The woman who shoots ghosts frauds.
FTFY
Both spiritualists and skeptics want for documentary photographers.
Nope. Skeptics already have lots of photos that donât have ghosts in them.
Reminds me of this image, from the book 13 Alabama Ghosts and Jeffrey which was popular when I was a kid - not really all that great of a ghost story book but I think the librarians liked it because it was tame enough for the adults to accept and spooky enough for the kids. This is such an obvious pre-Photoshop fake but still, her âghost companionâ Jeffrey gave her cred.
Anyhow, anyone but me think that last image looks like the guy is holding a flashlight under his jaw?
:
Oh man, I can think of sooo many ways to create crazy images like this without ever using photoshop. Can you actually get a whole show on that premise?
Itâs just, the thing is, I donât really want to glorify frauds 
Anyone with any photography experience can see how most of those shots were done. All kinds of neat tricks can be done with long exposures.
The ectoplasm shot really makes me laugh. Its clearly store bought fake spiderwebs. You can see him spreading it out with his hands and holding part of it in his mouth.
On the grandmother channeling you can see the streaks where the camera was moved. Looks like the camera was aimed with her face in the center, they started the exposure waited a moment and aimed the camera about a foot to the left of the subject for the rest of the exposure.
How can anyone take this seriously?
Here is a photo of me fighting off a demon from possessing me.
https://plus.google.com/+GaryQuick/posts/TvXWNyihzmr
Welcome to the team!
Oh, you mean with a camera.
âI donât know how it happened. Whether itâs a hand actually getting large in front of my face and I was creating a photograph that documented it, or whether itâs that I was tricked somehow or I had a hypnotic experience and then my camera, through its dysfunction, mimicked that experience⌠I mean, all of those are interesting perspectives. I love that theyâre all there.â
Pretty sure I know how it happenedâŚ
Still donât know what ISO it looks best at.
Besides if I was her Iâd be shooting IR film instead and using a damn tripod.
Itâs depressing to see this nonsense on boingboing. Glorifying the amoral hucksters that perpetuate exploitative scams like these is unconscionable. The author should be embarassed, but the boingboing editors should be ashamed. Every time this bs gets creedance, the chance increases of someone in a compromised state of mind being taken in by some spirit medium promising to connect their mark to the ghost of a loved one, etc.
Jeffrey looks like he wasnât dipped completely in the stop bath. If you donât neutralize the developer, that area will still be photosensitive a little longer. My guess is that someone turned the lights on right after shoving this in the fixer.
Please donât glorify these frauds. Are posts on homeopathy and quack cancer cures next?
I donât think itâs glorifying the frauds. The photos are so obviously basic photographic tricks, it becomes satire even when presented âas isâ
Itâs like the quacks arenât even really trying to make good fake photos anymore.
Oh for pityâs sakes, people. Itâs an article about photographing religious events conducted in dim lighting. Itâs not like someoneâs claiming rape is okay sometimes.
Spiritualism, the religion, is real. Taggertâs photographs are real â motion blurred, long exposures, and real.
I really donât see the need for a shrieking, condemning reaction to an article that says, âHey, this photographer took these photos at a religious event, and thanks to the dim light and the techniques she chose to use, the photos came out just like the subjective experience of the believers! How cool is that?â
The article actually takes some pains to point out Taggert doesnât believe these photos are âproofâ of anything, so thereâs no need to grab the pitchforks and torches with shouts of âFRAUD! FRAUD!â
And Iâm saying this as an atheist.
If it were actually about how cool the photos were, I would have no problem with it. Instead itâs about refusing to state that the photos arenât real despite knowing so. Thus, theyâre open to being used to trick people, perhaps people who are vulnerable at that point in their lives, and perhaps costing those people money/dignity. Iâm not saying SHE does that, but thatâs what her photos can be used for.
Magicians do cool tricks and tell you they are tricks. Frauds do cool tricks and let you pretend they are real.
Saying we must loudly denounce fraud at every turn is just another way of saying âthink of the childrenâ. It also smacks of the Victorian rationalistâs âYou must be hysterical, madame, because Mr.____ is a gentleman, and a gentleman would never countenance doing such a thing.â
Iâm not ready to purge the world of everything fanciful just in case someone doesnât spot itâs fanciful. Thatâs getting way too close to the territory of Zamyatinâs We⌠but wait, thatâs a novel, and oopsie, we mustnât misrepresent reality or consider anything imaginative.
Did it ever occur to you that denouncing the Spiritualists would cut off access to them, thereby removing the opportunity to take more photos?
Besides, ALL photography is basically a trick of the light. Even a bog-standard exposure with regular focus is forcing the viewer to look through a finite, bounded frame through a specific angle. But to denounce all photography as tricks would be ludicrous. At least I hope it would be.
If I canât dance, I donât want to be in your atheist revolution.
Yes, I think fraud should be denounced at every turn. Fraud being taking advantage of people by lying. To be clear, I donât consider telling children Santa brings presents to be fraud. I donât follow the part about Victorian rationalists and how it pertains to this at all.
I donât want to get rid of fanciful things either. The world is full of cool fanciful things. But this photographer is outright lying by stating she doesnât know why the photos come out like they do. Thereâs no wink and a nod for those in the know. This has no relation to novels or storytelling at all.
No, people will be doing cool things with cameras even without the spiritualists. If I really wanted to I could just make those photos myself.
Yes, all photography is an illusion in some sense. Of course nobody denounces all photography.
Nobodyâs wants you to stop dancing unless youâre claiming your dance will heal the sick for $50.00 a pop.
Summary: The photos are cool. I am very turned off by the photographers âOh, who knows?â attitude when she DOES know. It provides support for belief when she knows there is nothing special about them. I donât totally dismiss the possibility of supernatural things, but want evidence before I believe and these are not it.
Also, nobodyâs shrieking. I like the chance to discuss things like this.
Letâs just say that even when I was 9 years old I didnât find this photo very convincing proof of the existence of spirits. Whatever method was used, it wasnât the most sophisticated fake.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
