• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Interesting Photo

Elana4 said:
I think I'm getting what you're saying about the pixels now - each pixel is a fixed colour, so because of the low pixel count in the picture, it could appear larger than it actually was? So all you can say for certain, is it's 15x15 pixels?
Click to expand...

15 pixels is all anybody can say with any certainty - I've opened this file in a photo imaging software program that lets you enlarge it to the point where each individual pixel is represented, and the color of the flare goes right across the front of the tree.

Yes, each pixel is fixed color, like a tile in a mosaic. The pixel count doesn't matter that much in terms of the size of the flare - flare would have occurred if you were using a film camera, which has a much higher resolution than any hand held digital camera, and doesn't have pixels. But having an image that had better resolution would show that it was flare a lot more clearly than just a 15 pixel wide patch of orange red.

Elana4 said:
The size I've given it - 5ftx5ft - would only be it's apparent size if it were a solid object behind the tree.
Click to expand...

Exactly - the lens flare is really only a tiny reflection inside of the lens, but since it's so close to the recording surface of the camera, it seems big. Given that it's pretty much the same color as in the lens flares in the other picture taken a minute later, I'd say that's conclusive proof.
 
Lens flares typically manifest as linear or arc-like features, and are also associated with an overall reduction of contrast in the picture.

All of these features are absent in this case, and anyhow there's no evidence that any bright light was shining on the lens. In fact, the photographer seems to be standing in a rather shady part of the scenery.

The second photo is shot into the sun, as shown by the shadows of the trees, and the lens flares cover quite an area of the image, displaying several well-defined arcs as well.

But the 'mystery photo' does not show these features. What the object is I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's not a camera artefact.
 
rynner said:
Lens flares typically manifest as linear or arc-like features, and are also associated with an overall reduction of contrast in the picture.

All of these features are absent in this case, and anyhow there's no evidence that any bright light was shining on the lens.
Click to expand...

That's what I get from linking to wikipedia.....
There had to be light entering the lens - otherwise we'd be looking at solid black.... you're assuming that flare requires direct sunlight falling on the lens, but all you need to have lens flare is light from a (relatively) bright section, in the frame or outside of the frame, reflecting inside of the lens, like the lens flare that produced the well known photo of UFOs over the Capitol Dome in Washington, that were from street lights.

The second photo is shot into the sun, as shown by the shadows of the trees, and the lens flares cover quite an area of the image, displaying several well-defined arcs as well.
Click to expand...

As I said before, big light, big effects, little light, little effect..... big round sun gives you big round arcs, or let's just call them floating globes... err, circles, and light coming through breaks in the trees gives you break in the tree shaped flares....
If it was a solid object behind the tree the colors wouldn't go in front of the tree.... it seems pretty likely that if we have very pronounced lens flare in a photo taken only a minute later, we will have had some lens flare if all that's been changed is the angle that the camera is facing. And there are fainter orange red patches of similar color to the flares in both pictures over a wider area of the first picture.....
 
There had to be light entering the lens - otherwise we'd be looking at solid black.... you're assuming that flare requires direct sunlight falling on the lens, but all you need to have lens flare is light from a (relatively) bright section, in the frame or outside of the frame, reflecting inside of the lens
Click to expand...
But pretty well the brightest thing in that picture is the anomaly itself!

There's no evidence of anything much brighter, certainly no street lights!
 
If that was the back end of a sheep, it's a pretty fortean sheep, because it would have to have been walking on water, and deep, fast flowing water at that ;)

I too have lens flare reservations, and there were no bright light sources in front of me. The sun was over my right shoulder and westering, shining through trees which is what is causes the orangey patches on the river's surface.

The area of the "object" was in quite deep shade, and I was pretty shaded to.

I have some more photos taken at the same time of the river in the same spot if that would help get a better idea of conditions (but none have the place where the anomaly is in shot unfortunately :roll: )

I'll be back later when I have more time with the full story as promised
 
Elana4 said:
If that was the back end of a sheep, it's a pretty fortean sheep, because it would have to have been walking on water, and deep, fast flowing water at that ;)

...
Click to expand...
It looks like it's standing on land, to me. Am I missing something?
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Elana4 said:
If that was the back end of a sheep, it's a pretty fortean sheep, because it would have to have been walking on water, and deep, fast flowing water at that ;)

...
Click to expand...
It looks like it's standing on land, to me. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes - the tree which appears directly in front of the object marks the far edge of a mid river island. Beyond that is a deep, fast flowing, though narrow, river channel.
The other side of the channel is the far river bank which is steep and wooded.
 
OK, everybody - I've been a photojournalist for 20 years.....
It doesn't need to have the sun shining directly into it to be lens flare...it's not a solar flare.... lens flare are internal reflections - as I'm writing this now, I can see the reflection of the window behind me in the computer screen, but the sun isn't shining through it - if you can imagine somebody taking a photo from inside of the monitor, they would also have the reflection of the window in their image ......it's happening inside of the lens - it can be something bright either inside or outside of the frame of the photo - you can see that there's a bright patch in the upper right hand corner of the image.....

Good one, Pietro, but cell phone cameras are sensitive to infrared, not UV - point a remote control at yourself and look at it through a cell phone when you push the buttons. Unless it's has a really really cheap lens made out of a plastic that's UV transparent it's not going to let much UV through - I think the Sony Ericsson would have a single glass lens - to do UV photography you use a quartz lens.

You're not really seeing anything at all on the other side of the water - it's just a reflection on the surface of the lens of the camera - something that's really tiny in reality but looks big because of where it's placed - that's why Elana didn't see it when she took the photo, and why there is no reflection of it in the water.
 
I've got half an hour, so I'm going to try and post the child's story.

A small group of us, including 2 young children (5 and 6) were on a riverside walk. The 6 year old repeatedly wandered up to the river staring, almost walking into it, and seemed a little distracted. Nothing unusual so far.

Took some photos, returned home.

The 6 year old spontaneously starts talking about the walk, saying that there were "dragon people" walking up the river with us, that they were our friends and were looking after us because the bad shadow people were coming down off of the castle on the hill and we should have gone back. They said the "dragon people" would disappear if you looked at them, that they didn't like lights and the camera flash makes them disappear. I asked what they looked like, was told they looked like dragon people (naturally :roll: ) but were greeny white. I asked how big. The reply "bigger than me, but not as big as a grown up". I just said something indistinct about it was good to have friends looking after you, and left it.

The one thing that made me go :shock: a bit was the castle on the hill. I know there is a hill which had a castle on top towering over where we walked, and have climbed it a couple of times. Topography and trees meant the fact there was a hill there at all was completely hidden from both the path and the road, and there is no visible remnant of anything remotely like a castle even if the hill had been visible. The child had never been to the hill, been told about it or it's history in any detail, and it had certainly not been mentioned that day.

I uploaded the photos, and didn't initially notice the anomaly. Said child looked at photos, and:

"Oh, look, it's the dragon people! They're peeping out from behind that tree. Why are they orange? Dragon people are greeny white. They're hiding because they don't like camera flashes"

Into slightly more :shock: territory by this time.

Then started to ask around, people who knew the area, and more importantly knew about photography (inc relative who is a professional press photographer). The general consensus was a lot of shrugging. That no one could say I know what that is, it's x, y or z, almost surprised me. There had to be an explanation.

About a year afterward, I decided to show the picture to the child again (among a set).
Again: "That's the picture of the river people (NOT dragon this time) hiding behind the tree. Look, there's 2 of them. Why are they orange? They are supposed to be white"
And again, something about them being friends, disappearing when the camera flashes or you look at them, and "black shadows" coming through the trees that were bad. Also that the river people didn't like the shadows in the trees.

The child's story and the anomaly in the photo could, of course, be a coincidence. I have literally thousands of photos taken over 20 years, quite a few in reputedly haunted places just in case I could catch anything on film 8) , and not a dickie bird. Nothing even slightly odd.

Any more ideas about the photo, or comments on the child's story, would be very welcome :)
 
Wow! :shock:

These threads usually get less interesting as they progress, but this is very interesting! Reminds me vaguely of the Bedroom Animals thread, and the various threads considering whether children are "more sensitive" to things, or whether it's just a case of a young child's developing understanding of the world making things make sense differently.
 
Elana, you say there's a deep river channel behind the 'thing'.....

Is this a navigable waterway? Do boats regularly pass by? And if so, what kind? Could a boat carrying some odd deck cargo have ben passing?
 
No boats, it's on a much smaller scale, although it is possible in a canoe. I've heard of people doing it, but never actually seen one on that stretch.

But the "deep channel" is about 5/6ft in depth, probably deeper at winter levels, no more than 4ft across and curving.

The river is very wide there but shallow for the most part, with a few islands. Even a child could walk to that particular island from the near bank in summer, but not that time of year. The channel behind the island has been cut out deep and narrow, and therefore very fast flowing. I swam in the river as a youngster and it was one of the places to be avoided because of the current.
 
Okay, we've been informed that this is NT managed land with SSI status, and in England, and there's a castle on the hill - but at the risk of sounding repetitive could we maybe actually be told precisely where this location is?

We're being given a lot of very precise details, which is great, without having a broader framework to fit them into, which isn't.
 
I'm sorry spookdaddy, but I don't understand the need for giving an exact location?

Conditions, land management, sun direction, time of day and year, nature of the immediate environment, yes, but why an exact location? What does that contribute to the analysis of a photograph?

I'm not looking for an argument, but the posting of precise details of anything on a public forum, especially one I am new to, is not something I would do lightly. I need a reason why this is necessary.
 
I understand your caution, Elana, but as this is apparently a public place, I assume you wouldn't be giving away any personal details by giving the location.

Some of us like to study maps and Google Earth to get a feel for a place.

Not that I'm saying this would help us solve this little mystery, unless by a huge coincidence Google Earth happens to have a detailed image of the area taken at the same time you took your photo! 8)
 
Elana4 said:
I'm sorry spookdaddy, but I don't understand the need for giving an exact location?
Click to expand...

And, given that there is absolutely no way a named location would, in any way shape or form constitute personal information, I don't understand your reluctance to give one. You have asked us to give an opinion on something without giving us the most basic piece of information regarding the subject - the detail is great but it's somewhat neutered without a framework to place it in.

What Rynner said - all that too. The fact is that we're an inquisitive bunch and the chances are that there's someone else on the board who might live nearby and could give us another perspective on the location, maybe take a few more photos. I know if I lived in the area I'd have my boots on and my 300D cocked and locked at the first opportunity. I don't understand what the issue is.
 
Do you have a map that you could upload of the area of the photo? As long as we can see where north is we could find where the sun was, roughly, since we wouldn't know the latitude or longitude.

Spookdaddy - remember to use RAW if you ever do see anything interesting in the woods because of the digital artifact problem - you can extract a jpg from it if you need to post - I still carry a film camera body in my bag which is even better.
 
A location map and a nearby name would be useful to allow pinpointing on Google maps or maps.live . Obviously I've never been to the area but I'm having trouble imagining a 6ft deep channel running alongside a relatively shallow stream. Even if the channel was flowing at a constant high rate it would silt up as soon as the rest of the river swelled after heavy rains and the two merged together.
 
TheOrigDesperado said:
Obviously I've never been to the area but I'm having trouble imagining a 6ft deep channel running alongside a relatively shallow stream. Even if the channel was flowing at a constant high rate it would silt up as soon as the rest of the river swelled after heavy rains and the two merged together.
Click to expand...
The shallow stream would be more at risk of silting up in these conditions. Heavy rains would give strong flows and scouring in the deeper channel, but silting occurs where the flow is slowest, in shallower water.

(There's a large scale example of this in Holland, where many tidal waterways have been cut off from the sea, becoming in effect lakes. In these, the old channels that were once regularly scoured by the tides have been silting up over the years, leading to a fairly flat bottom and an almost constant depth of water. I have sailed on the the Isselmeer, out of sight of land, and with the echo sounder giving only a few few feet of water under the keel, for mile after mile!)
 
rynner said:
TheOrigDesperado said:
Obviously I've never been to the area but I'm having trouble imagining a 6ft deep channel running alongside a relatively shallow stream. Even if the channel was flowing at a constant high rate it would silt up as soon as the rest of the river swelled after heavy rains and the two merged together.
Click to expand...
The shallow stream would be more at risk of silting up in these conditions. Heavy rains would give strong flows and scouring in the deeper channel, but silting occurs where the flow is slowest, in shallower water.
Click to expand...

The shallow stream has silted up, that's why it's shallow. Look at all the debris on the far side. A flood would deposit material like that straight into the 6ft deep channel where much of it wouch settle because the flow speed 7, 8, 9ft under water wouldn't be strong enough to budge it.
 
TheOrigDesperado said:
The shallow stream has silted up, that's why it's shallow. Look at all the debris on the far side. A flood would deposit material like that straight into the 6ft deep channel where much of it wouch settle because the flow speed 7, 8, 9ft under water wouldn't be strong enough to budge it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it, here!
First you say the deep channel will silt up, now you say the shallow one already has.

If there's a heavy flow of water, it will force its way through somewhere, and it will scour a channel as it does so. Generally speaking, this will be in the existing deeper channels. (Shallower channels will get less flow and more silting, until such time as the deeper channel can no longer cope with all the flow, and then the shallow channels will also get a scouring.)

I've been a student of water flows for many years now - trust me, I'm a sailor! ;)
 
rynner said:
I've been a student of water flows for many years now - trust me, I'm a sailor! ;)
Click to expand...

That means you are a student of Rum!!

Can I ask what difference it makes how fast or deep the water was?
 
Call me paranoid, call me irrational, in fact jump up and down and call me whatever names you want, but I'm going to reserve the right to think about giving the exact location, because I don't know that I'm comfortable with it.

Anyway, I'll be back in the area in a couple of weeks, so I had already decided with these new ideas and thinking about it again, to go and take some more shots. Then I can say: "There's the tree" "There's the channel" "There's a person standing on the island" (if the water's low enough) etc etc.

As to direction, the centre of the picture is SSE - the river is pretty much flowing N to S in that section, but I've checked the map and with the bend it's slightly off exact alignment. Behind me is therefore NNW, and the sun is shining over my right shoulder (through trees, not direct) as it's heading toward sunset.

Water channels - the far island in question is on the outside of a wide bend in the river, where most of the erosion is happening. The channel clearly broke through an area of bank without enough tree roots to hold it and formed the island. Since the channel formed, the fastest and strongest flow on that part of river goes through it.
In the meantime, the nearside is shallower and slower because it's on the inside of the bend, and does get silting because beaches of it build up on that side.

Anyway, as liveinabin 1 implies, it doesn't actually make any difference that I can see how deep or fast the water is - the point is beyond that tree is an area that is not solid ground, and therefore unlikely to have any but the most fortean of passing ruminants, for example, standing there.
 
Creamstick1 said:
It's Pennywise the Dancing Clown! :shock:
Click to expand...

:shock:

No! Noooooo!!!

I hate clowns, they've always given me the major heebie jeebies - as for ***** Pennywise :_omg:
 
Is where you're standing an artificial drainage ditch that's introduced a new flow into the river? Because those trees in the middle had to have been standing on solid ground before they died and if erosion's going on the far side, it shouldn't also be going on on that side to that extent.
 
rynner said:
TheOrigDesperado said:
The shallow stream has silted up, that's why it's shallow. Look at all the debris on the far side. A flood would deposit material like that straight into the 6ft deep channel where much of it wouch settle because the flow speed 7, 8, 9ft under water wouldn't be strong enough to budge it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but you're trying to have your cake and eat it, here!
First you say the deep channel will silt up, now you say the shallow one already has.

If there's a heavy flow of water, it will force its way through somewhere, and it will scour a channel as it does so. Generally speaking, this will be in the existing deeper channels. (Shallower channels will get less flow and more silting, until such time as the deeper channel can no longer cope with all the flow, and then the shallow channels will also get a scouring.)

I've been a student of water flows for many years now - trust me, I'm a sailor! ;)
Click to expand...

We'll await further photos on this. I maintain it's not possible for a 6ft deep channel to be present in this photo.

And don't forget, river dynamics are different to sea and beach erosion.

And to respond to the liveinabin1's question - it's not particularly important but it's relevant in that if the object is something on the other side of the bank (and I stress "if" - there's not much evidence it is) then it would have to have some interesting qualities if it's standing in 6 feet of fast-flowing water.
 
Elana4 said:
As to direction, the centre of the picture is SSE - the river is pretty much flowing N to S in that section, but I've checked the map and with the bend it's slightly off exact alignment. Behind me is therefore NNW, and the sun is shining over my right shoulder (through trees, not direct) as it's heading toward sunset.
Click to expand...

OK, that locates the area somewhere in the South Georgia Islands by the Falklands....

But if you were in England, the sun is always going to be in the southern section of the sky, particularly in winter - this is what the sun's position was at the time you took the photo:


http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/s ... n=20&sec=0


From the picture, it's obvious that the sun is coming towards you from the right, and this agrees with the direction you indicated as looking - you actually had about three more hours of daylight.

The flare might also have come from sunlight glinting off the water - the water in front of you has patches in full sunlight - and those white patches do look the same shape as the orange red patch that's the mystery object.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top