Friday, November 28, 2008

Photography 101: Prolonged Exposure



A prolonged (or extended) exposure is responsible for a large percentage of "ghost" photographs.

Behind the camera's lens there is a part called the iris. It works in a similar way to the human eye, allowing light into the camera where it is recorded on film. In most modern photography, this action takes place in a fraction of a second, and the camera records what it "saw" in that fraction of a second. resulting in a photograph like this one:

This photo was taken in 1/200th of a second. Which means the iris was open for only 1/200th of a second. Pretty quick. I had to use a flash, because I was in a dark room and there wasn't enough light to illuminate the object in that short a period of time. You can tell that I used a flash, because the flash reflects off the shiny surfaces of the figurine and the knob of the washing machine.

In the next photo I did not use a flash. I was in the same dark room, but instead I prolonged the exposure time. Instead of a fraction of a second, I left the iris open for a full 32 seconds. Also, at 15 seconds, I removed the figurine. See what happened:
It's transparent.

That's because the camera, in it's 30 second exposure, captured 15 seconds of the figurine, and when I removed the figurine, it captured 15 seconds of what was originally being blocked by the figurine. Also notice that there is no flash reflection.

Many ghost photographs are victims of this quirk of photography for instance, in this famous ghost photo:
We see the priest (or whoever) kneeling in front of the ornate altar. it's indoors and the ambient light would not been enough to illuminate the room for a photograph. The photographer would have had to use a flash to illuminate this scene, but there are no signs of flash here. We don't see reflections of flash off the shiny surfaces.

The only other way to have illuminated the room would be to use the extended exposure, and that's just what the photographer has done. This is evidenced by the brightness of the candles along the side of the photo, as well as the brightness of the light coming in the window above the altar. The longer the camera's iris is open, the brighter any light source in the photo, now matter how dim to the human eye, is going to be.

Now all we need is a kneeling person who is only there for a short time and a prolonged exposure shot will create the photo we see here.

Don't believe it just because someone said it was real, use your own judgement.

The Lord Combermere Photograph

This photograph is a famous one.

Here’s the story. The photo is reported to have been taken using a one hour exposure. It was taken by Sybell Corbett in December 1891. Corbett, who was staying with her sister at the Combermere Abbey, kept a detailed journal. At the time of the photo, the claim is, Lord Combermere was being buried a few miles away, having died in an accident.

1. Prolonged exposure explains the photo, Ms. Corbett even stated that the photo was a 1 hour exposure...case closed...

2. The photographer claims that there was no one in the house when the photograph was taken. Everyone was attending the funeral. This begs a few questions…a) Why did Ms. Corbett, a guest at Combermere Abbey, decide that during the Lord’s funeral would be a good time to set up a photo? b)Why would everyone in the household, including servants, be gone at the funeral? Would the grieving family not need people to prepare for the post funeral gathering? Perhaps a servant sat in the chair.

3. The simplest explanation is the correct one. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck…Your best bet is that it’s a duck. This is an obvious long exposure photo of a person who sat in a chair during the exposure. On purpose or accident…it doesn’t matter, because even though there was a logical explanation, the photographer and her contemporaries decided that it would be more lucrative to call it a ghost photo.

4. Through all the searches I’ve made, I’ve come up with this much about the good Lord Combermere: His name was Sir Wellington Henry Stapleton-Cotton. He was born in 1818 and died in 1891, which made him the ripe old age of 73. There is limited info about him on the WWW. There is some death announcement in the Fitchburg Sentinel on December 4, 1891, but since I do not have, nor want, an expensive NewspaperArchives.com subscription, I cannot see the nature of the death. The little bit I saw said “Sir Wellington Henry Stapleton Cotton is Dead” Seems the headline would say “Sir Wellington Henry Stapleton Cotton dead in accident” if an accident were involved, don’t you think? I would think that it would be worthy of note. But I have limited information.

The Boot Hill Ghost

Here’s why I think this is a total fake:

1. The “ghost” in the photo is a child.

2. The “ghost” is not wearing a style of clothing that any occupant of the graveyard would have worn. He is wearing a fedora style hat. The fedora wasn’t even invented until 1910. However, with the exception of some guy who’s son had his ashes shipped there in 1953, the cemetary has no residents who were interred after 1888.

3. The gentleman with the gun seems to be pointing it in such a way as to draw attention to the child.

4. The staging of the photo is counter-intuitive. Why is there so much space on the right side of the photo? If the child was not there when the photo was taken, why was he taken into consideration when the photo was set up?

5. The photographer, Terry “Ike” Clanton, is a showboater and is trying to promote his little piece of Tombstone, Arizona. It sucks that he has no moral qualms about lying, but as a promoter he certainly has a good motive. Check out his website… BootHillGraveyard.com

5. The photographer speaks of shadow issues. Saying that the shadows on the figure in the back do not match the shadows on the figure in the forefront. They look pretty matched to me. Light coming from the subjects’ fore/right, leaving shadows on the rear/left of their faces.

6. The photographer claims that there was no one there when the picture was taken. I say that the man is lying.