|
Post by beth on Aug 5, 2017 21:16:32 GMT -5
there is more to see but rather spoilt by the flash lighting but look at the edge of the sofa.. you can see the curve of the arm rest through the ghost boy. typical of d exposure .. the two curves in the material on the far left edge already mentioned theres also an oblong on the right hand top of the table... am still going with double exposure as all the shadows are wrong because of flash do we know which other photo yet It is a bit strange there certainly seems to be something going on. The end of the sofa does not look right, it almost looks as if that boy has ducked down or something like that, it clearly does not look right. What is that thing in the corner to the right?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 6, 2017 4:36:13 GMT -5
do you mean the way the curtain drapes? heavily... and where the shadow is all wrong..its those things which make me think d/exposure rather than ghost.. too many lighting errors.. which happen with flash bulbs of the type which would have been used in the 60-70[taking in the style of pyjamas and curtain material.. or even 80s at an extreme pinch or 2nd hand
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 6, 2017 8:50:49 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, if a past thread was no longer important then it should perhaps be locked, but it isn't so as I am interested then I will continue to answer a past post. that SL... is neither what I wrote nor indicated that old threads were no longer important ..here is what I wrote it matters.. because there is no point in going over old grounds which may have already been addressed afterall would you start a book in the middle ? no because you would miss all the prepwork of the first chapters.. thus starting at the beginning is logical""" so let me spell it out as you obviously missed the point... when commentating or bringing old /any thread to life its best to look through the previous posts to see what views/opinions have already been put forward rather than rehashing old ground... ok? the very thing you may wish to point out may already have been addresses.. so its best to read what has already been written ok ? and finally... my point is valid.. that when reading a book its always best to start at the beginning other wise its difficult to understand the plot or story line..... its the same with threads..look at what has been discussed Hi mouse, I DO know what going over old ground means, so what if that happens? Does it really matter? I post what I want to say regardless. You do seem to nag.!!!
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Aug 6, 2017 10:49:05 GMT -5
do you mean the way the curtain drapes? heavily... and where the shadow is all wrong..its those things which make me think d/exposure rather than ghost.. too many lighting errors.. which happen with flash bulbs of the type which would have been used in the 60-70[taking in the style of pyjamas and curtain material.. or even 80s at an extreme pinch or 2nd hand The table looks like it could be from the 70s, forward. The little 'ghost' boy seems to have a haircut and clothes from a different time, but it's hard to tell for sure.
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 6, 2017 22:56:56 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, I will answer the post that I feel like answering whatever you say. have I in any way indicated that you should NOT comment... no of course I haven't nor would I or any one else ... but regardless of your false accusation . it still doesnt make sense Hi Mouse, There is no accusasation, I did by the way read some of the other posts before I answered. The first photo was deleted by the person who took the photos because the children had halos around their heads. This is what we all have but not normally seen, especially photographed. This photo was very unusual and should not have been deleted.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 7, 2017 3:55:18 GMT -5
that SL... is neither what I wrote nor indicated that old threads were no longer important ..here is what I wrote it matters.. because there is no point in going over old grounds which may have already been addressed afterall would you start a book in the middle ? no because you would miss all the prepwork of the first chapters.. thus starting at the beginning is logical""" so let me spell it out as you obviously missed the point... when commentating or bringing old /any thread to life its best to look through the previous posts to see what views/opinions have already been put forward rather than rehashing old ground... ok? the very thing you may wish to point out may already have been addresses.. so its best to read what has already been written ok ? and finally... my point is valid.. that when reading a book its always best to start at the beginning other wise its difficult to understand the plot or story line..... its the same with threads..look at what has been discussed Hi mouse, I DO know what going over old ground means, so what if that happens? Does it really matter? I post what I want to say regardless. You do seem to nag.!!! I did not sugest you were unaware of the term
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 7, 2017 4:09:24 GMT -5
have I in any way indicated that you should NOT comment... no of course I haven't nor would I or any one else ... but regardless of your false accusation . it still doesnt make sense Hi Mouse, There is no accusasation, I did by the way read some of the other posts before I answered. The first photo was deleted by the person who took the photos because the children had halos around their heads. This is what we all have but not normally seen, especially photographed. This photo was very unusual and should not have been deleted. its a bad photo. poorly set. out of focus and very badly lit by both house lighting and flash which have both contributed to the shadows and colour leaching it is also imo a double exposure.... what makes it a double exposure for me is what appears to be curtain bunching on the far left corner of the table which actually appears to go over the ghost like boy
|
|
|
Post by Scottish Lassie on Aug 7, 2017 6:11:26 GMT -5
Hi Mouse, There is no accusasation, I did by the way read some of the other posts before I answered. The first photo was deleted by the person who took the photos because the children had halos around their heads. This is what we all have but not normally seen, especially photographed. This photo was very unusual and should not have been deleted. its a bad photo. poorly set. out of focus and very badly lit by both house lighting and flash which have both contributed to the shadows and colour leaching it is also imo a double exposure.... what makes it a double exposure for me is what appears to be curtain bunching on the far left corner of the table which actually appears to go over the ghost like boy Hi Mouse, if there was a double exposure, shouldn't it have been along with the first photo where the boys had halos and not with the second photo?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Aug 7, 2017 6:21:33 GMT -5
its a bad photo. poorly set. out of focus and very badly lit by both house lighting and flash which have both contributed to the shadows and colour leaching it is also imo a double exposure.... what makes it a double exposure for me is what appears to be curtain bunching on the far left corner of the table which actually appears to go over the ghost like boy Hi Mouse, if there was a double exposure, shouldn't it have been along with the first photo where the boys had halos and not with the second photo? I haven't seen the other photo so am not qualified to coment .. but it could have been a phot from a different camera and of course one could just have one double exposure on a film in fact that would be more usual than several double exposures with the old wind on cameras it was very easily done .. and some times done just to see what would come out
|
|