Actual UFO Photo

[kalen]

I'm pretty sure that the lower object is an out-of-focus leaf starthinker; or at least, that's how my eyes interpreted it.

Out-of-focus leaf? The leaves in the foreground are in focus, and the house in the background is in focus. How can an object in between be out-of-focus?

I think starthinker has the best guess: hummingbirds.

Are hummingbirds common where this picture was taken?

ETA: Would hummingbirds be interested in this particular bush?

 

[The Atheist]

I don't follow how this informs you that it's definitely not a helicopter.

Is your thinking that if it were a helicopter you'd recognize it more obviously as such? That's the sort of assumption that leads to plenty of misidentifications of Venus and even the Moon. (Ditto the assumption that because helicopters aren't supposed to go higher than 500 ft in your area that this time one didn't go higher.)

Otherwise, I'd guess it to be an insect relatively near the camera.

There's no assumption about it at all - helicopters stay within the 500 ft line or they're likely to get run down by a Jumbo Jet. We get a couple of 'em over a day and the pic isn't one of them.

Even more damning is how much sense the corruption during processing makes. I think that's probably why the object is surrounded by a kind of halo effect - it isn't part of the picture at all.

Out-of-focus leaf? The leaves in the foreground are in focus, and the house in the background is in focus. How can an object in between be out-of-focus?

I think starthinker has the best guess: hummingbirds.

Are hummingbirds common where this picture was taken?

ETA: Would hummingbirds be interested in this particular bush?

No hummingbirds were harmed during the making of this photo!

We don't have hummingbirds in NZ. If you'd said flying fish....

 

[Starthinker]

In my marked-up photo I was just pointing out two similar objects. I would guess in a good number of cases when you have two similar objects like that, and in this pic I could only find the two, then they are probably related or caused by similar means. Since the lower one looks near the tree, the upper one was probably just as close. The leaves/flowers are in focus so I'm thinking the two spots are insects or hummingbirds.

This is assuming it was not a speck of sand or something on the negative when it was being developed. Remember, a black spot on a picture is a blank spot on the negative, so that very well could have been the case. Even given their location I can see a speck rotating/migrating on the roll from one spot to the other while it was being wound.

 

[LawnOven]

Scan the image at 1200 ppi. It's too small. just crop the relavent part.

 

[jimtron]

I make my living as a photographer, and have been doing darkroom work for over twenty years. I agree with those who say: speck of something on the film during exposure. That would result in a well defined shape since it would be right on the negative. A speck on the lens would be much less defined. If it was dust during printing, it would be white, not black.

I disagree with those who think it was Photoshopped. I don't have evidence it wasn't, but if you were to shoot a negative with a speck on it, and make a print, and scan it, and zoom into a low res jpg, I'll bet it would look the same as the zoomed-in jpg on this thread.

To me this photo doesn't seem remarkable in any way.

ETA:

Was this shot with a digital or film camera? Could be a speck on the camera's sensor.

ETA2:

I read the OP again--it was film, right? Not taken with a G3 digital camera?

 

[jimtron]

Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg

The "frame" could be an artifact from JPEG compression, or just the natural edges of the speck (dirt or whatever). If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to. If you were to draw black pixels, with the pencil tool for example, you would have very hard, discrete edges.

 

[baron]

Moth

 

[baron]

BTW: It's not black. And at 67K this image has lost a large amount of info to JPG compression, making it especially difficult to judge what it is. The JPG compression is totally consistent with the rest of the photo.

It's unlikely to be a helicopter as there's no reduction in contrast due to distance haze.

I'd say it's a hummingbird hawkmoth. We have them around here sometimes.

 

[jimtron]

The Atheist: if you wanted to send me the negative, I could make a 4000 dpi scan of it, and host a high res JPG or TIF. PM me if you're interested.

 

[CurtC]

If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to.

If you added the speck in Photoshop, then saved it as a high-compression JPEG, you'll still get the compression artifacts we see, which I think you're referring to as a "frame."

Not that I think it was Photoshopped in, I'm just saying that even Photoshopped objects are subject to compression artifacts just like objects that were actually in the picture.

 

[jimtron]

If you added the speck in Photoshop, then saved it as a high-compression JPEG, you'll still get the compression artifacts we see, which I think you're referring to as a "frame."

Not that I think it was Photoshopped in, I'm just saying that even Photoshopped objects are subject to compression artifacts just like objects that were actually in the picture.

I agree--it could be Photoshopped or not. My point was that edges of the speck are not evidence of Photoshop.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's no assumption about it at all - helicopters stay within the 500 ft line or they're likely to get run down by a Jumbo Jet. We get a couple of 'em over a day and the pic isn't one of them.

Sorry--I still don't follow the thinking. (Maybe it's because I took an extra long afternoon nap and haven't gotten the sleep out of my head yet.)

I understand that it's illegal for a helicopter to fly over 500 ft over your house and that it's dangerous and foolish, but how does that preclude it logically? I also understand that many helicopters fly over below that altitude and you can reliably identify them, but doesn't that argue that you might not be familiar with what one looks like if it's higher?

It's illegal and dangerous for someone to cross a busy interstate, but if I had a photo that looked like someone standing on the interstate you wouldn't be able to say that it's impossible, right?

Were you present when the photo was snapped, or is there some other bit of info I'm missing that makes you certain it's not a helicopter?

(The other marks lend credence to the "dirty developer" idea, and I've always been happy to leave stray marks on a photograph unexplained without losing any sleep or resorting to space aliens or paranormal activity.)

 

[Just thinking]

To me it looks a good deal like a cicada (upper), which are indigenous to NZ as well as by me. They do hang out in trees a lot and their wings are quite transparent, which when fluttering rapidly would almost disappear from view. The lower one looks more like a hummingbird.

 

[The Atheist]

I make my living as a photographer, and have been doing darkroom work for over twenty years. I agree with those who say: speck of something on the film during exposure. That would result in a well defined shape since it would be right on the negative. A speck on the lens would be much less defined. If it was dust during printing, it would be white, not black.

Yep, that's exactly where I get to. I think the other defects, which I didn't even notice, give the game away entirely.

I disagree with those who think it was Photoshopped. I don't have evidence it wasn't, but if you were to shoot a negative with a speck on it, and make a print, and scan it, and zoom into a low res jpg, I'll bet it would look the same as the zoomed-in jpg on this thread.

That, I can guarantee. I don't even have Photo Shop. I may not be a trustworthy source, however!

To me this photo doesn't seem remarkable in any way.

Me neither. It is remarkably similar to many "UFO" photos, though.

Was this shot with a digital or film camera? Could be a speck on the camera's sensor.

I read the OP again--it was film, right? Not taken with a G3 digital camera?

35mm film camera.

 

[Kopji]

The "frame" could be an artifact from JPEG compression, or just the natural edges of the speck (dirt or whatever). If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to. If you were to draw black pixels, with the pencil tool for example, you would have very hard, discrete edges.

Yeah I agree with you. I had time to look over other parts of the image later. The whole spot is only a few pixels wide though, just not enough to tell anything at all.

A way to get at this would be to do an enlargement from the negative and then scan just the spot at a high res. I would think that if it were a problem in the developing, other photos on the roll might show some spots.

 

[The Atheist]

Moth

Nope

I'd say it's a hummingbird hawkmoth. We have them around here sometimes.

Definitely none of them around here.

The Atheist: if you wanted to send me the negative, I could make a 4000 dpi scan of it, and host a high res JPG or TIF. PM me if you're interested.

Cheers, I'm happy enough with where we're at to go further. If you'd particularly like it, let me know and I'll send it through. I don't think I'll be ordering any copies of it!

I understand that it's illegal for a helicopter to fly over 500 ft over your house and that it's dangerous and foolish, but how does that preclude it logically? I also understand that many helicopters fly over below that altitude and you can reliably identify them, but doesn't that argue that you might not be familiar with what one looks like if it's higher?

It's illegal and dangerous for someone to cross a busy interstate, but if I had a photo that looked like someone standing on the interstate you wouldn't be able to say that it's impossible, right?

Were you present when the photo was snapped, or is there some other bit of info I'm missing that makes you certain it's not a helicopter?

Well, I can't be 100% certain, but I'd be confident that if a chopper had ventured into commercial airspace by as far as it would need to be in that shot, then I would have heard about it. That would be major news over here.

(Then again, it could have been a FEMA chopper out here for talks with some of our neo-cons, preparatory to making the South Island a prison camp for Troofers, but don't let that on.)

(The other marks lend credence to the "dirty developer" idea, and I've always been happy to leave stray marks on a photograph unexplained without losing any sleep or resorting to space aliens or paranormal activity.)

Yep, I agree.

To me it looks a good deal like a cicada (upper), which are indigenous to NZ as well as by me. They do hang out in trees a lot and their wings are quite transparent, which when fluttering rapidly would almost disappear from view. The lower one looks more like a hummingbird.

They also fly 100 mph and with a cheapo kids' camera and resulting 1/80 shutter speed or thereabouts, it would just be a blur. Lots of cicadas on the tree, though - not a bad guess!

No hummingbirds...

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

 

[jimtron]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

OMG there could be a UFO in the scanner!!!!! Atheist, I would immediately duct tape the scanner cover down if I were you.

 

[The Atheist]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

Yep, it was seeing on the print that made me scan it. It's visible on the negative as well.

OMG there could be a UFO in the scanner!!!!! Atheist, I would immediately duct tape the scanner cover down if I were you.

I'm taking no chances, the printer and scanner have been sealed and quarantined!

 

[Timothy]

A piece of dirt on the lens.

Beady's idea seems the most reasonable. That's what it looked like to me the moment I saw it: a smudge on the lens or ...

It looks to me like either a bit of something on the lens, which would tend to get a halo around it. ... My vote is just for a speck of dirt on the lens.

I'm voting for the schmutz on the lens theory. It blew off before the next photo.

Since this is the JR Educational F, let's do some educating. I've seen people use this argument far too many times. This is a situation where "common sense" is wrong. Objects on the front surface of a camera's lens will not be imaged anywhere near the focal surface. (Caveat: a lens can exist that does this, but I defy you to find one used for a consumer camera.)

Dirt on the lense would be more blurred, if not invisible at all.

Yay! The right answer, although you should be far more confident about the invisible part.

So, if you disagree, try it for yourself. Using your own camera, see if you can create an image even remotely approximating the OP photo by placing something on the front lens. You'll find that in the image your object will be either invisible, or huge and transparent, and certainly not anything that would be mistaken for a helicopter at a distance. If you find otherwise, post the photo here.

( Caveat: If there's a window or filter a significant distance in front of the lens, that would change things, but I'm assuming we're using fairly standard cameras without configurations that are too unusual. )