Spirit Photography
From New Age Village
The production of photographs on which alleged spirit-forms are visible. When the photograph is developed there appears, in addition to the likeness of the sitter, a shape resembling more or less distinctly the human form, which at the moment of exposure was imperceptible to the normal vision.
History
The practice of spirit photography originated in America, and has enjoyed a fitful existence to the present day. It was first introduced by Mumler, a Boston photographer, in 1862. Dr. Gardner, of the same city, was photographed by Mumler, and on the plate appeared an image which the sitter identified as his cousin, who had died twelve years before. Dr. Gardner published abroad his experience, and the new photography was at once adopted by spiritualists, who saw in it a means of proving their beliefs. In 1863, however, Dr. Gardner discovered that in at least two instances a living model had sat for Mumler's "spirit" pictures. Though he continued to believe that some of the photographs might be genuine, his exposure of Mumler's fraud effectively checked the movement for a time. After the lapse of six years Mumler appeared in New York, where the authorities endeavored to prosecute him, but the evidence against him was insufficient to prove fraud, and he was acquitted. Spirit photography had flourished in America for some ten years before it became known.
In Britain, Mr. and Mrs. Guppy, the well-known ritualistic mediums, endeavored without success to produce spirit photographs in private, and at length called in the aid of a professional photographer, Mr. Hudson. A photograph of Mr. Guppy now revealed a dim, draped spirit form. Hudson speedily became popular, and is studio was as largely patronized as Mumler's had been. Mr. Thomas Slater, a London optician, made careful observations of his process without being able to detect any fraud. Mr. Beattie, a professional photographer, and something of a skeptic, made the following statement concerning Hudson's performances: " They were not made with double exposure, nor by figures projected in space in any way; they were not the result of mirrors; they were not produced by any machinery in the background, behind it, above it, or below it, nor by any contrivance connected wth the bath, the camera, or the camera-slide." Mr. Trail! Taylor, editor of the British Journal of Photography said that " at no time during the preparation, exposure, or development of the pictures was Mr, Hudsom within ten feet of the camera or dark room. Appearances of an abnormal kind did certainly appear on several plates."
Such testimonies as the above, from the lips of skilled and disinterested witnesses, would naturally seem to raise spirit photography to the level of a genuine psychic phenomenon. But a careful analysis of the evidence, such as is given by Mrs. Sidgwick in her article on Spirit Photography in the Psychical Research Society's Proceedings, vol. VII., will serve to show how even a trained investigator may be deceived by sleight-of-hand. And it is notable that Mr. Beattie himself afterwards pointed out instances of double exposure in Hudson's productions. In spite of this, Hudson continued to practice, and the various spiritualist magazines continued to lend him their support, with the exception of the Spiritualist, whose editor, himself a practical photographer, had aided Mr. Beattie in the denunciation of spirit photography. Another enthusiastic spiritualist, Mr. Enmore Jones, who at first professed to recognize a dead daughter in one of the pictured "spirits," afterwards admitted that he had been mistaken. Those who had pinned their faith to the genuineness of the photographic manifestations were naturally unwilling to relinquish their belief in what they considered a sure proof of the reality of the spirit-world, and ingenious explanations were offered to cover the circumstance of the apparent double exposure. The spirit aura, they said, differed from the natural atmosphere in its refracting power, and it was not to be wondered at that objects were sometimes duplicated. And so Hudson retained a considerable measure of popularity. Mr, Beattie himself afterwards attempted to produce spirit photographs, and succeeded in obtaining vague blotches and flaws on his pictures, some of them bearing a dim resemblance to a human figure. But there is reason to believe that a hired assistant, who provided studio and apparatus, was not entirely above suspicion. In 1874 Buguet, a Paris photographer crossed over to London where he commenced the practice of spirit photography. Many of his pictures were recognized by his clients, and even when he had been tried by the French Government, and had admitted deception, there were those who refused to regard his confession as spontaneous, and inclined to the opinion that he had been bribed by the Jesuits to confess to fraud of which he was innocent! Other spirit photographers were Parkes, a contemporary of Hudson, and Boursneli; who produced spirit pictures in London in more recent years. The principal evidence in favor of spirit photography is undoubtedly the recognition of the spirits by their friends and relatives, but the unreliable nature of such a test can be seen when we remember that time and again a single " spirit" has been claimed by several persons as a near relative —the sister of one, the grandfather of another, and so on. One of the most prominent defenders of the mediumistic photographers was the Rev. Stainton Moses—" M. A. Oxon "—who saw in them the best proof of the reality of spiritualism. The same view was shared by Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace, who said in the Arena, January, 1891: " It is that which furnishes, perhaps, the most unassailable demonstration it is possible to obtain of the objective reality of spiritual forms."
Back to Spiritualism | Paranormal | Ghosts & Hauntings
