PetaPixel

‘Ghost’ Reportedly Crashes Nighttime Shot of London’s Parliament Building

What happens when you try to take a nighttime shot without a tripod? Apparently, a ghost wanders into the frame and cocks up the whole thing. At least that’s what British photographer Jules Annan is claiming happened to him.

The professional lensman was out along the Thames on New Years Eve, waiting for the fireworks, when he decided to grab an image of the lights about the Houses of Parliament and Westminister Bridge. Reported specs: Nikon D800 with a Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 lens set at ISO 400, f/22 and 1/25 sec.

Reviewing his shots later, Annan says he found a mysterious figure (specifically, “a Youth in a red jacket and beanie hat”) standing by the riverfront in a spot where there was absolutely nobody when he snapped the shot. “There was no one there when I took the photographs and it is not a double exposure or a long exposure,” he told the typically staid Daily Mirror. “I have shown it to five or six other people and they cannot explain it either.”

Conclusion: GHOST!!!

“Experts” in the paranormal have been quick to validate the “morose visitor from beyond the grave” theory. Others were less impressed, with YouTube commentators noting that elements of the image, particularly the smooth blurring of lights reflected in the Thames and the streak of blue on the bridge to the right, don’t jibe with the reported camera settings. Also interesting: Awfully empty for New Year’s Eve in a spot about to be bathed in fireworks.

(via Daily Mirror)


 
  • Oj0

    1/25 f/22 ISO400? You have as well have left the lens cap on for the amount of light you’re going to capture. It’s not April 1 today, is it?

  • http://www.eriklaurikulo.se/ Erik Lauri Kulo

    G-G-G-G-GHOOOOOOST!

  • NewYorkEd

    It’s nice to know that when I become a ghost I will be able to go shopping at my favorite ghosts stores and get myself some nice clothes. I like the red jacket with the white sleeves. I’ll pick one of them up when I’m dead.

  • Jasper Verkaart

    Let’s do some math.

    The bridge is 252 metres (826.8 ft) long, with 7 arches, meaning an arch is 36 meter (118.1 ft). The bright streak of light on the bridge is probably a car – moving towards us – covering about 2,5 arches (and further on, driving out of the picture). So that’s a minimum of 90 meter (295.3 ft).
    In 1/25th of a second that car should have driven that distance, at a speed of 90*25 = 2250 meter per second, or (2250*3.6) 8100 kmph (5033 mph). That’s a record, even for an empty bridge.
    Let’s say the car was driving 40 kmph (24.8 mph), that’s 11.1 meter per second (36.5 ftps), so it would have taken him at least 90/11.1= 8.1 seconds (and thus such minimum shutter speed) to travel that distance. As the car is not perpendicular to the camera, it would’ve taken him even a longer time to approach. Figuring the aperture and iso I’ll go for 25 seconds, of which a car drove for at least 8.1 seconds over that bridge during the exposure, and making it easy to have someone standing still a brief moment, creating a ‘ghost’.

    Unless of course it was a U.F.O. on that bridge. That would make this the best picture ever :)

  • Efrain Cruz

    First we need to establish that there are three photos presented.

    Image #1
    This image was shot on a tripod with a long exposure. Notice the light trail in the far right of the sky. It’s a plane. The planes flashing lights make that pattern as it travel through the sky at night.

    Image #2
    This picture was probably shot handheld or on a tripod that was bumped. There’s movement throughout the picture and the water is choppy, suggesting a short exposure time.

    Image #3 (the one with the “ghost”)
    It’s pretty clear that the submitter has lied about this picture. The exposure given would yield a black picture. ISO-400 at f/22 at 1/25th of a second would not allow enough light to enter the camera to make this exposure at this time of day. It had to be shot on a tripod. When you look at the water, you’ll notice that it’s smooth. In picture #2, you’ll see that the water is choppy. A long exposure would smooth the waves in the River Thames and give this look. I believe that the exposure time of 1/25th of a second has been misunderstood and is actually 25-seconds.

    As far as the “ghost”, easy. Someone stood in the picture for more that 1/3 of the overall exposure time and moved out of the frame for the remaining exposure time.

    BTW. To the owner of this camera: Get it cleaned, your image sensor is full of spots.

  • harumph

    “”There was no one there when I took the photographs and it is not a double exposure or a long exposure.”

    Two lies with one truth tucked in the middle. Obviously there was someone else there, and obviously it was a long exposure. Unless Jules Annan is 8 years old, then there’s no excuse for such a pathetic attempt at a ghost hoax. It’s 2014. This kind of stuff was a joke in the days of Arthur Conan Doyle. At least give us some ectoplasm or something.

    Not to mention that the Daily Mail and Petapixel look like completely foolish for even giving this idiocy a mention.

  • Spork

    Early January… slow news time?

  • alex

    Oh wow you do realise how photography works and that this is not a ghost and just a person in your image who walked in for a short time. When I was 12 and on a school trip with a film camera the same thing happened and I didn’t for once think it was a ghost. You don’t deserve the equipment you have to be even saying stuff like that. I’m embarrassed for you.

  • Omar Salgado

    It stands for the APPlication he used to publish this drivel.

  • Omar Salgado

    Or just “clever” enough to pull people to visit his site…

  • Kynikos

    The exact same thing happened to me this morning. I looked at my piece of french toast, and in it were the images of John Lennon, the Virgin Mary, and Napoleon. I went to get my camera. As I was adjusting my settings (ISO 100, f/8, 1/250) my mom ate John, Mary and half of the Frenchie, the fat cow, so I can’t post the image.

    But it happened. Can I get a bread crust featured on Peta Pixel?

  • Omar Salgado

    He’s got us talking about this and asking us to visit his site for more “info”. Poor guy.

  • Omar Salgado

    DollarPixel…

  • Guest

    It’s a g-g-g-ghost!

  • Will
  • Try2

    Please! The horizontal line of light on the bridge clear indicate a long exposure.

  • Cynical Bloke

    Jules, either you are a complete idiot or you are just trying to get publicity. Which is it? It is obvious how this happend.

  • Rocky Shilly

    Jules, maybe it’s too late for this one, but if you want to shoot fireworks, you should cross the bridge and then turn right. Stop wasting your time on Parliament and get there quickly. Ooops, maybe next year.

  • Mike

    Amplify that noise!

  • BM

    Well “gratefull” shows that spelling is not his strong point!

  • Bill

    1/25th at f22 and ISO 400 would have very badly underexposed that scene. 25s at f22 would be about right. It would also explain the blur on the water and would allow someone (the photographer?) to leave his camera on a tripod, walk in for about half of the exposure and walk out again leaving a tranparent figure and no movement trails.

  • Yuri

    Guys i’m ashamed of you all, this is authentic. Why don’t you believe him?
    I was right next to Jules Annan when taking that photo.

    I was able to capture the same frame as him but mine was done with an ectoplasmic filter of 69nm and i got this photo.

    Specs:

    – Kodak Brownie with Carl Zeiss Plannar 50mm f0.7 and 666nm ectoplasmic filter (that’s around 69THz)
    – 75 X Broncolor Scoro S at full power (to light Stay Puft Marshmallow Man)
    – DIN= 21
    – App.ipa= f64 (jailbroken)
    – Speed= 1/16000 turbo (Need for Speed 5-Rally, to sync with the proton beam of the proton packs used by those guys)

    – No tripod (was too heavy to carry around)

    Visit my site to see the original… wait, i don’t have a site… damn girl!

  • G_M

    There is something very fishy about this. The blur on the water and the light trails of the car headlight on the bridge show that it’s not 1/25th of a second as claimed – unless the car was doing 200mph! Also I challenge anyone to photograph this scene at night using these settings. The image will be many stops underexposed and the details o the building invisible. This has been an exposure of many seconds, and must have been made using a tripod, since you just could not get an exposure of that length sharp even leaning against a wall. I challenge Mr. Annan to publish his original unretouced image somewhere, maybe on his Flickr page (which has surprisingly few photos for a professional photographer) with its Exif information intact so that we can judge better for ourselves.

    If he doesn’t, I will regard him as a fake.

  • G_M

    Well publish the original, complete with exif data. There are too many inconsistencies in your story.

  • Pedro

    It’s Petapixel. It’s normal.

  • http://www.tanianeves.com/ kandikills

    Seriously??
    lol.

  • Bill M

    This is a really dumb post… it was a 25 second exposure. This is something that is easily replicated without post processing…

  • jordonvuz355

    My Uncle Jacob got a year 2013 Audi TT RS
    Coupe by working part time online. imp source B­i­g­2­9­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Yuri

    Guys i’m ashamed of you all, this is authentic. Why don’t you believe him?
    I was right next to Jules Annan when taking that photo.
    I was able to capture the same frame as him but mine was done with an ectoplasmic filter of 69nm and i got this photo.

    Specs:
    – Kodak Brownie with Carl Zeiss Plannar 50mm f0.7 and 666nm ectoplasmic filter (that’s around 69THz)
    – 75 X Broncolor Scoro S at full power (to light Stay Puft Marshmallow Man)
    – DIN= 21
    – App.ipa= f64 (jailbroken)
    – Speed= 1/16000 turbo (Need for Speed 5-Rally, to sync with the proton beam of the proton packs used by those guys)
    – No tripod (was too heavy to carry around)

    Visit my site to download the original… wait, i don’t have a site… damn girl!

  • G_M

    The photographer clearly can’t tell the difference between Ektachrome and ectoplasm!

  • J Stone

    If that was a 1/25 sec exposure, somebody arrest that madman of a bus driver.

  • Andrew Tan

    The photo is real but not a ghost.

    The person talk in the video is open eye lying.

    If the photo not taken with long exposure, impossible the water and light reflection that silk look.

  • Stephen James

    This is a complete joke. I teach a photography class, and in it, when I discuss slow shutter I show my students how such “ghosts” are easily made by inserting a person into an otherwise static scene for about half the time of the shutter. This so-called “ghost” is simply a person standing in shot for probably half of the 25 seconds. Also, there are not 2 “P”s in Aperture… who say APP 22 ? I cannot believe PetaPixel would publish something as nonsensical unless it was for comedic purposes, because it certainly is hilarious! Now this guy has gotten all this publicity, and that’s all it is… a stunt to garner publicity. Well done.