Hi, Alister, thanks for sharing these photos
Thanks also to woodwytch for bringing this one to my attention
Alister, i'll be frank:
photos 1, 2, 7 and 8 show out of focus dust particles, i can say this for sure because all is consistent with out of focus dust particles: the rings
that you see are indeed diffraction rings, they are not sharp because the particles were out of focus. They are microscopical objects, there's no way
to notice them with the naked eye. The principle is
complex, but i see that you already
accepted this explanation, and i'm glad of it
.
Photo 3 could be anything: a source of light comes from the upper right side of the image, not much else can be said about it.
I still haven't found what's unusual in photo 4; i'd like to know it, anyway
photo 6 does not contain any exif information, but at first glance the background looks to be extremely on focus to be something caught on camera at
over 60 miles per hour: i mean no motion blur seems to be observable (at first glance); but the speed of the car does not matter: what does matter is
the "orb" that is the only object i see out of focus in this image: this may happen when something is too far to be focused correctly (and this is
NOT the case, because it covers the background) or when it's too close: in this case, i'd say that it's too close to the camera, i have no idea
what it was, but of course it was something of VERY close to the lens and, needless to say, very small (i mean its actual size, not what we see as
result): the light (flash or other external source) made the rest, while i'd rule out lens flare, (i'm not 100% sure
).
But what really i'm interested to is photo 5:
in according to exif data,
Camera: Canon PowerShot SD700 IS
Also known as: Canon DIGITAL IXUS 800 IS
Lens: 5.8 mm
(Max aperture f/2.8)
Exposure: Auto exposure, 1/60 sec, f/2.8
Flash: Auto, Fired, Red-eye reduction
Date: August 8, 2008 9:22:04PM (timezone not specified)
(13 days, 19 hours, 13 minutes, 45 seconds ago, assuming an image timezone of US Pacific)
File: 528 × 704 JPEG
33,666 bytes (0.032 megabytes) Image compression: 97%
6% crop of the 2,816 × 2,112 (5.9 megapixel) original
it's a crop of a way larger image: this one is 704x528 but the image actually caught on camera was 2.816 × 2.112: well, that is the image i would
like to see: could you be so kind to share it?
Parabol's post can't be ignored, i see a perfect match, (i'm amazed by your work, BTW)...
Let's say that i'm curious and that i'd like to take a look at the original uncropped unresized image
Oh, i'm NOT an expert by the way, i'm just adding my two cents, my opinion is not better than the other member's ones