A Christmas Ghost

Here's a new ghost photo that's begun to do the email rounds. To me it looks like a simple double exposure... but maybe it really is the ghost of Mary's Grandfather. In which case, sell him on eBay!!
Here's the text that accompanies the photo. Click photo to enlarge (thanks to Jennifer for sending this to me):
image This picture is soo freaky..... My co-worker Mary that lives in stockton bought her sister a digital camera for X-mas. Her sister took a picture of their niece and if you look behind the chair the niece is sitting on you will see Mary's Grandfather who past away 2 months ago in October 04. Remember this picture was took on X-mas day morning and I was also with Mary when she bought the camera at Circuit City the day after Thanksgiving. Her Grandfather was creamated and his ashes are at Mary's home. When I saw this picture it gave me the CHILLS!!! If you can make the picture bigger so you can get a better look at him.

Paranormal Photos

Posted on Fri Dec 31, 2004


If it really was a digital camera this effect would have been easily produced in photoshop. All the same, just the look and that guy's face is creepy enough for me.
Posted by Gigi  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  12:30 AM
...Agreed, Gigi. It doesn't even take Photoshop to do something like that--I could (have) done it in crappy Microsoft Picture It!.

I did squeal seeing that old guy, though. My fear of the elderly has just been increased.
Posted by James D  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  12:54 AM
Something is really weird with the chair. Look at her left side (right side of the picture). Doesn't that look like a camo pattern?
Posted by Myst  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  01:30 AM
Keep things like this in mind whenever you hear someone talk how "sophisticated" today's public is. When a cheesy double exposure can fool people into thinking they're seeing a "ghost," it ain't "sophistication" you're seeing.
Posted by crankymediaguy  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  02:13 AM
I'm with crankymediaguy. It's surely a double exposure. She moved her head just a bit; there are a few other double-lined things -- mostly vertical elements.
Posted by cvirtue  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  07:41 AM
If it really is a digital camera, I'm not aware of a method of making double exposures. It'd have to be done with photo manipulation software.
Posted by Silentz  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  12:47 PM
Silentz is right. If it's a digital camera, then it wouldn't be a double exposure. But creating an image like this would be dead easy in photoshop. Just use layers and adjust the transparency.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  02:14 PM
Here is a digital camera that does have double exposure feature built in.


As I recall, this has become a more common feature on the new digital cameras being released in the past six months.

But the thing that makes me think that this pic is photoshopped (but NOT MS painted) is that the visible door frame running through the old man disappears behind the "solid" neck. The p'shopper would have had to use some sort of gradient transparency to achieve this effect.
Posted by BugbearSloth  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  02:37 PM
I think the perpetrator of this hoax should be arrested-- not for the picture, but for the spelling and grammar (or rather the lack of them) in that story.
Posted by Big Gary C  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  03:54 PM
A more plausible explanation is that it's simply a long exposure, of half a second or so, and that the old man in the background was walking past, or happened to move as the photograph was being taken.

As for the camouflage pattern to the girl's left, it looks as if her chair has an elasticated cover on it, with the middle section exposed.
Posted by Ashley Pomeroy  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  05:30 PM
The problem with the long exposure theory is that it looks like the photo was taken with a flash. You can see the reflection of the flash in that plastic thing on the left.
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Fri Dec 31, 2004  at  05:41 PM
A digital camera has a wider spectral range than the human eye, up into the infrared, but also down a bit into the (cold) ultraviolet. Perhaps it can see what we can not.?????
Posted by bo-bo  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  05:35 AM
I'm jealous - I used to dream of getting 24 pairs of scissors and an oversize dressing gown for Christmas. She'll probably grow into it, though.
Posted by Lord Lucan  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  12:45 PM
CXIF tag checked out:
It's a digital camera


File: - C:\Documents and Settings\user\My Documents\My Pictures\grandpa_lg.jpg

Orientation - Top left
XResolution - 386.00
YResolution - 386.00
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - Version 1.0000
DateTime - 2004:12:28 20:20:23
YCbCrPositioning - Centered
ExifOffset - 246
ExposureTime - 1/2 seconds
FNumber - 4.50
ExposureProgram - Normal program
ISOSpeedRatings - 140
ExifVersion - 0220
DateTimeOriginal - 2004:12:25 18:07:06
DateTimeDigitized - 2004:12:25 18:07:06
ComponentsConfiguration - YCbCr
CompressedBitsPerPixel - 1.52 (bits/pixel)
ShutterSpeedValue - 1/2 seconds
ApertureValue - F 4.48
ExposureBiasValue - 0
MaxApertureValue - F 4.48
MeteringMode - Center weighted average
Flash - Flash fired, auto mode
FocalLength - 5.90 mm
UserComment - 0
FlashPixVersion - 0100
ColorSpace - sRGB
ExifImageWidth - 2080
ExifImageHeight - 1544
InteroperabilityOffset - 1792
ExposureIndex - 140.00
SensingMethod - One-chip color area sensor
FileSource - DSC - Digital still camera
SceneType - A directly photographed image
CustomRendered - Normal process
ExposureMode - Auto
WhiteBalance - Auto

DigitalZoomRatio - 1.30 x
FocalLengthIn35mmFilm - 37 mm
SceneCaptureType - Night scene
GainControl - None
Contrast - Normal
Saturation - Normal
Sharpness - Normal
SubjectDistanceRange - Unknown

Maker Note (Vendor): -
Posted by Saintpo  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  12:56 PM
"The problem with the long exposure theory is that it looks like the photo was taken with a flash. You can see the reflection of the flash in that plastic thing on the left."

There's no problem with that theory. It actually explains exactly why the image looks the way it does. Grandpa moved during the 1/2 second exposure, but the flash froze him in that one spot. You can actually see his image blur to the right.

I've got several photos that look like that. I shoot bike races, and with a flash and long exposure, you can get the background to look more like daylight (when the photo is taken at night), but the people riding by appear as ghosts.
Posted by Racer_X  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  05:02 PM
Forgot to add. If you want to see my photos that show how the long exposure and flash look, go to my website (click on my name), go to "Photography", then scroll down a bit to get to "Track racing 2004, updated 7/23/04". I have a couple of "ghost" photos that were taken last year.
Posted by Racer_X  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  05:08 PM
I think they just said it was a digital camera to try and off-set peoples' suspicions that it's a double-exposure from a regular camera - which is exactly what it is.
Posted by Tornado  on  Sat Jan 01, 2005  at  11:14 PM
It seems that there are a lot of other stuff in the background that she could sell on the internet such as the sissors.... how much are they?
Posted by Steen  on  Sun Jan 02, 2005  at  07:31 AM
You can buy the scissors for a buck a piece at the dollar store...but in a 24 pack, I've seen them for $90. (The ones I saw had a special doohickey stand/hanger that you could store them on.) Scrapbooking nuts LOVE them.
Posted by Maegan  on  Sun Jan 02, 2005  at  09:40 AM
Cool pics Racer X...
Posted by Drunk Stepdad  on  Sun Jan 02, 2005  at  12:15 PM
"I shoot bike races, and with a flash and long exposure, you can get the background to look more like daylight (when the photo is taken at night), but the people riding by appear as ghosts."

In fact that's how a lot of concert photography is done for music mags; the long exposure gives the image a dynamic 'whizz-blur' and the flash adds detail. There's a fine art to doing it manually with film cameras, but there's no reason it can't be done digitally as well. This photograph is just an accidental version of this venerable technique.
Posted by Ashley Pomeroy  on  Sun Jan 02, 2005  at  08:04 PM
I'm sorry, but what is that a picture of on the right side of the frame? Is that a framed image of an atomic bomb blast? Seems to me to be tongue in cheek altogether.
Posted by Ric  on  Mon Jan 03, 2005  at  09:11 AM
Am I the only person to notice 5 "Orbs" in the picture??? Also if you look to the center left you will see a "ghost chair" which leads me to believe that this is a double exposure, unless the chair died too.
Posted by Stephen  on  Mon Jan 03, 2005  at  11:21 AM
I thought the picture was a scary yellow wolf face. I'm not very camera technical...but that looks 2 pictures on top of one another. The bottom picture being the Christmas pic...the 2nd layer being the old guy...totally seems fake.
Posted by Maegan  on  Mon Jan 03, 2005  at  11:39 AM
Those aren't orbs in the picture; they are the ghosts of bubbles they blew in the living room back in September '03. Between the ghost of the chair, the ghost of grandpa and the ghost of the bubbles, that is one haunted house.
Posted by rwt1138  on  Mon Jan 03, 2005  at  03:15 PM
The photo just plain creeps me out.:ahhh:🐛:grrr: But i have to say, it looks better than any of those other fuzzy, unclear ghost photos I've seen before.
Posted by Carmen  on  Wed Jan 05, 2005  at  09:55 PM
As a guy who worked with film and Photoshop for 20 years, (not at the same time, obviously) it look like a digital paste together. The Christmas photo is got flash blur, the old man is rather sharp, and have ya noticed he is sort of in Black and White? Just my $0.02 worth.
Posted by mitch G  on  Fri Jan 07, 2005  at  10:58 AM
Tip: Do an CXIF tag check on the picture.
Posted by Saintpo  on  Fri Jan 07, 2005  at  04:24 PM
Saintpo, how does one do a CXIF check? I googled CXIF and this page was one of the first comprehensible things to come up (on page 3).
Posted by The Curator  in  San Diego  on  Fri Jan 07, 2005  at  04:41 PM

http://www.irfanview.com/ your need the free plugin allows IrfanView to show EXIF information from/about JPG files.
Posted by Saintpo  on  Fri Jan 07, 2005  at  05:26 PM
I did a byte dump of the file in debug. This is the jpeg header info for the file.

1379:01A0 1E 07 00 00 45 41 53 54-4D 41 4E 20 4B 4F 44 41 ....EASTMAN KODA
1379:01B0 4B 20 43 4F 4D 50 41 4E-59 00 4B 4F 44 41 4B 20 K COMPANY.KODAK
1379:01C0 45 41 53 59 53 48 41 52-45 20 43 58 37 33 30 30 EASYSHARE CX7300
1379:01D0 20 44 49 47 49 54 41 4C-20 43 41 4D 45 52 41 00 DIGITAL CAMERA.
1379:01E0 00 00 40 30 00 00 20 00-00 00 40 30 00 00 20 00 .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).. .
1379:01F0 56 65 72 73 69 6F 6E 20-31 2E 30 30 30 30 20 00 Version 1.0000 .
1379:0200 32 30 30 34 3A 31 32 3A-32 38 20 32 30 3A 32 30 2004:12:28 20:20
1379:0210 3A 32 33 00 26 00 9A 82-05 00 01 00 00 00 C4 02 :23.&...........
1379:0220 00 00 9D 82 05 00 01 00-00 00 CC 02 00 00 22 88 ..............".
1379:0230 03 00 01 00 00 00 02 00-00 00 27 88 03 00 01 00 ..........'.....
1379:0240 00 00 8C 00 00 00 00 90-07 00 04 00 00 00 30 32 ..............02
1379:0250 32 30 03 90 02 00 14 00-00 00 D4 02 00 00 04 90 20..............
1379:0260 02 00 14 00 00 00 E8 02-00 00 01 91 07 00 04 00 ................
1379:0270 00 00 01 02 03 00 02 91-05 00 01 00 00 00 FC 02 ................
Posted by Ralph  on  Sat Jan 08, 2005  at  01:48 PM
I don't get it. What is a CXIF check? Does this mean that this photo was created by Kodak? Is that what you're saying? I don't understand all this data stuff that was posted.
Anyway, it is a pretty creepy picture. In this day and age, it would take a LOT more than a picture of a ghost for people to believe it. Even if it was real, it's too easy to create so no one would believe it anyway. Personally, I don't think for one minute that it's real, but it's a cool pic anyway.
Posted by Glamcat  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  05:33 PM
Looks FAKE to me,no even a good fake chessy I would say..
Posted by Josh  on  Sat Jan 22, 2005  at  06:45 PM
Obvious-to-see proof this is a chopped (edited) image: Look at the doorway, look at his neck.
Either he's see thru or he's not. Either the doorframe has been hacked with an axe or this picture is fake.
I've never heard of a digital camera making a double exposure - there's no film!

The XIF header can be duped *several* ways, including dumping the chopped image back into the camera. [yes, you can do this]
Posted by Zero  on  Fri Aug 05, 2005  at  06:17 PM
Well...it could be a double exposure... but I'm not so sure... because if you look around the "grandfather" figure, there are orbs around it. It could be the true thing!
Posted by megan  on  Sat Nov 26, 2005  at  04:28 PM
i can't even see the picture it says im forbidden to see it :exclaim: :long:
Posted by kara  on  Tue Jul 31, 2007  at  04:11 PM
That picture is my dochter Isabelle Saintpo born in Oostende 18 /november 1998 ho send this picture
Y am her father and like to know more aboud this
Posted by saintpo philip  on  Mon Oct 25, 2010  at  05:47 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.