Ghost or shadow?

http://www.advertiser24.co.uk/content/advertiser24/news/story.aspx?brand=NOROnline&category=News&tBrand=NOROnline&tCategory=News&itemid=NOED29%20Jul%202009%2009:20:35:377

So, what do you think of that one? Ghost or shadow? As for me, I am willing to bet it is a shadow.

Looks more like a double exposure.

I've seen some double exposures and most of them (over 90%) you can see the clothing or clearly see what the person looked like. In this picture it's black like a shadow. You can see the shape of one of the legs clearly and the rest of it is a blur as if during when it was taken the object was moving everything else. But it was only that which was blur where it could be a double exposure and yet it still looks like a shadow.

It's neither from what I can see. The photographer simply took a long exposure and someone in that time walked into frame, danced about on the spot for a short while and either the shutter closed or they left the frame before the shutter closed. It's probably a woman wearing a dark cocktail dress and dark tights as I can see what looks to be décolletage.

I would need to see the original EXIF data to be sure. But I can guarantee you that whoever took this is not a professional photographer or has cropped a lot out. Why do I say this? Firstly, it's a terrible composition; pointless too. Secondly, they didn't set the white balance to cancel out the yellow tungsten light, giving a more natural feel. Most of us amateurs would just change the setting on the camera, but a pro would set up the white balance properly.

Hope that was of some help to you.

EDIT

Actually I was wrong, it turns out (for a change) that Andrew Kitt is a real photographer in Norwich (specialising in food from his website). I still can't believe he thought simple motion blur was a ghost though - clever ploy to increase traffic to his website methinks.

I've know people that have seen what you just described, Sallie Owens, in my city.