Hello all, first post here.

I have a question for all those who claim to have taken pictures and noticed nothing at the time with the naked eye, develop film only to claim that WALLA a ghost was present with proof being some sort of anamoly in the picture. I am wondering how this is possible.

From my understanding, when you take a picture you are in short taking a chemical record of visible light patterns. Chemical compenets in the film, Silver Halide Salts, are tiny light-sensitive grains, spread out in a chemical suspension on a strip of plastic. When exposed to light, the grains undergo a chemical reaction creating an Image. In short if there is no light source you will not get an image, thus if if you cannot see the ghost with your eye, (emitting some sort of light) it WOULD NOT show on film either.

You may claim that perhaps the ghost is emitting another type of electromagnetic raditation that our eyes cannot pick up, but the film can. Again im not sure which one it would be as Infra red, Ultra violet, Microwaves, and Radiowaves envelop us nearly every second. If you say that ghosts are emitting oneof these , and that the film is reacting to it, then wouldn't ALL film come out blurry as these waves are always present.

Also in order for film to detect infrared or ultra violet waves, a special dye must be added to the Silver Halide crystals, so I do not see how regular film, untreated with these special dyes, could even capture infra red or ultra violet light waves. The same goes for X-rays, in order to capture these it takes a very intricate process.

If an image is captured on film, it must have emitted some visible light as the entire photgraphic process is dependant on chemical reations put in motion by visible light. If an object emitted light it more than likely would have been seen by the human eye.

So my question again how can you take a picture, claim to see nothing at the time out of the ordinary with your own eyes, then upon developing proclaim to have captured a ghost? . Or better yet, claim to have captured a hallucination on film, as such was proposed as the in the photograph of the "Spirit bear".

Any reasonable ideas would be appreciated.

The answer to that is very simple to me. Most people cannot see spirits, some can, most cant. But pictures show the image whether we see them or not. For example. One night I happened to see a reddish orange worm kinda thing in my bedroom, near ceiling. I looked at it, and noticed it moved. I thought it was a reflection and actually stood up to look at it, and it moved again. So grabbed a disposable camera and took a picture, this is what I got. I happen to see them and orbs, but the truth of the matter is, it is not about scientific photography or anything of that nature. What we cannot see, the camera can. It is a phenominum just like EVP's. We cannot hear voices but the recorder can..

Do ghost photographers have a preferred medium between digital and analogue cameras?

Digital cameras are used at times, however they tend to pick up more dust, and every tiny defect than other cameras. I use a disposable camera. The team I had here used video cameras, night vision, a few disposables and one digital, for group picture and things of that nature. Then again, ghost hunters can use just about any camera to capture what they sense, or feel etc.

So what you are saying Justnormal is that despite there being an exact process by which pictures are created, ghosts can simply bypass this process and magically appear on film

In my personal opinion yes, they can bypass anything they choose. It's not magic, anymore than them appearing in someone's home is magic. I can relate it, to as I said EVP's, we cannot hear them with our ears, yet a recorder can pick them up. People seem to discuss and deny any paranormal events due to the "science." However my thoughts are, there is no science involved when it comes to the deceased. No one has come back to actually explain what happens once we pass, so science theories go right out the window. Several of my pictures have been examined by professional photographers, and they said seeming as though the images are on the negative, they were not altered, so with that said, they appeared, but some I did not see when I took the pictures.

I'm thinking that because a digital camera's CCD is sensitive to a wider spectrum, beyond visible light. Some cameras are able to detect UV or IR spectrum.

The process you described is of normal film and not digital. A digital camera with a quick speed can pick something out in fractions of a second. It would not surprise me if the human eye could possibly miss something that appeared that quickly. Also, in many supposed ghost pictures, the ghost is very subtle - it can only be seen after playing around with the lighting, contrast, etc. and then the apparition becomes clear. Maybe that's why people say they hadn't seen the ghost when they took the picture - if they had known where to look or were focusing on that specific spot, maybe they would have seen it. Iow, there had been something there but it went unnoticed until the film was developed. (Who knows. I'm grasping at straws, I know!)

I Agree, as I said I use a disposable camera and pick things up all the time. Sometimes it's just random, other times I get a sense. If they are around, they will appear. You are pretty smart there girl

I've always felt personally that it was merely a matter of the intense light from the flash illuminating something that would otherwise have been barely visible, if visible at all. We of course won't notice it in that fraction of a second during which the flash goes off.

That sounds the most logical to me.

I totally agree.

What is this snow looking stuff in that photo of yours? Not the orange (from top to bottom) or the blue toward the bottom, but the snow all thru your photo.. ?