[Saru]

To get this area of the board started off, i thought we could start with a true classic.

This picture is the 'Brown Lady', a photograph taken in Raynham Hall in England, in 1936. The ghost had been seen for centuries, one famous encounter in particular involved George IV awaking in the night to see a ghostly woman in brown standing beside the bed.

The picture itself was taken by two photographers, Indra Shira and Mr. Provand, who had been employed by Lady Townsend to take photographs of the interior of the house. They were taking pictures of the stairs when Shira witnessed the apparition of the Brown Lady floating down the staircase. He asked Provand to take a picture, who while unable to see the entity pointed his camera at the stairs and took a picture. The result is one of the most famous ghost photographs ever.



So is this a genuine picture of a ghost ? If not, then what does the photograph show ? Is it an attempt at an early hoax, a double exposure or is there another explanation ?

[darkknight]

yep...thats old pic and famous one at that...mostly new photos are very hard to prove with latest software which can be used to make ghost...

[Saru]

Very true, the older the photograph the less chance of it being a fake, nobody can very well scream 'photoshop' as a response to this one.

[Wrighty]

I think that is real.

But in the 19th century there was a phase of hoax spiritual photography.

[darkknight]

Wrighty, on Nov 14 2005, 08:12 PM, said:

I think that is real.

But in the 19th century there was a phase of hoax spiritual photography.

interesting...

[Wrighty]

Thats what I mean, it changes everything.

[Saru]

That alone isn't enough to conclude that this is a hoax though, so in order to determine the genuinity of this picture we'd need to look at other details.

I can't say i've seen any similar ghost pictures from that period, none that i could immediately compare it too.

[Wrighty]

It could be one frame of a film superimposed on top of another.

[darkknight]

nope...cant be possible.

[Elfstone]

Great topic!

The pic couldn't be one frame of a film superimposed over another because it wasn't a frame from a film. It was an exposure on standard film that was widely examined by photographic experts at the time. They had the negative to study and concluded that there was nothing done to manipulate the image.

This case brings up something that has always puzzled me about ghost pictures. Indre Shira saw the ghost but Captain Provand did not. You could attribute that to different levels of sensitivity, if it weren't for the fact that the camera caught something. I do not believe that a camera can be "sensitive" in that respect, nor that it can be affected by the supposed sensitivity of the people operating it. (And in this case the person operating it was the one who didn't see the ghost.) A camera is a mechanical device which works according to well-established principles. If it caught something and the experts say the image was not tampered with, there must have been something there to reflect light. So why didn't Provand see it?

[Zane Zackerly]

In those days you could do a "double exposure" because the camera's aperture had to be open longer to take the shot. You open the aperture for a few seconds on the stairs, then do the same for just an instant on your "ghost" figure. The result is a transparent figure superimposed on the stairs.

I'm not saying the photo is fake, but that's how you'd do it.

[darkknight]

hard to say.... there were many fakes and real ones.

[Elfstone]

Zane Zackerly, on Nov 14 2005, 04:50 PM, said:

I'm not saying the photo is fake, but that's how you'd do it.

Yes, there were a number of ways to produce fake ghost photographs. (I was going to go into them, but I think I'll start a separate topic for that. ) The thing is, though, the photographic experts who examined the Brown Lady photo were well aware of these techniques and ruled them out. Also, the picture wasn't taken in private in a studio, as I understand. It was taken in this big country house during the daytime, presumably when there were a lot of people (servants, etc.) around.

For the photographers to fake the picture as you've suggested they'd either have had to have the collusion of everyone who was in the house at the time (and surely someone would have eventually talked?) or they'd have to have re-exposed the film later in another location. If they did that, how did they line up the figure so well with the image of the staircase?

[darkknight]

Elfstone, on Nov 15 2005, 08:09 AM, said:

the picture wasn't taken in private in a studio, as I understand. It was taken in this big country house during the daytime, presumably when there were a lot of people (servants, etc.) around.

For the photographers to fake the picture as you've suggested they'd either have had to have the collusion of everyone who was in the house at the time (and surely someone would have eventually talked?) or they'd have to have re-exposed the film later in another location. If they did that, how did they line up the figure so well with the image of the staircase?

interesting point...

[Saru]

Quote

Indre Shira saw the ghost but Captain Provand did not. You could attribute that to different levels of sensitivity, if it weren't for the fact that the camera caught something. I do not believe that a camera can be "sensitive" in that respect, nor that it can be affected by the supposed sensitivity of the people operating it. (And in this case the person operating it was the one who didn't see the ghost.) A camera is a mechanical device which works according to well-established principles. If it caught something and the experts say the image was not tampered with, there must have been something there to reflect light. So why didn't Provand see it?

Thats a really good point, there had to be something in front of the camera in order for it to appear in the picture. It doesn't explain how Provand was unable to see anything at all, unless the 'sensitivity' in this case prevented him from seeing what was there, sort of like a reverse effect.

[Angry Pirate Ghost]

If it has been around for so long, then it must be a very well done fake to fool so many experts. I would have to say the evidence points to this being a photo of a real spirit.

[Zane Zackerly]

Angry Pirate Ghost, on Nov 15 2005, 09:16 AM, said:

If it has been around for so long, then it must be a very well done fake to fool so many experts. I would have to say the evidence points to this being a photo of a real spirit.

I attended a seminar once where a couple of people claimed to have run into the Brown Lady. They said she descended the stairs just like in the photo and turned to look at them. You could see her face, but there were no eyes--only eye sockets.

I always thought that was an interesting story. They said they were scared to death.

[Mr Ed]

This one looks pretty eiree, but the best old one I have seen is the picture of a ghost behind men in army uniforums getting their picture taken.

[Zane Zackerly]

Mr Ed, on Nov 15 2005, 09:48 AM, said:

This one looks pretty eiree, but the best old one I have seen is the picture of a ghost behind men in army uniforums getting their picture taken.

Here's my favorite: the Tulip Staircase ghost.

Attached File(s)

•  ghost11.jpg (37.52K)
  Number of downloads: 48

[Mr Ed]

That one is pretty cool, much more striking than the Brown Lady one.

This is the one that I was talking about...