This from the person who sent it in:
For many years it has puzzled me to what it might be. Here i am as a bridesmaid
(the small one) and beside me is what i feel is a girl looking at another girl, at my
Aunt & Uncles wedding. The Church is in Church Aston in Newport Shropshire. I
remember very distincly feeling sad, cold and would not move. The ‘ghost’ is the white figure standing with a vail over her head, which could indecate the period she lived in (1887)?? I noticed whilst looking around the graveyard that there were no ‘Angel’s’ or headstones. Although, i noticed that there were three graves of children that died a year one after another.
What do you think? Comment and vote now!
Ghostly photographs from Hauntings 
March 11, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
Were there three or four bridesmaids? I can see a couple of things that might or might not be what we are supposed to be looking for, but would like to know just how many girls in pink there actually were present before making an informed comment!
March 11, 2009 at 11:50 pm |
Four. The ‘ghost’ is the white figure to the far left.
June 25, 2010 at 11:56 am |
ghosts do exist!
March 11, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
Thanks, Richard. To me, that looks like a gravestone. It has the ornate carving reminiscent of late Victorian tombstone architecture, and you can see the lighter areas where moss and lichen are growing. Being honest, the slightly taller of the two younger bridesmaids looks rather pale and “out of place” to me!
March 13, 2009 at 12:16 pm |
Hi, everyone thankz for all comments! Some are so funny! Just to let u know that i checked the Church and with the Priest that there were no Tombstone or Headstone present during or after that time of photo…There is no fence or gate there either just a lawn.
June 4, 2010 at 5:13 am |
I looks like it is a ghost. It’s not a gravestone, and some details make it NOT look like a gravestone.
March 12, 2009 at 12:16 am |
i agree looks like a gravestone … like leaning on one side .. verry old ..
March 12, 2009 at 12:59 am |
Oh wow, I went to school in Newport Shropshire.
Looks like a photo of a wall taken from above, odd.
March 12, 2009 at 3:34 am |
looks to me as ythough there is a ghostly figure clad in a long loose veil or cape standing beyond the headstone.
March 12, 2009 at 4:02 am |
I think ,there is a verry old barrier.
March 12, 2009 at 4:49 am |
That’s a gate isn’t it?
March 12, 2009 at 5:12 am |
Quite possibly genuine. Film and (nowadays) digital photography have been shown to pick up images that persons present swear they did not perceive. Both film and digital camera sensors have a spectrum response different from the human eye.
March 14, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
A “spectrum response different from the human eye.”? Is that even supposed to make sense? Cameras (both film and digital) record electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum and that’s it. Just because people are unobservant doesn’t mean there are ghosts.
And for the life of me I can’t find this “girl in white” everyone’s babbling about, all I see is a broken-down old fence.
March 14, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Not only that but both film and digital cameras respond to well known parameters – if the human eye doesn’t see it is doubtful the camera will
March 16, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Actually there are quite a lot of films with various spectrum sensitivities. The two most obvious and extreme examples would be Orthochromatic B&W film and IR-sensitive films like SFX (in B&W) and the no longer produced Kodak EIR films.
In IR-sensitive films, there’s an extended red sensitivity in its response-curve. With filtering, you can allow just this extended sensitivity to be seen. Landscapes taken in B&W IR-sensitive films tend to have very white, almost ghostly glowing foliage of plants/trees/grass due to the heat reflected from the sun and from their internal processes of photosynthesis. In IR-sensitive colour films, you could get vivid red/magenta foliage, bright blues, alien-like landscapes. No photoshop trickery!
Even in some digital cameras the sensors are quite sensitive to IR to the point that most have an IR blocking filter permanently installed over the sensor. One of my older digital cameras lacks this so you can point it at, say, your standard tv remote control front, press a button and watch it flash a nice light blue at you. Making the invisible IR visible.
In orthochromatic film, which is what was first producing with wet-plate collodion photography, there’s actually very little to no red response on the film, which can produce black lips on a model wearing red lipstick (again in black and white photography).
There are also various UV filters out there so you can see what bees see – the special UV markings on various flowers.
However, in regards to the original photo, it’s total bunk, that’s a fence. People will see what they want to see.
If you want to see what i mean about spectral sensitivity curves, look at the last page of the data sheet for some Ilford/Harman films like SFX vs. FP4+ as an example.
March 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm |
Erm, which is what? Less than rather than more than for the average camera, especially an old film camera that this must have been
March 17, 2009 at 6:36 am
Heather S (and Lachwen, Jinbofin), what a pleasure to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about! In these digital days, had no idea that Ilford’s FP4, PanF etc and their IR emulsions were still available. Takes me back years to the scientific photography module of my general science degree, taught by a chap who used to work at Ilford.
A couple more extreme examples of weird spectral sensitivity are litho film, used in printing (no idea if it still is though), which is very blue-end sensitive and with vicious contrast – black OR white; and, of course, X-Ray-sensitive emulsions.
For those non-scientists here, X-Rays are nothing special, just high frequency ‘light’, up beyond the blue and UV end of the spectrum, but before you get to gamma radiation (that’s the nuclear stuff). The rubbish human eye can only ‘see’ a small part of all this. We construct a model in our brains in what we call ‘colour’, no doubt because that’s all we need to survive on this ridiculous planet. Evolution ignored the rest.
None of this has any relevance to ghost hunters. All the stuff one hears about ‘cameras can pick up things the eye can’t see’ is just nonsense from people who don’t understand how film emulsions work. And not many people load X-ray, UV or IR film into their happy snaps camera.
March 12, 2009 at 6:33 am |
I suggest a double exposure due to faulty film advance. The ‘Ghost’ image is of a bridesmaid taken before or after this shot. Examination of the original negative strip would elucidate.
cf. The Edinburgh Castle cannon picture.
March 12, 2009 at 7:00 am |
I see a normal photograph.
I wish there was a voting option for “Ordinary Photo, nothing special to it”.
March 12, 2009 at 7:46 am |
Normal to me… Lol agree with the one brides made looking a little odd.. hehe, her face it rather ghostly… 🙂
March 12, 2009 at 8:30 am |
sieeee
March 12, 2009 at 8:30 am |
sieee
March 12, 2009 at 10:05 am |
it looks like a ghostly fence. Do fences come back as ghosts?
March 12, 2009 at 10:49 am |
First one I’ve seen so far that seems genuine.
Of course we have the suggestion here of an old photograph, which implies that no digital trickery could have been used… And IF digital trickery was used, it’s very well done to be fair.
The only thing I’d say here is that the famous picture of The Staircase Ghost (paranormal fans will know the one) is similar and was easily replicated using exposure techniques.
Anyways good picture very interesting.
March 12, 2009 at 11:58 am |
I much prefer older photographs of ‘ghosts’ if only to debunk the orbs and photoshop ‘ghosts’ of recent day.
However, faulty instamatic cameras of the day were prone to ‘ghosting’ (haha, no pun intended) from previous photographs taken. Remember how you had to wind the film on every time you took a photo?
The fact that the ghost is also dressed in a gown type shape further reinforces this theory. Perhaps if the ghost were dressed in a military gas mask or something seemingly unfitting to a wedding then you could argue it is a ghost.
March 12, 2009 at 1:44 pm |
where are we supposed to be looking?
all i see is a normal picture with a bride and four bridesmaides with a wall on the left.
March 12, 2009 at 3:19 pm |
Its a very odd shape. Its not a head stone, when dropped into photoshop its obviously not a headstone or a person. Could be part of a misalligned fence or a lighting issue. Its outside, I assume on a summery day, light bounces aorund quite freely and creats all sorts of interesting shapes and patterns.
March 12, 2009 at 3:20 pm |
My spelling is aweful!
March 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm |
Could be a double exposure – too vague to tell
March 12, 2009 at 6:06 pm |
where is this ghost at the far left there is a gravestone.. if you are thinking thats a ghost you’re blind, seriously? no ghost in this picture
March 12, 2009 at 10:10 pm |
You need to read the explanation before the picture, the woman says there were no gravestones or statues present. The picture does look like a double exposure or whatever you call it, but the best way to check this one would be to go to the church and see if there are gravestones.
March 12, 2009 at 10:11 pm |
Not because the woman is lying or anything, but because she might have remembered wrongly.
March 12, 2009 at 10:53 pm |
the ghost is the bride lol
March 13, 2009 at 3:26 pm |
It’s a white fence! You are not going to take a picture of the bride next to a grave-stone. Defo not a ghost figure.
March 13, 2009 at 10:32 pm |
I live just up the road in Ashworth Way !
Must admit it looks like the back of a white iron bench to me.
Nice to see the photo though. Looks like late 70s early 80s?
March 13, 2009 at 10:38 pm |
Its obviously something that moved in the frame during the exposure. Loo at the pattern carefully. It looks like something straight and elongatred that moved upwards and to the right during exposure. No idea where the veil is coming from. Normal explanation.
March 14, 2009 at 5:23 am |
looks like a gate t
March 14, 2009 at 5:34 am |
Why is it that so many of those sending in these photographs seem to be illiterate?
March 14, 2009 at 5:51 am |
Hmm, yes, is there a correlation there?
Oh right, 1887. I had no idea that ‘vail’ fashions were so fast-moving. The Spring or Autumn collection? Or 3rd August at 11.34 in the morning? 🙂
March 14, 2009 at 7:07 am |
There is no ghost in the picture but if you look in the top right the yellow blob is clearly a UFO. Difficult to tell exactly what type owing to the poor quality of the photo but it looks like a Mk VII Inter-Galactic Cruiser from the Planet Zarg.
March 14, 2009 at 6:13 pm |
Why are idiotic, ignorant posts like this one allowed?
It’s a disgrace that valuable bandwidth is wasted with such rubbish.
Accuse me of pedantry if you wish, but it’s quite obvious it’s a Zargan Mk VIII IGC. With the after-market ectoplasmic drive.
March 14, 2009 at 7:37 am |
It’s a streetlight.
March 14, 2009 at 11:56 am |
nn kardes hayalet dıye bır sey yokturr ınanamıaayın sakınn:D::DD:
March 14, 2009 at 11:57 am |
bunu yazan bır ınsan hayaletmı yazdıdıye dusunmeyın haaa :D:D:
March 14, 2009 at 12:48 pm |
Whatever the “after image” is, it looks nothing like a person! It is all in the eye of the beholder.
March 14, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
hadilen çoğu ışık yansıması
March 14, 2009 at 4:18 pm |
It is definitely a stone gravestone perhaps reflect back through the eyepiece, meaning the stone was behind and to the side of the photographer.
March 14, 2009 at 5:10 pm |
Looks like the reflection of the back on a park bench caught in the corner of the camera’s lens.
March 14, 2009 at 8:07 pm |
Looks like a smudge to me!
March 15, 2009 at 2:49 am |
Does anyone ever read the explanation posted with the picture?
It’s an old photo, and the sender identified herself as being the smaller bridesmaid – who appears very young. How many people would specifically remember “feeling sad, cold and would not move.” from when they were so young? Also, she is very descriptive about the “smudgy blob” the rest of us see, even pinpointing it to being 1887 – if you were guestimating something like that, you would be more inclined to say late 1800’s – there’s no way of specifically determining a single year over 100 years back.
To me, this photo had a smudge on it – and someone decided to have some fun and see how gullible people can be…
March 17, 2009 at 3:41 pm |
If you improve the contrats in the picture with any normal photo-program it becomes obvious that it’s a stone structure. Either a gravestone or another decorative structure. No ghost in sight
March 20, 2009 at 6:17 pm |
Finally an intrige one. Looks like a gate or a piece of an old wooden fence…
March 27, 2009 at 12:06 pm |
Its a poorly taken wedding photo, taken in a grave yard..or by a grave yard. There is no supernatural occurences. The lady in white is the Bride, the girls and lady in peach, Bridemaids.
Pointless picture to be honest.
March 29, 2009 at 8:16 pm |
I dont see it!
April 1, 2009 at 1:40 pm |
Double exposure causing what looks like some sort “ghostly” fence or gate…
August 26, 2009 at 10:49 pm |
I’m sorry, i really dont see what your looking at, it says there is a woman standing there, but it looks like a wall to me, im confused =(
September 28, 2009 at 11:54 pm |
It looks like a fence to me and for give me for sounding rude but isn’t Richard a bit of a macho name for a brides maid?
January 3, 2010 at 12:43 am |
dunno, looks like a bench to me.
January 24, 2010 at 4:24 am |
To the people who think it’s a gravestone, why would someone getting married stand by and have picture taken near grave or gravestone?
February 14, 2010 at 2:24 am |
I don’t buy it at all. To the left of the picture it looks like a bench that has been put on some kind of patio. I DON’T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PICTURE THAT RESEMBLES A LADY IN WHITE WITH A VAIL? Unless you are referring to the BRIDE in the photo? Why would there not be a bride in the WEDDING picture. This one is confusing. I STILL DON’T SEE ANYTHING!
May 18, 2010 at 12:33 am |
fake and gay….. thats tottally a headstone
June 14, 2011 at 6:25 am |
Id say with the time frame in which it was taken, and the common dampness of the area in which it was taken, I could see it as being quite easily a problem with the film. however being a firm believer in spirits, I want to believe it is in fact a spirit.All believers know that spirits are most commonly manifested when the situation is filled with high emotion, including joy. a wedding encompasses everything from joy to sadness jealousy, and even fear. It is common for little things to pop up at weddings!
December 4, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
it really looks like something made out of wood to me, like a part os a hedge or gate fallen (not saying that’s what it is). My point is, to me, it does not look like a person at all…