Couple take picture of 'Loch Ness Monster'

[UM-Bot]

A couple visiting Loch Ness have captured a photograph of something in the water that they believe could be the famed Loch Ness Monster, but what exactly does the picture show ?

"A couple enjoying a romantic weekend in the Highlands believe they may have had a close encounter with the Loch Ness Monster. Experts are now investigating this latest photograph, which was taken by accident, to establish if it is in fact the Loch's most famous resident. Ian Monckton, from Solihull, took his fiance Tracey Gordon to a cottage in Invermoriston on the shores of the loch to celebrate her 30th birthday."

View: Full Article (with picture) | Source: Highland News

[Harriet The Ripperologist]

Yay! A new Nessie picture! Not a very good one, but I was starting to get worried.....

[Still Waters]

This is very interesting, but i guess we'll have to wait and see what the 'experts' make of it.

[Cristina1]

surprise surprise....another poor quality picture....

[ExpandMyMind]

lol please tell me there arent still people kickin' about who believe in nessie...

[S2F]

With today's advancements in digital imaging and the abundance of good quality digital camera's on the market, I don't think blurry blobs should be counted as evidence any more. JMO

*(That goes for any cryptid.)

[Still Waters]

lol please tell me there arent still people kickin' about who believe in nessie...

Well I for one don't, but like I said, I'm still interested to hear what the 'experts' make of it.

[Neognosis]

Hm, a barely discernible blob accompanied by an elaborate, made up story. How surprising.

[fenris1011]

With today's advancements in digital imaging and the abundance of good quality digital camera's on the market, I don't think blurry blobs should be counted as evidence any more. JMO

*(That goes for any cryptid.)

Yeah. I totally agree.

[Mr.United_Nations]

Has anyone mentioned Turtle in Lock Ness?

[meankitty]

Has anyone mentioned Turtle in Lock Ness?

Yeah, it does look like a turtle's butt.

[Graylady]

its time to fire these people...

They should be titled Attention ***** of the Day..

[Ketzer]

It doesn't look like anything.

This is far from being proof.

[Asteroth]

That could literally be anything.

You know what...If I'm ever in Scottland around Lochness, I will take a crap in the water, step a few yards away and make a poor quality zoom-in pic of it, and report it to the local conspiracy nerds. The whole believing world would p*** their pants over the new found proof and be ecstatic about it., And then I will tell the world on international tv, that just like I did years ago, they too have admitted to the fact that Nessie is a piece of crap.

Symbolism at it's best.

[MrRandomGuy]

WTF? Dude, you can google loch ness monster and find friggen better pictures than that BS.

[ShadowSot]

That can't be the full picture. I wish they hadn't cropped it so we'd get some sort of reference.

[Rayon1]

It's funny, if people take pics of these creatures that are blurry, no one knows what it is, but if it's too clear, then most people think it's fake or photoshopped. No-win situation.

[aquatus1]

It's funny, if people take pics of these creatures that are blurry, no one knows what it is, but if it's too clear, then most people think it's fake or photoshopped. No-win situation.

What's funnier is that some people think that a fuzzy pic is decent evidence, and a clear picture is an added luxury item.

[Mac E]

It's funny, if people take pics of these creatures that are blurry, no one knows what it is, but if it's too clear, then most people think it's fake or photoshopped. No-win situation.

That's my thinking exactly! People will believe what they want to believe. The truth means nothing.

[Archer1945]

I don't know why some people seem to think digital cameras automatically guarantee great or even, good, photos. First of all most people do not spend more than a couple of hundred dollars (US) for their cameras, unless they are avid photographers. At this price the camera is designed primarily for taking snap shots indoors or at very short distances, out to about ten feet. The lens is probably made of plastic and the built-in flash is good only to about ten feet and that is indoors in a room with a ceiling no higher than about eight feet and ceiling/walls are of a light color. Sure the camera might have a 10x, or more, zoom on it but don't expect any great quality pictures at full zoom because very few people are capable of holding the camera steady enough to get even a fair picture, let alone a really good one.

Now the person who took this picture said it was at night and he was taking the picture by aiming where the noise came from which he estimates was several meters away. By several meters I'm going to guess that meant no closer than 10 feet, which means probably fairly close to the maximum range of the flash, INDOORS. Since this is outdoors probably less than 25% of the light leaving the flash actually reached the target area, probably much less.

As a very advanced amateur photographer with many years experience with many different types of cameras I'd say this picture is probably pretty good, all things considered. Since sound travels extremely well over water it is also possible whatever made the noise was much further away than the person taking the picture thought. Meaning it could have far enough away that even my camera/lens/flash system would have been hard pressed to get a good picture and that would only be if I had my good flash on the camera. The difference with my camera, if I had to use the built-in flash, is that I have a very fast lens on the camera most of the time and I know how to manipulate the camera controls and settings so I can take pictures far beyond what can be done when just shooting snapshots.

No a digital camera is not magic, you still have to know how to use it to get good pictures the same as you had to do when using film. The only difference between film and digital is you can see the picture you took immediately and take another if the first one was bad, IF, you know how to use the full capabilities of the camera of which most inexpensive cameras have a limited variety.

[S2F]

I don't know why some people seem to think digital cameras automatically guarantee great or even, good, photos. First of all most people do not spend more than a couple of hundred dollars (US) for their cameras, unless they are avid photographers. At this price the camera is designed primarily for taking snap shots indoors or at very short distances, out to about ten feet. The lens is probably made of plastic and the built-in flash is good only to about ten feet and that is indoors in a room with a ceiling no higher than about eight feet and ceiling/walls are of a light color. Sure the camera might have a 10x, or more, zoom on it but don't expect any great quality pictures at full zoom because very few people are capable of holding the camera steady enough to get even a fair picture, let alone a really good one.

Now the person who took this picture said it was at night and he was taking the picture by aiming where the noise came from which he estimates was several meters away. By several meters I'm going to guess that meant no closer than 10 feet, which means probably fairly close to the maximum range of the flash, INDOORS. Since this is outdoors probably less than 25% of the light leaving the flash actually reached the target area, probably much less.

As a very advanced amateur photographer with many years experience with many different types of cameras I'd say this picture is probably pretty good, all things considered. Since sound travels extremely well over water it is also possible whatever made the noise was much further away than the person taking the picture thought. Meaning it could have far enough away that even my camera/lens/flash system would have been hard pressed to get a good picture and that would only be if I had my good flash on the camera. The difference with my camera, if I had to use the built-in flash, is that I have a very fast lens on the camera most of the time and I know how to manipulate the camera controls and settings so I can take pictures far beyond what can be done when just shooting snapshots.

No a digital camera is not magic, you still have to know how to use it to get good pictures the same as you had to do when using film. The only difference between film and digital is you can see the picture you took immediately and take another if the first one was bad, IF, you know how to use the full capabilities of the camera of which most inexpensive cameras have a limited variety.

The point I was trying to make was a good digital camera can make the difference between an amorphous blob and at least a few details in a picture. The skill of the photographer is important, but a good camera can offset the skills of a poor photographer.

On a side note, if I had taken a picture like this after some mysterious encounter, I would have reservations about even submitting the photo for evidence. There isn't much to be seen from it and it is in no way proof of anything. I would probably write it off as a loss and hope for a better picture next time.

[Mr. sasquatch]

Anyone even care to read the actual article?

They say it probably is a dead fish or flat fish.

Case closed.

[Derrville]

Yea seriously just because you have a Digital Camera doesn't mean its gonna be a clear picture. I film movies and take alot of pictures myself and sometimes the Pictures look like blurry blobs.

[RipleyE.]

The picture looked like a half melted stick of butter.....

[B'Elanna]

Anyone even care to read the actual article?

They say it probably is a dead fish or flat fish.

Case closed.

..or an otter, which is my vote, to me it looks like the behind of an otter.