Reply #34: These two post do clear up a lot [View All]

First of all, what an amazing space you guys have.

Especially knowing that I'm seeing the chandelier in the original photo, I think some things are going on that are quite counter-intuitive to the casual or non-professional observer.

Imagine that the window is a mirror, because, well...it is. What that means is that the object we are trying to figure out, may not be in the direct line between the lens and the camera; it's likely, even more likely, that it is something dark (or unlit) in the path between whatever it is that is providing light and form in the window (a wall opposite the window, one can assume), and the window itself. Btw, I understand that the chandelier is not lit, but there is a light in that room.

Also, if *it's* image is formed from the reflected scene, then it's actual height is likely different than what you might think looking at the picture (think the reverse of what is happening with the positioning of the chandelier in the picture).

The other thing that may be throwing people off is the thought "omg, that ghost thing is not in the blurry picture taken just before". But there is really no reason to believe that. The second photo is taken from a position to the left and lower than the blurry one. Whether that position change is 2" or 10" or 15" I couldn't say (though there are forensic experts who could get pretty close), but it does change what you will "see" both in the line of sight, and in the imagery reflected in the window. Also, it's blurred out (and thereby "filled in" to some extent, the definition of the dark areas).

Not trying to be a buzz-kill here; I just think the literally thousands of variables in light, light ratios, distance, angle of view, depth of field, lens resolution, lens distortion, film or chip resolution, color fringing, etc etc... that can be identified in any given photograph, are rarely given fair consideration.