Orb myths...

[GhostBreakers]

For those who believe or heard that ONLY digital cameras show the orb phenomena. The first two photos were taken long before digital cameras. The second being a cabinet card from the late 1800's or early 1900's



AND...For those who believe orbs are ONLY round. Here is one for you.

[webutaunte]

That is very interesting GB, I have never even thought to look on older photographs. I will now keep my eyes open. Also the peculiar diamond orbs are very intersting. Thanks. Good hunting. ~~^vv^~~

[Madidus]

WOw, thank you for sharing these! I have heard people explaining away orbs on digicams as collapsed people, but was unaware there was a contingent out there now that actually believed they were only captured by digital photography! You will find these anomalies in quite a few older pictures, and these are great examples. The reason being a couple of things. The first is a great example of how the old time shots used quite a longer exposure than we do now. You can see the "ghost" of the particle following right behind it, as it moved downward while the aperture was open. Another less common, but resulting in a much more fantastic result is caused by rogue particulates of magnesium being thrown into the pic by those olde tyme flashes. I love shots like the last one. Water can cause some beautiful otherworldly captures in photos, but none more so than in the form of ice. The resulting geometric shapes are spectacular. Thank you for sharing these with us!

[bpicofounders]

Now I have to throw my two cents in. Although I can't prove or disprove ORBs as paranormal energy. I have done many ORB photography experiments with our supply of digital cameras. We have examples of ORBs in one frame and not in the next when taking consecutive pictures. we have lone ORBs and clusters of ORBS. We were able to recreate ORBS in a picture, and we have at least one orb picture that defies our explaination. I want to tell all of you that ORBs are a result of environmental conditions at the time of the pictures that effect the digital processors of a given camera and are directly related to the technology of your camera, But I have no solid proof. so I won't say I do. I do have an opinion that most ORBs seem to be attributed to the Mega Pixel(MP) rating and processor size of the camera catching the ORB images. I seem to notice that the higher the MP rating and the more advanced the processor is on a camera, the less of these ORBs there are in a picture. This is not to say that BPI discounts ORBs as evidence, just that there is to many possibilities to use them as Proof by themselves of paranormal activity. ORBs in the forground of a picture are common. Orbs partailly obstructed by an object in a picture are quite rare and do need consideration. Orbs do appear on film but are mostly found on digital photography, Why? I have so many other questions and opinions on ORBs as they pertain to paranormal investigation that BPI does plan on continuing to experiment and research ORB photography.

[lowbattery71]

I worked in a very high end photography studio, and have seen so many anomalies created on negatives during the developmental phase. In the three photos I can see three things:

First photo - an artifact created when the film was processed. It is clearly on top of the image itself, and was more than likely the product of a chemical burn on the negative or excess chemical on the actual print when it was created.

Second photo - this picture is a type of tin print, and the camera used had a set focal length and required a very long exposure time to adequately capture a still image on chemically coated tin, usually painted black. It is very feasible for artifacts, be it through excess lighting to help brighten the scene to speed up the developmental process or sub-par coating of the chemicals to the tin , to be present. With all the blotching on the wall paper behind the subject I would say it's just part of the wall paper over-lit for the scene.

The third picture is just lens flare - refraction of light created by several areas in the scene casting sunlight at the lens.

I wrote an in-depth blog about lens flaring and "orbs"...feel free to check it out. I use that diagram extensively when tutoring people on what they see in photos they think have examples of paranormal orbs in them. blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=396739240&blogId=454102632

So not only digital cameras are susceptible to artifacts such as this. What one has to remember about what a true "orb" is in paranormal terms is that the apparition wil be just that - seen with the naked eye, emitting not only it's own light but also it's own shadow as it will had substance and will not allow the flash of the camera to penetrate it, allowing anyone studying the photo to figure where in the scene the anomaly is because of shadow casting. None of the examples above exhibit these features.

[RainCityParanormal]

If it's not emitting it's OWN light without a flash or direct sunlight pouring in...it's going to be hard to convince anyone that it's not just dust or grease on the lens. Old photo were still taken using glass or plastic lenses... If you have a photo, shot in a VERY remote area, at night and you STILL are capturing orbs with no flashes used, you'd have something to go on! Which I've seen, BTW. Fun topic, though!

[GhostBreakers]

This was just posted as a fun topic and to clear up the myth that orbs were a new phenomenon. Not a debate to their validity.
Just wanted to make that clear so people didn't think this was to bash those who believe or not believe in orbs...

[lowbattery71]

Great post! Always a good thing to bring information to the masses.

[The Paranormals-Celtic]

Due to the size limitations of the modern compact and ultra-compact cameras, especially digital cameras, the distance between the lens and the built-in flash has decreased, thereby decreasing the angle of light reflection to the lens and increasing the likelihood of light reflection off normally sub-visible particles. Hence, the orb is commonplace with small digital or film camera photographs.
The orb can result from reflection of light off solid particles (e.g., dust, pollen), liquid particles (water droplets, especially rain) or other foreign material within the camera lens including insects.
The orbs usually appear as either white or semi-transparent circles, though may also occur with whole or partial color spectrums, purple fringing or other chromatic aberration. With rain droplets, an image may capture light passing through the droplet creating a small rainbow effect.
Underwater photographers notice the effect also, which occurs for the same reason as above-water photographic artifacts. Sand, small sea life or other particles close to the lens, invisible to the diver, reflect light from the flash causing the orb in the image. A strobe flash, which distances the flash from the lens, eliminates theorbs.

Or if you really want to know how cameras catch "orbs" check this out.... www.tnspirits.com/Photography.htm#truthaboutorbs

[lowbattery71]

Good article, man.

[GhostBreakers]

There are different kinds of orbs. The ones most are interested in are photographic orbs. The kind seen in photos and video.

As far as my opinion, it comes down to this. One person says one thing and one person says another.

Regardless of what anyone says, how do they know for sure one way or the other?

Do they have the dust particle that made the orb?

Do they have the spirit that caused the orb?

Do they have the orb?

Seems to me that orbs are just a matter of interpretation and faith that, what the individual sees is a paranormal phenomenon or not.

I also think that these TV shows are just taking advantage of the naiveté of some people and telling them every speck of dust is a paranormal orb.

[roestman]

Here is a somewhat simple test. Find a room where you have noticed the orb anomaly. Use a camera without the flash, also adjust the time on the shutter so it stays open, say about a minute and see what you see. You will need a tripod with this. If the orb produces light and the room is in darkness the pictures should show an elongated smear of light. The room needs to be in darkness without any illumination. I would probably set the ASA setting to around 800, lower for longer duration shutter time.

[lowbattery71]

Jan 4, 2010 20:41:57 GMT -5 GhostBreakers said:

There are different kinds of orbs. The ones most are interested in are photographic orbs. The kind seen in photos and video.

As far as my opinion, it comes down to this. One person says one thing and one person says another.

Regardless of what anyone says, how do they know for sure one way or the other?

Do they have the dust particle that made the orb?

Do they have the spirit that caused the orb?

Do they have the orb?

Seems to me that orbs are just a matter of interpretation and faith that, what the individual sees is a paranormal phenomenon or not.

I also think that these TV shows are just taking advantage of the naiveté of some people and telling them every speck of dust is a paranormal orb.

Well, actually they do have the particles. All around them. Photographic articfacts are a common occurrence for a very simple reason:



It all comes down to the depth of field of the camera and the relative distance of the flash to the lens and the distance of the particulates to the lens. The closer they are, the larger and more out of focus they will be because of blurring. The closer these particulates are to where they will fall into focus within the depth of field of the camera the smaller and brighter they will become as they will begin reflecting more and more of the flash back at the camera. Once within the depth of field of the camera they will again become invisible because now they are in focus and too small to reflect back adequate amounts of light to the camera. Of course in areas with large amounts of dust of moisture they can overwhelm the shot, but in minuscule amounts you'd never see them.

I totally understand that what it comes down to is the eye and belief of the beholder as far as these orbs are concerned in photos. However as a researcher part of my job is learning to understand what isn't paranormal when it comes to things before trying to understand what may be paranormal. This phenomenon, a very well defined and understood problem with point and shoot cameras, is something that has been full explained by those who know it best - photographers and camera developers.

[The Paranormals-Celtic]

Well presented Low...

[GhostBreakers]

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe photographic orbs are paranormal, however...

Yes, I will agree, that explanation was well presented but I think the majority knows what they could be. What they really are is what the believer thinks. Just explaining what they could be no matter how well, doesn't explain away the phenomenon to the orb believer. It just gives an alternate explanation or another reason for them. You can find alternate reasons for most any phenomenon but an alternate reason just tells what could be not what is. That is debunkers and skeptics method.

What I said was they don't have the exact particle that caused the orb and you can't get it. You can get millions of dust particles, moisture droplets, etc, but you will never find the one that caused the orb in the photo.

The point I was trying to make is that orb believers really can't be proven wrong and that is their strong point and what keeps their faith alive. Faith being the key word. I guess the debate will rage on for a long time to come and I see it as a good thing. It causes those with views on the subject to continue to look into it. Besides, faith is unshakeable. So, should we even waste the effort in trying to change their minds?

The whole debate really boils down to this anyway. What does an orb, paranormal orb or not, really tell you? Nothing!

Einstein also said...

Any intelligent person can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.