Free Skins
© Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Film or digital


  • Please log in to reply
146 replies to this topic

#121 73Shovel

73Shovel

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC
  • Interests:There's nothing like being under the great southwest sky...an experience that proves we are not alone. Around 2am on an old v-twin, with a pocket full of sticks, puts you in touch. You have a band of brothers that are in it for the speed, travel and respect. Spirits are cool. <br /><br />~ Radio<br />~ Speed<br />~ FLH Shovel Head<br />~ Guitars<br />~ Cadillac's<br />~ Hillbilly Music<br />~ Spiritography<br />~ My Life<br />~ Friends &amp; Family<br />~ Art<br />~ Creative Energy<br />~ Life

Posted 14 August 2007 - 05:31 PM

krcguns,

Are you saying that Orbs are real, now that you captured something that was an actual paranormal experience?

Do you believe that the method of capture played a significant role?

73


First of all thank you for the intelligent and actual question...

I have no choice but believe that orbs are real. Do I believe that all of the so called "evidence" shlubbed around the internet is real? No, of course not. I do believe that since this was captured on scrutinizable film, it is a much better capture than on something digital that cannot be checked out by an outside source. What I mean by this is that I have actual tangible evidence that shows that what was captured on the film actually occurred in front of the camera as opposed to being subject to video editing without any substantiation of it actually happening. I think that digital stuff can capture the paranormal but it is in no way able to be used as "proof" since it cannot in any way be scrutinized.



I'll have to disagree with you on the "proof" issue once again, since digital photography is already being accepted as evidence in this field and many others including the U.S. Courts. What concerns me is that you acknowledge that "digital stuff can capture the paranormal" but refuse to give respect and credit to a major contributor in that field. What's up with that?

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.


Funny how things work out...

#122 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 August 2007 - 03:47 AM

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.

#123 JimDe

JimDe

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 August 2007 - 06:24 AM

We’ve been this through more than a few times… and I also have no interest in arguing about this further, so, I’ll cut right to the chase.

‘blagh, blagh, blagh…’


JimDe
Posted Image

#124 Oniix

Oniix

    Village Elder

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2007 - 06:43 AM

I dunno, I think that's an arguable stance right there and I'll argue you over it!


BLAGH BLAGH..... BLAGH BLAGH BLAGH!

#125 JimDe

JimDe

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 August 2007 - 06:49 AM

…and what point(s) would you care to (argue/discuss) that hasn’t been covered previously?
Posted Image

#126 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 August 2007 - 07:26 AM

…and what point(s) would you care to (argue/discuss) that hasn’t been covered previously?

I'd kinda like to discuss the one 73shovel brought up and hear some thoughts on it. The same thing I touched on in my response to his post. I don't believe it's been talked about in this thread though it's been a few days since I read all the way through it. If it has...overlook me I haven't been to bed in 2 days.

JimDe, you sound like you know your stuff when you're not just saying blagh, blagh. blagh.....so do you think that digital cameras may have the ability to capture paranormal things in ways that analog can't? And what are the theories on why any type of camera can capture something that your eyes can't see? Is it just a matter of speed and capturing the exact split second?

#127 Oniix

Oniix

    Village Elder

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2007 - 07:38 AM

Me? Oh I was just arguing your blagh blagh blagh, with more... blagh blagh blagh.

#128 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 August 2007 - 07:43 AM

I have an argument for the both of you. The correct and only way to say it is blah, blah, blah. The use of a "G" in the spelling invalidates both of your arguments.

#129 JimDe

JimDe

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 August 2007 - 08:18 AM

It is early isn’t it? I’m also a little tired (been putting in the hours).

It’s no secret that I’m not very fond of certain personalities… however, I do feel krcguns has covered the bases pretty well as far as establishing his point of view and obviously the viewpoint of several others as well. I just don’t agree with it…

I personally do not feel the camera has anything to do with it at all. I lean towards the opinion that certain people can effect (paranormal) circumstances including spirit activity. So, IMO the camera is not the (medium) to be concerned with…

I can’t speak on why a camera might capture something that human eyes cannot perceive, but I can say that in many instances of my own work, I’ve seen them. From my observations the appearances in most cases last only for a split second… and in the majority of those cases they appear within arms reach…

I would like to address one point in your original post that I take issue with… that being – ‘No one has ever captured anything that was taken seriously by the scientific community with either type’. I have to disagree with that (obviously).


Edited by JimDe, 15 August 2007 - 08:22 AM.

Posted Image

#130 Oniix

Oniix

    Village Elder

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,026 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 August 2007 - 08:26 AM

Now that JimDe, I can agree with. My wife and I have conversed about that very concept many times and for countless hours- It's not the camera, it's the person and the tactics being used behind that camera.

#131 JimDe

JimDe

    Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 299 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 August 2007 - 08:32 AM

Cool. Now I need some sleep… see ya later.

Jim
Posted Image

#132 leslie_dragonlvr

leslie_dragonlvr

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,396 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Western Illinois
  • Interests:Enjoying life, again.<br />Anything paranormal, mostly spiritography and spirit communication.<br />The wilderness, traveling, historical places and a beach.<br />All that involves my heart and soul.

Posted 15 August 2007 - 09:01 AM

I know and will stand behind Jim on what he has said about who is behind the camera that matters too. I've done it myself and I know one other person personally that has, besides Jim.

Good Night Jim, sleep well.

Les
Greg - You and no other - Forever and Always! Gv ge yu!

#133 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 August 2007 - 02:51 PM

I would like to address one point in your original post that I take issue with… that being – ‘No one has ever captured anything that was taken seriously by the scientific community with either type’. I have to disagree with that (obviously).


Well, let me clarify myself then. We might not actually disagree that much. I do believe many people have captured paranormal things on film. I believe amateurs have and people not even trying to have. And I believe that many people who are researchers and IN the scientific community have. I just mean that the larger scientific community outside of paranormal researchers, don't even take the time to look at such things. There's probably a lot of things that the scientific community involved in this stuff takes as authentic. And there are numerous professionals on University campuses and labs all over the world that are doing good scientific research on these things. Unfortunately these folks are not generally considered to be part of mainstream science by scientists in other fields. I don't think that's really arguable, am I wrong? Paranormal research certainly isn't as highly esteemed as say physics and geology. Some skeptics in the scientific community still consider it a pseudoscience. So I assume you mean that credible scientists that are doing paranormal research have taken spiritography very seriously. That's true and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. I just mean nothing has ever been considered as "proof" among a majority of the scientists across all fields. You always have the skeptics who won't even take time to look into things, and people who will try to come up with another theory no matter how good the pic is. So you're right, a big part of the scientific community takes these things seriously. But that part is still somewhat on the fringes and not quite mainstream yet.

#134 Shawn333

Shawn333

    Village Elder

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 August 2007 - 03:02 PM

Thanks for the input Jim and Leslie. ( I tried to edit the post to add this but it wouldn't let me.)

#135 73Shovel

73Shovel

    Junior Villager

  • New Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC
  • Interests:There's nothing like being under the great southwest sky...an experience that proves we are not alone. Around 2am on an old v-twin, with a pocket full of sticks, puts you in touch. You have a band of brothers that are in it for the speed, travel and respect. Spirits are cool. <br /><br />~ Radio<br />~ Speed<br />~ FLH Shovel Head<br />~ Guitars<br />~ Cadillac's<br />~ Hillbilly Music<br />~ Spiritography<br />~ My Life<br />~ Friends &amp; Family<br />~ Art<br />~ Creative Energy<br />~ Life

Posted 15 August 2007 - 08:45 PM

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.



Shawn333: to clarify...I wasn't making the claim that film could not capture a spirit, although it could certainly be explored.

I was simply pointing out that there is no compelling photo on film and there are digital photo's that are very impressive, like nothing ever seen on film.

KCRguns is stating that digital is not valid evidence and that's just wrong.

Seems to me that from the get go of this thread, digital was dismissed as irrelevant...in turn casting a shadow over the credibility of the most recognized work that exists currently.

Just like a guitarist makes music with a guitar they prefer, the person that makes contact, chooses their preferred tool to capture the event.

In the end... it's the results that matter.

As for the "proof" factor...the real thing will put that to rest. There will be no doubt about what you are seeing because it's more than just a photo...it's an actual "live" link.

But since this thread is "Film or Digital," I guess there is no getting away from the same old arguments.
Funny how things work out...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users