Orbs: Psychic Phenomena or Photographic Errors?
December 18, 2007 11:16 PM Subscribe
Do you know anything about 'orbs'? Is there any scientific / photographic explanation for these whitish spots that are appearing in my friend's photographs?
Here's the link:
Thanks!
Here's the link:
Thanks!
This post was deleted for the following reason: Removed at photographer's request. -- cortex -- jessamyn
Dust reflecting the flash.
posted by idiotfactory at 11:30 PM on December 18, 2007
posted by idiotfactory at 11:30 PM on December 18, 2007
The Orb Zone is a level-headed, and fairly comprehensive site on the phenomenon.
posted by Bromius at 11:32 PM on December 18, 2007
posted by Bromius at 11:32 PM on December 18, 2007
It's not a coincidence that the least-round orb you see occurs in the picture with the least-round bright object in it. This is just lens flare.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:33 PM on December 18, 2007
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:33 PM on December 18, 2007
It's ghosts! Or, thats what my ghost hunting roommate says.
posted by thebrokenmuse at 11:40 PM on December 18, 2007
posted by thebrokenmuse at 11:40 PM on December 18, 2007
Yeah, actually they are all the posts that MeFites accidentally closed before they hit the intertube. They become ethereally detached and float in our streams of consciousness. The reason we can't see them in real life is because they don't exist until the latent image on the negative is formed, or the bits hit the memory card.
Seriously, it's just lens flare. Try a hood and shut off the flash, and you won't have any more orbs.
posted by Sukiari at 11:51 PM on December 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Seriously, it's just lens flare. Try a hood and shut off the flash, and you won't have any more orbs.
posted by Sukiari at 11:51 PM on December 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
some of these are also sensor dust.
posted by seawallrunner at 11:58 PM on December 18, 2007
posted by seawallrunner at 11:58 PM on December 18, 2007
The 'June. Circular light hanging out at my armpit' orb is very obviously a lens flare, as can be seen from the fact that it's a rounded hexagon.
Why a hexagon? Because the camera has an iris with six blades.
posted by Pyry at 11:58 PM on December 18, 2007
Why a hexagon? Because the camera has an iris with six blades.
posted by Pyry at 11:58 PM on December 18, 2007
,-. (ە ە) it is a mystery! S= ● =3 \ ( ۱) ζNo but seriously, there's a variety of causes here.
When the "orb" is hexagonal, and the camera was pointed sort of in the direction of a bright light, it is lens flare (light bounces around inside the camera and winds up in the wrong place. Digital cameras are more prone to this than film cameras, as the sensor is more reflective than film) The hexagon shape, as mentioned earlier, is from the camera's iris.
If there's an object much brighter than the rest of your scene in your shot (e.g., the sun) this is not entirely avoidable. If the sun is not in the frame, but still shining on the lens, you may still get flares, you can avoid this with a lens hood, or by just shading the lens with your hand, careful to keep your hand outside of the frame.
At night, typically light spots are caused by dust in the air. On a point-and-shoot camera, like the entire Powershot line, the flash unit is very close to the lens, so dust that is very close by can be extremely brightly illuminated. That dust is also so close that it is very blurry. You can avoid this by using an external flash - the very bright dust particles are up by the flash unit, not by the lens. If you want to see a crapload of dust/flash orbs go somewhere really freaking dusty
posted by aubilenon at 12:31 AM on December 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
Dust or dust or lens flare or dust.
I am continually amazed that the orb thing ever got any traction.
posted by The Deej at 1:28 AM on December 19, 2007
I am continually amazed that the orb thing ever got any traction.
posted by The Deej at 1:28 AM on December 19, 2007
Occasionally, I'll take a picture with my camera that will have bunches of these. I always assumed that dust that got onto or into my camera, and was disappointed to have them mucking up my photos.
After reading your post, I'm inspired to name them. Dusty sounds good.
posted by yohko at 1:56 AM on December 19, 2007
After reading your post, I'm inspired to name them. Dusty sounds good.
posted by yohko at 1:56 AM on December 19, 2007
Here is my personal anecdote: The other day I was taking photos of our house to send to my family. I shot a daylight pic in our bedroom, and it came out with a large, strange, glowing orb over the bed, which I was definitely not seeing visually.
I found it odd, and wondered what was causing it. I did not think it was a spirit because I'm not very interested in being contacted by spirits, and am highly skeptical of most claims of supernatural contact... so if the spirits ever really, really want to get in touch with me, they're going to need to be super-unambiguous about it.
A little later on, I discovered that I had apparently inadvertently changed a setting on my camera, which was now using the flash in all sorts of light situations that it hadn't previously used it, and I thought to myself, "Huh. Whattya know, I got a perfect example of one of those famous dust orb thingies." But if I were a person who wanted to have contact with the spirit world and thought a lot about that kind of thing, I would probably believe that this was a visitation. If I were completely objective and entirely open to either interpretation of spirit orbs/dust motes, etc., I wouldn't ask a scientist, and I wouldn't ask a ghost hunter; I would ask the personal opinion of one or more professional photographers who shoot with a variety of cameras in a variety of conditions, every day.
posted by taz at 4:10 AM on December 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
I found it odd, and wondered what was causing it. I did not think it was a spirit because I'm not very interested in being contacted by spirits, and am highly skeptical of most claims of supernatural contact... so if the spirits ever really, really want to get in touch with me, they're going to need to be super-unambiguous about it.
A little later on, I discovered that I had apparently inadvertently changed a setting on my camera, which was now using the flash in all sorts of light situations that it hadn't previously used it, and I thought to myself, "Huh. Whattya know, I got a perfect example of one of those famous dust orb thingies." But if I were a person who wanted to have contact with the spirit world and thought a lot about that kind of thing, I would probably believe that this was a visitation. If I were completely objective and entirely open to either interpretation of spirit orbs/dust motes, etc., I wouldn't ask a scientist, and I wouldn't ask a ghost hunter; I would ask the personal opinion of one or more professional photographers who shoot with a variety of cameras in a variety of conditions, every day.
posted by taz at 4:10 AM on December 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
I took a couple of pictures during a trip to Fort Flagler in Washington that have these. The reason I know they aren't ghosts is because it was a pretty dreary day with light mist. The automatic flash fired a couple of times before I remembered to turn it off, even though I was outside and it was the middle of the day.
So, my experience is that, in one instance, a tiny droplet of water can refract/reflect your flash back at you, making a bright spot on the picture where there wasn't one in the scene.
This may be especially relevant to the first picture in the series you linked (the camping one), but I cant see what the surroundings are like.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 5:23 AM on December 19, 2007
So, my experience is that, in one instance, a tiny droplet of water can refract/reflect your flash back at you, making a bright spot on the picture where there wasn't one in the scene.
This may be especially relevant to the first picture in the series you linked (the camping one), but I cant see what the surroundings are like.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 5:23 AM on December 19, 2007
If you take a picture while snow is falling with a flash, it's orb city, baby.
posted by smackfu at 5:48 AM on December 19, 2007
posted by smackfu at 5:48 AM on December 19, 2007
With all the amateur pictures taken in which there is an "orb", you think they would be common just about everywhere. Why then are they never found in professional pictures or movies? You think they would be just as commonly found. The fact is they are just an artifact of poor picture taking. Some people are also amazed that using on-camera flash on a cheap camera to take photos while smoking a cig shows actual spirits flying in the ether.
posted by JJ86 at 6:05 AM on December 19, 2007
posted by JJ86 at 6:05 AM on December 19, 2007
The term "ghosting" (one of many kinds of image defect caused by unwanted light forming part of the recorded image as a result of imperfect lens design) has been employed by photographers for generations, but it was never intended to be taken literally.
As others have said, we're looking at a variety of phenomena in the pictures on the linked page. Mostly out-of-focus highlighting of airborne dust by a flash that's close to the lens on a small digital camera with a small sensor inside. There's also some text-book examples of lens flare typical of the wide-zoom-ratio, small-aperture lenses found on modern digital pocket-cameras.
It's unsurprising that the orb phenomenon became popular simultaneously with the arrival of affordable compact digital cameras. Small digital cameras have small sensors that increase the apparent depth of field sufficiently so that parts of the image (such as dust in the air near the camera) that would have been so massively out-of-focus so as to be unrecordable became merely very out-of-focus. Small cameras necessarily have their built-in flash closer to the lens, increasing the chance that anything in the air in front of the lens might reflect light from the flash straight back to it (this is also why most small-camera flashes create the characteristically unflattering deer-in-the-headlights look of pictures of people taken with them and can often create "red-eye").
Small cameras also need correspondingly small lenses. Marketing also demands wide-ratio zooms. Both these requirements force compromises in lens design (more glass elements and more radically shaped glass elements than ideal) that cause the lens to exhibit flare more easily.
For these reasons, older film cameras and modern larger cameras such as DSLRs are less likely to record orbs. Either that, or better camera gear affords superior protection from the supernatural.
posted by normy at 6:07 AM on December 19, 2007
As others have said, we're looking at a variety of phenomena in the pictures on the linked page. Mostly out-of-focus highlighting of airborne dust by a flash that's close to the lens on a small digital camera with a small sensor inside. There's also some text-book examples of lens flare typical of the wide-zoom-ratio, small-aperture lenses found on modern digital pocket-cameras.
It's unsurprising that the orb phenomenon became popular simultaneously with the arrival of affordable compact digital cameras. Small digital cameras have small sensors that increase the apparent depth of field sufficiently so that parts of the image (such as dust in the air near the camera) that would have been so massively out-of-focus so as to be unrecordable became merely very out-of-focus. Small cameras necessarily have their built-in flash closer to the lens, increasing the chance that anything in the air in front of the lens might reflect light from the flash straight back to it (this is also why most small-camera flashes create the characteristically unflattering deer-in-the-headlights look of pictures of people taken with them and can often create "red-eye").
Small cameras also need correspondingly small lenses. Marketing also demands wide-ratio zooms. Both these requirements force compromises in lens design (more glass elements and more radically shaped glass elements than ideal) that cause the lens to exhibit flare more easily.
For these reasons, older film cameras and modern larger cameras such as DSLRs are less likely to record orbs. Either that, or better camera gear affords superior protection from the supernatural.
posted by normy at 6:07 AM on December 19, 2007
Lens Flare; some of them are dust but in a camera like the SD 1000 sensor dust is unlikely unless it has been opened up for servicing.
posted by TedW at 6:10 AM on December 19, 2007
posted by TedW at 6:10 AM on December 19, 2007
i have this really (well i think so anyway) cool picture taken at yosemite falls that demonstrates this effect. basically the photo was taken at dusk by the falls with a flash to illuminate us. the flash somehow reflected on the mist in such a way as to make little "alien" orb faces that look exactly like the heads of these creatures all over the photo. other photos taken at the same time/location without the flash don't show these "faces."
another photo i took which is also cool (but not as much as the first example), was of a person bending over a desolate gravesite near a concentration camp. the sun was facing the direction of camera lens at the time. although i didn't notice the flare when i took the picture, the resulting photo showed a bright purple orb right over the gravesite.
now i am fascinated by the supernatural and consider my self a "believer" to some extent, but as a photographer, no way do i believe that the photos i took are in representations of the supernatural. the "orbs" appearing in your photo album are a quite common phenomena caused by a combination of particles in the air, flash, and/or lens flare. the idea that photographic "orbs" are spirits floating in the area is complete hogwash. don't buy into it.
now if you happen to witness ball lightning with your own eyes, i'd be up for the story.
posted by tastycracker at 6:10 AM on December 19, 2007
another photo i took which is also cool (but not as much as the first example), was of a person bending over a desolate gravesite near a concentration camp. the sun was facing the direction of camera lens at the time. although i didn't notice the flare when i took the picture, the resulting photo showed a bright purple orb right over the gravesite.
now i am fascinated by the supernatural and consider my self a "believer" to some extent, but as a photographer, no way do i believe that the photos i took are in representations of the supernatural. the "orbs" appearing in your photo album are a quite common phenomena caused by a combination of particles in the air, flash, and/or lens flare. the idea that photographic "orbs" are spirits floating in the area is complete hogwash. don't buy into it.
now if you happen to witness ball lightning with your own eyes, i'd be up for the story.
posted by tastycracker at 6:10 AM on December 19, 2007
Who's Alan?
It's pretty common for photographs to have strange lighting or shadow artifacts in them, and very common for humans to read meaning into them when there is none. These are all pretty straightforward photographic "errors" although errors is a misnomer. The camera is taking accurate photos of the light received, it's just that there are particles on the lenses that are being captured rather than the view behind them.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:54 AM on December 19, 2007
It's pretty common for photographs to have strange lighting or shadow artifacts in them, and very common for humans to read meaning into them when there is none. These are all pretty straightforward photographic "errors" although errors is a misnomer. The camera is taking accurate photos of the light received, it's just that there are particles on the lenses that are being captured rather than the view behind them.
posted by Deathalicious at 6:54 AM on December 19, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nathan_teske at 11:30 PM on December 18, 2007 [1 favorite]