Those Elusive Orbs

Is It REALLY Paranormal? Click the Wizard for a few thoughts on that matter as you begin your investigation

Skeptics blame them on dust or pollen and indeed that does explain some of them. They seem to show up more frequently in pictures taken with small compact cameras. There may well be a reason for this.

Figure 1

This would allow the dust particle to appear much larger and out of focus on the small camera. And another factor is that the large camera likely would be able to focus much closer than the point and shoot. Depending on the settings, that camera may actually have the dust particle somewhat close to being in the depth of field, therefore it would not appear at all as an orb, rather as a tiny insignificant spot on the image that likely would go unnoticed.

So that explains the orb that is dust or pollen, well, maybe. But it raises another question. Orbs are generally round. Have you ever closely examined a dust particle? Most are some irregular shape. So even an extremely out of focus dust particle should retain some semblance of its original shape. So are orbs really dust? We can't really say for sure.

Not nearly as common are daylight orbs. These appear in photographs taken outside without flash. Obviously the reflected light theory does not apply here. But still dust or pollen might be close enough the lens to create an orb. In this case either a small camera or larger SLR might capture an orb, but because of the focal range of the SLR, orbs of this type would also not be as readily caught with the larger camera. However if the orb is a result of moisture or dirt on the lens, this effect might be found on any camera regardless of type.

Another consideration regarding orbs is that they may be some form of energy. If that is the case they may actually be giving off this energy resulting in their image being captured. Orbs of this nature are much less frequent and appear to actually be glowing on a photograph. These are much harder to disprove. Personally I consider only orbs of this nature as evidence, since in the case of any reflecting orb, dust or pollen cannot be ruled out. But even so, this is not conclusive.

Consider the possibility of an "orb" actually being an image imparted on film by the passing of an energy particle. Science has confirmed these particles exist, they have been detected by sensitive instruments located deep underground where they are shielded from manmade sources. Some of these particles originate from deep space, others from the fusion reaction that powers our own sun. While they may not be completely understood, there is nothing supernatural about them. Their ability to penetrate solid objects has been proven and they are all about us all the time. And for this discussion we would also have to include natural background radiation, it can cause exposure of film.

Now for sake of discussion let's assume one of these particles strikes your camera. The act of it passing through the film may cause an exposure of sorts to the film. Not only that, the exposure could occur at any time. You would not even have to be using the camera, one of these could penetrate the camera body, pass through the film, and out the bottom of the drawer where you store your camera. Next time you use it you take your picture over a flawed section of film. What you get is a double exposure, your picture and an "orb". The fact that most orb hunters take pictures at night makes the orbs even more evident. The orb that might be obscured by a picture taken on a sunny day stands out against the dark background of a cemetery.

And those who use digital cameras are not immune either. The CCD elements in the camera array work by allowing light to impart a charge to them. That is why they are called Charged Coupled Devices. One of these energy particles could very easily activate adjoining pixels and create an orb in your photograph. And the wider spectrum of CCD imaging versus film, sensitive into the near infrared regions, actually enhances the possibility of obtaining orbs of this nature with digital imaging. The result is another Instant orb!

Film has another consideration, which is the film itself could contain an imperfection in the coating from manufacture. This might cause certain areas to be more or less sensitive to light. However in rebuttal to this one must consider that most orbs are nearly circular in appearance. Flaws in the film would be more likely to be some random shape, streaks, lines, or smears being most likely. This explanation for orbs has been presented by others, I mention it here only as an opportunity to discuss it. Another related explanation is that orbs are a result of processing and printing the picture. This obviously does not hold for digital imaging, and can be partially discounted in film if the negative of the picture also contains the orb.

An orb in motion is another phenomenon that many claim for their photos. I have seen pictures with light bands across them attributed to an orb, usually much brighter than a stationary orb. However this is contrary to what one would expect. If a shutter is open for 1/60 of a second and captures a stationary orb, the entire amount of light hits a small area of the film over that time period. If the orb is in motion that same amount of light is spread across a much greater part of the picture because of the movement during the time the shutter is open. One would expect the image to be much dimmer, not brighter, in those cases. So bright bands in a picture are likely not orbs, regardless of whether they were obtained with a small or larger camera. Experience has shown many of those to be attributed to camera straps or other such intruders.

While on the subject of moving orbs, consider those obtained by video or motion picture cameras. They are seen from time to time, usually as small dots which move across several frames. Some may dispute my opinion, but the ones I have seen follow the same general flight path as many insects. My opinion of them is just that, a flying insect some distance away that happens into the field of view. Dust or pollen may also be blown about by air currents. If the path of a moving orb follows the prevailing air movement of the time, chances are it is a solid object being blown by wind.

But why don't I see an orb when I look at the same place a camera captures one? Actually there are some people who do claim to see them. But that is not a common occurrence, usually they are only captured with a camera. One reason for this may have to do with their characteristics. Cameras, especially monochrome video, are especially sensitive to near infrared wavelengths of light. The eyes do not see in this region. So if we assume a legitimate orb, not dust or pollen, then if they generate energy at these frequencies, a camera may capture what the eye cannot.

If, as you read through this, you had questions about which side of the fence I was on, Orbs are real, orbs are fake, then consider that I have taken no stand. I do believe some, not all, are dust and pollen. Energy sources of a non-supernatural source must be considered. I also believe that people are capturing something with a camera that displays some unique characteristics which fall outside what we consider normal. And with the proliferation of digital cameras, with their small size and CCD imaging, many more will likely be seen in the future.

RECOMMENDATIONS

After reading this you may be somewhat confused as to what the most reliable way to capture genuine orbs might be. Some may be counter to what others use, but in the essence of keeping false images to a minimum here are a few things to consider.

• Use a 35 mm SLR camera. Digital may be cheaper and quicker, but the lack of a negative to process and analyze prevents validating the image. Plus, digital's inherent susceptibility to electrical or energy disturbances lowers its overall dependability.
• Use a camera with external flash, in other words, a hot shoe. This will position the flash a greater distance from the lens, minimizing reflected glare from dust or pollen particles. The flash and lens should be at least 8 inches apart, more is better.
• Use low speed film. 200 ASA film will react much slower to any type of background radiation, energy particle or x-ray than 800 ASA. Of course the range of your flash will be diminished somewhat, but you can counter that by using slave flash for more light or simply working in closer to your target area.
• While on the subject of slave flash, lighting from multiple directions will minimize the likelihood of reflection from dust or pollen. To maintain the contrast needed to see an orb, keep all flash located in the same quadrant of your target area. No more than 90 degrees between them.
• Use a double image technique, especially if you insist on using digital imaging. Take two identical pictures of each target as close together as possible. A stationary orb should show in both images at approximately the same location. If it does not, one would have to question if it might have been an anomaly of some kind instead of an orb.
• Document all conditions present. Temperature, wind, humidity. Anything which might be considered a possibility to stir up something that might be mistaken for an orb. Wind blows dust and pollen. Moisture settles dust. But moisture might create other things like ghost images. So document everything and that will help to resolve any questions later.
• Finally, if possible, use two imaging systems covering the same area. I generally locate a video camera and recorder at a location that covers the area I intend to concentrate on. That serves two purposes. First it provides a running record from a different vantage point. Should a moving orb pass through it may be captured on this camera. Two separate images of the same orb from independent systems will validate each other and rule out false impressions. Second it records the flashes from the SLR camera as you take additional pictures. This can later be used to assemble a video / time log of the hunt. And on one instance I was on, it caught the prankster who was trying to sneak in behind a stone to stage a fake sighting. You just never know...

In summary, you should be cautious regarding orbs. Many are simply natural objects which manage to get into the field of view. Consider this first, if it is reflective it probably is not an orb. If, on the other hand, it seems to generate its own illumination, casts a shadow or causes shadows, you may have caught something significant. You just might have a real orb photograph.