what kind of an optical efect?

[satakas]

I presume, that the object on the following photo is a tiny water sphere, catched on film after a rain (notice the rainbow on the left side bot the original photo and the zoom-up).
http://galerii.para-web.org/albums/u...3_Volke011.jpg
http://galerii.para-web.org/albums/u...3_Volke013.jpg
(remove the space from http)

But the problem is, that i havent managed to find any explanation, how these stripes are forming. Can anybody help?

[blutoski]

Originally Posted by satakas

I presume, that the object on the following photo is a tiny water sphere, catched on film after a rain (notice the rainbow on the left side bot the original photo and the zoom-up).
h ttp://galerii.para-web.org/albums/userpics/10001/2008-12-03_Volke011.jpg
h ttp://galerii.para-web.org/albums/userpics/10001/2008-12-03_Volke013.jpg
(remove the space from http)

But the problem is, that i havent managed to find any explanation, how these stripes are forming. Can anybody help?

Probably not enough information. What's the light passing through between the source and the sheet?

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by blutoski

Probably not enough information. What's the light passing through between the source and the sheet?

I think it is not a sheet but rather photos of photos. The one with the double rainbow is the ordinary sized photo and the other photo is a close up from the previous photo.

I have no idea what they are.

[Denver]

The darkening in the corners can indicate some kind of blockage over the lens. Perhaps some kind of lens cap?

[Soapy Sam]

satakas- can you tell us more about the original photos?
Did you take the seascape? Is number 13 a telephoto or a blow-up?
Are the originals film or digital?
Was the rainbow shot taken from a ship? Was it taken from inside, through a window?
Could the sircular object be a reflection in glass of a light source behind the photographer?

[Stray Cat]

Not enough information to guess at what it is... but I can tell you from experience that it's not a "tiny water sphere, catched on film after a rain"

[terry_leopard]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

satakas-
Could the sircular object be a reflection in glass of a light source behind the photographer?

I was thinking that too.

To me (and I freely admit that I am no expert) it looks like a photo taken through a pane of glass, and the artifact is either the reflection of a light source that's behind the photographer, or a reflection of the camera flash itself.

But as you say it's impossible to tell without knowing when and where the original photographs were taken

[EHocking]

Your second link is a photograph of a print of another photograph. The print is of a double rainbow over a seascape on a very overcast day. The print is sitting on a desk and the the triple bar effect is from an overhead light (flourescent bars?) reflected off the shiny emulsion of the photographic print sitting on the desk.

Your first link is merely a photograph of an enlarged and cropped print of the same photo. Also photographed with the print sitting on a desk under the same overhead light.

[satakas]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

satakas- can you tell us more about the original photos? Did you take the seascape? Is number 13 a telephoto or a blow-up? Are the originals film or digital? Was the rainbow shot taken from a ship? Was it taken from inside, through a window? Could the sircular object be a reflection in glass of a light source behind the photographer?

1) no, the photo was taken by some guy, who let another guy take pictures of these photos and this second guy showed these to me (hope, you understood)
2) there is no telephotos. there is one original photo and the other is just a zoom-up. 013 is the original and 011 is the zoom-up.
3) originals were made on the film.
4) as far as i know and understand, the pictures were made somewhere in the '90s at the sea (probably on the Finnish gulf) and according to the rainbow probably after the rain.
4) unfortunately i have no idea, if it was taken through window or not.
5) i don't think, this may be reflection of something on the glass. it seems more likely to be a tiny-tiny water-drop, floating in the air (after the rain; rainbow).

[satakas]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Not enough information to guess at what it is... but I can tell you from experience that it's not a "tiny water sphere, catched on film after a rain"

Why not?

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by satakas

Why not?

Because that's not what tiny water droplets look like.



A tiny water droplet will sometimes show up on a photo and be misidentified as an Orb, they are out of focus pale looking blobs, not clearly defined sharp focus artifacts with clear internal structures as in the example you show.

Judging by the smears on the photo, it looks like it was taken through a window or porthole of a ship and as such the possibility of a reflection of a light that is behind the photographer can not be ruled out.

But at the end of the day, it's a photo of a photo who's time of day, date, location and circumstance are not known, the camera make and model that took the original photo is not known and the photographer is also not known so there will never be any verification available leaving us to speculate based upon other similar proven cases.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

A tiny water droplet will sometimes show up on a photo and be misidentified as an Orb,

It is still an orb. Why the capital O?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Other than that, I agree that it is not a water drop. Probably a reflection of some sort. I guess a lamp.

Hans

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

It is still an orb. Why the capital O?

Hans

Just a bad habit of irregular capitalisation...


Yes, it maybe still be an orb, but I tend to differentiate an orb as an unexplained entity showing up on a photograph, from a fully explainable water droplet, dust particle, pollen spore or flying insect.

Because in essence the unexplained entity doesn't exist and the others do, yet the orb is only promoted as such on woo websites.

Hope this makes sense.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by Denver

Perhaps some kind of lens cap?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...adc0e6aef5.jpg

As the shape looks perfectly like a Minolta logo, and this shape is more light (rather than more dark) than the rest of image, I see only one rational explanation for this:

The photo was taken:
- through a window, from indoors
- with Minolta camera, which had this logo (made of glossy aluminum etc. with some areas painted dark) on the front edge of the casing
- a lamp or other source of light caused this logo to reflect on the window, which was between the camera and the photographed scene
- the camera was probably very close to the window, not many inches apart, because the reflected logo has so clear edges

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

As the shape looks perfectly like a Minolta logo, and this shape is more light (rather than more dark) than the rest of image, I see only one rational explanation for this:

The photo was taken:
- through a window, from indoors
- with Minolta camera, which had this logo (made of glossy aluminum etc. with some areas painted dark) on the front edge of the casing
- a lamp or other source of light caused this logo to reflect on the window, which was between the camera and the photographed scene
- the camera was probably very close to the window, not many inches apart, because the reflected logo has so clear edges

Good explanation. I would also like to add a couple of other observations.

-There is a line below the "orb" parallel to the other lines in the middle of the orb. Could be the reflection of "Konica Minolta" or "Minolta"

-Could be the reflection of a camera phone flash "the flash mechanism itself, not the light from a flash going off

[Stray Cat]

Although the Minolta logo is similar to the mark on the photo, it doesn't match up enough to satisfy me:

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Stray Cat

Although the Minolta logo is similar to the mark on the photo, it doesn't match up enough to satisfy me:

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/g...taLogoComp.jpg

It was a cheap Konica knockoff.

[Toomas51]

Hi,
I tried to join this forum even before, but somehow I was rejected several times before....

This photo from a photo is takeb by me. I managed to sneak in to a local Estonian ufo-comference. And because I was not so trusty, they didn't lend me the original. I was only allowed to make a photo form a photo :P.
The story about this picture was: A person walked outside on a ferry deck. Saw a rainbow and made a photo. Later he discovered this round shape on the photo. This was taken outside, not throug a window.
Yes, it could be a optical defect/efect, but then it is a defect/efect, that has been recorded before.
Google search results:
h ttp://v ideo.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2138839065324379175#
Pretti similar object, but mainly recorded as "diamond" shaped:
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=OGpZWvzNT5o
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=tP4DqIq8maU
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=N9vtof0HoSM

Another video from Estonia: h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=1I0jqrPS5fs

Sorry, but I see the same "thing" on those recordings. Is it a otical defect or a vessel for "grays", I don't know. That means, it's unidentified (flying object). Or what? I'm trying to find an explenation, but...... One possibility was, that it's a reflection of a tiny unfocused object, but as you mentioned here before - unlikely.

What do you think?

---------
Repair the links!

[Stray Cat]

Originally Posted by Toomas51

The story about this picture was: A person walked outside on a ferry deck. Saw a rainbow and made a photo. Later he discovered this round shape on the photo. This was taken outside, not throug a window.

Judging by the various smudges on the original photo, "the story" doesn't match up to what is seen on the photo.
With no way to confirm or deny "the story", we have to make a judgement based on what we can see in the photo and disregard the contradictory story.

Originally Posted by Toomas51

Yes, it could be a optical defect/efect, but then it is a defect/efect, that has been recorded before.
Google search results:
h ttp://v ideo.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2138839065324379175#
Pretti similar object, but mainly recorded as "diamond" shaped:
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=OGpZWvzNT5o
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=tP4DqIq8maU
h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=N9vtof0HoSM

Another video from Estonia: h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=1I0jqrPS5fs

There is a difference between Autofocus functionality of a camcorder to that of a still picture camera which (depending upon type) is simply focussed to infinity. What you see in the video's is a different effect to what is on your two photos.

Originally Posted by Toomas51

Sorry, but I see the same "thing" on those recordings. Is it a otical defect or a vessel for "grays", I don't know. That means, it's unidentified (flying object). Or what? I'm trying to find an explenation, but...... One possibility was, that it's a reflection of a tiny unfocused object, but as you mentioned here before - unlikely.

What do you think?

I don't think it is a "vessel for grays" I still think it is a reflection in the window the photo was taken through.

[Toomas51]

Ok, a reflection. Could be.

Some others have "shootet" with links like these:
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)#Spectral_coherence

And the youtube videos are all unfocused stars(or jupiter) or skylatern?

[Starthinker]

I got a whole roll of photos back once with a mark like that on every picture, turns out the automatic developing machine had some sort of malfunction. The mark wasn't on the negative so I was able to have them developed again with no mark.

[satakas]

it sure may be a defect from developing machine but i'm still amazed of the similarity with minolta logo. they are so identical, that it seems to be the best logical explanation yet. the position and number of stripes, fact, that minolta makes cameras, not kitchenware, that minoltas stripes are also wider in the middle (also seen on the "object", but i'm confused why the topmost and bottommost stripes seem are much wider, that on minolta logo) and the extremely high probability, that picture was still taken through glass (somehow it looks like taken through glass and i personally don't believe some ufologists propositions, that it was taken in open air too much - i hope you understand and forgive me). let's say, there are pretty much possible and probable events tied to the minolta-theory, although i am also 99% sure, that if we could find the original photographer, he surely denies, that he used minolta ;-)

[Jack by the hedge]

The anomaly looks rather like the focusing spot in the viewfinder of SLRs. Could this have been taken with one camera looking through the viewfinder of another? Not very likely, I admit, as you'd probably see other artefacts like the texture of the ground glass screen. But something's odd - the picture is only a moderate telephoto shot (double rainbows are about 11° apart so the picture's about 30° corner-to-corner. A standard lens would generally be about 45° IIRC) but there appears to be significant vignetting. Either a very poor quality camera or using a camera to take a picture through some other device, in my opinion. Also as previously mentioned there are obvious smudges on the photo, which could be on the original or might just be contamination on the print, but do look like fingermarks on a window.

[LTC8K6]

Let's see the negative or a scan, instead of a photo of a photo.

[satakas]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Let's see the negative or a scan, instead of a photo of a photo.

Originally Posted by Toomas51

This photo from a photo is takeb by me. I managed to sneak in to a local Estonian ufo-comference. And because I was not so trusty, they didn't lend me the original. I was only allowed to make a photo form a photo.

maybe i'm wrong but when i first talked to Toomas about it, he mentioned, that it happened a long time ago and he probably cant find the original author any more. but i hope, he will answer to this himself.

[Toomas51]

Good news everybody,
I managed to contact the author (I wanted to ask the original picture). He confessed, that it's fake. Reflection from a window, like most of you suggested. Good job.

[Jack by the hedge]

Good news indeed! Thanks.

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by Toomas51

Good news everybody,
I managed to contact the author (I wanted to ask the original picture). He confessed, that it's fake. Reflection from a window, like most of you suggested. Good job.

Did he happen to say what the reflection was of?

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

Did he happen to say what the reflection was of?

Given that the lights in (at least one of) the Reval Conference centres are circular and appear to be flourescents, I'd hazard that it was a reflection of the overhead lights in the conference centre at one of their hotels.

[Toomas51]

Nono. The "orb" was on the picture before the conference and it was still shooted in the ferry.
But this "orb" is a reflection of a lamp.
Something similar to this: h ttp://laurelleaffarm.com/photos/w52157.jpg only with black stripes.

It was just exiting to think for a moment, that this object looked similar to the one in youtube video(s). h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=1I0jqrPS5fs
,what is probably unfocused Jupiter.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by Toomas51

Nono. The "orb" was on the picture before the conference and it was still shooted in the ferry.
But this "orb" is a reflection of a lamp.
Something similar to this: h ttp://laurelleaffarm.com/photos/w52157.jpg only with black stripes.

It was just exiting to think for a moment, that this object looked similar to the one in youtube video(s). h ttp://youtube.com/watch?v=1I0jqrPS5fs
,what is probably unfocused Jupiter.

Its a light builb. I saw the same pattern looking up while I was in my universities library.