Ghost
Photos: A Close Look at the Paranormal
By
Benjamin Radford
Special to LiveScience
One
thing that ghosts , Bigfoot , and UFOs have in common is a lack of hard evidence
for their existence. Many people report seeing these phenomena, though sightings
are essentially stories, not proof.
According
to many "ghost experts," just about anyone can find evidence of ghosts
using a device found in nearly every home: a camera. Ghost stories and sightings
are fine, but what can we make of images claimed to be actual photographs of dead
spirits?
Last
year an exhibition of spirit photography was held at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art in New York City. Several of the pictures on display were created by Boston
photographer William H. Mumler, who first claimed to have captured ghosts on film.
Mumler produced many "spirit photographs" in the latter half of the
1800s, depicting faint, ghostly images in otherwise normal portraits. This caused
a sensation and convinced many people with his seemingly excellent proof of ghosts.
Yet
there was more to Mumler's photographic proof of life after death than met the
eye; he was exposed as a hoaxer when some of the "ghosts" he had photographed
were seen very much alive, living and working in Boston. In the process of his
work, Mumler had simply stumbled across a crude method of double exposure, and
hatched a plan to make a fortune with his fakes.
Thus,
ghost photography began as an unseemly blend of photographic error and outright
hoax.
Ghost
photo categories
The
clear images of ghosts and dead souls depicted by Mumler are long gone. Despite
dramatically improved optical equipment and cameras over the past century, most
"ghost photos" fall into two categories: 1) hazy, indistinct shapes
that can be interpreted as a human form; and 2) "mysterious" glowing
white blobs called orbs.
Both
can be easily (and accidentally) created by photographic error, and the latter
are by far the most common. Books, television shows, and Web sites about ghosts
often include photographs of orbs that investigators (or just ordinary people)
find scary, amazing, or simply puzzling. Orb photos are essentially Rorschach
cards, though the forms are usually white and round instead of black and blobby.
The interpretations of both, however, reveal much about how the viewer sees the
world.
Orbs
may take a variety of forms. There is not one blanket cause for all orbs; many
things can create the phenomena, including insects and dust close to the camera
lens.
In
a series of experiments, I was able to create orb photos under a wide range of
circumstances. Orbs can be found in the most un-spooky of settings, and are actually
fairly common in daily, amateur photography. They are usually only noticed when
a person is actively looking for them as evidence of ghosts. For example, this
photo is one of several images I snapped at a New Year's wedding reception that
later revealed odd glowing orbs. Proof of spectral party crashers, or a simple
photographic trick of light?
The
easiest way to create an orb image is to take a flash photograph outdoors on a
rainy night. The flash will reflect off the individual droplets and appear as
white, floating orbs (the effect is most pronounced in a light rain, though even
a little moisture in the air can create mysterious orbs). As researcher Joe Nickell
notes in his book Camera Clues , unnoticed shiny surfaces are also common sources
of orbs. (As well, flashes reflecting camera straps can produce other ghostly
photo effects.)
During
one investigation I conducted several years ago at Fort George ("Canada's
most haunted place," in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario), I examined a large,
wooden soldiers' barracks where ghosts and orbs had been reported. I took several
flash photographs of the area, and I noticed that the building (essentially a
barn-like structure) was quite dusty. As a television crew interviewed some ghost
hunters, I noticed one orb, photographed it, and wondered what it might be ( image).
It
hovered about chest-high and did not move at all, suggesting that it was not an
insect nor a dust particle; instead it seemed supernaturally suspended in the
air. It was several feet away from the nearest post, wall, or other visible means
of support. The phenomenon was very strange.
I
showed the image to one of the ghost hunters, who seemed pleased that I had captured
what was obviously a ghost orb.
Upon
further investigation...
Not
content to simply declare my orb a sure sign of the supernatural, a fellow investigator
and I searched even harder for a solution.
Sure
enough, closer investigation revealed that the orb was in fact a tiny piece of
dust or lint that clung to the remnants of a spider web ( image). It was a very
unusual place for a web, and had I not traced the long, nearly-invisible line
to its arachnid anchor, I would have rejected a web as an explanation. But it
was a very long strand and just far enough away from the walkway that all but
the tallest passersby would not walk through it. The dust mote was very difficult
to see, and only apparent when a dark color appeared behind it for contrast, or
when caught in a flash photograph.
Had
an amateur ghost-hunter spent a few minutes taking flash photos of that room at
night, the dust would likely have appeared as an orb--and its true cause almost
certainly overlooked as an explanation.
Orbs
seem otherworldly because they are almost always invisible to the naked eye and
go unnoticed until the photo is examined, later revealing the presence of a ghostly,
unnatural, glowing object, sometimes appearing over or around an unsuspecting
person. To those unaware of scientific and optical explanations, it is no wonder
that orbs spook people (as Mumler's photos did 120 years ago). Most ghost investigators
will admit that at least some orb photos are of ordinary phenomena. Still, they
insist, there must be some orbs that defy rational explanation. None have yet
been found. Of course it's possible that ghosts and spirits do exist and can be
photographed. But if so, where's the proof? And why do images of ghosts look exactly
like images of photographic errors?
Ghost
enthusiasts are satisfied with hazy images and orbs, but this will never convince
skeptics and scientists. So what would be good photographic proof of ghosts?
An
authentic photograph of anyone born before the invention of photography would
be a good start: Benjamin Franklin, William Shakespeare, or any of thousands of
other people for whom we have a good record of their likeness but no photograph.
Just one such photo would be more convincing than a thousand glowing blobs. Unfortunately,
all the ghost photos offered so far are indistinguishable from intentional fakes
and optical mistakes. Maybe next year.
Benjamin
Radford is an investigator with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation
of Claims of the Paranormal and author or co-author of three books .
