Strange Object in Bat Photo

Looks fake because of the shadow. There is no light coming from the top, so why the shadow? Besides, wouldnt the flash cancel out the shadow?

reply to post by librasleep


What a lovely photograph !

Not to mention very interesting. I'm wondering if it was a dry night or if there was any rain about when it was taken ? And where exactly is this wooded path ?

If it was a dry night and clean camera lens then you seem to have caught more than a bright (and apparently moving), apparition in this picture ... there appear to be numerous orbs too.

Going on face value this seems to be a very busy neck of the woods ... if you'll pardon the pun That's why it would be interesting to know a bit of the areas history.

I have several great orb/apparition photographs that I've taken over the years ... I'll see if I can upload them for you to compare ... can't promise anything it's taken me ages to work-out how to create a thread
One in particular is very similar ... it was taken up on the moors when my friend and I had gone to celebrate one of the sabbat festivals (we're both 'solitaries') and there is a large bright anomaly that looks to be moving away at speed ... even though there was nothing to see with the naked-eye when I took the photograph.

Let me know if you have more details ... I love it !
Bright Blessings ... woodwytch.

Perhaps this is it:

The "shadow" on the ground is just a darkish area that happened to be there.

The bright thing was a bug flying very close to the camera so it caught a very bright flash.

Maybe?

I dont know. If you look at the condensed version of the photograph the object is relatively far away from the camera. Based on the motion blur that is created, the object has some distinguished shape, as the trails left by the blur are different relative to their positions. ex. longer / shorter projections. There is absolutely no way the darkened spot beneath the object is a shadow. If the object did cast a shadow from the flash, it would have been projected further ahead on the path or grass. The spot could be anything, but not a shadow. Very interesting photo, it could be something moderate in size, or something very small moving at an extreme rate of speed. Post an update when you get more information from the photographer.

uh....cool bat?
the moth and the shadw it threw is normal, whats the big fuss about?

Looks like a hadoken to me. Ryu would be proud. Whatever it is, it seems to be catching the flash and is probably fairly close to the camera, as it's so brightly lit. That shadow might be a 'dried up puddle' as mentioned before, because it was my first instinct too. Interesting pic though, better than alot I've seen.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by Xeros]

Still waiting to hear back on photo. For ppl who keep pointing out how this could have been done in photoshop I just like to say - No kidding! It could totally be done in PS but as far as I know it's not doctored, I wouldn't do that. The only thing I can think as another explanation is that maybe they were throwing something to attract the bat? But it's the size of the shadow / damp spot that makes it confusing.

Anybody got any quarters? Waka waka waka waka waka



Seriously, that's a unique photo - I can't wait to get more info about it from the photographer.

Personally though, I really don't think it's a bug close to the camera. It would be extremely out of focus rather than have just a motion blur. As for the shadow beneath it, I have no idea why that would be there. Although it probably has a simple 'real-world' explanation, I actually think it might be an inter-dimensional traveller that popped in for a visit. The shadow underneath is either the remnant of the tunnel from whence it came, or it was a brief 'lack' of space and time (meaning the object was emitting its own light, and the portal beneath it was blocking the light from the ground).

That's my out-there explanation, I'll wait on giving a down-to-earth explanation once I have more info.

If the shadow in question was merely a wet spot on the ground, would there not also be more of them along the path? I have looked fairly closely at this picture and can see several other low spots in the trail, but none bear the same "moisture marks". I also think we can discount the theory that it is water dripping from a branch overhead for the same reason. There are several more branches overhanging the trail, but no evidence of pools or dampness under these either. Something that I do wonder though, is this: If the glowing object was as bright as the flash on the camera, wouldn't it have more visible detail than it does? If it were brighter than the flash (as it seems to be), wouldn't it effectively illuminate the areas of the trees and ground nearest it more than the flash does?

Nice pic with a lot to ponder.

The brightness in relation to the entire image indicates a closeness to the flash. I would assume something the size of a moth maybe a foot from the camera would result in an image such as this - just speculating the object and proximity. You can see the brightness of the branches on the lower left side of the image due to the flash. This object was close - very close to the flash.

With that established, the shadow comes into play. The angle of the shadow does not match the position of the object. If you look at shadows created by the branches - they are very direct - unlike the angle of the unknown object and the so-called shadow. The camera (according to the image details was a sony dsc h2) and the flash is very close to the lens - so a separate and distant flash is not at play. And if the above (proximity of a smaller object to the camera) is true... the light would eventually wrap around the object and fill that space - it could not create a shadow that strong and that large. In my opinion, that object could not create that shadow.

So then... the shadow is either a natural discolorization/darkening of the ground (if look further up, there are darker parts) or it was photoshopped in. I would be more on the side of it being a natural aspect of the ground.

I believe it is a just a coincidence that everything happened the way it did. and the image looks as it does.

And those orbs can be anything from dust/dirt on the lens to some flashback from the close object reflecting off the camera optics. I don't buy into the orb thing whatsoever.

When I inverted the color I noticed something odd..





The object in question seems to be emitting some sort of glow or vapor that intertwines with the immediate surroundings, I dont think that could be easily photochopped as it does not apperar to be layered on but rather intertwined with the immediate surroundings.

Also, after carefully looking at the actual photo, it also seems like the object is illuminating particles all around it. The shadow beneath it could only be explained if the underside of the object is not illuminated, and the glow of the topside is casting around the object downward...

It certinly does not to appear as a damp area but rather an actual shadow, true to form even. Also, the object and photo as a whole seem to pixelate evenly in image magnification, and there is no "apparent" evidence of photoshoping going on.

Ultimatly, I'll say whatever is on that photo was there when it was taken.

If I had to guess, the only thing that may explain what it is as well as the shadow would be a wet leaf falling. The flash may have caught it right at the perfect time/angle as to reflect such a glow, as well as create the dispersment of light around it to create a shadow of its darkend underside on the ground..

Ultimatly, this is all guess work but its an awesome photo none the less..


EDIT: I see nothing that would automaticly indicate it was an object "close" to the lense. Infact, just the opposite.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by HomeBrew]

Originally posted by subliminaut
If the shadow in question was merely a wet spot on the ground, would there not also be more of them along the path?

Exactly what I'm thinking. There needs to be more moist/wet spots consistently in the picture to make that assertion.

I created a negative to see if a few things in the original photo may have gone unnoticed. To support my theory that the picture has indeed been doctored, I circled four rocks surrounding the shadow/moist/damp area in red, and the one visible rock in the shadow/moist/damp area in green.



Now, for those who contend that the area is NOT a shadow, and instead, a moist/damp area anomaly, wouldn't the rock in this area also be wet, thus creating a sheen brighter than the surrounding rocks? Because the photo I've made is a negative, think of it in reverse: The darker the object, the more bright it should be. However, from what this photo suggests, the rock that is in the moist/wet area, is actually darker, and doesn't reflect the same amount of light as the surrounding rocks. Which would conclude that this dark spot is a SHADOW, because light IS NOT accessing this area. But how would a shadow appear directly under an object when the angle of the light source completely contradicts a shadow being there?

Also, if the object was luminous in itself, wouldn't the object illuminate the surrounding area, and instead of creating a shadow, brighten the area surrounding it, including the ground, trees, and "damp" area?

Now, aside from me thinking the shadow was photoshoped, my second theory would have to be that this forest is actually Fern Gully, and the light is indeed a fairy...

reply to post by RockAwayRadio




reply to post by Evasius



Great work on the copies guys. Burn tool for the shadow? color dodge to overblast the highlight? and a motion blur or one of those blur tools..? I like the pac man too. haha..

Im not saying its faked but these guys did show how easy it is to do.. tho I like to trust the poster. If its genuine I go with the damp patch and a close up fast flying 'thing'... no flames involved just too close, flash..


Peace

What appear to be the shadow of this object is probably only a dump in the ground.
Let me explain...
It cant be the shadow of the object because this object shadow would be aligned with the flash of the camera wich is the only light source for this picture.
To proove that the flash is the only light source just look at the tree, they dont have double shadow. No double shadow mean thats there is only one light source.
So if the flash is the only light source, the object shadow should be aligned and it is not.

In my opinion this thing is only a little moth flying to close to the camera.
And by no way a fairy

I believe the darker 'shadow' area is not the shadow of the flashed object in the foreground. It being so close to the camera and blurred has to point to a very small FAST moving object (thus the 'flame' movent appearance) such as a moth.

Mothra?????

The object is too close to project that 'shadow' located further away. In my opinion, it would be too small to even cast any type of shadow even after it being lit up by the flash!

The picture is really cool of the bat though!!!!! It looks very intent and sort of menancing!!!!! I hope your friend was wearing a hat as that 'Old Wives Tales' about bats getting entangled in your hair came to mind!!!!!

It's a really cool photo.
First, I'm pretty sure the background critter is a bat, and not an owl or other bird.

The foreground image, is unusual..It's very hard to tell the distance.
Although based on the angle of the object, to it own shadow. I would guess that it's pretty close, and illuminated strongly by the flash.

So ponder this.
Maybe it's another bat..caught in the middle of capturing dinner.
Take a look at this video:
small WMV
www.bsos.umd.edu...

large avi, requires divx plugin.
www.bsos.umd.edu...


First look as the bat flies into view. It's body posture as it flies. Very similar to the bat in the photo.

Then look at the first attempt at catching the insect. They catch dinner with their webbing. Watch the back-flip performed midair. Wings tucked in as it flips.

Could the foreground object be another bat?

This kinda looks like a photo I took last summer in Washington, It looks similar to yours. Take a looky.

The burn tool therory is right on as everyone seems to think there aren't anymore 'moist' or wet areas on the dirt road ........

Some saying the lighted object has substance to it .... when you make a seletion in Photoshop you can also feather the object creating a better selection which merges into the photograph better.

What about an old oil spot?

If it turns out you really can't explain this (even though there have been many good ideas here), you could always send it here to the real-life Ghostbusters:

www.haunted911.com...

I'm not sure if they'd be biased in anyway or take it for granted that it's actually something paranormal, but I'm sure they've seen a few photos like this. Who knows, worth a try.

Originally posted by Mayan2012
a damp area of ground that has moisture, reflecting light from the obvious camera flash....resulting in a bright anomaly in the photo.

maybe?

maybe not... who knows.



-Mayan

it could be!