PROJECT HAWKEYE

OBJECTIVE:

To explore the potential of
Ultraviolet Light Photography as
a tool for paranormal research.

Using vintage cameras and
"old-school" style film, chosen
for their inherently high level
of sensitivity to UV light,
we will attempt to photograph
paranormal energy forms in
a variety of settings.

Reports of paranormal images appearing in photographs date back to the very early days of photography itself. The first well-documented incident of what eventually became known as "spirit photography" occurred in about 1861 when a professional engraver from Boston named William Mumler was experimenting with his camera by posing for self-portraits. When developed, one of Mumler's photographic plates seemed to show a ghostly figure hovering in the background. Mumler claimed that it was the spirit image of a deceased relative and news of his other-worldly breakthrough spread around the globe. Soon other photographers on both sides of the Atlantic were claiming to find such "extras" in their own pictures.

The on-going history of photography's role in paranormal research is a fascinating subject. Numerous examples of early-day spirit photography have been published, however most of those early photos are not very convincing. Many, although taken quite seriously at the time, seem like obvious hoaxes to us today. In fact, even William Mumler's spirit photographs were eventually declared to be fraudulent. (The enterprising gentleman had pursued a fairly lucrative career of producing spirit photos on-demand for clients at $10 apiece.)

Still, the flow of purportedly paranormal photographs remained strong throughout the 20th century and it continues today, apparently enhanced rather than abated by the latest 21st century technologies. Video tape, digital cameras, infrared surveillance equipment, etc. are standard equipment for the modern paranormal research team and, as always, seemingly inexplicable images occassionally appear with all of these media.

Convincing photographic proof of "paranormality" remains elusive however. Serious study in the field is chronically disrupted by a few who try to perpetrate deliberate hoaxes and further confounded by the many who honestly-but-naievely misinterpret the images that they see in their photos. Furthermore, we seem to be lacking any substantive theory as to exactly what it is that we, as paranormal researchers, are trying to photograph in the first place.

Can we ever be certain that an image in a photograph is truly of something "paranormal"? What would it look like? Should we expect to see something as familiar as a face or a full-bodied apparition? Or should we instead consider looking for something less recognizable, perhaps completely unknown?

There is a certain category of paranormal photograph that I've always considered to be the most intriguing from a theoretical viewpoint. These are the photographs that show a wispy mist or sometimes a glowing streak of light superimposed onto the "normal" image. Usually appearing as white or bluish in color, these nebulous images seem to represent not so much an "entity" per se, but rather the presence of a raw and ephemeral form of pure energy. This type of photographic anomaly has been referred to by various terms: ectoplasm, mists, vortices, beams, streaks, orbs, etc.

On my very first attempt at "haunted house photography", I captured a set of blue streaks in a shot taken during a VGHRS investigation led by Tommy Amos in the Roanoke area. The cropped and slightly enhanced image to the right shows one bright and fairly strong blue streak just above the aquarium. A weaker looking streak is seen following close behind the first, and another faint blue streak can be seen higher up the wall adjacent to the fireplace bricks. Please take a moment to study them closely.

This picture was taken using an oldy-but-goody 35 mm film camera without flash or auxiliary lighting. I happen to believe that many supposedly anomalous images presented as "paranormal" these days are merely the confusing result of reflections and glare from camera flash. Therefore, I won't use a flash or strong directional light with any kind of camera when attempting paranormal photography. In this case, as you can see, ample ambient light for a 1 second exposure was provided by a halogen floor lamp (just outside the cropped image), a candle on the table in the foreground, and the aquarium light.

After a little homework, we learned that the light bulb for this salt-water aquarium had a high ultraviolet content. Ultraviolet light is invisible to the human eye - it radiates at higher frequencies than lightwaves of the visible spectrum. Ordinary photographic film however is quite sensitive to ultraviolet light. Depending on the intensity, UV will appear as blue, bluish-white, or white on color film. Hmmm . . .

At this point I was beginning to speculate that normally invisible ultaviolet light could be responsible for many of the images that appear in paranormal photos. On the other hand, could simple glare from the UV aquarium light have caused those blue streaks to appear in my own picture? We scheduled another visit to the house to try and answer this question.

For our return trip, I had two strategies in mind for testing the UV hypothesis. One was fairly straightforward: I would try to duplicate the shot that showed the blue streaks near the aquarium by using the same camera, same angle, same lens, same type of film, same lighting conditions, same exposure time, etc. I took a series of eight shots in this manner and, after processing, none of the new photos showed any blue streaks. So, while not exactly proof positive, this result did lend support to the premise that my original shot was fortuitously snapped at the very instant of a paranormal energy display, and that the blue streaks were not merely the result of glare from the aquarium light.

Interestingly enough, one of the photos taken during that second round did show an anomaly of a different type:

The image at left above is representative of the shots taken near the aquarium during our second visit, with nothing particularly unusual showing up. The image on the right however contains a dark shadowy shape apparently hovering along the ceiling. It is the only frame of the series in which this mysterious shape appeared.

This series of eight aquarium shots were taken consecutively with only slight variations in camera angle and position from frame to frame, and with no changes in the ambient lighting. Again, there was no flash used for these photos - in fact there was no light source at all in a position to cast a shadow on the ceiling like this.

The blue streaks, the mysterious shadow, as well as other audio and photographic evidence obtained during our investigation seem to indicate that something unusual is at play in this house.

My second strategy for investigating possible effects of the UV-rich aquarium light requires a bit of technical explanation:

During my research into UV photography, I learned that there is a special filter available for camera lenses called a UV transmission filter. This type of filter allows UV light to pass through the lens but it blocks virtually all visible light. (Note: The "UV transmission filter" has essentially the opposite effect to that of ordinary "UV filters" which many photographers use for blocking ultraviolet light.) Intended primarily for medical and scientific applications, the UV transmission filter gives photographers a practical method for studying various subjects as they might appear to us if we could see into the ultraviolet wavelengths.

So, for our second trip to the house with the aquarium, I obtained a UV transmission filter and used it in taking another series of photos in and around the area where the blue streak anomalies had appeared. For this series of photos I used another 35 mm camera, this time loaded with black and white film and, again, no flash. Take a look:

The picture at left above was aimed almost directly at the aquarium. Note the intensity of the aquarium lamp itself and the reflection of UV light by plants in the water underneath it. The picture at right above was aimed slightly above the aquarium and from a position more similar to that in which the original blue streak photo was taken. This shot was given more exposure time than the one at the left and hazy outlines of other objects in the room have become visible due to the reflected UV light. Note the small bright white spot in the left center area of this picture. Could it be a floating speck of dust reflecting the aquarium light? Perhaps, but curious that it seems to be illuminated more brightly and is more sharply focused than anything else in the picture - and yes, it does appear that way on the negative.

The two pictures shown below were taken with cameras aimed down the hallway directly opposite the aquarium. The picture on the left was taken on our first visit to the house with normal camera set-up and is shown here for comparison to a corresponding shot (below right) taken with the UV camera on our second trip. The camera position was similar though not identical for these two shots, however you should be able to identify the relative positions of door frames, walls, etc.

The vertical lines of the door frames are clearly indicated thanks to their ability to reflect UV from the aquarium light that was about fifteen to twenty feet away. Several other hazy patches of light seen in the UV photo are (presumably?) also due to reflections from the aquarium light.

However, two distinct sources of illumination appear to be glowing with more intensity and with a more clearly defined shape than those areas that are just fuzzy reflections. I'm referring of course to the two orb-ish images which appear near the top center area of the UV picture. Here they are again, in close-up detail and a bit of colorization added:

Note the spherical shapes and especially the sense of pulsing or strobe-like motion effect displayed by them. And remember - these images were captured on a single frame taken with an ordinary still film camera. Exposure time was approximately 5 seconds so a tripod and a locking shutter release cable were used to eliminate camera movement.

I'm actually hesitant to use the term "orb" in this discussion because of the notoriety generated by the multitude of so-called orb photos that show nothing more than photographic distortions caused by dust, water vapor, bugs etc. reflecting flash (or other strong light) into the camera's lens. However, I have to say that if there is such a thing as an "orb" - a moving self-contained spherical ball of "paranormal energy" - then I believe that the picture above, taken without a flash and with a filter that eliminates all but ultraviolet light, comes about as close as anything ever has to proving it.

My next opportunity to experiment with the UV transmission filter in a reportedly haunted setting came several months later at a Civil War museum in Gordonsville, VA. The museum is a three story one-time hotel building dating from 1860 and it had served as a busy hospital during the Civil War. On my preliminary visit to the building I took a series of shots in each room. Not only did I avoid using flash for these night-time shots, but there were no aquarium lights this time and, in fact, no lights at all. We had turned off all the lights in the building and, although it wasn't pitch black, it was dark enough that I had to be quite careful walking around with my equipment. With the UV transmission filter firmly in place on my camera's lens, only one frame from this series of shots gave the slightest hint of anything whatsoever showing up on the film when it was processed.

Far more intense and apparently much closer to the camera than the anomalies seen in my earlier UV photos, this one nearly filled the frame with amazing clarity. The image above is not an enlarged detail, it is more-or-less the actual size of the finished photograph! Note the striking similarity of form and movement between this image and the orbs shown in my hallway photo above. There are also similarities between this image and the blue streaks from my original photograph taken near the aquarium. Perhaps those little streaks would have looked more like this one had they been as close to the camera?

The photograph above defies all normal explanations. I wasn't aware of anything unusual when the picture was snapped and I definitely didn't notice any strange burst of light - but I do wonder if someone with more psychic sensitivity than I might have perceived something that seemed paranormal at the time? This photo, along with my first blue streaks, the hallway orbs, and certain similar images from the photographs of other researchers, have left me firmly convinced that the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum deserves much more attention from the ghost hunting community.

In the preceding discussion, I explained how my interest in ultraviolet photography evolved. I hope that I've sparked your interest in this innovative technique for paranormal research as well. You've seen some intriguing images that were recorded using a very ordinary 35 mm film camera - first with a standard lens and later with a UV transmission filter fitted over the lens. Now, please let me make sure that one point is perfectly clear to you concerning the UVT filter:

The UV transmission filter does not in any way "add" ultraviolet light to the camera, it only "subtracts" light that is not in the ultraviolet range.

Thus, it follows that the streaks and orbs seen in my photos would have appeared even without the UVT filter having been used. Without it, the anomalies would simply have been seen against the background of an otherwise ordinary looking picture. That's just how the blue streaks from my original aquarium room photo appeared - and there are many other photographs taken by photographers using perfectly ordinary cameras that show what may be similar ultraviolet energy forms.

The problem of "proof" in these cases has been that we couldn't rule out the possibility that the images in question were simply tricks of the camera produced by reflections and glare. Such effects are virtually impossible to rule out if a flash was used or, for that matter, if any strong light source was present when taking the photo. Mirrors and glass, dust particles, cigarette smoke, water vapor, flying insects, the sun and moon - you name it - all have been involved in creating many strange but readily explainable effects on film.

However, by using the ultraviolet transmission filter, I was able to eliminate the more commonplace sources of stray light contamination and to scientifically test my theory that certain invisible energy forms might be hiding out in the ultraviolet part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Initial results indicate that indeed they are!

Fortunately, use of the rather specialized UVT filter is not a requirement for further research into this realm since, again, ordinary film cameras and ordinary film are already capable of recording ultraviolet light. (As a rule, digital and video cameras are not sensitive to UV by the way.)

Actually, it turns out that film is so sensitive to UV that several steps are taken to limit its effects in normal photography. (Ultraviolet light from the sun is dispersed through the atmosphere and tends to cast a bluish haze on finished pictures in outdoor and landscape photography.)

Modern films are made with what's called a "supercoat" that works a little like sunscreen to reduce the amount of UV reaching the film's light-sensitive emulsion layer. Also, most better quality lenses are treated with anti-reflective coatings that inhibit UV to a certain degree. Moreover, ordinary glass by itself blocks ultraviolet light to a large extent, so modern lenses that incorporate several elements of glass in their design allow just a small fraction of the total available UV light to pass through.

Well then, even though my camera was letting in enough UV light to capture some pretty remarkable images, I realized that all of the UV-blocking factors mentioned above were working against me in my efforts to photograph the elusive ultraviolet energy forms. I began to wonder if there was anything I could do to increase a camera's sensitivity to ultraviolet light . . .

I learned about special lenses made from quartz crystal that don't block ultraviolet light as ordinary glass lenses do, but these are not readily available and would be prohibitively expensive for me. I also considered "pinhole" cameras that use no lens at all - but because of their tiny aperture these require lots of light to produce an image on film and would probably not be suitable for photographing the transient anomalies I'm interested in.

Fortunately, a trip down the information superhighway soon yielded some elegantly simple and imminently practical possibilities. One website that I visited recommended using a Kodak Brownie camera for UV photography. These vintage cameras have a simple, uncoated, single element lens - thus the inherent UV blocking effect of glass lenses would be kept to a bare minimum. Furthermore, unlike newer single lens cameras, these classic Brownies were equipped to have their shutters held open for extended periods of time - an essential feature for what I had in mind. (More about this aspect later.)

As luck would have it, someone had given me a Kodak Brownie "Hawkeye" camera years ago and I pulled it out of the basement for a good look. The first thing I noticed was that this camera calls for size "620" film - an obsolete film size that's not readily available these days. At first this seemed to be a major obstacle but it soon proved to offer a surprising bonus . . .

I discovered a supplier that not only stocks the vintage film size, but their film has been manufactured using "old-school" formulations. It has a higher silver content than most modern films and it doesn't have the supercoat that modern films use to help block UV. I'm told that film like this hasn't been mass marketed since the 1950's, and that it is closely related to the films that were first introduced by George Eastman back in the late 1800's.

So far, so good.

A vintage camera with single element lens
and non-supercoated film should provide
a higher level of sensitivity for "seeing"
more clearly into the ultraviolet dimension.

There did seem to be one less than ideal factor with my Brownie Hawkeye, namely that its lens yields a rather tight field of view. A more wide-angled perspective would be preferable, but apparently this isn't achievable from a single element lens without introducing distortion effects . . .

Well then, what if I used more than one camera so as to cover more area? A Saturday morning trip to some nearby antique shops proved quite fruitful when, on my very first stop, I found two more Brownie Hawkeyes - including one still in the box with the owner's manual. Total price for these 2 cameras was less than $15 - can't get much more practical than that. And now, armed with three of these nearly identical cameras and several rolls of classic film, Project Hawkeye is almost ready to fly.