Steve
Ghostly EVP
Posts: 349
|
Post by Steve on Aug 30, 2008 17:11:41 GMT
There is an article in this months Paranormal Magazine (issue28 October 2008) entitled 'ORBS: Just a load of Balls ?'
The article is about research form the UK-based Para.Science Team, Their main argument is that ORB's only really came into being when digital compact cameras became widespread and also the use of night vision Video cameras. This is an argument that most Paranormal Investigators are familiar with. The article is very interesting and explains how they believe ORB's are just dust or water droplets in the air.
What are other peoples thoughts ?
One final point from me. The article states that 'Orb' phenomenon on 'Film' cameras is almost unknown.
One of the best 'Orb' pictures I have taken, I took using a 35mm 'film' camera. It is a picture of an orb next to the infamous cot at Athelhampton Hall in Dorset. I took the pic about 15years ago before I even knew what an Orb was !
I will have to find the pic and scan it in and post it here !
Steve
|
|
|
|
Post by Lauraakafoxy on Sept 1, 2008 16:20:22 GMT
Hmmmmm - I agree many/most are just dust or moisture but i do believe there is more to orbs than just that.
As some move with intelligence, some appear during activity, some can be seen with the naked eye and they can also be caught on 35mm cameras not just digital.
I also know of a few pictures that were sent off to experts in photography and came back inconclusive which basically means they cant say what caused the orb only they dont think it was dust or moisture.
Here is a snippet from our equipment section on cameras & orbs:
This is due to the images that they produce.
The main argument against them is that they do not produce a negative film.
The problem with this is you can't prove that the picture has not been altered in any way as the negative shows what the camera sees.
Another problem with digital cameras is the compact size of some cameras.
The small size means that the flash can be too close to the lens.
This can produce fake orbs in certain conditions (e.g. dust or rain causing particles in the air).
The other side of the argument is that digital cameras are more sensitive to infra-red light - a light invisible to humans.
There are theories that orbs are within the infra-red spectrum. This means digital cameras can pick them up with less difficulty.
The best digital cameras to use are larger cameras with the flash positioned a distance from the lens.
It is recommended that you use a camera with a lens hood as this will help seperate the flash from the lens helping to eliminate dust orbs.
Personally im open to the idea of orbs but i do believe that many can be dust, moisture, airbourne particles - but i have come across more unexplainable ones so i do think there is something to them and they are worthy of further investigation.
|
|
|
|
Post by heimdall on Nov 12, 2008 12:04:39 GMT
this fascinates me! I don't know if anyone else has heard of or visited an amazing place named St Nectan's Glen, outside Boscastle in North Cornwall? it has a waterfall, which might explain the water droplet theory, but as far as the digital anomaly goes, the keeper of the glen has been sent pictures since the mid 1980's I beleive of orbs in/around the falls. here are some pics, they are not mine, and I do not make any claims about them, just very interesting, especially some of the mists: travel.webshots.com/album/559051118MHXlDD |
|
Steve
Ghostly EVP
Posts: 349
|
Post by Steve on Nov 12, 2008 15:18:05 GMT
Some interesting photos there. Due to the proximity of the waterfall, many of the 'orbs' could well be explained as water droplets. But the mist pictures are very interesting indeed. Hurrah ! I have just found the picture I was talking about at the beginning of this board, and scanned it in. The photo is of a light anomaly next to the infamous cot at Athelhampton Hall in Dorset. I took the pic about 10-15years ago before I even knew what an Orb was ! It was taken with a conventional 'film' camera long before the days of digital !  |
|
|
|
Post by heimdall on Nov 12, 2008 16:49:12 GMT
great photo, and 15 years ago I take it that you used a film SLR camera? no digital back then.
there has been a lot of paranormal research at that St Nectan's glen. I have been there 3 times now, and the last time (this June 2008) my partner and I dowsed the area. there are two very strong energy lines running through the site. It does appear logical that most of the orbs are the result of moister and spray from the waterfall. The mist in the pics though seems definitely not spray, as there really isn't much from the waterfall. it is quite sheltered. some of the orbs that were infocus and closer to the camera have very definite structures, almost like a cell under a microscope.
do you know of any reports of people actually seeing the orbs with their own eyes? rather than captured in photo's? my ex swears that she saw some light anomolies 'dancing' on the rear parcel shelf of her car, but I think that there was probably 101 reasons for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner on Aug 26, 2009 5:29:18 GMT
Going on these paranormal investigations as I do, I get heartily sick of all these "orb" photos that are so commonly captured by miniature digital cameras and then, for some strange reason, interpreted as evidence of paranormal manifestation. The web is infested with millions of them, and I'd just like to point out that orbs are nothing but flash-illuminated particles in the air very close to the camera lens, and I think I proved this last Saturday night with a little experiment A picture was taken by someone who gets orbs all the time on a pocket digital camera with a flash very close to the lens which is set to telephoto, and hey, wow, it's full of them! Cripes, there MUST be a spirit there! I took one of this picture being taken with a Nikon D200 with a wide angle lens with no flash and a 5 second exposure (so effectively the only exposure is provided by the flash that took the other pic as it is otherwise pretty dark) . . . . . and there are no orbs. If they were there they would be visible in both shots, but as they are actually minute dust particles very close to the pocket camera's lens, you can't see them in the other photo. Oh, and they never show up in my camera when I flash anything, because the flash is too far from the lens so it can't light up miniscule bits of crud half an inch in front of the lens. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by mariner on Aug 26, 2009 5:38:25 GMT
With reference to the St Nectan's glen photos - the ones I've looked at have been taken with flash (you can tell by the shadows the leaves make) therefore the flash is just lighting up particles in the air. Your shot at Athelhampton has been taken with direct flash and that orb is flare from a shiny surface. You can get round this problem by bouncing the flash off the ceiling or wall if you have a movable flash head.
|
|
