10 replies to this topic

[Jess521]

Hey all!

There is an abandoned hospital in my town and I recently took some photos outside at night. I just want others' opinions about orbs and how you decipher if it's just dust on the lens, environmental or the real deal.
I took some comparison shots where there are a couple of orbs that are brighter than the other ones in the same pics. In some comparison shots there are no orbs at all. I am wondering if it's possible that you can have a combo of different types of orbs in the same photo. I just don't want to put up the pics if it's not worth it. I mean, I know that some of them in the pictures aren't paranormal, but I am curious about the bright ones that seem to have nuclei and faces. What are your thoughts??

[Pfled]

Hi Jess,

If you scrounge the spiritography section of the boards you may find some golden nuggets here and there on determining the source of orbs.

If I recall correctly, and any of you more experienced GVers correct me, that if your orbs have a bright outer ring with a fuzzy center it is most likely caused by environmental elements. I was also told snow or water with bright sunlight can also create false positives.

With regards to your pictures, it never hurts to post them. People here are very understanding and almost always offer suggestive feedback. If it does turn out that the orbs are environmental then at least you will learn what to look for in future pics.

-Pfled

[GPPI_JMe]

According to Truly Haunted (http://tinyplace.net...s/howtoorbs.htm) there is no proof that the size or color of an orb means anything. To elaborate, it doesn't really matter what color or size it is, this means nil when it comes to classifying an orb as "paranormal."

A true "orb" is just a ball of energy. An example of that would be ball/globe lightning. Though rare, it isn't paranormal. Neither are the "orbs" captured on cameras. Unless you can completely tear down and clean out your camera, then remove all the air particles from the investigation site, seal the investigation site off from the outside world, wear an airtight suit during the investigation, and then take a picture - dust, dander, hair, dew, moisture, bugs, etc. will always be a possibility when capturing a picture of an "orb."

The only remotely credible theory, having to come to terms with the fact that all of these contaminants can/will be present in your pictures, is that "paranormal orbs" are balls of energy coming to the spirit in hopes that it may acquire enough energy to manifest - through one of the senses, i.e. visually, audibly, etc. So even if you could prove you caught one of these types of orbs, it still doesn't prove a ghost is present. It could just as easily be a leaking electrical box, or something to that effect.

Take this advice with a grain of salt, mind you. I'm no expert, and there aren't any in the field to ask anyway - but presenting any "orb photography" as proof of evidence of the afterlife, will never be sufficient enough to support such a claim. It is sad, but it's what motivates us to keep trying other methods.

[Seeker]

I always think an orb is environmental unless there is activity at the time I took the pic and Leslie tells me its a spirit.

[damckie]

GPPI_JMe, on Mar 10 2008, 06:21 PM, said:

According to Truly Haunted (http://tinyplace.net...s/howtoorbs.htm) there is no proof that the size or color of an orb means anything. To elaborate, it doesn't really matter what color or size it is, this means nil when it comes to classifying an orb as "paranormal."

A true "orb" is just a ball of energy. An example of that would be ball/globe lightning. Though rare, it isn't paranormal. Neither are the "orbs" captured on cameras. Unless you can completely tear down and clean out your camera, then remove all the air particles from the investigation site, seal the investigation site off from the outside world, wear an airtight suit during the investigation, and then take a picture - dust, dander, hair, dew, moisture, bugs, etc. will always be a possibility when capturing a picture of an "orb."

The only remotely credible theory, having to come to terms with the fact that all of these contaminants can/will be present in your pictures, is that "paranormal orbs" are balls of energy coming to the spirit in hopes that it may acquire enough energy to manifest - through one of the senses, i.e. visually, audibly, etc. So even if you could prove you caught one of these types of orbs, it still doesn't prove a ghost is present. It could just as easily be a leaking electrical box, or something to that effect.

Take this advice with a grain of salt, mind you. I'm no expert, and there aren't any in the field to ask anyway - but presenting any "orb photography" as proof of evidence of the afterlife, will never be sufficient enough to support such a claim. It is sad, but it's what motivates us to keep trying other methods.

Very true indeed on some of your opinions. Some will beg differ, but everyone is entitled to their opinions on orbs. I truely don't care for them one bit. Not unless it really sticks out and I know that it is part of the spirit trying to manifest itself. We have one such video here on Gv taken at Morley Music hall. On the original footage, you can clearly see an orb blink, then it dissapears, then you see a partial manifestation of a spirit walking through the lobby in the Hall. All you see is is lower part of it's body. But I believe that 90% of pics shown, with orbs in them, on here and other websites are just enviromental. Just my opinion. Dave

[JimDe]

...this thread was titled Digital Cameras, but never mentioned again (not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad one).

I tend to agree that there is little evidence to support what an alleged paranormal orb may look like (sic). IMO orb photographs at their utmost are NOT evidence of paranormal activity unless supplemented with higher forms of simultaneously recorded visual anomalies e.g., mist, vapor, (ecto) etc. Even then such anomalous activity is not indicative of paranormal activity but retains a better chance of being regarded as interesting enough to consider if all supposed factors are consistently present.

Alleged clairvoyant discernment of orb(s); Hey, my best friend of a dozen years is a professionally successful psychic medium and I tell him the same thing... a psychic impression DOES NOT facilitate evidence of paranormal or spirit activity in photographs, never has – never will ...feeling something that the rest of us cannot see does not get it done in spirit photography, sorry.

Paranormal photography is a visual experience. You gotta stand up in front of the class and say, ‘this is paranormal’...and not be laughed out of the room. Orbs would NOT be the way I would wanna go...

...just my thoughts; please feel free to disagree.

[rocker7969]

Hello everyone.
In my opinion, it's hard to show that a photo or video of an orb is paranormal. I'm sure some are real, but most all of them are just dust or bugs, or matrixing of the digital camera. There are so many things that cause them, I dismiss all orb photos. Like was mentioned before, if I'm trying to prove something paranormal to someone else, I would not want to use an orb photo. The way I look at evidence, is that if won't make a non-believer question it, then it isn't good enough.

[Jess521]

JimDe, on Mar 11 2008, 07:49 PM, said:

...this thread was titled Digital Cameras, but never mentioned again (not sure if that’s a good thing or a bad one).

I tend to agree that there is little evidence to support what an alleged paranormal orb may look like (sic). IMO orb photographs at their utmost are NOT evidence of paranormal activity unless supplemented with higher forms of simultaneously recorded visual anomalies e.g., mist, vapor, (ecto) etc. Even then such anomalous activity is not indicative of paranormal activity but retains a better chance of being regarded as interesting enough to consider if all supposed factors are consistently present.

Alleged clairvoyant discernment of orb(s); Hey, my best friend of a dozen years is a professionally successful psychic medium and I tell him the same thing... a psychic impression DOES NOT facilitate evidence of paranormal or spirit activity in photographs, never has – never will ...feeling something that the rest of us cannot see does not get it done in spirit photography, sorry.

Paranormal photography is a visual experience. You gotta stand up in front of the class and say, ‘this is paranormal’...and not be laughed out of the room. Orbs would NOT be the way I would wanna go...

...just my thoughts; please feel free to disagree.

Oh, sorry, I just figured that because a lot of people say that digital cameras are to blame for orbs, and most of the time it is either the camera or the environment. I just didn't know where else to put it. Lol or do cheaper cameras produce more orbs????? JK

[JimDe]

Jess521, on Mar 19 2008, 08:40 AM, said:

Oh, sorry, I just figured that because a lot of people say that digital cameras are to blame for orbs, and most of the time it is either the camera or the environment. I just didn't know where else to put it. Lol or do cheaper cameras produce more orbs????? JK

The price of the camera is apparently irrelevant; orbs can be produced on $100 cameras as well as $1000 cameras, but that doesn’t make the expensive orb any more paranormal than its bargain basement cousin. But hey, many people in this field have initiated careers (books, television, radio, lectures etc.,) and present nothing more than orbs as evidence of the paranormal. Like I said before, the way I see things …it doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Edited by JimDe, 19 March 2008 - 11:52 AM.

[paraviews]

Also, a great program for looking at photos, is called Picasa2 it's by google but it's an awsome and free program. I like it much better than even the expensive one that I have.

[Jess521]

Um, I was joking, hence the JK