Standards of Ghost Photography

First of all, I'd like to formally apologize for not posting anything for about two weeks. My bad. I just didn't have anything good to post about, and everything usually ends up going on my other blog. Though I think I might be inadvertently cheating. Moving on.

ALL OF THE GHOSTS!

Have you ever noticed how the standards of what defines ghost photography has gone down exponentially since the invention of photography. Back in the day of tintype and early early photography, it would be captured through double exposures. With 35 mm film, it would be streaks and weird faces in the film. Now we have digital, and we have orbs (see above). 

Orbs are not very exciting in comparison to other ghost photography. For those of you unfamiliar, here are some riveting and spoooooooky examples.

Fairly famous ghost photograph. Person is backseat was not there when photo was taken.

Various examples of 19th century spirit photography

Weird "ghost". Ectoplasm? 

The infamous "orb" phenomena

Let the record be shown that I am a sceptic. I have many reasons to believe in ghosts (including some experiences that hardcore ghost believers would be adamant in describing as a ghostly encounter), but I refuse to. I believe that there is always a logical explanation. This belief is mostly because of the ouija board, and my almost periodical playing of the ouija board when I was younger. To that, many people might react with accusations of Satanic worship and all kinds of hoo-ha, but ouija is a game, and works with nerve impulses. If it doesn't, well. I do think that you shouldn't mess around with seances, though. Even if it's not real, it's probably not something that you should tamper in. That just seems like a bad idea.

I digress. Orbs. And ghost photography. Personally, I think that all aspects of the paranormal are incredibly interesting. I have this thing with ghosts, and what it means to be a ghost or to be haunted. I don't believe in ghosts as things that move things around and make noises, but more as a symbol. Still, it is because of my ever-present interest in occult and paranormal things that I find ghost photography fascinating. There are usually good reasons for why the images appear on the film. It can be doctoring, a weird trick of the light, dust on the lens, and so many other minor flaws that create something on the film. However, it's usually not a ghost. I will not tell people what to believe, as that is not what I stand for. All individuals and parties are welcome to their own creeds and beliefs (as long as those beliefs do not bring harm to others, I'd hope and prefer). However, that also means that I am. That includes being quite adamant in my belief that ghosts aren't real. I'm open to anything, but I'm pretty sure that the orbs that my camera caught are reflections off of the snow. That, or I'm wrong, and Charles Dickens' infamous image of the wandering spirits, condemned to walk the earth, bound in chains, forever, is correct. 

Whatever the case, and however strong my scepticism in everything, I will always be open to new ideas, and continue to playfully think about the interesting concept of ghosts haunting this world.