Is it possible to get a double exposure with a digital camera?
If it is a double exposure, how come the man is the only extra thing in the picture?
He did exist. I saw him walk in front of me.
But why is he transparent?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/1955951252_d323aa7b5c_o.jpg

Is it possible to get a double exposure with a digital camera?
If it is a double exposure, how come the man is the only extra thing in the picture?
He did exist. I saw him walk in front of me.
But why is he transparent?



IDK
Unusual pic I admit but I can see a pair of legs/feet just to the left of him.
Could all be a reflection in glass ????

Phredd

The 'legs' are 2 people.
It's not a reflection in glass, as I was in the road at the back of Blackpool Tower, resting the camera on the back of a seat (night exposure), trying to get the Circus names over the 3 doors.
The man walked in front of me.
The 2 people belong to a slow exposure, and the man a quicker exposure, so I suppose it must be a double exposure (now I've had more time to figure it out).
Which probably explains why the building is so out of focus (it must be 2 shots?).

ha,ha, that's strange Philip - wonder what happened there :ninja:

ooo its definitely a ghost ! ha ha !

possibly the auto bracketing mode were it takes 3 pic,s at -1 0 and +1

Your EXIF data shows that it was a flash-fired shot of 1/1.3 seconds duration. At 26 minutes past seven last night that's the kind of exposure you'd have needed for that scene according to your camera but you forced flash too ! So the man is pinsharp because the flash caught him but the rest of the scene shows signs of camera shake (because it was handheld ?). There's your answer.

Alternatively, just strip the EXIF data, send it to a scouse wackjob paranormalist and let him have a field day :)

Your EXIF data shows that it was a flash-fired shot of 1/1.3 seconds duration. At 26 minutes past seven last night that's the kind of exposure you'd have needed for that scene according to your camera but you forced flash too ! So the man is pinsharp because the flash caught him but the rest of the scene shows signs of camera shake (because it was handheld ?). There's your answer.

Alternatively, just strip the EXIF data, send it to a scouse wackjob paranormalist and let him have a field day :)

Thanks, AP.
That sounds right.
I love my SONY, but the flash is very slow to go off, so I probably pressed the shutter twice.

Watch out: Tom Slemen will be after you for it :unibrow:

Is it possible to get a double exposure with a digital camera?
If it is a double exposure, how come the man is the only extra thing in the picture?
He did exist. I saw him walk in front of me.
But why is he transparent?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/1955951252_d323aa7b5c_o.jpg

I had the same thing happen to me, see post 47

http://www.yoliverpool.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3861

It,s Tom Slemen ha ha recognise his shifty eyes