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

The Big Orb Thread

What do you think 'Orbs' are?

  • Nothing, just an artefact on the camera lens or lens flare.....

    Votes: 13 52.0%

  • I dunno.

    Votes: 2 8.0%

  • Might be something but I'd have to take pics of them myself before making up my mind....

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • They are extremely round ghosts.

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Usually dust, water droplets, or the like, but you never know ...

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • Total voters
    25
Pictures

WHEW!
Ok I finally put up some of my pics from last Spring.
People are welcome to come look.
I put them up in a rush so there may be spelling errors and the like.
You'll find them on my personal site which is here.
Just look in the Strangeness section.

http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/cbaker/

Looking at them again has brought up more questions to me and I am starting to form a real game plan for this year. I want to be at least a little more organized at least. I want to find a way to simulate orbs under controlled conditions. That might shed some light on EXACTLY what they are, rather than just declaring what they are.

Anyway It's late there, Nite all.
 
Luvverly orbs!

Look!

Sadly, these are due to drizzle....

(The ship is HMS Cornwall, shotin Falmouth, BTW)
 
They shot HMS Cornwall i Falmouth , cheeky buggers. Did it sink?
 
What people need to do is grab all or at least a random sampling of old photos from their collections and take the time to scour over them, looking for orbs. My guess would be that there is a relatively even distribution of orbs over all photos. But the truth is yet to be discovered. They're so popular with graveyard/haunted pics because those are the photos that people take the time to really look at. I've been meaning to do it myself, but still cannot justify the time spent. Maybe someday....
 
I've been doing some maths on orbs (that should be a thread killer, I reckon!)

Assuming that an 'orb' is really a speck of dust or small drop of water quite close to the camera, it will be brightly lit by the flash. But because it is so close, the image formed by the lens will not be in focus - it will form a disc. (The image is actually trying to focus itself behind the film.)

It turns out that the size of the image can be calculated by a very simple formula. For a camera focussed at infinity, with a focal length f, aperture a, and distance to the object (eg, the speck of dust) u, the size of the resulting 'orb' on the negative is simply a.f / u. (All dimensions in the same units, of course, say millimetres - don't want to do a NASA on it!)

If the camera is focussed to less than infinity, the orbs would be smaller. (I could work out the formula, if anyone REALLY wants to know!) This suggests another test - take one series of photos with the camera set to infinity, and another series (same time and place) with the camera set to its closest focussing distance. Assuming the first series does catch some orbs, the other set should show much smaller orbs, or perhaps even just small speckles. Also, orbs should match the shape of the iris that controls the aperture.

The photo of HMS Cornwall in my earlier post illustrates another aspect of 'orbs' formed as images of (in this case) small rain drops. There are most orbs in the top-left of the image, which matches the position of the flash on my camera. As the beam spreads out it gets weaker, so only the closest raindrops are illuminated brightly enough to show as orbs. Close by raindrops in the bottom right of the picture are still outside the beam of the flash. This suggests that a separate flash held well clear of the camera should not produce orbs at all.
 
Flash

Just a thought:
If these orbs are some energy of some sort, or are at a wavelength of light that can only be captured on film/CCD, surely a flash would not be necesary to illuminate them?

Taking photos without flash would obviously illiminate any flash-induced effects. :)

Also, an idea for the 2 camera setup; it would be cool if one was a digital camera and one a traditional film camera, and both came out with the same effects.
What about a video camera as well? (If money is no object :D )

Just some random thoughts. :)
 
Excellent notes, rynner. Combined with PikaChris's field work, we might just be on the cutting edge of orb technology. :cool:

My only recommendation (based on rynner's) would be focusing one camera to full length, then calculating what focal distance would create an 'orb' of an arbitrarily smaller size - let's say one-half. Focus the second camera to that distance. Then there would be absolutely no question about the effect. Once established, one could work the second image down as far as possible to positively correlate an object with an orb.

There is a cemetery very near to me that has a somewhat unique characteristic. All of the gravestones are embedded in the ground... ie. they don't stick up at all. Since I'm currently borrowing my 'rents digital camera, I really ought to get out and shoot a few pics. That will be my homework for this evening. With my luck, I'll see a ghost or something... bah!
 
There are apparently several similar shapes, at different sizes, in the snow photo. I'd guess that these are multiple images of one close and bright snowflake, formed by surface reflections in the various elements of a compound lens, eg a zoom lens.

In this respect, they are posh images - a cheap camera would just have a single lens!
 
After cursory look, still think they're snow. I'm not a sceptic, just think that they're snow. Anyway shouldn't orbs be round not diamond shaped?
 
Ok, back from my photo shoot last night. I shot about 60 (1024x768) photos with a Sony Mavica FD- uuuhhh 83? I think. Only problem is I have no way to host them on the web. I'd like at least one other person to see all the photos without any of my own comments before narrowing down to the 'interesting' ones. Anyone who's got a fast internet connection, or doesn't mind waiting for about 8 megs of pics, let me know.
 
I reckon the people who 'see' them are making something out of nothing.

Carole

o O o ooooo oo o o o

o oo ooooOOOOOOOO OOO ooo




ooooooo - Look at all the orbs!!
 
Ok, I took a closer look at my photos and there were definitely some interesting shots. I could see a lot of 'spots' in many of the photos. Generally they were in the top half of the photo, and seemed to be most prominent in the left and right sides. This is consistent with rynner's remarks about the location of the flash.

Bugs are definitely out of the scenario, it being January in PA. Dust/miscelaneous particles seemed to be the most reasonable explanation for most of the spots. One interesting phenomenon was that some photos had diamond-shaped spots, while others had round spots. I didn't notice any photos that had both. All photos were taken with the same digital camera.

Ninja is going over them presently. Hopefully we can narrow down a handful to post on the web somewhere. And the invitation is still open if anyone else wants to see all the photos.
 
Orbs are mentioned in connection with a haunting at Avebury on this site . (From today's FT website.)
 
There are a number of orb pics here. I haven't taken the time to examine them closely in comparison with PikaChris's and my own, but the phomenon looks approximately the same.

My next plan is to try some experiments indoors with dust and the flash. Hopefully I can get around to it sometime this week.
 
I don't know about photographs, but I have seen an orb up close and personal. One went through a screened door in which I was standing behind, went through me the kitchen I was standing in, the living room and out the breakfront window. I do know that it came out of no-where, and took me by complete surprise as well as my in-laws in the living room. My mother-in-law is a devout Catholic and stood straight up and stated it was her deceased mother! I don't know what it was..there wasn't any particular feeling associated with it or anything as it went through me..I was just left puzzled.
 
Sounds more like ball lightning to me. Must have been a spooky experience though, whatever it was.

As you have only just joined I would like to say welcome to the message board:D
 
Cameras

Somebody was talking about using two cameras to try and produce some orbs,
Just thought I should add that if you're mounting the two cameras side by side you'll get lovely stereo photos - basic distance measurement - remove lens/film imperfections, the results should be very interesting.
I used to have a stereo set-up but some ****er in Manchester nicked it.

Oh yeah, some digital cameras can also take burst images (several in quick succession) has anybody tried this, as it would show the orbs speed and direction.....
 
orbs

Dear Ghostwatchers, I was especially interested in the orb phenomenon. My pet theory is that the orbs are tiny specks or spheres of carbon in the form of "buckyballs". The specks are active in converting heat energy into near infra red , which they re-radiate, visible to video cameras and photo-film, and possibly sometimes to the human eye. A drop in temperature might be expected in the vicinity of the orb activity, and they would float on micro currents of air and maybe responsive to magnetic fields. I would welcome your Comments on my idea. I have further theories on these lines in connection with ufo sightings (not popular with many ufo-ologists!). yours, brian.

This is an e-mail I sent to the live ghostwatch prog. some time back. Orbs on still photos are difficult to analyze with so many things in the processing, however thr moving orbs on their cameras were following air currents, i think. All video cameras seem to be Ir sensitive.
 
:D

Yes Ninja, I have heard of the "ball lightning" before, but I would think that it would have some sort of current associated with it, if that were the case, and I don't recall any feeling of such when it went through me. It wasn't too spooky...just left me with so many questions as alot of things I have experienced with no apparent solid answers to the experience. I can tell you that a week or so before I experienced the light orb, a friend and I had saw what we believe to be a UFO and it was in the headlines of the Bristol Press the next Saturday morning with many witnesses and the Bristol Police Department being one of them. This was in 1983, I still have the newspaper clipping (somewhere).:)

Anyway, thank you for your warm welcome..I am glad there is a place to post these type of experiences, and to meet like minds.

Thx for listening!
Ethereal_e
 
This is a copy of a post I just made on another thread, where it also seemed relevent:

"Mike_Legs and I have been corresponding over this, and Mike has produced some good 'orb' pictures formed from dust particles, etc, close to the camera lens; I've done some maths on the process too.

Perhaps we're just re-inventing the wheel, and real photographers have known all this stuff for years. It seems to be the profusion of idiot-proof automatic cameras with built in flash near the lens that has brought the thing to the forefront in recent years.

Our theory will be totally shot down if someone can produce a picture of an orb partly obscured by a foreground object - over to you, folks!"
 
Photographic Media

In this age of photoshop are photographs and video a reliable 'proof' of ghostly events or are they just to easy to fake?

Also, a lot of people have doubts about vortex and ball of light photos as they seem to be mostly camera faults.

So photos, in particular, are easy to fake and can also seem unreliable especially in the hands of an inexperienced user.

Thoughts?
 
I think that most manipulated shots still have that 'lack of reality' which is, at first glance difficult to define but just pops 'fake' into your head.

The best/trickiest images are those that use props, or rely on the story of the eye witness.
Take a picture of a house, there is a woman standing next to the gate. nothing weird there but if I say "when I took that picture there was nobody there", what can you do? It's impossible to prove either way (unless you can hunt down the woman).

Cameras can also turn up some pretty weird things on their own, damaged film, light leaks, long/double exposures etc. Most people are used to these but I think we'll find a lot of stuff that can happen with digital cameras.

The main thing to remember with most photographs is that they are only evidence, they'll never really prove anything.

anyway thats my tuppance worth....:D
 
It works both ways... For instance, if I saw a ghost right now and managed to take a technically perfect photograph of it, how could I prove that I hadn't done it all in Photoshop?
 
Mike_Legs and I have collaborated on an article called "Make your own Orbs"! (This arose from another thread on this board, and PMs about orbs.) It's been offered to FT, but if they don't want to use it I'll put it on the web instead.
 
Since getting a digital camera I too have noticed some weird effects that can happen. I think digital camera are more sensitive than a normal camera. Which may also be useful for getting a snap of a ghost.

Not sure if it is related to the digital camera or not but while testing it out I took a picture in the back garden at night. One I checked the picture it had a ghostly mist on it. Now later on in the night a fog did descend but at the time it was quite clear. I think there must have been a lot of moisture in the air and it reflected the flash. I'll dig it out later and post it.

I agree August with all the fakes and mistakes available it would be near impossible to pick out a genuine ghostly picture. With the growth of digital cameras it will only get worse. With traditional cameras it is possible to catch the photoshop crowd by seeing the negative.

Setab: I think that photos that I feel are genuine seem to have a subtlety to them yet still jump out you. I find it difficult to explain. :confused:

Rynner: I look forward to reading your article either in FT or on the web. That Reminds me I must get a subscription setup save me going to the newsagents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top