“These were taken in our home in France, just after we moved here in 2004. It was a nice evening and we were all outside and we took a few pictures on my digital camera. The two pictures I’m attaching clearly show ‘something’ or ‘someone’ in the background, and we regularly have the sensation that somebody else is here. We call our ghost Roland, as that was the name of the person who used to live here before he was killed along with his wife and grandson in a car accident. We’ve never seen him, apart from on these pictures where we think he just wanted to come and join in!
These pictures have not been re-touched (I wouldn’t even know how to begin!) – we just enjoy showing them to friends and people around the village, who have told us that the second picture (137) does indeed bear a striking resemblance to Roland…”
Second picture here:
What do you think? Comment and vote now!
Ghostly photographs from Hauntings 
March 26, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
I think that the redness on this photo comes from your camera struggling with the light from the candles. I do hope that you do one day manage to get some fabulous evidence of Roland though.
March 26, 2009 at 4:36 pm |
Essa mulher é a profeta do apocalipse! Já vi em meus sonhos. Mais informações no site: http://www.javiaprofetadoapocalipse.com.
Recomendo que vc exorcize esse site!
J.
March 26, 2009 at 5:57 pm |
oi? eu sou flooder inutil.
Fala serio, o cara posta em todas as fotos com sites falsos (não, eu não cliquei e nem preciso faze-lo).
ao menos tente o ingles, dificil? uh
I agree whit Sarah.
Just light os something.
March 26, 2009 at 8:21 pm |
Voce terá um pouco de dificuldade para enterder minha lingua, mas vamos tentar.
O caso é que, máquinas antigas, que usam de filme fotográfico, em muitos casos, pode reproduzir imagens de fotografias anteriores ou revelam duas fotos na mesma pose. Este poder ser um desses casos, assim como outras fotos que aparecem neste site.
March 26, 2009 at 8:39 pm |
Most modern cameras undertake a balancing act to automatically get acceptable shots in many conditions – however most fall down in low light situations.
Although the image contains no EXIF data I suspect the camera has automatically given an excessive exposure time.
After the flash fired (typically 1/1000th second) the shutter remained opened for a short time, shooting in the dark. Even slight camera movement would force any points of light to trail, with multiple trails following the same pattern. It is common for the photographer to move the camera downward after the flash, thinking the shot is over, in this case this has also caused a duplicate image of the subject lit only by candle light.
A tripod would prevent the camera moving, if this is not feasible increase the camera’s ISO setting – this will force a reduction in the shutter speed.
March 26, 2009 at 11:26 pm |
It’s a ghost, jeez people look at the face it’s not a double exposure. She is a woman and the figure over her right shoulder is that of a boy.
March 27, 2009 at 1:07 am |
Totally agree with Dagmi, it’s a ghost.
March 27, 2009 at 2:15 am |
Os copos ou objetos de vidro estavam se mexendo, a mulher não. É uma foto de longa exposiçao.
March 27, 2009 at 3:28 am |
It could be a ghost unless there is a glass paine in front of the girl.
March 27, 2009 at 4:29 am |
Looks like an old man to me.
March 27, 2009 at 8:26 am |
There is no ghost i cannot see anything….just the camera having problems with the light..
March 27, 2009 at 10:20 am |
The comments above clearly show that this is not a definite paranormal photograph.
Some say they can see a boy, when it is presumed that it is a man, being unable to differentitate between the two suggest that it is our minds ‘humanising’ an image.
Although the author states no touching up or editing was done to the picture, the fact it was clearly filmed in low light, and thus with the camera on a night mode, the image is distorted/poluted by the light.
To justify the image behind the lady, you would first have to accept that she is literally ‘surrounded by fire’ from the distorted candle light on either side
March 27, 2009 at 10:28 am |
This is no ghost, i see no boy, just polution from the light, candles do give off that affect which has happened to me a number of times.
March 27, 2009 at 11:13 am |
i dont see anything
March 27, 2009 at 11:37 am |
Some people believe in ghosts, some people don’t, and some are open to the possibility – I’m definitely the latter.
In this case, I tend to agree with those saying it’s some kind of reflection/pollution coming off the candles. You can see how they’re distorted, just balls of light, not normal looking candles. You can also see the edge of the same effect as the ‘ghost’ on the very left of the photo.
I also agree with the thought that we humanise images .. I see faces in everything .. floors, walls .. soup! At first I didn’t see anything in that photo but the longer I looked at it, the ‘face’ began to appear. I don’t believe the photo has captured a ghost though, sorry!
March 27, 2009 at 11:54 am |
I can see the ‘face’ above and to the side her head immediately.
I see clearly the eyebrow, eye, nose and smiling mouth and the outline of the face.
I may just be interpreting a trick of the light –
but whatever is causing it –
I can see a very clear face who reminds me of Russell Crowe.
March 27, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
OMG – It is totally Russel Crowe. Great eye. He looks like a content, well adjusted ghost to me.
March 27, 2009 at 12:20 pm |
Who know’s, life is a mystery
March 27, 2009 at 12:22 pm |
Who know’s, life is a mysery
March 27, 2009 at 12:56 pm |
This is pretty simple, a long exposure followed by a flash
March 27, 2009 at 12:57 pm |
Not a ghost. The pillar/curtain (whatever it is) behind her is partly in shadow. However, the human mind tries to see faces in things, hence if you look hard enough for long enough a face will form.
I can see what people are saying – and can see the “man” myself. But it is not a ghost, just the shadow joining up with the light to create a face type shape.
March 27, 2009 at 1:43 pm |
It looks like Freddie Kruger.
March 27, 2009 at 3:29 pm |
i can see the image of stand up comedian Bill Bailey. Anyone else see it?
March 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm |
i don’t believe in ghosts but the face of the man as the bright orange over the right shoulder is ever so clear and NOT duplicated of the woman; i would disagree strongly with everyone saying it is the mind humanising the image; its too clear for that, you can make out the features of the face very easily; you don’t need to stare at the image to work it out as a person; its right there, obvious. Whether or not its some kind of reflection from somewhere around her caused by the candlelight; i don’t know if thats possible or not. It does also look like a long- exposure/light thing, and that would also explain why the face is there and people aren’t ‘humanising’ it, hehe.
March 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm |
This is definitely a result of ‘flare’ caused by lights in front of the camera. There is also evidence that the camera moved during the exposure. There are no ghosts in this picture!
March 27, 2009 at 5:05 pm |
there is wot seems to me a gentleman aged around 65 just to the left hand side of your head he appears to be smiling he maybe a lost soul looking for the light to find his family
March 27, 2009 at 7:27 pm |
Hey… There I am again! Astounding…
March 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm |
over exposure !
March 27, 2009 at 9:23 pm |
The scenarios under which the pictures are all taken don’t rhyme with the mindset of an everyday photographer. So it is quite easy to see how fake they are!
March 27, 2009 at 10:44 pm |
Look at the ghostly face. Notice 2 sets of eyes one above the other? Now look to the left above the bright light. Notice 2 sets of ‘bright loop ans squiggle’ both the same shape?
The ghostly face is the subjects own face. I don’t understand photography, but in this case, the camera appears to have taken 2 ‘weak’ images before taking a final ‘fixed’ and clear image.
March 27, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
I totally agree with this!
March 28, 2009 at 1:17 am |
I’m a photographer, so here is my opinion:
By looking at the lights or candles in this photo, you can obviously tell that the exposure was longer and the camera moved a bit. When you use a longer exposure then the shutter stays open, allowing more light to be collected for the image.
If a person moves during this time, they will show up as a blurred and/or see through figure. I’ve done some experiments in a graveyard, trying to create a “ghost” image just for fun and had a similar result.
No ghost here, though I’m a firm believer that something is out there!
March 28, 2009 at 10:58 am |
I read like that news in a newspaper in my country.a google camera took a photo who seem an old time woman. some photos are funny and someones are frightening a little.but we believe that in our İslamism ,souls can’t walk on this planet. maybe some jinns appear like in some photos.but that is maybe.so I don’t believe this ghost!
March 28, 2009 at 9:38 pm |
I think you are right yosunbuka, I think our beliefs (both religious and otherwise) have a lot to do with how we frame things we don’t understand; that is, we find an explanation that fits in to the way we understand our world.
March 29, 2009 at 4:50 pm |
I dont think this is a ghost.I think its been caused by the lighting affects
March 30, 2009 at 4:51 am |
I think Roland’s angling for a 3-way
March 30, 2009 at 5:22 am |
im not a sceptic , but lol it looks as if the orange image is a reflection (mirror image) of the lady i think this just cause a picture can go all funny fronm the light of a candle 😀 and ur face would look very different if it were mirrored and orange 😀
March 30, 2009 at 12:35 pm |
LOL This isn’t a ghost, its been made by Photoshop:DDDDDD Just look at the lady. Do you think she’s a ghost too, because you can see through?:D This photo would been made like this: Open this candle photo and a family photo.Make a layer from the candle picture. Make mask of the woman first, and put it on the candle picture’s layer. Make a layer again. This is 2 Layers now. Now make a mask of the man, make its colour orange by seting up the colour balance, and put it on the picture too. Just scroll the opacity on every layer, and you have your own ghost picture. It’s simple 😀 Don’t be so naive. I belive in ghosts, but this is just a shameful, and shit-like-made photo. I can do better XDDDDDDDDDD
March 30, 2009 at 2:26 pm |
그래도 이건 좀 아니잖아…ㅎ
March 31, 2009 at 4:50 am |
Good lord. This is a long exposure, which has created the intensely bright lights where the candles are. It has also messed with the color. No reason to think otherwise.
The photo was then purposely superimposed over a photo of the woman.
Then facial features were added in photoshop to a ball of light over the woman’s head, but from the first picture I mentioned.
I know this because I’m a photographer. The trails on the candles are due to camera movement during a long exposure. The woman does not have any blur about here, so I can only assume one of two things 1) the photo is overlaid or 2) the woman is sitting perfectly still but waving candles in the air like a madwoman.
THERE ARE NO GHOSTS.
Stop being so simple minded. Logical explanations first…
March 31, 2009 at 2:15 pm |
oh geez!!! Are you serious??? Obviously, Its the camera having problems with the light.
You have either captured a light reflection in your picture which looked like a person. Or another possibility is that since camera was having problems with the light it refracted another image into the lens.
April 2, 2009 at 10:37 pm |
excellen one! are you referring to the red face above your head? it clearly even has a white shirt collar! well done
April 22, 2009 at 10:46 pm |
Long exposure, shaky camera.
Why are people so desperate to believe this?
Look- When your brain dies, you’re gone. There’s no “lifeforce” and there’s no “afterlife” — This is it. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you’ll stop seeing bogeymen in badly-taken photos.
August 30, 2009 at 3:53 am |
I’ve seen that before. It’s a double exposure as well as the flash reacting somehow with the candles (maybe a shaky camera?) My dad is a photographer and we’ve played with different effects several times by adjusting the flash, moving the camera a certain way while the picture is taken (we’ve found out by moving the camera along with a moving object while turning down the flash, when the picture is captured the background becomes blurred while the main image is crystal clear), and several other techniques like that. From my experiences I’m very certain that I would be able to recreate that shot.
October 9, 2009 at 12:43 pm |
It’s not a ‘candle ghost’; the more accurate decription would be ‘ghostly illusion caused by light from the camera’.
December 2, 2009 at 6:05 pm |
Dear, buy a new camera. That one sucks. That’s the explanation.
March 17, 2011 at 11:50 am |
I just say one thing: Where is the ghost?
December 15, 2011 at 7:16 pm |
Very colorful picture lady but your clearly bored. Maybe we should go out for some brews and you can take some pictures of beer neons around cigarette smoke. I need a ride and your paying.
February 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm |
I can’t even see the ghost. Is it supposed to be that red splotch of candle light or something?
March 12, 2016 at 11:49 pm |
I lived in an old cottage an old fat ghost with a candle walked up stairs constantly and an entity grab me under bed put me hypnotise i speak truth Jon bedford
March 12, 2016 at 11:55 pm |
O yes I forgot I lived on an old grave yard in Merthyr South Wales
March 13, 2016 at 12:01 am |
What it was saved me from a big bike bump like a guardian angel don’t want to talk anymore goodbye
December 26, 2017 at 5:58 pm |
Generally I do not read article on blogs, but I would like to say that this write-up very compelled
me to check out and do it! Your writing taste has been surprised me.
Thanks, quite great article.