The Haunting thread
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:24 pm
#46
Born again atheist
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 30,259
From: Europe (to be specified).
Re: The Haunting thread
You are quite correct, it wasn't, lol, we had a string of small lamplights on the old washing line which was going down from the house to the end of the back garden, which provided 'ambient' light so a flash wasn't necessary.
If it helps, the 1st photo is the photo taken just before the original one posted - you can see 'what ever it is' starting to form but it's higher up than in the original photo. In the original photo it appears to have sunk downwards -which defeats the supposition that it is steam/vapour as we all know that vapour/heat rises.
Nobody was smoking and there was no steam visible from the hot tub.
(Facial features removed to protect privacy).
If it helps, the 1st photo is the photo taken just before the original one posted - you can see 'what ever it is' starting to form but it's higher up than in the original photo. In the original photo it appears to have sunk downwards -which defeats the supposition that it is steam/vapour as we all know that vapour/heat rises.
Nobody was smoking and there was no steam visible from the hot tub.
(Facial features removed to protect privacy).
Although now we've introduced Quicksilver into the equation, all bets are off.
Simply mercurial.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:31 pm
#47
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 10,000
Re: The Haunting thread
You know what my job is. I am bound by all sorts of thingies always to tell the truth.
Dust particles in the atmosphere don't do Rayleigh scattering (because the wavelength of the light has to be comparable to the size of the scattering particle). Molecules, O2 & N2 mostly, do Lord Rayleigh's scattering.
Particles do Mie scattering.
Moreover the colour of a polluted sky near the horizon is largely due to NO2 in the polluted air.
Just as we don't know whether a flash was used, we aren't certain whether a digital camera was used.
Back in the day of film in cameras, a UV filter was handy to prevent overload of the blue end of the film response curve: digital cameras have an inherently different response and using a UV filter is pointless. Except maybe to prevent scratching.
Dust particles in the atmosphere don't do Rayleigh scattering (because the wavelength of the light has to be comparable to the size of the scattering particle). Molecules, O2 & N2 mostly, do Lord Rayleigh's scattering.
Particles do Mie scattering.
Moreover the colour of a polluted sky near the horizon is largely due to NO2 in the polluted air.
Just as we don't know whether a flash was used, we aren't certain whether a digital camera was used.
Back in the day of film in cameras, a UV filter was handy to prevent overload of the blue end of the film response curve: digital cameras have an inherently different response and using a UV filter is pointless. Except maybe to prevent scratching.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:31 pm
#48
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,878
From: SW Ontario
Re: The Haunting thread
http://www.lampsplus.com/products/mi...ts__92672.html
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:42 pm
#49
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: The Haunting thread
It does look like a flash went off, there's reflection on the beer bottle and the general illumination of the scene appears similar to a flash photo. The spooky thing seems to be illuminated water vapour.
In addition a 1/60th shutter on a digital camera would require tremendous ambient light to produce this kind of exposure. Flash must have fired.
In addition a 1/60th shutter on a digital camera would require tremendous ambient light to produce this kind of exposure. Flash must have fired.
Last edited by Shard; Nov 24th 2013 at 2:46 pm.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:46 pm
#50
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,878
From: SW Ontario
Re: The Haunting thread
It does look like a flash went off, there's reflection on the beer bottle and the general illumination of the scene appears similar to a flash photo. The spooky thing seems to be illuminated water vapour.
In addition a 1/60th shutter on a digital camera would require tremendous ambient light to produce this kind of exposure.
In addition a 1/60th shutter on a digital camera would require tremendous ambient light to produce this kind of exposure.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:47 pm
#51
limey party pooper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 10,000
Re: The Haunting thread
You are quite correct, it wasn't, lol, we had a string of small lamplights on the old washing line which was going down from the house to the end of the back garden, which provided 'ambient' light so a flash wasn't necessary.
If it helps, the 1st photo is the photo taken just before the original one posted - you can see 'what ever it is' starting to form but it's higher up than in the original photo. In the original photo it appears to have sunk downwards -which defeats the supposition that it is steam/vapour as we all know that vapour+heat generally rises.
Nobody was smoking and there was no steam visible from the hot tub.
(Facial features removed to protect privacy).
FYI, yes, it was a digital camera: f/2.9 / 1/60th of a second / 7mm focal length / 3.1 max aperture
If it helps, the 1st photo is the photo taken just before the original one posted - you can see 'what ever it is' starting to form but it's higher up than in the original photo. In the original photo it appears to have sunk downwards -which defeats the supposition that it is steam/vapour as we all know that vapour+heat generally rises.
Nobody was smoking and there was no steam visible from the hot tub.
(Facial features removed to protect privacy).
FYI, yes, it was a digital camera: f/2.9 / 1/60th of a second / 7mm focal length / 3.1 max aperture
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:51 pm
#57
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,878
From: SW Ontario
Re: The Haunting thread
It was on auto - I didn't set the settings, it is what the camera did on auto. The flash wasn't used, it was just coming up to dusk and it was not dark - nor did the flash 'pop up' automatically.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:53 pm
#58
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,878
From: SW Ontario
Re: The Haunting thread
I already said it wasn't either - you asked me if I was sure. If I wasn't sure then I would not have said so.
Apologies, that wasn't aimed at you specifically. Perhaps I should not have put that but felt that was what was being implied, generally, though not necessarily by you.
Apologies, that wasn't aimed at you specifically. Perhaps I should not have put that but felt that was what was being implied, generally, though not necessarily by you.
Nov 24th 2013 | 2:56 pm
#59
Realist
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 24,667
From: UK
Re: The Haunting thread
Any street lights around (that might illuminate the hot tub area)? Try taking another photo at near dusk and see what it looks like compared to these ones.
Nov 24th 2013 | 3:05 pm
#60
Banned
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 19,878
From: SW Ontario
Re: The Haunting thread
I can't take another photo under the same conditions as I no longer live there.
Make of it what you may, it is 'what ever' it is.
