprs

    Senior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern NY
  • Interests:All things paranormal.

Posted 29 April 2006 - 11:17 PM

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.
The Northern New York Paranormal Research SocietySEEK TRUTH!!!The NNYPRS Discussion ForumSEEK TRUTH!!![url=http://www.blogtalkradio.com/NNYPRS[/url]SEEK TRUTH!!!Posted Image

#6 krcguns

krcguns

    Village Elder

  • New Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,206 posts
  • Location:Keewatin, Minnesota USA
  • Interests:Well....investigating ghosts and finding out what lies beyond this life of course!

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 ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#7 dan_nwmps

dan_nwmps

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Location:Thief River Falls Minnesota

Posted 01 May 2006 - 10:30 PM

I also agree with guns
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.
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they are open."Lord Thomas DewarPosted Image

#8 Grim Undertakings

Grim Undertakings

    Voted most likely to be a janitor in Highschool

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,654 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 12:09 AM

Even though we use a digital camera on our investigations, we mainly rely on the 35mm. If your just starting out, the camera you mentioned should be okay until you can afford a better one. I'd dismiss orbs and any other minor "anomalies" however since it is a lower pixelation camera. You may be able to capture something significant though (ie. a full apparition). By this I mean as if you took a picture of a person, not something that looks like something in the grass or the leaves of a tree! This seems to happen a lot. ;)
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. :P




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users