UFO pictures I took last year

Yes, sometimes reproducing the area is not an option. But you could also reproduce the event however taking a series of similar photos to see if you are able to recreate the same effect if you were curious.

When I first started learning photography I photographed all kinds of ghosts, UFO's and paranormal orbs lol, but with some logic I was able to reproduce many to find a real world explanation. With that said I am not so jaded or skeptical however to believe every photo shows this or swamp gas, and that there is a few genuine UFO’s out there.

Originally posted by UnCommonKnowledge

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by gringo74
reply to post by ypperst

 

First thing I thought was a lens flare, but coming from behind the hill? and moving up into the sky keeping it's shape? I may be wrong, because I'm no expert, but that is what made me deside it wasn't a lens flare.

edit on 28/3/2012 by gringo74 because: (no reason given)

No, it's lens flare/reflection. The lens is glass - it keeps its shape. The camera is in different positions, so the flare is different in each shot.

Is this really necessary to explain?

Yes, can you better explain your position. Maybe my high end photo equipment and years of training have caused me to learn the incorrect things from multiple instructors and years of experience. Please help me understand.

Or maybe my high-end photo (and motion picture) equipment and years of experience on top of college-level coursework in photography and cinematography allows me to identify LENS FLARE when I see it.

Why do people get so offended and rude when their wild fantasies about UFOs get easily debunked?

Originally posted by gringo74

The first picture, with the treetop cut off doesn't have anything strange:

So why did you feel a need to take a picture of a (no offence) --boring tree line-- in the first place?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Why do people get so offended and rude when their wild fantasies about UFOs get easily debunked?

I haven't gotten offended, I haven't been rude, and it was not me that answered your post.

Please check who is answering before assuming anything.

If you had read the other posts on my thread that I wrote you would realize I have accepted the fact that it was a lens flare and in no way was I having fantasies about UFOs, I just wanted to know what it was.

reply to post by dejarmaX


The picture I was taking (and I say this in the fist post) was of the dead tree against the sun. The first picture I took doesn't have the lens flare, but I cut the top of the dead tree, that is why I took the second and third, where the lens flare appeared.

The boring tree line is in the background....maybe you didn't see the whole picture (have to scroll right since it is too big to fit on the screen).

Originally posted by gringo74

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Why do people get so offended and rude when their wild fantasies about UFOs get easily debunked?

I haven't gotten offended, I haven't been rude, and it was not me that answered your post.

Please check who is answering before assuming anything.

Apologies - my bad.

Originally posted by UnCommonKnowledge

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by gringo74
reply to post by ypperst

 

First thing I thought was a lens flare, but coming from behind the hill? and moving up into the sky keeping it's shape? I may be wrong, because I'm no expert, but that is what made me deside it wasn't a lens flare.

edit on 28/3/2012 by gringo74 because: (no reason given)

No, it's lens flare/reflection. The lens is glass - it keeps its shape. The camera is in different positions, so the flare is different in each shot.

Is this really necessary to explain?

Yes, can you better explain your position. Maybe my high end photo equipment and years of training have caused me to learn the incorrect things from multiple instructors and years of experience. Please help me understand.

Please define what you mean by 'high end' photo equipment.
Many people define 'high end' by the maximum they're willing to, or able to afford, which, which photography equipment can reach some rather high prices.

Did you spend $35,000 on a Hasselblad medium format 50 megapixel camera body and another $15,000 on lenses?

or,
Did you spend roughly $15,000 on Nikon or Canon flagship professional grade full-frame sensor industry level workhorse camera body with a professional level lens or two?

or,
is high end a consumer level DSLR that actually came with a lens (interchangeable of course) that cost anywhere from $500-$1500?

Please, the definition of 'high end' is completely relevant and also relative to the audience you're addressing.

I'm a professional photographer/digital artist. High-end to me, is on the Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leica, or pro level Flagship lines with Nikon and Canon.
Anything else is, well, not.

As to these photos; this is indeed lens flare.
No disrespect intended toward poster in that or any statements.

Even with a tripod, unless the photographer is using a remote trigger, pressing the shutter release can cause slight variations in each static shot.
Hand-held shots will produce even more variation such when coupled with lens flare may cause the illusion that the flare dots are 'moving' through the frame set, frame by frame. That's just camera shake from hand held movements making minute adjustments to the angles of light refracting with the lens to cause this effect.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


No problem, no harm done. Apologies accepted

reply to post by nineix


Thanks for the reply nineix, and no disrespect taken

I am not even in the amateur catagory in photography, apart from the iPhone 4 which can't be called a camera, I have a Canon SX40 HS which to your standards is probably trash.

I just wanted to check with the pros to see what it was, since I don't have the experience to call it with 100% certainty, and I got it....

Thanks everybody for their input... lens flare it is!!

reply to post by gringo74


For the record, no camera is trash, unless it actually IS trash.
Every camera is useful and perfect for many purposes.

For instance, for experimental fun stuff, you can purchase a dozen really super cheap disposable cameras, abuse some of them lightly with a mallet to create light leaks, use some of them to take pictures under water (even though they are NOT waterproof), throw a couple in the microwave for a few seconds, and just do all sorts of terrible horrible things to them, take pictures, and see what comes out the other end.

A large number of shots won't come out at all. Whole cameras will be wasted. However, some of the shots that come out will have some unusual special effects created by the abuse and tampering you've put them through.
Put scratches on lenses on purpose, and find out what kinds of tampering and abuse causes what kind of effects, then take advantage of that to emulate and create those effects on purpose in later photos.

Anyone can aim a piece of equipment at something and snap a photo. Vision, creativity, and seeing what isn't there that you hope to make happen in the photo is what makes the difference.

Any camera in the hands of someone with Vision, and experience can work wonders if you know how to work the light, and manipulate or bend the limitations of the equipment for maximum output.

Give someone with little to no experience a top of the line flagship camera body like the Canon 1Dx that just came out along with one of the pro lenses that run about $2k each, as well as all the fancy fun accessories like wireless relay, flashes, filters and anything you could ever dream of wanting, and compared to an experienced Pro using just a simple consumer end point and shoot, the Pro with all the experience will always make much better photos.

Granted, certain cameras at differing levels of sophistication will take better quality shots, but, no matter the quality, composition is key.

Lower end consumer level products will, for instance, have a higher incidence of aberration with lens flare and other things caused by lower quality systems. This doesn't mean that lens flare is non-existent in higher end models, but, it is different, and when done properly on purpose, can create a nice effect.

Lens flare can be fun if you do it on purpose.
There's even a filter in Photoshop to add lens flare if you want some.

Anyway, cheap equipment isn't a bad thing if you have the training, vision, and experience to use it for what it's worth.

Someone with really super expensive equipment can and will take really awful bad photos. I see it all the time. At the same time, I also see people you should have much better equipment than what they're restricted to using due to tight finances making really excellent quality shots above and beyond the people that drop $15k on equipment, but haven't a clue what they're really doing, or, have excellent technique, but little to zero creativity or vision.

Anyway, yeah, that's that.

As far as UFOs, methinks it's not a UFO unless you observe it with at least both naked eyes, and then maybe possibly also catch it on camera.

There's also some excellent posts and videos out there showing how cheap comsumer level equipment zoomed in on something like Venus, or Jupiter, or any really distant light can make that distant light look triangular, diamond shaped, as well as having other peculiarities.
People aiming their really cheap equipment directly at the sun often get black dots they claim to be planet X, nibiru, or some such, when really, the sun is just overloading their image sensor on the camera creating the black dot where the sensor overdoses and dies partially where it can't compensate.

Knowing your equipment, the things it can do, can't do, and what effects are caused by what actions can go far.