21 replies to this topic

[Grim Undertakings]

Axman, on Aug 3 2006, 04:18 AM, said:

Most particle orbs have a dot in the center and the telltale concentric diffraction rings radiating from the center. I usually explain those rings looking like a cross section of a tree, showing the growth rings.

This is an excellent explanation, Ax. Very well put.

[pentagram345]

krcguns, on Jun 26 2006, 10:36 PM, said:

Well, here is how I tell them apart:

Dust orbs...normally are thin, whispy and mostly transparent. A ring around them is also a give away that they are dust/pollen, etc.

Paranormal orbs are much more opaque and appear three dimensional. They do not have to have a tail on them but sometimes do. They will get the tail from motion.

As far as cameras go any digital will easily highlight the particles in the air. That is what they do best...bring out everything causing many more dust orbs.

what about a 35mm manual camra?

[SPIRIT66]

If you use flash on any camera you run the risk of dust orbs.

35 MM is no different when annalyzing a photo for dust or anything in the air. Anything transparent (that you can see thru) or a photo you have lighten up is most likely dust or something natural in the air.

Real true paranormal orbs have depth to them and can be photographed behind something or in the distance. They tend to look like clouds and have layers....and are very bright.

[krcguns]

There are differences between the function of 35mm and digital. Digital highlights everything in the air and even manipulates your photo when you push the button. A lot of people using digitals think that they are getting a true snap of what the camera saw but it is manipulated. These cameras can add pixels to shots and being that they enhance every little particle it makes it difficult. I am now currently up to 9 rolls of film shot on investigations and have not photographed one dust orb at all. That is pretty good in my book plus I get a true photo of what the camera saw and not a manipulated photo.

I have also photographed dust at a distance when experimenting. It doesnt have to be right up to the camera to up in a photo. Of course my digital was the easiest way to do it, it showed everything. The 35mm did show some but not nearly as much. This was the typical shaking of the rug and blankets experiment. The theory that it needs to be behind something to be paranormal is false. Dust can be behind things too.

[SPIRIT66]

krcguns, on Aug 9 2006, 10:10 AM, said:

There are differences between the function of 35mm and digital. Digital highlights everything in the air and even manipulates your photo when you push the button. A lot of people using digitals think that they are getting a true snap of what the camera saw but it is manipulated. These cameras can add pixels to shots and being that they enhance every little particle it makes it difficult. I am now currently up to 9 rolls of film shot on investigations and have not photographed one dust orb at all. That is pretty good in my book plus I get a true photo of what the camera saw and not a manipulated photo.

I have also photographed dust at a distance when experimenting. It doesnt have to be right up to the camera to up in a photo. Of course my digital was the easiest way to do it, it showed everything. The 35mm did show some but not nearly as much. This was the typical shaking of the rug and blankets experiment. The theory that it needs to be behind something to be paranormal is false. Dust can be behind things too.

I would like to see this "dust orb" photo personally that was at a distance....It may look like it is but I bet it really is very close to your lense.

[Grim Undertakings]

I was going to add a reply in regards to the last few posts, but Krc beat me to it! I agree with Krc in regards to dust (etc.) vs. orbs. And just to add a bit, I don't believe that true paranormal orbs are that easy to document. I believe that a high percentage of orb pics are explainable. I, too, have also experienced dust being behind objects (or looking like they are behind something when they're really in front of it) and environmental orbs at a distance.

This doesn't explain away orbs, or course, and there has been some progress, I believe, in regards to distinguishing the true from the false. But orbs still are very tricky.

[krcguns]

SPIRIT66, on Aug 9 2006, 02:38 PM, said:

I would like to see this "dust orb" photo personally that was at a distance....It may look like it is but I bet it really is very close to your lense.

Unfortunately these experiments were done many years ago and I have no idea where the 35mm shots even are, I have moved several times between then and now. The digitals got deleted a long time ago for space. Sorry about that. You can do the experiment yourself though. Have someone about 10 or 15 feet from you create some dust and snap away. You will see that you can pick them up quite easily, especially with the digital. If you do the experiment enough times, you will eventually see them behind objects, as small points of light, etc.