I wonder why it appears light bubbles or sparkles when shooting at night?

HazCreative

HazCreative

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2
Name
HazCreative
Edit My Images
Yes
Do you know why pictures taken at night get light bubbles?

It had happened to me a couple of time before but not all the time, thats why I wonder. PHOTO HERE
My first one taken was when we were using films then I thought it was some kind of chemical thing but know that It happened again with digital I start to wonder again.

Do you guys know something about? even you just guessing will be good for me! I start to experiment this and do some research. I found it a interesting observation.
Perphas there is a lot about the subject, Do you know where I can find more information?

I will be waiting for replays.

Thanks guys,
 
Looks to me like dust, smoke, or mist particles being caught by your flash. Those close to the camera are both out of focus and very brightly lit. They appear because of the very strong lighting and are circles because out of focus.
 
Yup - that's either dust or mist in front of the camera.
It is a common occurrence in cave photography where the high humidity and lack of wind lets breath hang in front of the lens for ages.
Simple solution - the flash needs to be at least arms length away from the camera.
 
Clean your lens. Small sensor cameras, with wide lenses have incredibly deep depth of field when stopped down, and crap on your lens will just diffract light. As they're not in focus, they appear as round blobs. Kind of all there is to it really. Not really a research subject. :)
 
I know... what kind of complete retard thinks this is "ghosts"? It would be kinder to just put some people out of their misery.
 
Yeah, but where do you stop? There are so many complete retards out there. Chemtrails. Moon landings. 9/11. Vaccinations. HAARP. Fluoridation. UFOs. Homeopathy. Astrology. We're surrounded by retards.
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Indeed. Unless you're one of those airheads who are fascinated by "orbs".
Click to expand...

There was someone on Facebook yesterday who was convinced that she coiuld see a 'gentleman in victorian dress' if she zoomed into a lens flare spot on a photograph she had taken of an old, empty house!


Steve.
 
I've also had those bubble things floating around at night. Usually very late on a Friday night, when I don't have my camera with me to record them though.
 
The widow of a doctor who practised some kind of alternative therapy took over his practice, and extended it most successfully, by consulting with the soul of not only her dead husband, but other famous dead doctors. She also discovered an amazing new technique for examining blood samples at such high magnification that she could make diagnoses based on the shape of diseased molecules.

The technique was to smear the blood on a piece of paper and put it through the office photocopier on its magnify setting. Then photomagnify the magnified copy. Repeat until you've got enough magnification to be able to see the molecules. She claimed to have published papers on this technique and been awarded a doctorate in alternative medicine as a consequence. I shied at paying for a copy of one of the papers, but there was certainly good evidence that they existed and that she had been awarded a doctorate for her research.

I feel an attack of antidemocratic elitist snobbery coming on, so I'd better go and lie down.
 
chris malcolm said:
The widow of a doctor who practised some kind of alternative therapy took over his practice, and extended it most successfully, by consulting with the soul of not only her dead husband, but other famous dead doctors. She also discovered an amazing new technique for examining blood samples at such high magnification that she could make diagnoses based on the shape of diseased molecules.

The technique was to smear the blood on a piece of paper and put it through the office photocopier on its magnify setting. Then photomagnify the magnified copy. Repeat until you've got enough magnification to be able to see the molecules. She claimed to have published papers on this technique and been awarded a doctorate in alternative medicine as a consequence. I shied at paying for a copy of one of the papers, but there was certainly good evidence that they existed and that she had been awarded a doctorate for her research.

I feel an attack of antidemocratic elitist snobbery coming on, so I'd better go and lie down.
Click to expand...

I just knew that the Daleks would be involved in this somewhere......:rolleyes:

I seriously had a client come to me with a photo she had taken of 'orbs' in her house. After I realised that the explanation of dust was not getting through, I sent her swiftly on her way. They used to have places called asylums for such people, but seemingly they all come from abroad now.
 
Last edited:
RacingSnake said:
As for the multiple spots - The only time I've had the same effect/quantity was when I've taken night photos with flash on a beach - as the sea mist is so fine it just floats in the air.
Click to expand...

Similar situation with me. I live right next to a beach and this phenomenon is something I see in night shots occassionally. As you say, its just sea mist/spray. If you get a bit of surf and some light wind its a perfect setup for NOT using flash. :(
 
chris malcolm said:
... an amazing new technique for examining blood samples at such high magnification that she could make diagnoses based on the shape of diseased molecules.

The technique was to smear the blood on a piece of paper and put it through the office photocopier on its magnify setting. Then photomagnify the magnified copy. Repeat until you've got enough magnification to be able to see the molecules.
Click to expand...
I think this is the part of the story where you're supposed to cite a reference, so we can tell it's not something you just made up, or heard from a friend of a friend.
 
StewartR said:
I think this is the part of the story where you're supposed to cite a reference, so we can tell it's not something you just made up, or heard from a friend of a friend.
Click to expand...
It's not actually possible to do, as any photographer should understand immediately. In fact, it's more in the realms of cock-eyed idiocy than it is in the realms of even loose credibility.

If it WAS possible (it's not) it would completely and immeasurably revolutionise every field of science and technology and change the world.

So, it's 100% nonsense.
 
Steve Smith said:
There was someone on Facebook yesterday who was convinced that she coiuld see a 'gentleman in victorian dress' if she zoomed into a lens flare spot on a photograph she had taken of an old, empty house!


Steve.
Click to expand...

We're on the same group. I saw that and then it was followed by somebody who said if you zoomed in you could see TWO people! Go figure?
 
ghoti said:
It's not actually possible to do, as any photographer should understand immediately. In fact, it's more in the realms of cock-eyed idiocy than it is in the realms of even loose credibility.

If it WAS possible (it's not) it would completely and immeasurably revolutionise every field of science and technology and change the world.

So, it's 100% nonsense.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. But I was trying to help @chris malcolm to come to that view himself. I'm sure you know the old adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, this is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence? .... Oh, there isn't any. Therefore it is foolish to believe in it.
 
StewartR said:
Of course it is. But I was trying to help @chris malcolm to come to that view himself. I'm sure you know the old adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, this is an extraordinary claim. So where's the extraordinary evidence? .... Oh, there isn't any. Therefore it is foolish to believe in it.
Click to expand...

My apologises for not having made it clearer that I realise that repeatedly magnifying photocopies won't let you see molecules, or that getting the spirits of dead doctors to advise you is not a good way to diagnose illnesses and decide treatments.
 
chris malcolm said:
My apologises for not having made it clearer that I realise that repeatedly magnifying photocopies won't let you see molecules, or that getting the spirits of dead doctors to advise you is not a good way to diagnose illnesses and decide treatments.
Click to expand...
Fair enough Chris. Sorry for inferring otherwise! But I'm sure you know what the problem is... there are people out there who *do* believe this stuff. And we allow them to vote, and have children.
 
chris malcolm said:
The widow of a doctor who practised some kind of alternative therapy took over his practice, and extended it most successfully, by consulting with the soul of not only her dead husband, but other famous dead doctors. She also discovered an amazing new technique for examining blood samples at such high magnification that she could make diagnoses based on the shape of diseased molecules.

The technique was to smear the blood on a piece of paper and put it through the office photocopier on its magnify setting. Then photomagnify the magnified copy. Repeat until you've got enough magnification to be able to see the molecules. She claimed to have published papers on this technique and been awarded a doctorate in alternative medicine as a consequence. I shied at paying for a copy of one of the papers, but there was certainly good evidence that they existed and that she had been awarded a doctorate for her research.

I feel an attack of antidemocratic elitist snobbery coming on, so I'd better go and lie down.
Click to expand...


Doctorate in alternative medicine.... (snigger)
 
Plenty of alternative medical practices do work so why not allow qualified practitioners doctorates? Yes, there is some quackery around as well but not all of it is that.
 
Nod said:
Plenty of alternative medical practices do work so why not allow qualified practitioners doctorates? Yes, there is some quackery around as well but not all of it is that.
Click to expand...

As Stewart said.... that's called "Medicine".
 
Or unconventional medicine. There are sometimes more than one way to skin a cat. As it were.
 
Last edited:
Alternative medicine covers a lot of things that aren't under the "conventional" medicine umbrella but work. I'm not saying that homeopathy and faith healing necessarily do (although I know people who swear that homeopathy has worked for them [I'm in the non believer camp as far as that goes!]), acupuncture, osteopathy and some other therapies do seem to.
 
Nod said:
Alternative medicine covers a lot of things that aren't under the "conventional" medicine umbrella but work. I'm not saying that homeopathy and faith healing necessarily do (although I know people who swear that homeopathy has worked for them [I'm in the non believer camp as far as that goes!]), acupuncture, osteopathy and some other therapies do seem to.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, acupuncture seems to "work" whether or not you pay any heed to the "theory" of acupuncture (meridians, energy lines, and other such nonsense). Plenty of studies have shown that it simply does not matter where you stick the needles; the same statistical proportion of patients will report an improvement in their condition.
This suggests that acupuncture is working through a placebo effect (most likely in my opinion) or possibly (when acupuncture is used for pain relief) that it works via the gate-control theory - which suggests neurones carrying pain signals can be overwhelmed at the spinal cord by other stimulus (it's why rubbing an injury tends to make it hurt less).

In favour of the "just a placebo" theory is an interesting study where asthmatics were given no treatment, acupuncture or the proven drug albuterol. Funnily enough, both the acupuncture and albuterol groups reported similar improvements in their asthma. So the acupuncture made them feel better. Subjectively. But when they used an objective test (i.e. not just "how do you feel?"), in this case measured FEV with a respirometer, guess what? Only the albuterol group had shown any improvement. The acupuncture group were just as poor as the no treatment group.
This suggests acupuncture does NOT make people better; but it may make people FEEL like they're better.
This may be a pointless distinction in illnesses that either have a large subjective component (chronic pain, etc) or illnesses that are self-limiting. But it doesn't take a genius to work out how this could be dangerous with life threatening conditions which don't get better on their own.
 
ghoti said:
Interestingly, acupuncture seems to "work" whether or not you pay any heed to the "theory" of acupuncture (meridians, energy lines, and other such nonsense). Plenty of studies have shown that it simply does not matter where you stick the needles; the same statistical proportion of patients will report an improvement in their condition.
This suggests that acupuncture is working through a placebo effect (most likely in my opinion) or possibly (when acupuncture is used for pain relief) that it works via the gate-control theory - which suggests neurones carrying pain signals can be overwhelmed at the spinal cord by other stimulus (it's why rubbing an injury tends to make it hurt less).

In favour of the "just a placebo" theory is an interesting study where asthmatics were given no treatment, acupuncture or the proven drug albuterol. Funnily enough, both the acupuncture and albuterol groups reported similar improvements in their asthma. So the acupuncture made them feel better. Subjectively. But when they used an objective test (i.e. not just "how do you feel?"), in this case measured FEV with a respirometer, guess what? Only the albuterol group had shown any improvement. The acupuncture group were just as poor as the no treatment group.
This suggests acupuncture does NOT make people better; but it may make people FEEL like they're better.
This may be a pointless distinction in illnesses that either have a large subjective component (chronic pain, etc) or illnesses that are self-limiting. But it doesn't take a genius to work out how this could be dangerous with life threatening conditions which don't get better on their own.
Click to expand...


Exactly.
 
To the OP, if you google 'backscatter' in underwater photos you'll see the same thing. It is light reflecting off particulate matter (underwater it is usually sand/silt or small organisms). The solution is to take the flash as far from the line of the lens as possible. For an underwater housing that means long arms out to the side of the housing. For above ground, take it off camera or bounce it somewhere.

rick
 
ghoti said:
... an interesting study where asthmatics were given no treatment, acupuncture or the proven drug albuterol ... suggests acupuncture does NOT make people better; but it may make people FEEL like they're better.
Click to expand...
That's absolutely fascinating. Do you have a reference?
 
Doesn't that study measure the effects of 'sham' acupuncture?
 
Rapscallion said:
Doesn't that study measure the effects of 'sham' acupuncture?
Click to expand...
Yes, but as I said earlier clinical outcomes of "sham acupuncture" are identical to acupuncture. It doesn't matter where you put the needles (and the albuterol study goes some way to explaining why). There's masses of evidence for this.
Here's a review of the evidence which concludes that we should stop calling "sham" acupuncture by that name because it's just as effective as "real acupuncture": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19098696
 
If all of this alternative crap worked... we'd be using it. What amazes me though, is that you CAN get acupuncture on the NHS when there's no substantive evidence to suggest it actually does anything.

Clearly, it's been decided that acupuncture is effective as a placebo, so it may actually save money if you can make someone feel better, or convince themselves to stop smoking etc. There's no evidence to suggest it actually does anything other than make you feel better though - no evidence to suggest it is actually capable of treating any medical condition.

From the NHS website..

NHS said:
Theory
Western medical acupuncture is the use of acupuncture after a proper medical diagnosis. It is based on scientific evidence that shows the treatment can stimulate nerves under the skin and in muscle tissue.

This results in the body producing pain-relieving substances, such as endorphins. It is likely these substances are responsible for any beneficial effects seen with this form of acupuncture.

Traditional acupuncture is based on the belief that an energy, or "life force", flows through the body in channels called meridians. This life force is known as Qi (pronounced "chee").

Practitioners who adhere to traditional beliefs about acupuncture believe that when Qi does not flow freely through the body, this can cause illness. They also believe acupuncture can restore the flow of Qi, and so restore health.
Click to expand...



Basically.... if you have a pain in your knee... you'll notice it less if I stick needles in your back LOL.

Notice how they are keen to distance "western medical" acupuncture from traditional, but can't actually explain what that difference is? If it's so different why devote so much of that to explaining Qi, and so little explaining what the "scientific evidence" is.

If you believe in all this crap.. acupuncture, crystals, aromatherapy, faith healing etc... you're an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Basically.... if you have a pain in your knee... you'll notice it less if I stick needles in your back
Click to expand...

Sounds like my grandfather's cure for toothache... put a clothes peg on your earlobe and you will soon forget the toothache! (works for many other aches and pains too).


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top