“My wife and I visited Monet’s garden at Giverny in 2002 and as true tourists took photographs of each other on the bridge over the lily pond. After waiting for the bridge to be more or less clear of other people I took 2 photos of my wife, one with a conventional film camera & the other with a digital camera ( these within moments of each other).On processing the pictures we were amazed to see a figure of a woman,apparently standing next to my wife, on the digital photo.
We are both convinced that there had been nobody by my wife, and indeed I had waited for the bridge to be clear(and my wife would have been irate if someone had joined her having awaited her “turn” on the bridge!). I am a sceptical 64 year old but cannot think of a non paranormal explanation!”
What do you think? Comment and vote now!
Ghostly photographs from Hauntings 
April 7, 2009 at 6:05 am |
There are also two people who disappear from the right-hand side of the image. Now either this is three separate ghosts, or people were walking across the bridge.
April 8, 2009 at 1:21 am |
The man (photographer) and his wife (the lady posing on the bridge) were waiting for all the people to clear the bridge in the first shot. Soon after that, the people on the right have cleared the bridge, the perfect time has come for the shot… However, when the photo was processed, there appears to be someone else on the bridge too. Apparently, his wife wasn’t alone, that figure standing beside her in the photo was not there at first!
May 15, 2011 at 4:16 pm
yh defenately the other people have just simply walked away, so he took the photo while it was empty and thn tht woman showed up she looks like a victorian if u ask me.
January 20, 2014 at 6:41 am
We can see the shadow on that figure.
April 7, 2009 at 8:21 am |
My only point is of the beam of the bridge casting a shadow on the Lady/Ghost. otherwise i’d say it’s a good case.
April 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm |
I like it.
The pictures are getting better and better.
April 7, 2009 at 2:07 pm |
This bridge ghost is way better then the puppy’s “mummy”…I mean ghost….I mean come on!
April 8, 2009 at 12:27 am |
i think your wife is the ghost and everyone around is carrying on as normal!!!
April 8, 2009 at 3:43 pm |
I think it was meant as a joke. Jeez, did you miss your medacation or something? What’s with all the hate?
April 15, 2009 at 2:27 pm |
He’s dying.
April 8, 2009 at 1:17 am |
Is there a higher resolution of this photo? I would like to take a closer look at it. I find it intriguing to see that shadows are cast on the assumed lady ghost and the spot that she chose to manifest on is obstructed by vines hanging from the tree above. This is really a good case to look into.
April 8, 2009 at 12:09 pm |
Interesting, the ghostly lady is definitely standing behind the trailing vine or whatever it is, as derekcsy points out.
She also seems to be wearing a long white dress and possibly a hat…that can be seen on the right hand side of her head, is that a tassle hanging from it, or the vine branch that can be seen in the first photo..?.
The only thing I am not sure on is a fading of the vine leaves and branch in some parts, which could indicate they were cloned and added in..or the lady is materialising through them….???
May 20, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
Maybe its Minnie Pearl…
April 8, 2009 at 1:53 pm |
There is a shadow from the hand rail thats hitting the so called ghost and she appears to be solid, so I doubt that she is a ghost.
April 8, 2009 at 3:23 pm |
The photo is 7 years old, it is highly unlikely you would remember something as insignificant as a person in the background of a shot. Photographer blindness could be why you didn’t see it and the concentration of the photographic subject would imply she wasn’t paying full attention to her surroundings.
I’m going to go with a random passerby.
October 3, 2010 at 9:51 pm |
Maybe that is why a strange woman stopped me later and asked if she could purchase a copy of the photo. I thought that a bit odd.
April 9, 2009 at 2:34 am |
why are u all such know it alls? who says this cant be something? what if it is? what if it isnt? who really knows. and for all of you people who say things like “oh its solid so it cant be a ghost”, what do you know? just because ‘society’ says that ghosts are transparent, does that mean they necessarily are? yes, the photo may have been taken 7 yrs ago, but dont you think the photographer WOULD have noticed something as significant as a full grown woman standing RIGHT NEXT to his wife in a long dress? its not like a bug flying past, its an entire person right, RIGHT next to his wife. pretty hard to miss IMO! you guys need to stop being so harsh and critical and stop 100% opposing the idea of any sort of phenomenon in any of these photos. are u only here to DISPROVE all of this? or have an open mind also? come on….
April 9, 2009 at 2:35 am |
oh and also, forgot to add, but the ‘person’ or whatever isnt passing by. she is standing still, facing the camera, not walking by. copy this image and enhance it.
April 9, 2009 at 6:45 am |
I am a scepic but one who is looking for proof of an afterlife. Nothing would please me more than to find some but this picture is not it.
April 10, 2009 at 11:30 am |
i completely agree with you, it also annoys me when people dont think and just say it isn’t a ‘ghost’.
whoever said that its seven years ago, you wouldnt remember. . i’ll have you know i can remember taking photos .. must have been atleast 9 – 10 years ago and i can remember it like yesterday. so shutup fool. (:
my only reasonable explination for everyone presuming it isnt real and that its fake is (mind my rudeness) .. they’re too scared to face the fact that there is an afterlife and they wont be able to sleep cuz their scared (:
who agrees? 😀
April 12, 2009 at 4:12 am
I steted it was seven years ago and probably wouldn’t remember. You say you can perfectly remember an inisignificant event from nearly a decade ago. It would be interesting to test that as the human mind is very bad at remembering- its not a computer hard drive that remembers eveything perfectly, memories are distorted. I recommend you read Richard’s book “Quirkology”, without going into too much detail there is a section where people were shown manipulated images of a child hood event that didn’t happen, yet upon presentation of the “picture” most people seemed to recall the event, even though it didn’t happen.
You say it is a FACT that there is an afterlife, could you please present us with the proof of that please? Something repeatable, something testable, something other than personal biased experience.
Skeptics are a lot more open minded than you accuse us of being. We accept the possibility of things being true on the condition that evidence is provided. If it were prooven 100% that an afterlife exists- BRILLIANT! that would be amazing (a little boring after a millenia or two but still a revolutionary event).
In order to accept these possibilites (on presentation of evidence) we have to be open minded. By refusing to accept the possibility that there may NOT be an afterlife you are actually the close minded one.
Alex
April 9, 2009 at 6:40 am |
The ‘ghost’ has a handbag….a modern leather one by the look of it. You can clearly see the strap on her right shoulder and then the outline of the bag further down.
For me,this is just another tourist who wandered into shot.
Of course for all we know ghosts do carry bags.
April 9, 2009 at 6:46 am |
SCEPTIC apologies for spelling.
April 9, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
Dont these people have anything better to do than to be posting these fake, doctored photos on here. Give me a break, the picture is fake, nice try though.
April 9, 2009 at 5:07 pm |
Hi Cam,
the’handbag strap’ is what I am taking to be a tassle from the hat or part of the vine that trails down. The dress and hat gives me the impression of another time 1920’s – Edwardian or earlier.
I have even wondered if this could be a lady from the late 18th early 19th century.
April 9, 2009 at 7:40 pm |
Hello Cristina.. I zoomed in to 400% and I am certain its a handbag and that she is resting her right hand on it.
I can see where the clothing appears to be Edwardian.
April 10, 2009 at 1:28 am |
i am not saying that this is a 100% genuine ghost pic, all i am saying is that people here are spending more time trying to disprove this based on things that they think they know, when in actual fact they don’t know. what scientific proof is there that a “ghost” can’t appear solid? how would you know this as fact?? the fact of the matter is that none of us know any of this to be 100% fact. ‘ghosts’ appear in many different forms to many different people and one person can know no more or no less than another based on ‘fact’ when it comes to this topic. all we can use is our human perception, which really may not be logical in that realm… we just dont know.
May 8, 2009 at 1:20 pm |
What scientific proof is there that ghosts even exist? You’re making a jump by asking “what scientific proof is there that a “ghost” can’t appear solid”.
You assume A, that ghosts exist
You assume B, that they can be caught on camera
And then you make your statement and solid vs non solid. Until we have proven A one way or another anything else including ghost photographs, mediums, psychics and the nonsense of EMFs and EVP must be reserved as flights of fantasy.
There is no point asking what evidence there is for the solidity of ghosts before we ascertain whether ghosts even exist.
April 11, 2009 at 12:13 am |
As the submitter stated, they had been waiting to get a shot of the wife alone on the bridge.. BOTH the wife and her husband taking the photograph would have seen this woman if she had walked up, stood there, and looked down into the river. They are right beside each other. Even if the wife isn’t looking in the ghost-lady’s direction, we all know that we can sense the presence of other people at times without having to actually see them. I certainly know that I can. This IS mysterious, intriguing, and certainly not one that can be easily dismissed as “Photographer blindness” or photoshop. I suggest the skeptics take more time to consider the possibilities.
April 12, 2009 at 4:17 am |
Photographer blindness IS a perfect explanation as to why the photographer didn;t notice it, as for the subjct we don;t know how much she was concentrating. The problem is with ghost pictures is we only have the word of the person taking/ submitting the picture. We have just one person making the claim, someone we don’t know and have never met. I’m not saying this eprson is lying, I don’t think they are, I just don’t think they perfectly remember the incident.
The whole reason people are quick to shoot these things down is that if we ever are presented with real proof of ghosts and an afterlife, we want it to be watertight.
April 12, 2009 at 3:59 pm |
THIS IS ALL RUBBISH, U GUYS ARE ALL EGGS AND GO SUCK ON SOME EGSS U ALL MUSHROOM HEADSSS CANT GET A LIFE RATHER THEN LOOK AT SOME BLOODY PICTURES WITHH WHAT THOUGHT TO BE ‘GHOSTS’ GOOO AND GET A LIFEE AND SOME MEDICATIONS U MOSHROOM HEADED EGG SUCKING FREAKS !!!!
April 30, 2009 at 12:36 pm |
Thanks all of us ‘eggs’ will take your advice on board and go get us some ‘medications’ as you suggest.
September 15, 2009 at 1:56 pm |
…….and maybe go and get a better education like yourself? You clearly did well at school, I’m guessing you aced every English spelling test too 😀 People who post stuff like this always make me laugh because, while calling other people names, they look ridiculous with bad spelling and text speak :D:D:D
October 11, 2009 at 4:56 am |
Wow, what an educated intellect. I’m impressed with your well versed post, spelling and grammer, not to mention your excellent use of the english language. I imagine your life is spent somewhere at the bottom of a bottle by the sound of you……………….
Oh, BTW it’s spelled “mushroom” NOT “moshroom” idiot.
May 19, 2010 at 6:34 pm |
Ill promise to get medications, if you will get spelling and grammar lessons. LMAO
April 13, 2009 at 2:16 am |
What I can’t stand is the condescending attitudes of some. As someone else pointed out, the figure is standing right next to the woman – not passing by. The man stated he purposefully waited for the bridge to be clear. The woman did not notice someone stop and stand that close to her? The man did not notice a woman standing next to his posing wife? They did not look at that picture after it was taken? It was a digital camera, you think they waited 7 years to look at the picture? You think they let that digital image sit in their camera 7 years? When he states they were surprised to see the woman after processing the film there is no reason to believe he is not referring to having done so back then.
The man clearly states how careful he was to make sure all was clear, clearly states how irate his wife would have been to have a stranger just come and spoil her picture. It is not only condescending to indicate they were just unobservant but not even a very good argument. The woman is clearly standing there, not passing by.
If a person wants to say, “I can’t say I believe this because I have no way of knowing if the person is telling the truth” or “I have no way of knowing if it was digitally altered”, that is one thing. We have no way of knowing that about any of these photos.
April 30, 2009 at 12:47 pm |
First of all I don’t think that it is condescending to question a person’s memory of an event.
There was an experiment which a certain Richard Wiseman talks about in his book that took people who had never been in a hot air balloon before and showed them a doctored picture of themselves having a balloon ride when they were young. Not only did most of the participants not suggest that the picture was doctored they started recalling the ride and gave in depth descriptions of the balloon experience. I am sure there are countless other experiments that pay testimony to the fallibility of our memories.
Questioning someone’s memory when they are providing evidence that is to the contrary is not condescending it is just good practice.
Secondly the anecdotal evidence that goes with the picture should always be taken with a pinch of salt, some of these pictures have anecdotes saying it was their niece in the pic etc that later turn out to be rubbish. What’s to suggest the anecdote accompanying this image is any more reliable?
What we can all see is the merit of the picture. If you take the picture without the story it’s just two people on a bridge, nothing more.
April 13, 2009 at 3:16 pm |
EGGS- ur came on here too u spastic- what were you doing when u went on this site if it wasnt wasting ur time looking at ghost photos? i think you must be a special needs child. this is fun, which is why everyone is on it. what do you do that is so much better? eat boiled eggs? retard.
nice pic btw
April 15, 2009 at 10:24 am |
I can’t help thinking this might be a local guide – check http://giverny.org/guide/ariane/ at the bottom half of the page, I personally think the guide ‘Patricia’ looks not dissimilar to the figure in the picture.
It certainly wouldn’t be unusual for a guide to wear attire to create the ‘mood’ of the period. Has anyone else been there and noticed guides in this type of attire?
April 15, 2009 at 7:13 pm |
what am i meant to be looking at=S all i see is three people walking across the bridge
April 15, 2009 at 8:35 pm |
You might find it helpful to read the description that goes with the photo.
April 16, 2009 at 8:18 pm |
The funny thing about this ghost is it has a better color to its sking then the person on the bridge does. Hard to believe in this roseyy cheeked ghost.
April 22, 2009 at 5:32 pm |
Isn’t it cool how the “ghost” has the shadows from the bridge on her dress?
It’s a real person. I don’t care what the photographer remembers or doesn’t remember. It’s pretty obvious someone else walked into his shot and then backed out when she realized someone was having their photograph taken.
April 30, 2009 at 12:32 pm |
It interesting that everyone keeps bringing up the point about shadows falling on the ‘ghost’ lady. Are we assuming that shadows wouldn’t be made onto a ghost?! How on earth would anyone assume this knowledge?!
It is clearly just someone else on the bridge. Not remembering someone else being there doesn’t mean they weren’t there it just means you don’t remember. This is a busy location with lots of people and you probably got the photos developed days/weeks after the actual event. What is more reliable your memory or the photographic evidence of someone being in the picture?
What I do find facinating about the picture is that your wife manages to hold exactly the same pose for both photographs!
May 3, 2009 at 8:24 am |
I think the “wife” has been photoshopped into the picture, as someone noticed above. The ghost lady looks very real. Maybe she is just photographer’s girlfriend in a summer hat and dress, posing for the shot. This thin orange line across the picture might have been put for hiding the strap of her bag. The first photo looks unsharp, perhaps to hide that the old woman’s shape looks exactly the same as on the 2nd picture, except the angle of her head (photoshop again).
May 9, 2009 at 11:08 am |
I’m normally a lurker on here but i was looking at this picture and i realized something the apparition is similar to the woman in the foreground of Monet’s famous painting Wild Poppies which was painted in 1873. Just wanted to point that out. Here is the painting i’m talking about:
http://en.easyart.com/canvas-prints/Claude-Monet/Wild-Poppies,-near-Argenteuil,-1873-300141.html
May 12, 2009 at 2:14 am |
It’s so nice of ghosts to show up in period clothing, too.
Here’s a question for all the hopeful believers out there; Why haven’t we seen any ghosts wearing Metallica T-shirts or hippie tie-dye yet? Did the “bring your clothes to the after-life” policy stop some time in the 1700s?
Seriously. Every ghost has a wardrobe to reflect their “origin” — I guess their clothes had a soul, too.
I’m rolling my eyes right now.
April 2, 2010 at 2:52 pm |
Maybe there are metallica t-shirt-wearing ghosts but you cant distinguish between them and the living souls in metallica t-shirts?!
Perhaps in victorian times there were plenty of victorian ghosts walking around unnoticed?!
October 3, 2010 at 10:05 pm |
I think that, in any paranormal discussion, this is a most excellent and valid point. Bring on the Dead Heads, huh?
Two hundred people have died in our river, yet we’ve seen zero ghosts in bikinis and flip-flops.
Bringing me to my next question- Where are the HOT ghosts?
May 15, 2009 at 5:18 pm |
I think it looks like a tree trunk. I think it is.
October 3, 2010 at 10:08 pm |
A tree trunk in a hat? Really?
I think you’re a tree trunk.
April 20, 2012 at 5:46 pm
So your logic is that you will concede that a digital camera can pick up a light pattern differently and make something look like a woman in a Victorian era dress, but the hat she appears to be wearing IS DEFINITELY REAL.
right.
April 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm |
I agree. If you look at the first photo the trunk is slightly visible, but as a green. the digital camera picked up more light and is showing the trunk.
June 3, 2009 at 10:11 pm |
The women is looking at the view, so of course she is looking over the bridge. It’s not a commutor bridge after all, just something for people to enjoy. Not a ghost, just someone who walked into the shot, the person would be concentration on the photo being taken so wouldnt notice anyone walking on. The vines make it look like a better hat then shes actually weraing.
July 4, 2009 at 2:59 am |
Actually no…..you can see from the woman’s arm positions that she is walking past. Probably crossed the bridge in a few seconds. Just another of the ” I’m sure there was nobody else there ” variety that fails to impress.
I’d only really believe such ‘evidence’ if the ghost was some place a person could not possibly have been.
Alas, there are no pics of anyone standing on the wing of a 747 at 39,000 feet. Though I’m sure someone will now come up with one.
July 10, 2009 at 10:27 am |
i think that someone was their and you did not notice no offence or anything
August 3, 2009 at 11:52 pm |
Well… whole point of this picture is in statement “that there was nobody” How can you know for sure that there was nobody?! If I have taken picture like this, I will assume that there WAS somebody who I apparently don’t remember, and I will leave it at that. I defiantly will not go around and scream “A ghost!! It’s a ghost!! I’m SURE that there wasn’t nobody!” Let’s thing about it for a second; what is more likely when you look a this picture: that there was actually real ghost, witch was shown only later on photo (with shadows and all), or real person?
August 20, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
I want to know why part of the railing has dissapeared on part of the Bridge 1st picture left side and then it is on the Bridge on picture number 2? and what is the dark blue+green on photo number 1 tree but not on tree number 2 Doctered Maybe?
August 21, 2009 at 5:48 pm |
the person next to the wife looks like it has vines all around her she’s really creepy
August 21, 2009 at 6:56 pm |
the orange flame coming from the water is intriguing that is on both pictures not much mentioned about them think that is more important than the people on the bridge lense flare possible for 1 picture but odds of the same lense flare being on exact same place would be a million to 1
very important Photo for sure!
May 19, 2010 at 6:45 pm |
Do you think that the ‘flame’ you are referring to could possbly be a vine? I looked at it again, and I think that may be a possibility.
August 31, 2009 at 4:43 pm |
yes! that truly looks like a ghost. the clothes she wears look like they are from the 1800’s.
September 13, 2009 at 3:38 am |
Fascinating photo. The only similar thing is the intended subject. the lighting and vegetation, especially the pink flowers look different, but the subject looks almost identical. i’m open minded but there are some discrepancies, as several have said. But, incredicle photo- very haunting, and I don’t dismiss it!
September 18, 2009 at 12:59 pm |
Within moments you say? Is it possible it was longer as the other tourists on the right seem to have vanished also ? this still doesnt explain the strange clothes and hair style of the “visitor” does your wife recognise her maybe reletive/ friend
September 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
That is NOT a GHOST. It is a PERSON.
October 30, 2009 at 10:31 pm |
I think you and your wife didn’t realize somebody was there when you snap the picture. sorry I don’t think it’s a ghost.
November 17, 2009 at 9:26 pm |
I don’t know for sure about the authenticity of photo, but as far as comments regarding light and shadow falling on a ghost, it is possible for ghosts to appear as solid, so in order for us mortals to see them, light and shadow must play a factor. I have read many accounts o this at ADCRF.org, so I’m convinced there are various type of ways that those from the afterlife appear to us and communicate with us.
December 1, 2009 at 1:48 pm |
Maybe they got someone to come in and stand in the photo then claim it is a ghost..spooky goings on…..
January 16, 2010 at 2:12 am |
You’d think people would have grown out of photobombing by that age…
April 12, 2010 at 9:01 am |
Dont know if this is a ghost. Its a nice piture,and the lady with the long dress on looks nice,but so clearly I dont think they let them show them selfs so clear to us. Or I must be wrong in this ofcourse. I think its a nice picture but noghost on this. I think its a very well done photoshoped picture. And why are these pictures so small and not a high resolution picture. I have seen many pics photohoped pics and they can do wonderful amazing with thith this. yes they can show themselfs in many ways to us,but so very clear in colour Yes they do commucicate with us and appear,but I do not think this is a ghost. I think these are 2 different pics the woman the older one is looking another way then the second one.Looke closely. Its her head its Its a little difference but still its is one.
May 1, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
There are also two other people standing on the picture i don’t believe this
May 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm |
Alsotoday women can wear strange hats
July 21, 2010 at 3:16 pm |
it’s interesting how the colour of the trees and surroundings changes to a darker tone of green when the lady appears. That is usually a sign it’s been photoshopped as the person that fit the lady in was trying to make the surroundings match with the person to look more genuine, But there’s a shadow On the woman from the handrail, Even if this is authentic i would still like to know why the tone of the green has completely changed on the second picture
July 23, 2010 at 11:11 pm |
ghost has no leg, I confirm that
July 24, 2010 at 8:01 pm |
The ghost has a dress on so you can’t see her legs.. :S
September 6, 2010 at 6:03 pm |
It’s clearly the tree trunk.
September 12, 2010 at 3:32 am |
Your wife is wearing fairly modern clothes. But the woman standing on her left.. Is not. I would check it out
December 25, 2010 at 4:02 pm |
Not at all
February 8, 2011 at 4:59 am |
The lighting is changed this pic was taken later in the day you can tell.This is a fake Nice Try.
June 23, 2011 at 2:58 am |
If you are genuine in that there was no one on the bridge next to your wife then this is interesting – this figure is not just walking past she has stopped and looks like happy to be in the shot – no doubt this is not something one would miss. I am not concerned with the issue about shadows as some of the more interesting accounts of ghosts out in the world have been of very solid looking entities, there are just too many dimensions to “reality” – in fact it is photos of transparent ghosts that i am less inclined to be convinced by. – my only question is, more broadly speaking, what do cameras do differently that ghosts can show up in them at all and not be within our visible spectrum at the time?
July 15, 2011 at 5:36 am |
People seem to be commenting without reading the background with any care at all. It clearly states that the first photo was taken with a “conventional film camera” and the later with a digital camera. I think it was fortunate that the woman i question is in the clearer of the two.
August 30, 2011 at 12:18 am |
I am on my android phone, so I can’t zoom in, but the woman looks to me to be legit… she seems to have a sun hat, red or brown hair, a purse on her right shoulder, and seems like she may be holding something in her right hand. But if the man who has taken this picture says no one was there, well then that’s an incredible apparition…!!!
September 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
Looks fake to me just looks like some one standing on the bridge with her,
Paul From
short breaks to paris cheap hotel in paris.
February 1, 2012 at 6:57 am |
why is one photo a bright green and the other looks yellowish in colour makes me think its been messed with on a computer
April 16, 2012 at 10:44 pm |
They have a story similar to this.You drive by a bridge and an old lady will ask you for a ride.If you say yes,nothing happens.If you say no,she ends up sitting in the back of your car without you know seeing.Supposedly this is one of those classic “Scary Old Women Out To Get You” thing.I think It’s a bunch of baloney,but one thing I do think is real is the old tale of “Nessie”.At first I didn’t think it was true,but the way my buddy,Jonathan,described Nessie it sounded so real I decided to research about her.Some of the pics look real.Not real like someone would say about something ordinarily,I mean they looked REALLY REAL!!!Look up Loch Ness Monster.
September 28, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
It could well be a ghost but I think she dressed more like the 20’s or 30’s. it looks similar to the sack like dresses of the era and the hat fits the era too. Remembering the story of two women who visited Versailles and slipped back a couple of centuries for a little while, mightn’t she be a visitor from an earlier time? Having slipped through time for a moment, she may have slipped back. Who knows? According to some present days researchers time travel is not an impossibility.
January 21, 2013 at 3:08 pm |
This is shit. You bitches believe this?
October 10, 2013 at 6:40 pm |
I wanted to tell you that I usually visit this blog on my I phone, when
I’m on the train to work, and it’s one of the small number of blogs that
are watchable on mobile phones, and that is very appreciated.
November 27, 2013 at 11:20 am |
The ‘ghost’ has bare arms and that puts paid to the Edwardian Lady. I also see the handbag strap and the hat is modern.
December 31, 2016 at 6:06 am |
I think it’s interesting that you took one pic of your wife with a conventional camera as you put it and then straight away took another pic of your wife in the same spot with a digital camera. That seems odd to me for one also interesting it’s in the digital pic a “ghost” appears and how much easier is it to fake a digital pic. Not saying you did fake it, but the whole thing doesn’t ring true at all.
Ps. if you didn’t fake it it’s like the other people here have said, you just didn’t notice her there when pic was taken.