| Remember the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words? That's also true in paranormal research, but often they are not words we wanted to hear. Many refuse to accept photo evidence of the limited data they convey, the ease with which they are faked, and a host of other flaws. In fact, there are so many flaws that one wonders why we take pictures at all.
Here's why; photography is the cheapest, easiest, most portable, and most effective way to capture data. It may be of little use in providing "primary evidence," but there is no better way of providing "secondary evidence." Photos are an excellent way of providing backup-data for your video and audio recorders. A photograph is literally a moment frozen in time. Your eyes can fool you, but a camera sees what's there and nothing more. This allows you to examine your data with a clear mind in a nice safe room where there are no boojums hiding in every shadow. The camera also sees things that you may miss. Many photos show paranormal activity when the person had no idea anything was there. Then there's the argument over digital versus film. Some say that digital images are easily faked, where as film has a negative that can't be faked. Well, that's not true. Faking a negative can be done with a camera, some photos, scissors, pencils, a paper cup and rubber bands. Film is superior for a whole other reason; Pixels. Digital images are made of pixels, which is a fancy way of saying "little colored squares." Under close examination, all you will see are these pixels. The image rapidly loses it's form and pattern. But film uses chemical reactions to light. No matter how close you examine it, you will see the image as is... at least until you look so close that paper fibers show up, and if you're looking that close, you're not seeing anything anyway. Sure, it's not foolproof and there are problems from time to time, but nothing is perfect. Some will say that digital is cheaper to use than film. Well, if you are shooting two hundred photos each week, then that's true. But if you are like most people and only go into the field about once a month or less, and shoot less than one fifty photos in the process, then film development costs are negligible. You'd spend more on batteries for your digital. Here's a secret; get the film put on CD and also keep the negatives. If you see something that really catches your attention, you can have prints made later. That'll save you a bundle and still give good results. And you don't need some fancy $800 camera. An El Cheapo $15 point-and-shoot tourist camera takes photos just as well, and you don't have to monkey around with focus settings or F-stops or any of that other fancy tech-stuff. And if you drop it over the staircase or off the bridge, Big Deal! It was fifteen bucks! Go get another one! But the most important factor is this; video cannot freeze an image the same way photos can. No matter what the resolution or pixel count, a still-frame image from a video will have blur in it. Photos don't have anywhere near as much of a problem. That makes critical examination far more revealing about many important details that video sometimes misses. You can use photography without video, but should never use video without photos as well. Keep going! Gimme More! Back to the Equipment page Back to the main Q&A page Back to the Front Page |
 |
 |
| Why do we use Photography? |