|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/6/2008 6:31:05 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 908
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
http://www.prophetic.net/firepix.htm
Anyone really knowledgeable about photography? Take a look at these and tell me what you see. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/6/2008 7:42:35 PM
|
|
|
bigfrank
Posts: 208
Joined: 12/2/2005
From: Battle Ground, WA
Status: offline
|
Anything is possible with photoshop and some camera knowledge.
Pic 1: It doesn't really look abnormal. Good shot.
2: Any digital photographer knows that if there is dust or really anything in the air, if the flash is on, it will show up looking exactly like this pic. It's just light reflecting from dust particles that are close to the camera.
3. You'd have to know how to do it to get this shot, but I'll bet that I could get something similar. It's obviously a slow shutter speed shot. Note how only the bright parts of the picture move upward and that they all have the exact same bends in them. Only the bright parts show up in the exposure until the flash was taken. Basically, the camera was moved either up or down during the long exposure, with one flash bringing out anything that isn't light. Nothing abnormal here.
4. It's either a long exposure in which her arms moved quickly or photoshopped. More than likely photoshopped. Note how the "arm" cuts off and doesn't attach to the body. Her real arms could easily just be out of the picture.
5. Not even worth mentioning.
6. Again, the light from the camera flash is being reflected back at the camera. It's obviously out of focus with those as well. I have pics that look like this.
7 and 8. Right. Like I'm going to believe that.
9. It appears as though something cloth like was zipping past the camera as the picture was taken. Notice the other purple cloth like material on the left. It's obviously another longer exposure in a relatively low light setting, thus leaving a high probability for the situation I just described.
10. Another longer exposure. Again, with photoshop, anything is possible. Either the color of the "gold" was changed using a picture editor, or the lighting was actually red. Notice how the wall in the background has a red hue to it. This would make sense if the hue of the whole picture was changed from yellow to red or if lighting was red to begin with.
11. This one is very poor quality. It doesn't seem like it's too long of an exposure. It's definitely old and taken on an old camera. If you've ever seen pictures that haven't been exposed correctly on a film camera, you may have seen something like this. It also could be a combination picture, with two pictures put together, one on top of another, to form this kind of effect.
All of these pictures are rather easily sniffed out by even the most amateur photographers, such as myself. I don't believe they are a manifestation of God or anything like that.
Kevin
_____________________________
A man should never let a salad beat him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/6/2008 9:43:52 PM
|
|
|
iluvatar
Posts: 1400
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bigfrank
Anything is possible with photoshop and some camera knowledge.
Pic 1: It doesn't really look abnormal. Good shot.
What most people don't realize is that rainbows are actually circles - you just can't see the whole thing most of the time because there either isn't enough water in the air or the bottom half extends low enough that trees and building are in the background making it harder to see.
Given the curvature of the rainbow, I would have expected the red to be on the outside, but I'm hardly an expert.
-Dan.
_____________________________
Well, I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo, and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/6/2008 10:20:22 PM
|
|
|
csl7037
Posts: 908
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
Big Frank, thanks for taking the time to go through that. Very interesting explanations. That's helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/6/2008 11:48:38 PM
|
|
|
uncabeeil
Posts: 5641
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Joisey. Got a problem wit dat?
Status: offline
|
I have to agree with everything bigfrank said. The last one looks like some of my failed attempts ata double exposures.
_____________________________
Sniglet of the day: Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/7/2008 9:02:56 PM
|
|
|
PreserveWildlife
Posts: 1090
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Tennessee
Status: offline
|
Most are simple exposures to set up if you know what you're doing. All are easy to replicate.
_____________________________
Neil's Photo Tips.
Certified MCTS .NET Web
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/14/2008 10:34:27 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 1422
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: offline
|
All I see are bad pictures being touted as miraculous pictures. I don't see a single thing that I have not seen before as simple abberrations of light. In fact, I just ran across one in a batch I processed from a recent family trip.
I'd run from this group and I'd run very, very fast.
quote:
ORIGINAL: csl7037
http://www.prophetic.net/firepix.htm
Anyone really knowledgeable about photography? Take a look at these and tell me what you see. Just curious.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I would like a photographer's take on this... - 6/14/2008 2:11:14 PM
|
|
|
semperfidelis
Posts: 407
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Let me think on that.
Status: offline
|
I also agree, and I'd suggest running.
There are two types of "ghost" hunters:
1.) Ones looking for demons or other sorts of apparitions.
2.) Ones looking to prove God or angels.
Both have their dangers. People will point here and there for signs, but it isn't the "sign" we're supposed to look for or preach from. We're supposed to spread the Word through about the Kingdom of God, not through something we can create through technology. Technology can be used, but let's not try and claim it as something it isn't.
Btw, the dust picture... I've learned to not take snow pictures with the flash or the light the wrong way...
_____________________________
The man in the arena....
If I rise and succeed, it's because His hand has lifted me.
I may not have 3 greek letters but I have 2 latin words: SEMPER FIDELIS (no, I'm not a marine, but we like the same things)
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
