Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Helen of Annoy

What do you think this is?

85 posts in this topic

Gee, thanks for the implication. I withdraw my offer and I won't be biting on your posts again.

To use your words.. You seriously think those images are valuable? Good luck with your sales pitch..

It’s never about money in my case, but it is about authorship.

What the eff else would you need the original card file for?

Ask for original resolution photo and I’ll post it instantly. Asking for email exchange or my original files is kinda intrusive, you know. If I wanted my privacy plastered on the ‘net, I’d be on eff-book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not applicable to the Spirit of Winter, but has a lot to do with those awful grainy scans I’ve posted later in the thread :yes:

Either it’s tubular semi-transparent structure invisible to a naked eye, either it’s something zooming too damn fast for a bug.

Speaking of bugs, I have a lot of photos with more or less silly effects created by bugs, but each is clearly a bug or a bug trail upon closer inspection. Or it’s possible to stretch it and say it’s probably a bug. Only these spirals defy any explanation. (In my opinion, of course.)

That reminds me... I remember the first time I caught the tip of my own finger in a photo, by mistake of course. It was ages ago, when first compact (or “toy” as I call them) cameras came. It’s a lot harder to stick a finger in front of real camera lens, but it’s no problem with tiny compacts. So I was all puzzled with huge oval dark and kinda pink on the edge thing that ate half the photo. For about 5 seconds or less, which is how long it takes to explain the obvious, even if you see it for the first time.

I also have few nice anomalies that are really just plain camera straps, up close and totally unwanted. That’s why none of my cameras has any straps attached, since 1980s. I want my anomalies pristine!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually very interesting, because I have taken many photos over the years(including of churchyards and very old buildings), and I can't remember ever having one with a 'glitch' in it! Absolutely nothing that made me say: 'What is that? Where did that come from?'. Sooo ........ are all yours glitches? *cue spooky music*

I've shot pictures in snow and fog and rain. I've used 35mm film cameras, digital cameras with small sensors, and now digital cameras with 35mm sensors. I've taken lots of pictures where fog, bugs, drops of water, light from the viewfinder, flare from light sources, and random objects like cotton seeds close to the lens have made something that looked like a ghost (a white splotch like this one) in the image. I never considered these pictures to be paranormal. I considered them ruined.

In the days of film we had the extra factor of sloppy processing and leaky cameras. My Canon AE-1 had a gasket around the body back that crumbed after a few years. If the conditions were right, bright light could leak into the mirror box and add some interesting images to the photo. Ever wondered why infrared film caught so many ghosts back in the 70's and 80's? I think it's because you needed to load the film in complete darkness. Many photographers didn't do this and the first one or two shots would have splotches of light that leaked into the canister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've shot pictures in snow and fog and rain. I've used 35mm film cameras, digital cameras with small sensors, and now digital cameras with 35mm sensors. I've taken lots of pictures where fog, bugs, drops of water, light from the viewfinder, flare from light sources, and random objects like cotton seeds close to the lens have made something that looked like a ghost (a white splotch like this one) in the image. I never considered these pictures to be paranormal. I considered them ruined.

In the days of film we had the extra factor of sloppy processing and leaky cameras. My Canon AE-1 had a gasket around the body back that crumbed after a few years. If the conditions were right, bright light could leak into the mirror box and add some interesting images to the photo. Ever wondered why infrared film caught so many ghosts back in the 70's and 80's? I think it's because you needed to load the film in complete darkness. Many photographers didn't do this and the first one or two shots would have splotches of light that leaked into the canister.

Do you still keep any of your ruined photos?

I’d love to compare my splotch with yours.

I’d also appreciate any explanation for that particular type of splotch. Is it bug or drop then, flare or seed, it’s just too general statement, comes down to splotch is a splotch, something caused it, amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still keep any of your ruined photos?

I have over a million photos backed up on nearly a thousand DVD's. I don't tag unusable photos (only the ones people want) so they wouldn't be easy to find.

Here's one I took with my leaky AE-1:

86.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, scowl.

Though I think I was clear about leaks and other obvious technical glitches. I know what most common faults look like, the splotch that’s puzzling me (photo from my original post) is definitely not a leak, not to re-elaborate why.

By the way, I have few wonderful leaks in colour photos that make photographed person look like they’re standing in teleporter beam to hell, but nothing paranormal about it, of course.

Anything splotchy that would match my splotch from the OP? You don't have to post a photo, just give me your opinion. (I bet you'll say condensation :D and you bet I'll say no way, condensation doesn't look angular :D)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like snowy mist stuff that gets blown in the wind to me. Atleast that happens during winter here sometimes

Yep, probably this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, probably this.

Thank you for taking a look, but no, definitely not that.

Snow was very obviously falling but there was no significant wind. I also posted (in the beginning of this thread) a photo with snow falling off branches, to show how it looks like – not at all like the anomaly.

Temperature was just below zero Celsius (duh, it wouldn’t be snow but rain if it was any higher) and my breath wasn’t visible like it sometimes is in low temperatures and/or high humidity. Camera is digital, so I'm not huffing and puffing directly at it, I usually hold it on lightly bent arms' lenght.

In short, I’ve exhausted all common explanations and that’s why I posted the photo, to see if there are any less common explanations. (I admit, secretly hoping there are none and my anomaly is the Spirit of Winter :D )

So, I’m not giving it up easy, but I promised I will accept convincing rational explanation and I stick to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything splotchy that would match my splotch from the OP? You don't have to post a photo, just give me your opinion. (I bet you'll say condensation :D and you bet I'll say no way, condensation doesn't look angular :D)

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :D 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's cold mist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or because we both like to have the last word :lol:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:st

@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?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.