7 replies to this topic

[Ghostride]

I have been reading around about it a lot and came up with this:

Is the orb in question perfectly circular? By definition an orb is a circular or sphere shaped object. If an orb in question is elliptical, oval, diamond shaped, etc. it is not a true orb.

Is the orb three dimensional? Does it stand out from its surroundings and / or have depth in the photograph? If not it is probably airborne particulate matter or something on the camera lens.

Is the orb self luminous - does it emit its own light?

Many “orbs” in paranormal investigators photos would be fortunate if they could be confirmed for at least one of the above traits. If an “orb” does not positively affirm all three traits it is not a true orb.



Does anybody else have anything that could help tell the difference between an orb and dust?

[CrystalEyz]

Orbs are always up for debate, esp since we have Digital Cameras. However, I see orbs with the naked eye, so its nothing new to me. But I sort can tell the difference in the sense dust orbs are circular, and perfect at that, and normally if you have one, you have more. They can be seen anywhere at any time. Paranormal orbs are not perfectly round, and have a design or what I call texture to them, and usually they are seen on or around a person, some moving some not. People believe they emit their own light, but Im not sure about that, but I DO know they stand out. Hope that answers your question and JMO...CE

[CaveRat2]

If an orb is photographed one can see its approximate size. An object of that size should cast a shadow behind it if it is really as it appears when a flash is used. Dust orbs are very small and only appear to be as large as they are because of the focal distance of the camera. Thus the lack of th shadow is indicative of a dust orb.

Note this only applies to photographed orbs. Any which are visually seen as well as photographed are worth a second look. But keep in mind those are VERY rare when it comes to evidence presented. I only accept as possible evidence an orb which either casts a shadow or is self illuminating and no flash was used.

[Ghostride]

If an orb is photographed one can see its approximate size. An object of that size should cast a shadow behind it if it is really as it appears when a flash is used. Dust orbs are very small and only appear to be as large as they are because of the focal distance of the camera. Thus the lack of th shadow is indicative of a dust orb.

Note this only applies to photographed orbs. Any which are visually seen as well as photographed are worth a second look. But keep in mind those are VERY rare when it comes to evidence presented. I only accept as possible evidence an orb which either casts a shadow or is self illuminating and no flash was used.

I think this is the best way of getting to a decision! Thanks CaveRat

[chestnut]

I don't know if it might be better if I posted in the Spiritography section, but to CaveRat or anyone else, is there an example of a true orb photo that can be posted here? So we can actually see the difference?

[OMPRDave]

Not all of the orbs you see in photos will be perfectly circular, either...the shape, color, size will all depend on how close to the lens the object is when the flash is fired. The reason for the blurring is that these particles fall well outside the focal length of today's point and shoot cameras.

The main problem with these photographic artifacts is that they were allowed to inundate the mainstream as "proof of spirit activity" for such a long time that most folks who don't understand basic photography but have a great interest in ghostly studies believed they were proof of spirits. There has been a shift over the last couple of years and the very factual proof of what is happening in all these submitted photos being nothing more than flash reflections off of particulates near the lens is being accepted across the board. It's just unfortunate that having the information supplied by photographers and professionals who work with photos and developmental errors are basically ignored by a segment of society who cannot see reason through their own fancied beliefs.

Enough ranting...I know what causes them, and I won't even consider them as proof of anything paranormal.

Edited by OMPRDave, 06 May 2009 - 12:01 AM.

[Ghostride]

Ok so lets bring up the moving orb during video recording

[CaveRat2]

The same rules will apply in a video as applies to a still image. Video shows motion using multiple frames or still images displayed in rapid succession. Thus a dust particle will appear in the same manner in each frame. If it casts a shadow then it may be a solid object worth considering. If it is simply a bright spot then likely it is dust.

The movement? Just consider movement as a series of stills where the dust particle changes position slightly between frames. (Ever seen a dust particle stand perfectly still in free air?) Thus movement is displayed. And consider dust very near the lens doesn't have to move very far to go from one side of the frame to the other. And consider too that insects may also be moving past the lens and appear much as dust would.

If you are analyzing a video most important thing to remember is how video is done. Treat each frame as a separate still image and apply the same standards you would to a still. Look for either signs of self luminesence or the presence of a shadow from the orb. If those are not present you captured dust, pollen, or maybe an insect.