Circles on digital images
MikeM
as
the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a number of smaller
circles that are in different positions on each photo. Any suggestions
what
might be causing it?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
Thanks
Mike
MC
Dust or water particles reflecting light from the flash.
MC
SayWhat
Those are spirits and ghosts. Commonly known as "orbs" in the nu-ager
spiritual community. The one in your image seems to be attached to that gal
in front of the camera. No doubt a long-dead relative that came to enjoy
the concert with her. You can find thousands of sites online where people
post these "orb" photos as physical proof of spiritual entities.
Only special photography equipment can capture their presence. Smaller
compact cameras where the built-in flash is very close to the front lens
element seems important to attract these ghostly spirits. Those compact
cameras which have lenses of wider apertures seem to capture the largest
orbs as well. Some suspect this is due to the shallower DOF making nearer
out-of-focus orbs appear larger than they actually are. These scary "orbs"
tend to not hang around cameras where the flash is further away from the
lens or when using off-camera flash units. Consequently, they never show up
at all when flash is not used.
I think it has something to do with the huge electrical potential in the
flash unit in close proximity of the precise curvatures of the focusing
glass. Not unlike how ball-lighting is formed during intense electrical
storms. Or a crystal-ball can focus the energies of the dead or of the
future. The camera's design sets up an energy vortex comprised of the
glass' (earth & water) elemental energies with the flash's (air & fire)
elemental energies. This differential of all four element-energies of such
purity and power being so close to each other all at once seem to attract
and capture these "orbs" in their travels through spiritual planes, just
long enough to photograph them.
Or ...
It might just be air-borne dust close to the front of the camera lens when
the built-in flash fires.
It's difficult to say which. It all depends on how boring and psychotic
your life has become as to which you will choose as the most plausible
explanation.
:-)
Martin Brown
Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
illuminated by the built in flash.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David J Taylor
news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
.. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras as they have a greater
depth of field, and have the flash axially closer to the taking lens.
Less prevalent with DSLRs.
Cheers,
David
The DSLR-Troll's Correction Officer
<david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
>> MikeM wrote:
>>> A friend asked me what could be causing the circles on his photos such
>>> as the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a number of
>>> smaller circles that are in different positions on each photo. Any
>>> suggestions
>>> what might be causing it?
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
>>
>> Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
>> illuminated by the built in flash.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Martin Brown
>
>.. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras
And yet, I have never seen even one in the hundreds of thousands of
photographs that I've taken with my P&S cameras.
> as they have a greater depth of field,
Which would make them smaller and less apparent if all other lighting and
subject positionings were also equal.
> and have the flash axially closer to the taking lens.
>Less prevalent with DSLRs.
Only due to the DSLRs gargantuan and ungainly size. It's not due to quality
issues of any sort. Only the proximity of a flash to the lens is what
causes this. Nothing more. Use a flash in a hot-shoe on a P&S camera (many
have them), or use an off-camera flash with a slave unit, shielding the
built-in flash from emitting light forward, and the problem becomes
non-existent for all P&S cameras.
rwalker
Officer <td...@dlsrtrollscorrections.gov> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:01:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
>>> MikeM wrote:
>>>> A friend asked me what could be causing the circles on his photos such
>>>> as the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a number of
>>>> smaller circles that are in different positions on each photo. Any
>>>> suggestions
>>>> what might be causing it?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
>>>
>>> Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
>>> illuminated by the built in flash.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>>.. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras
>
>And yet, I have never seen even one in the hundreds of thousands of
>photographs that I've taken with my P&S cameras.
Try taking the lens cap off.
rwalker
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:57:00 GMT, MikeM <mmo4...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
snip
>and capture these "orbs" in their travels through spiritual planes, just
>long enough to photograph them.
>
>Or ...
>
>It might just be air-borne dust close to the front of the camera lens when
>the built-in flash fires.
>
>It's difficult to say which. It all depends on how boring and psychotic
>your life has become as to which you will choose as the most plausible
>explanation.
>
>:-)
Check out some of the "ghost photographs" web sites. Shots of camera
straps are "vortices" from other dimensions, fogged up lenses are
ghosts, cigarette smoke is ghosts, water vapor in your breath on a
cold day is a ghost. Lens flare is ghosts. Smudges on windows are
ghostly faces. The important thing to note is that your photos aren't
bad, you have simply photographed another plane of existence.
MC
This is correct.
MC
MC
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:01:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
> >> MikeM wrote:
> >>> A friend asked me what could be causing the circles on his photos
> such >>> as the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a
> number of >>> smaller circles that are in different positions on each
> photo. Any >>> suggestions
> >>> what might be causing it?
> > > >
> >>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
> > >
> >> Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
> >> illuminated by the built in flash.
> > >
> >> Regards,
> >> Martin Brown
> >
> > .. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras
>
> And yet, I have never seen even one in the hundreds of thousands of
> photographs that I've taken with my P&S cameras.
Normally only effects digital cameras as the sensor is more sensitive
in the extremes of colour spectrum that film. About time you went
digital if a P&S is all you can muster.
> > as they have a greater depth of field,
>
> Which would make them smaller and less apparent if all other lighting
> and subject positionings were also equal.
Depends how close the particle was to the lens.
> > and have the flash axially closer to the taking lens.
> > Less prevalent with DSLRs.
>
> Only due to the DSLRs gargantuan and ungainly size. It's not due to
> quality issues of any sort. Only the proximity of a flash to the lens
> is what causes this. Nothing more. Use a flash in a hot-shoe on a P&S
> camera (many have them) ...
...and lot of them don't.
> ...or use an off-camera flash with a slave
> unit, shielding the built-in flash from emitting light forward, and
> the problem becomes non-existent for all P&S cameras.
Bit of a hassle though, don't you think? Eliminates the whole point of
P&S, something easy and quick to use in a snap shot situation. First
you moan about the size and weight of a an dSLR then you advocate
lugging around half a ton of flash gear. Unbelievable.
MC
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:01:36 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><david-...@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
>>> MikeM wrote:
>>>> A friend asked me what could be causing the circles on his photos such
>>>> as the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a number of
>>>> smaller circles that are in different positions on each photo. Any
>>>> suggestions
>>>> what might be causing it?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
>>>
>>> Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
>>> illuminated by the built in flash.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin Brown
>>
>>.. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras
>
>And yet, I have never seen even one in the hundreds of thousands of
>photographs that I've taken with my P&S cameras.
You don't take pictures, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Martin Brown
> David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:KkxOm.30508$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
>>> MikeM wrote:
>>>> A friend asked me what could be causing the circles on his photos
>>>> such as the one on Flickr. Other photos in the series had a
>>>> number of smaller circles that are in different positions on
>>>> each photo. Any suggestions what might be causing it?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
>>> Dust in the air near the camera very out of focus and strongly
>>> illuminated by the built in flash.
>> .. and more likely to be seen with P&S cameras as they have a greater
>> depth of field, and have the flash axially closer to the taking lens.
>> Less prevalent with DSLRs.
>
> This is correct.
Although it can still happen with an SLR or DSLR if the flash is too
close to the lens axis and the air is a bit dusty - eg at a barn dance.
A very brutal version is in a blizzard if the flash goes off.
Incidentally has anyone else seen the warning on the new Ixus 100 etc
which says words to the effect that the flash intensity out of the tiny
window is so high it will inflict burns if you put your finger over it
and it definitely vapourises organic dust in a puff of smoke!
Regards,
Martin Brown
MC
Mmmm...if it burns enough to cause injury it would not be allowed.
Flashes do let off a lot of heat, after all the flash is indeed an
intense concentration of light. However, enough to to vapourise dust?
Maybe around the element itself but not outside the camera.
MC
SayWhat
Yes, I've seen those. :-) I was so hoping someone would reply,
"Orbs it is, then!"
LOL
Martin Brown
Why not? Plenty of devices are close to borderline of being capable of
causing injury if misused. Kettles for instance.
> Flashes do let off a lot of heat, after all the flash is indeed an
> intense concentration of light. However, enough to to vapourise dust?
> Maybe around the element itself but not outside the camera.
I am not kidding. I'll find the safety warning card which is clearly an
addition. The warning says do not obscure the flash with your finger or
third degree burns may result. The flash window on it is tiny!
The main manual only says do not take flash photos of a baby at closer
than 1m distance. The afterthought warning is on the packing list card
labelled "CAUTION: Read Reverse" and that says in several languages..
--exact verbatim quote UK instruction card ---
Caution
When using the flash, be careful not to cover it with your fingers or
clothing. This could result in burns or damage to the flash. In regular
use, small amounts of smoke may be emitted from the flash. This is due
to the high intensity of the flash burning dust and foreign materials
stuck to the front of the unit. Please use a cotton swab to remove dirt,
dust or other foreign matter from the flash to prevent heat build up and
damage to the unit.
--end quote --
Even an ordinary high guide number flashgun of the classic 2x1" aperture
type will cook flies at point blank range if they are unlucky enough to
be on the front surface when it fires. They don't work too well after
being flash boiled and spiral to the ground.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Don Lope de Aguirre
> straps are "vortices" from other dimensions, fogged up lenses are
> ghosts, cigarette smoke is ghosts, water vapor in your breath on a
> cold day is a ghost. Lens flare is ghosts. Smudges on windows are
> ghostly faces. The important thing to note is that your photos aren't
> bad, you have simply photographed another plane of existence.
I took some photos in my bathroom one day and about 3 of them had what
looked exactly like ghost plasma I've seen in photos claiming to be spirit
plasma, blue smoky band, tried to reproduce it and never could.
John McWilliams
Were you shooting into the mirror and instead of your reflection you saw
the dreaded plasma?
That isn't good. I hope you have Medicaid or some such, but it's
probably not covered.
--
john mcwilliams
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> However, enough to to vapourise dust?
> Maybe around the element itself but not outside the camera.
Old (used bought) 550ex flash with a ... uhm, somewhat darkened
flash window. Released slight, but clearly visible smoke curls
from said slightly opaque plastic whenever fired at full power.
Looked like smoke from a burning cigarette.
And that's a comparatively huge window ...
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:19:11 -0600, The DSLR-Troll's Correction
>>And yet, I have never seen even one in the hundreds of thousands of
>>photographs that I've taken with my P&S cameras.
> Try taking the lens cap off.
The slime would have to *buy* a camera to take off a lens cap.
It's far easier to *steal* DSLR shots from flickr and 'show'
them using tiny sizes and anonymous and soon (if not always)
invalid URLs instead of ones like
| http://www.flickr.com/photos/35877005@N03/4127152735/
and claim they're the slime's handheld, shot in complete darkness,
etc. etc. etc. P&S shots. Which explains the "hundreds of
thousands of photographs" claim: flickr is huge.
-Wolfgang
Bhogi
wrote:
> MC wrote:
> > Martin Brown wrote:
>
> >> MC wrote:
> >>> David J Taylor wrote:
>
My Canon 430EX fits your description. It is true that its flash is
blinding at full power to the near wall, but it burns nothing. Out of
curiosity I flashed it full power touching my skin and I can feel some
instantaneous heat but far from it being able to burn anything. 2x1"
is a large area compared to P&S flashes.