Comments on: Ghosts and Hauntings 101: A Procedural Manual for the Investigation of the Paranormal http://paganpages.org/content/2008/11/ghosts-and-hauntings-101-a-procedural-manual-for-the-investigation-of-the-paranormal-2/ "From Knowledge Grows Acceptance." Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:30:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Night Owl Photography http://paganpages.org/content/2008/11/ghosts-and-hauntings-101-a-procedural-manual-for-the-investigation-of-the-paranormal-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1236 Night Owl Photography Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:53:15 +0000 http://paganpages.org/content/?p=459#comment-1236 Wow. I disagree with nearly everything this author stated about digital photography vs. film photography. I can PROVE that nearly everything he states about the differences is inaccurate. For one thing he's comparing 35mm SLR film cameras to digital point and shoot cameras, which is comparing grapes (digital point and shoots) to watermelons (35mm SLR film). I don't know what his qualifications for writing an article on photography are, but "I" work in a professional camera store so I know most of the capabilities of many different camera brands and camera models, as well as all kinds of photography support equipment. I am also very versed in photoshop, the digital darkroom, and grew up in my fathers darkroom, have shot AND DEVELOPED both film and digital, and have been a photographer for 30 years. Here's just one example of inaccurate information in this article. One of his claims is that it's much harder to modify a film image to be a hoax, and it's way to easy to do that in a digital image. NOT TRUE. My final project in high school was a "ghost" image, and it took me less than 10 minutes in the darkroom to create it. Recently I created an intentional hoax with my digital camera as a creative project (find it on my website listed above), and it took me nearly an hour in photoshop for each image I created. Most importantly however is the authors claim that you cannot verify a digital image hasn't been tampered with. Not true. My camera is a Digital SLR that has "image authentication", so the original image can be verified against tampering with special software. This is included in mid level Digital SLR's so that law enforcement photographers can prove an image is authentic. I am writing this comment because it bothers me a great deal when someone claiming to be an expert, in a teaching role, leaves innocent people with wrong information that they believe is the truth, and then they go through life with that information. If you have a question about the differences between film and digital photography for paranormal work, hire or gain the help of a local pro who you know and trust. I even encourage you to not believe me. Go use my information to investigate for yourself. Sincerely, Richard Nagle Night Owl Photography Wow. I disagree with nearly everything this author stated about digital photography vs. film photography. I can PROVE that nearly everything he states about the differences is inaccurate. For one thing he’s comparing 35mm SLR film cameras to digital point and shoot cameras, which is comparing grapes (digital point and shoots) to watermelons (35mm SLR film). I don’t know what his qualifications for writing an article on photography are, but “I” work in a professional camera store so I know most of the capabilities of many different camera brands and camera models, as well as all kinds of photography support equipment. I am also very versed in photoshop, the digital darkroom, and grew up in my fathers darkroom, have shot AND DEVELOPED both film and digital, and have been a photographer for 30 years.

Here’s just one example of inaccurate information in this article. One of his claims is that it’s much harder to modify a film image to be a hoax, and it’s way to easy to do that in a digital image. NOT TRUE. My final project in high school was a “ghost” image, and it took me less than 10 minutes in the darkroom to create it. Recently I created an intentional hoax with my digital camera as a creative project (find it on my website listed above), and it took me nearly an hour in photoshop for each image I created.

Most importantly however is the authors claim that you cannot verify a digital image hasn’t been tampered with. Not true. My camera is a Digital SLR that has “image authentication”, so the original image can be verified against tampering with special software. This is included in mid level Digital SLR’s so that law enforcement photographers can prove an image is authentic.

I am writing this comment because it bothers me a great deal when someone claiming to be an expert, in a teaching role, leaves innocent people with wrong information that they believe is the truth, and then they go through life with that information. If you have a question about the differences between film and digital photography for paranormal work, hire or gain the help of a local pro who you know and trust. I even encourage you to not believe me. Go use my information to investigate for yourself.

Sincerely,
Richard Nagle
Night Owl Photography

]]> By: Tanya http://paganpages.org/content/2008/11/ghosts-and-hauntings-101-a-procedural-manual-for-the-investigation-of-the-paranormal-2/comment-page-1/#comment-107 Tanya Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:43:51 +0000 http://paganpages.org/content/?p=459#comment-107 I disagree on one point, that being that an entity can not hurt you. I've had my had slapped (playfully) and then I've had a door thrown open with tremendous force and I've seen objects thrown. Had someone been standing close to either they would definately have been hit and with the case of the door - hurt somewhat. I disagree on one point, that being that an entity can not hurt you. I’ve had my had slapped (playfully) and then I’ve had a door thrown open with tremendous force and I’ve seen objects thrown. Had someone been standing close to either they would definately have been hit and with the case of the door – hurt somewhat.

]]>