84 replies to this topic

[Helen of Annoy]

scowl, on 02 January 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

One thing about condensation on the lens is that it can be lit up in unexpected ways. In the original photo it looks like the fog on the right roughly matches the snow on the tree on the left. There can also be condensation on the sensor which can have other effects.

Whenever you're taking pictures out in the cold and they come out foggy, condensation is usually the explanation.

True.
Still I think it’s too angular and I’d expect similar effect in other photos taken in very short time span and in the same conditions.
As you can see, I’m not letting my Spirit of Winter condense into nothing special.  

I wish I'd catch similar anomaly again, it's easier to tell something sensible from more than just one example.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 03 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[scowl]

Either I'm not seeing "angular" or I don't know what you mean by it. As condensation forms on a vertical dry surface and gravity pulls it down it can create a web of water lines. When you add other forces like moving around the camera, the drops of water can be pushed around in other ways. There is even some art that uses this effect with drops of paint slowly dripping down canvas and forming lines with other drops of paint.

Edited by scowl, 04 January 2013 - 05:19 PM.

[Helen of Annoy]

Maybe it’s my English, maybe “angular” is not the correct or usual adjective. I can't think of a synonym used to describe a shape with angles, corners, not entirely round or smooth... having "elbows".    

The anomaly does not look like typical drops of condensed water sliding down the lens because drops don’t suddenly take 90 degrees turns, unless the lens was moved with sufficient force, while the shutter was opened, of course. Which was not the case, if I had shaken the camera that hard, the photo would be blurry.  
Also, condensed water trails would not appear to overlay each other, they’d converge.

And even if drops can leave that kind of trails, take sudden turns at right angle and cross over each other without converging, it’s just not realistic to expect nothing condensed on any photos before or after, all taken in a row.

But thanks for suggestion. I appreciate it.

[scowl]

Helen of Annoy, on 04 January 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

The anomaly does not look like typical drops of condensed water sliding down the lens because drops don’t suddenly take 90 degrees turns, unless the lens was moved with sufficient force, while the shutter was opened, of course. Which was not the case, if I had shaken the camera that hard, the photo would be blurry.  

I believe the condensation was forming on your lens long before you took the picture. That means it was moving around as you carried the camera.

Quote

Also, condensed water trails would not appear to overlay each other, they’d converge.

The condensation isn't a continuous sheet of water. It's actually thousands of microscopic water droplets of varying sizes and densities. The amount of dust on the surface promotes larger condensation and can form patterns. Some drops might converge. Some might not. It will be completely random and can form any kind of pattern.

Quote

And even if drops can leave that kind of trails, take sudden turns at right angle and cross over each other without converging, it’s just not realistic to expect nothing condensed on any photos before or after, all taken in a row.

It may be a matter of how the light hit the condensation in that particular photo.

Of course there are many other possible things that can go wrong when you take a picture!

[notforgotten]

I think it's cold mist.

[Helen of Annoy]

scowl and notforgotten, I appreciate your input but to be honest, the thread has reached the stage of simply repeating our opinions.
You clearly see condensation (on the lens or in the air), I see an anomaly that is not a condensation (at least not condensed water, I’d go that far to include condensed energy in my speculations).
I guess it’s a matter of personal interpretation and expectations.

[scowl]

I've shot in cold weather and I've seen similar effects from condensation on lenses.

We're repeating our opinions because you would rather believe that the photo absolutely must be paranormal.

[Helen of Annoy]

Or because we both like to have the last word
Actually, I'm not looking for having the last word, it's the opposite... it seems rude not to reply and so it goes on and on...

If that's what's going on with you too, then we can drop it. If not, then it would help if you'd post a photo with similar effect and explain why has condensation appeared only in one photo.

[scowl]

Helen of Annoy, on 09 January 2013 - 07:14 PM, said:

If that's what's going on with you too, then we can drop it. If not, then it would help if you'd post a photo with similar effect and explain why has condensation appeared only in one photo.

What make and model camera was used to take this photo?

[ouija ouija]

@scowl: in Helen's OP she shows two photos taken seconds apart ....... what do you think happened to the 'condensation' in those few seconds? What made it completely disappear?


Helen, were you using a flash?

[scowl]

ouija ouija, on 09 January 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

@scowl: in Helen's OP she shows two photos taken seconds apart ....... what do you think happened to the 'condensation' in those few seconds? What made it completely disappear?

One possibility: it evaporated as the camera was exposed to the outside air.

Second possibility: the direction of the light changed enough that light didn't hit it to light it up.

Third possibility: it is actually a snowflake very close to the camera lens.

[Helen of Annoy]

ouija, yes, I was using a flash, of the same intensity for each photo.


scowl,
it’s Olympus VG-110, still new but I had very similar “toy” Olympuses before and never caught anything like that before. Still working fine, no glitches of any kind. As I already explained and re-explained. No, it can't leak, it's digital camera.  

One: not the first photo in the row. Photos taken before should show more condensation. Or if the condensation has been forming while taking photos, the anomaly should be more visible in later photos.

Second:   I really stood in the same spot, took photos with the same routine, same flash, same ambient lights, no cars, no light from the house. Nothing changed from photo to photo, not even the angle or height at which I kept my arms.

Third: or a fairy really close to the lens... snowflakes were obviously close but there was no significant wind, I was under roof (that sticks about half metre out, more than enough to stay dry in calm air) and the snow was rather wet and “heavy” (that’s why it looked so good on trees, it was sticking to everything). So snowflakes were not erratically flying like dry snow sometimes does in the wind. I’d notice if a wet, big snowflake is now a drop on my lens. That would also show in later photos.
A snowflake relatively close but not on the lense would not create such effect, it creates effect of compact white blotch, as seen in all photos in that row. Also, such relatively close snowflakes would, again, be there in all other photos and, again and again, would show in other photos.

Since you took million photos, at least few hundred were in the snow. How many times a snowflake has created effect matching my anomaly? I would love to see it, for the sake of giving some practical weight to a theory.  

Scientific explanation has to be proven, I won’t write something off based on relatively new phenomenon of scientific superstition.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 10 January 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[wolfknight]

Looks like snow fog to me. I have seen it before. Hot air incountering cold air.

[Helen of Annoy]

I appreciate your opinions, folks, but would those who think it’s condensation, snow slide, snow fog and similar kindly review the thread and see why I’m quite sure it’s not any of those.
New arguments in favour of condensation are welcome, but new arguments, please, "it must be it" doesn't count as such.

If I said "it must be Santa Claus" you'd think I'm insane, right? You'd rightfully ask for argumentation and would not accept my belief as valid reference of Santa. So I'm not accepting water effect theory without any references. It would be... well, superstition.

[ouija ouija]

Whilst I was only joking when I said on page one that it was the Spirit of Winter, I'm not ruling out the possibility of it being something that is not normally visible to the naked eye(or most naked eyes, anyway), and I have to say that I don't find any of the suggestions from anyone else at all convincing. For instance: scowl's suggestion that it's condensation doesn't 'hold water'(lol) because photos were taken immediately before and after it which had nothing odd in them at all. Condensation wouldn't form and then disappear in the seconds between photos being taken.
(And now I can't remember why I asked if you used a flash ...... darn it! Hey-ho! It will come back to me, I expect. Sorry).