Orbs: The Ghost in the Camera
Are orbs really ghosts, or a common artifact of photography?
Filed under Paranormal
| Skeptoid #29 February 24, 2007 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe |
|
By Brian Dunning, Skeptoid Podcast
Episode 29, February 24, 2007
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4029
|
Next time you pick up a camera, watch out. You're holding in your hand the very device responsible for tens of thousands of the most bizarre and unexplainable type of ghost photographs: Orbs.
Orbs, formally called Spirit Orbs, are those semi-transparent white balls seen floating around in many photographs taken in ghostly locations. Orbs are among the class of paranormal phenomena that are visible only to cameras, and not to the naked eye.
The usual hypothesis presented by believers is that orbs represent spirits of dead people, though some support variations on that. The science behind this hypothesis is not clear. For example, there are no plausible hypotheses that describe the mechanism by which a person who dies will become a hovering ball of light that appears on film but is invisible to the eye. There are lots of other things that a dead person might become, presumably; and the only reason believers have chosen orbs seems to be that orbs are the most common unexpected objects seen in photographs. If there was any good science behind this, there would at least be some plausible proposals for what the orb might consist of, how and why it is generated by a dead body, why it floats in the air; and also some good predictions about who will become an orb after they die, what size and color that orb would be, and where and when it can be found. I welcome any hypotheses that would explain how orbs could be a real phenomenon, but I haven't been able to find any. The only evidence is anecdotal reports and, of course, the obligatory photographs, found on the Internet by the thousand.
Orbs most often appear on camera when a piece of airborne dust, an insect, or a water droplet is close to the camera, outside of the depth of field, and the flash source is no more than a few degrees away from the axis of the camera lens. This causes the object to be brightly light but way out of focus, resulting in a semi-transparent whitish circle. If the flash or other light source is significantly off of the axis of the lens, you won't get nearly as much light reflected right straight back to the camera. If the object is within the depth of field it will be in focus and generally very small, and probably not noticeable. If the object is not very close to the camera, again it won't pick up enough light from the flash.
I'm often challenged by believers that if orb photos are so easy to take, why don't I do it then? I don't because many people have already done so. If you want great step-by-step instructions for taking an orb photo, go to assap.org and click on Paranormal Photos. You will get all the examples, instructions, and explanations that you could ask for. I do have a couple of orb photos that I took by accident inside an abandoned mine shaft — doubtless the hapless spirit of a murdered miner — and you can find those pictures online at Skeptoid.com. Post your own orb photos in the Skeptoid.com forum if you've got them.
Now, it would not be correct to state that orb believers don't accept this explanation. Most actually do; in fact, many web sites that archive ghost photographs no longer accept orb photographs, with the explanation that orb photos too often show false orbs produced by the photographic effects described above. Nevertheless, most believers still feel that there are legitimate orb photos that do show ghosts or spirits or energy or whatever they want to call it. One differentiator that I've heard several times is that a false orb photo will have a blue edge, while a real orb photo, showing spiritual energy, will not. Once again, there's a simple explanation that's well known to photographers. Basically, cheap optics and certain sensors will produce this blue edging. To see some examples, go to a high end digital camera review web site, such as dpreview.com, and look through some of the photographic tests of cameras that they review. A good place to see the variance of cameras producing blue edges is the resolution test chart. The effect can also be caused artificially by the camera's image processing software when certain luminance and chrominance settings are in effect. Finally it can also occur with even a high-end camera with the right white balance adjustment when using a flash of a certain color temperature. In short, blue edges on orbs can be added or subtracted by the camera, and often are, and so should not be considered a reliable indicator of whether a given orb is actually a ghost.
I've also found statements attempting to debunk the evidence that orbs are caused by the flash reflecting from dust outside the depth of field. These claims are based on multiple successive photographs taken immediately one after the other, where an orb appears in one but not in the others. Presumably, if there's dust in the air, there's dust in the air; and it's not going to float away in a split second. Fair enough. But I've never seen such a series of photographs. Thus this is purely an unsubstatiated anecdotal report, from someone who probably has an agenda — judging by their pro-orb web site. I find it hard to believe that a dust particle would remain in exactly the same place for the second or so that a fast digital camera would require to take two pictures. It only needs to move half an inch or so if it's close to the lens, and even the movement of your hand on the shutter will make enough wind to move it. The slightest breeze or air current would move it well out of the way. And even in a perfectly still room, Brownian motion is by itself more than enough to make that dust ancient history by the time the camera takes a second shot.
|
Another hypothesis about orbs is that they are not the spirit at all, but rather energy being transferred to a spirit. Suppose that a spirit is hanging out near a power source, be that a person, a powerline, a warm fireplace, or something else. The spirit, by its nature, draws energy which moves into it in the form of glowing, hovering balls. I read from one source that supports this idea that "the laws of physics say that energy transferred like this would naturally assume the shape of a sphere." Hmmmm. Refer back to my favorite Skeptoid episode, #1, New Age Energy. Energy is not a hovering, glowing, physical substance that goes around and does things. Energy is simply a measurement, so it's hard to imagine what law of physics he was talking about. Perhaps these hypothesizers mean to say that the spirit is drawing heat, or electricity. Well, neither heat nor electricity are ever seen to move around in the form of gently hovering transparent white balls. And don't say "ball lightning", because you bet your ass that every ghost hunter in the room would know if there was a wicked ten million volt ball of death banging around; they wouldn't have to wait until they got home to check their film to find out about it.
So, in conclusion, I basically came up short seeking a plausible hypothesis for the existence of orbs. If you've heard of one that makes some sense, please post it in the Skeptoid.com forums, or send it to the Skeptalk email discussion list. Until that happens, I'm satisfied that the evidence shows orbs to be merely a well understood and commonplace artifact of photography.
© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc.
References & Further Reading
Gilbert, James. "Digital Photography and the Paranormal." New Zealand Skeptic. 1 Jan. 2010, Number 94, Summer 2010: 7-9, 12-13.
Howard, Philip. "Confessions of a Ghost Tour Guide and Skeptic." Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, 18 Dec. 2006. Web. 5 Jan. 2010. <http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/confessions_of_a_ghost_tour_guide_and_skeptic/>
Nickell, Joe. "Ghostly Photos." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 Jul. 1996, Volume 20, Number 4: 13-14.
Radford, Benjamin. "The (Non)Mysterious Orbs." Skeptical Inquirer. 1 Sep. 2007, Volume 31, Number 5: 30, 46.
Townsend, Maurice. "How to take great orb pictures." Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. ASSAP, 1 Jan. 2008. Web. 17 Nov. 2009. <http://assap.org/newsite/htmlfiles/Greatorbs.html>
Reference this article:
Dunning, B.
"Orbs: The Ghost in the Camera." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
24 Feb 2007. Web.
22 May 2013. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4029>
Discuss!
10 most recent comments | Show all 107 comments
Darinka, its no pint using distracyion from the point as a basis for argument.
Your photo can be explained or even if not explained, easily reproduced. Who ever took yours lucked an effect.
Hiroshima and Nagisaki are not particlarly special when used in logical fallacies unless you wish to draw attention about their histories. This even the "orb religious" would be rarely use.
What sort of student was your Japanese student? Does this add credibility to your argument or was that not intended?
I would have bothered to reply except your "try that for size" and allusion to what is probably a ridiculous astrology site.
See, even stoics can jump to conclusions.
Mud, Pho\\\'s Slave palace, Gerringong the Brave, NSW
March 17, 2013 1:04am
I recently visited Charleston South Carolina & visited a few of the grave yards & the old jail.I took about 50 pics in the graveyard in the matter of a couple minutes & I didn't use flash & in every picture I took there are orbs some more than others & of all different sizes & some really bright & so forth.Why do you have so many different sizes & different brightness in them?
Donna, NC
March 19, 2013 5:19pm
Donna, could you take your query to a photographers forum and talk to them about the technical details.
Come back when you have sorted your photography problems out.
Mud, Sin City, Oz
March 19, 2013 6:06pm
I found this site after watching several of the supposed ghost hunters on the Bio channel. While I do believe in paranormal activity and spirits as energy, the little balls of energy that were a token part of each episode are just not credible to me. Every single one had some reason for why it could not have been dust. Even in this thread I see Hiroshima and Nagasaki used as examples. People were incinerated and everything burned for miles around those nuclear explosions, so of course the atmosphere was going to be full of dust particles for miles around. Whether it is caused directly from the flash or from other light sources, these "orbs" are really just reflections. I feel like "orb" believers are doing more harm than good to the argument for paranormal activity by so fervently supporting something so easy to explain.
Steven, NM
March 21, 2013 7:16pm
Lost my son Dec 29th 2011,Last year we had a family gathering in which pictures were taken....Many pics showed orbs everywhere,one pic stood out there was an orb quite close up this orb had a face with features so similar to my son it was quite amazing..wish i had the camera or pic to post but as it belongs to a family member was unable post
Jackie just won -$3,954 in YOU DON’T KNOW JACK and finished in 6th place!, cambridge,Ont.Canada
April 27, 2013 12:34pm
Brian
"Orbs are among the class of paranormal phenomena that are visible only to cameras, and not to the naked eye."
A few people have reported seeing orbs (without the camera) moving through their house etc.
This is distinct from ball lightning phenomena.
"The science behind this hypothesis is not clear."
As far as I know, there is no science behind these observations, therefore no proof, except that more than one person has seen them, and described similar sightings.
I suppose it all boils down to whether one believes in Spirit or not.
Maybe these orbs are spirits who have finished their lives in this realm.
In the meantime, I think Brian has written a very fair article on the matter, within his belief system, and is to be commended on that.
But I'm sure it's not all photographic anomalies, and some posts here tend to support that assertion.
Why they should be orbs/globes/spherical in shape is a good question. But another good question is why shouldn't they be ?
If they are indeed persons who have "passed over" then they don't need to be shaped like their Earthly body, and may indeed take the form of a ball, a basic shape of many universal objects.
Some of the points and observations by believers here have not been addressed except for continuous recommendations to sort the "photography problems" out, which is quite sensible, but after that, and the orbs are still there, what then ?
And what about the orbs that are seen without cameras ?
Macky, Auckland
April 29, 2013 4:28pm
Sorry, an object passing across a field of view has no frame of reference.
This means that a bug caught nearby (as the best orb pics are) can appear to be travelling at monstrous speeds.
The usual way to discount these things is to use more than one frame of reference..
PS this counts for following venuses or etherics..
Its a pity science (even at the level of a child enthusiast) trumps these things.
That Macky, is why its called woo.
Mud, Sin City
April 30, 2013 3:43am
"Sorry, an object passing across a field of view has no frame of reference."
I'll remember that the next time a truck passes in front of me while I'm driving my son-in-law's car Mud.
Because there is no other frame of reference but my personal observation, I will disregard the truck as irrelevant or "not real", and won't bother to slam on the brakes.
I hardly see what bugs travelling at monstrous speeds (or appear to be) have to do with observations of slow-moving bright orbs without the aid of a camera.
And bright (as against transparent) orbs seen on film, sometimes, as posted here, being taken without a flash.
Of course, mere observation of slow-moving bright globes doesn't prove for one moment the existence of Spirit Orbs, but somehow you seem to extend that to implying (like my non-contrails) that observations of same don't exist at all.
And that Mud, is why you actually do science a disservice.
You take the tenets of scientific enquiry and extend them to include everything else under the Sun, and your posts reflect an attitude that if the item in question has not been explained and defined by science, it does not exist, which is a true logical fallacy (unlike your examples) and reflects nothing more than a belief system of your own, just like any other religious devotee, albeit sans diety.
BTW, since you mention your prize explanation for UFO's, Venus, I'm still waiting for you to explain how Venus could create returns on both ATC and the aircraft radars.
Macky, Auckland
April 30, 2013 4:32pm
And explaining how Venus could be tracked on radar as targets (sometimes multiple) with trajectories corresponding to actual sightings by several others besides the pilots, should be a piece of cake for a scientist of your calibre.
The Kaikoura Lights sightings remain one the worlds best ever examples of UFO phenomena, with more than one "frame of reference" as you put it.
The amusing nonsensical explanations by scientists etc (who seem to be under the influence of Authority's direction) are the same sort of irrational block-headed attempts to quell anything outside science's experience, similar to your posts here on the Orbs thread.
Also unexplained by the same "rational thinkers" is why the authorities relegated the Kaikoura sightings to "top secret" status. All the public are left with is the same old weak attempts to discredit sighters' ability to observe clearly phenomena for which there is currently no scientific explanation, and which therefore does not reside in any relevant scientific research journal.
The Kaikoura Lights sightings do not prove alien existence any more than orbs that are outside Brian's explanations in this article here prove the existence of globular spirits, but yet orbs certainly have been observed by several people, under circumstances which photography does not account for, and should be taken seriously on their own merit, not automatically swept aside under self-administered scientific tenets.
Macky, Auckland
May 01, 2013 4:15pm
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, or join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
Darinka, true skepticism is about keeping an open mind, not just accepting things on faith. Skeptics worthy of the name will accept anything if there is actual proof, not just unsupported anecdotal evidence.
Darren, Liverpool, UK
March 16, 2013 12:51pm