Film or digital
Posted 07 April 2007 - 09:41 AM
Video tape or digital video? why?
audio tape or digital voice rec? why?
The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die and you to live. Which is the better, only God knows. - Socrates I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. . - SocratesEnergy Hot SpotsEnergy Hot Spots New EnglandEnergyhotspots DemonicologyLet the house of Israel say / His mercy endures forever Let the house of Aaron say / His mercy endures foreverLet those who fear the lord say / His mercy endures forever
Posted 09 April 2007 - 12:53 PM
The Admissibility of
Digital Photographs in Court
Steven Staggs is a forensic photography Instructor and has instructed over 3,000 crime scene technicians and detectives in crime scene and evidence photography over the past 17 years. He is a police manager having been in law enforcement for the past 29 years and is the author of the book, Crime Scene and Evidence Photographer's Guide.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 01:43 PM
Posted 09 April 2007 - 02:54 PM
Posted 09 April 2007 - 04:20 PM
On the other hand, I feel that digital cameras are a bit more sensitive and may actually attract more specteral energy than a regular camera does. However, there's no negative to validate the image. I guess the big thing is to keep and open mind and not dismiss something solely on the basis of what type of camera was used.
The debate goes on!
Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:43 PM
The law does not require a negative to authenticate a photograph; it requires testimony from a witness that the photograph portrays the scene as it accurately occurred. The law is same no matter what type of camera was used. I assume you meant spectral as in ghostly terms, or do you think a digital camera is the cause for the attraction of spectral energy. I’m not quite sure how you mean that.
I do think digital tech is the way to go for more reasons than are mentioned. I also believe they’re susceptible to atmospheric conditions (orbs), but that’s on the photographer not the camera. A person must learn the best conditions to use their own equipment.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 10:56 PM
Now if people who are out there claiming to be paranormal investigators, could just understand what they are really looking at on a whole, we might actually get somewhere. Perhaps set some real standards for paranormal pictures for comparison.
So many people really don't know what it is they are looking at. They don't understand pictures, the angles, lighting, flash, reflections, pixels and other objects that creat images that will undoubtably confuse us.
It is a crazy world of people in discovery of paranormal pictures since the digital camera came along.
Its time for a "real" book of standards to be set for digital paranormal photography. I really don't think all these sites out there are helping, everyone thinks they have spirit orbs in their pictures so they run out and post them and then decide to become paranormal investigators and set up a website and the mass confusion begins.
I do however think that GV has helped a lot of people, who at least come looking for answers.
I have people who have contacted me thru GV to look at their photos for their investigations. Its great to see that, instead of the other. I have been invited to join some groups, and you would dropped to see what they have been posting as paranormal "evidence".
Posted 09 April 2007 - 11:08 PM
If the law can take digital as good hard evidence, why can't the paranormal world? No negatives required. I think any expert in the photography field can tell if something has been altered. I have been able to tell the difference, it not that hard. Photoshops leave a trail, they are not perfect. I think we can tell the difference if its true paranormal. People who do not understand it will make mistakes and we will be able to tell.
Negatives can have flaws, and so can a developer of the film. We need that trust between the person taking the picture and having been there to go along with any evidence.
Posted 09 April 2007 - 11:52 PM
Digital Cameras are prone to picking up more than film cameras, such as dust or light flare - however for the same reason, they are also believed to be more likely to capture paranormal anomalies due to the electrical capture of images.
Why is this so? Well, spirits are meant to be made up of electrical energy (which is why they can affect electrical equipment such as TVs, Radios etc, so easily!).
Posted 10 April 2007 - 12:42 AM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 03:01 PM
The digital photography works fine for police to take crime scene photos and present them in court. Why? Because they have a very strict chain of custody that must be adhered to and the people they have as witnesses to the photographs being taken are other police officers. They go on their integrity and training when they appear in court. They are able to ask a cop that was on the scene if what is in the photograph is actually what the scene looked like. How often do we see a paranormal phenomena at the same time the photo is snapped? Hardly ever, so then how can you testify to the world that your photo is actually what was there? You can't. A negative is the only thing that can prove what is on your photo was in front of the camera. This idea is one that can never work in the field of paranormal study. Why? Because if we were resorting to taking people's word for things and not looking for scrutinizable proof, we would already have supplied the world with all the answers and moved on far beyond proving the existance of ghosts to the world. We would be working on all of the hows and whys and when someone had a theory on that it would be solved too. Come on people, this is a cop out (no pun intended), people want the easy way out. They want to take a thousand shots at an investigation and don't want anything that can be scruinized. They want to mount a trophy photo of what they claim to be a ghost. Basically what is being supporte with this line of thinking and these articles are this...Joe takes a photograph with his digicam, he then alters it in photoshop and puts it on the internet...his friend Bill swears that is the photo that he presented is just what was captured. Ok, that is the end of the story and Joe has a fantastic photo proving ghosts? I don't think so...not in the least. You have a scam folks and everyone that supports the cheap, easy digi method is setting themselves up for it big time.
Steve Golsolves from TAPS said it best when I talked with him...digital photos are fine for people to look at themselves and share with their group. If you want to present them to anyone outside your group you have to have a negative.
Why do we need a negative? Because it shows that what you have in your photograph is actually what was in front of the camera. Most people don't realize that digital photos are constructed by the camera and not a true snap of what is there. They build pixel on top of pixel until the photo is constructed. This is maniplulated from the second you press the button.
I had a lengthy conversation last week with Loyd Auerbach and we talked about this very thing. He told me of a good friend of his that is a professional photographer (not a paranormal investigator) that owns a $10,000 absolute top of the line digital camera. This camera still drops pixels and creates orbs and anomalies that they have to photoshop out of the pictures. Now, if you can spend this much money on a camera and it still doesn't solve any of the digital problems, there is a huge issue.
The fact of the matter is that the big name investigators that everyone respects and even pays big money to investigate with realize that film is the only viable way to investigate the paranormal. There is a huge swing back to film going on. Sure, the weekend warriors that are trophy hunting will continue to fumble around with digital but the real investigators that are making advances in the field are steadily using or going back to analog for all evidence collection. They realize that good evidence outweighs quick, cheap and easy. So, leave the digicrap to the novice trophy hunters and that is ok. If you want to collect real evidence of the paranormal then go analog. The choice belongs to each individual. So I would have to ask. Which are you?
Posted 10 April 2007 - 03:15 PM
Posted 10 April 2007 - 04:00 PM
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, good luck with yours.
Thanks and good luck with yours too!
Posted 10 April 2007 - 09:00 PM
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
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.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users