Unknown orange/red glow over Pacific Ocean

a reply to: Char-Lee


Would LOVE to shoot that place, but I doubt I will ever make it to Turkmenistan in my life time!

a reply to: Deaf Alien

LOOK at his water mark on the photo I am commenting on, it CLEARLY STATES 30 SEC EXPOSURE.

Some ARE 8 seconds, SOME are 30 seconds. Sheesh, calm down and actually LOOK at the photo before jumping on me, thanks...

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: lovebeck
This photo in particular has me stumped and thinking this is a possible hoax:

This looks like it was taken from a mountain top, or some other high vantage point, on a tripod and without camera shake. Not a plane. I do not see how one could take a THIRTY SECOND EXPOSURE, let alone a 3 second one, without major blurring of the the entire photo if it was taken from a plane cruising at 34,000 feet in the air.

You'd have to STOP the plane, and that isn't happening, to get this shot.

To me it looks like a possible forest fire, taken from a high and far away vantage point, with the "northern lights" added in during post. Or for those who speak Photoshop, a composite of the images.

I just don't buy it and that is based on my own experience as a photographer and as someone who's flown quite a bit...

However, if there is someone with both a physics and photography background that can explain this, then by all means...Explain away!

Yes and as Nyiah said page one the shape is very like The Door to Hell

and the horizon is similar, the other looks like valley pictures like some here, Iceland skies look closest though to me. Or simply looking down into the Door to Hell www.aaroads.com...

So do you think photoshop then? I'm just wondering considering the camera status.

a reply to: lovebeck

How did I appear to jump on you? You need to calm down.

Anyway I didn't see the 30-second exposure on the image itself. However, it's on the last image and as you might have noticed, the area is far into the horizon which make it move MORE slowly, thus explaining your question.

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: waverlyhills

but now everythings called fake, a hoax, staged..etc. I'm not sure when this world became full of this sort of business

Very sad indeed that we have to question now so much because there are so many liars and hoaxers and it seems if they are caught people just pat them on the back for having fooled us all. personally I wish there was a criminal offence for hoaxing anyone found to be trying to fool everyone should have a huge fine.

Well I suppose it is true nothing is real anymore

However I have to disagree with this, it is simply that the true is now hidden in the haystack and I am not sure how much we can find.

This is why there are many serious mystery and paranormal types use film. Hard to fake stuff on film. But, then again, one could say it was scanned and then manipulated in Photoshop!

originally posted by: lovebeck

Can photoshop cope with that camera?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: lovebeck

How did I appear to jump on you? You need to calm down.

Anyway I didn't see the 30-second exposure on the image itself. However, it's on the last image and as you might have noticed, the area is far into the horizon which make it move MORE slowly, thus explaining your question.

Ooooooookkkkkkkaaaayyyyyy.

Btw, I don't have a question. I know, as a photographer, that this photo (THE 30 SECOND ONE) is impossible to take, from a plane, traveling at 34k feet (so he claims) and get such a clear image. In that 30 seconds, when the shutter is open and the image is being recorded onto the sensor, there is going to be camera shake if taken from a plane; regardless if a tripod was used or not.

Dude should worry about actually flying the plane than taking his "mysterious" photos!

a reply to: smurfy

If you mean if PS is compatible with a Nikon D800, yes they are. They cope together quite well, actually.


And, yes, I think Photoshopped, to the hilt. I think it is a composite of two photos. One of the northern lights effect and one of the fire down below effect.

You just load your background photo, then "place" or blend the other one on top, flatten, and save. Very easy to do. I have done this several times to change the sky in my photos, esp the ones I take of families. A dramatic but natural sky can make all the difference.

a reply to: lovebeck

You can fly without turbulence for longer than 30 seconds.

Oh and EVEN IF the plane did shake, it still wouldn't distort that much because of that distance.

a reply to: lovebeck

Please read my reply again, the actual tekst Dutch website is hyperlinked, that will take you to www.geenstijl.nl, the Dutch website. The second link in the OP is the one to PBase.com

originally posted by: lovebeck

Ooooooookkkkkkkaaaayyyyyy.

Btw, I don't have a question. I know, as a photographer, that this photo (THE 30 SECOND ONE) is impossible to take, from a plane, traveling at 34k feet (so he claims) and get such a clear image. In that 30 seconds, when the shutter is open and the image is being recorded onto the sensor, there is going to be camera shake if taken from a plane; regardless if a tripod was used or not.

Dude should worry about actually flying the plane than taking his "mysterious" photos!

if you say it can not be done than you are a miserable photographer
petapixel.com...

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: smurfy

If you mean if PS is compatible with a Nikon D800, yes they are. They cope together quite well, actually.

What way exactly if you don't mind me asking.

a reply to: Danowski

Why are you confused over the shutter speed?

Also look at this video of airplane preparing to land (cockpit view). Notice how little the foreground has changed? And THIS IS WHEN THEY FLEW LOW.

Probably a fishing fleet using lights to attract their catch.

a reply to: lovebeck

Actually, I disagree with you and you would be surprised what can happen with a camera nowadays. Using the right technique I can hand-hold a shot down to a 1/4 sec.

a reply to: lovebeck

Also this: (start at around 1 minute mark)



They flew low and yet the foreground doesn't change much. And notice something? NO SHAKING.

To add, some words from the pilot that were posted in Dutch on the Dutch website, did my best translating it:

We were flying Hongkong- Anchorage, and I fly this route about once a month. I often see fisher fleets around Taiwan and Japan, but the strange thing here was the color of the lights in the sea. It never is this deep red, with my little fishing knowledge I believe especially red is not effective for luring fish. That's why I think they usually use bright white yellow or green light.

I simply can't explain what we have witnessed. Further along the route there were some volcanos ready to burst and smoking already; hence we were alert for possible ash clouds and/or eruptions. That is what made us believe this could possibly be an eruption.

As for the sharpness; I have used a 10.5mm fisheye lens; with shutter speeds up to (about) 30 seconds and relatively 'quiet' air you can make pretty detailed photos. Because of the enormous angle (180') the stars barely move, and even with some shaking/movement of the plane it is pretty easy to have sharp photos.
With a little over a minute of shutter speed you will have the so called star trails, hence the high ISO so that with a shutter speed of about 30 seconds you will catch a fair amount of light and a sharp photo can be made.

These photos are NOT shopped or doctored, what you see is what you get.
I made around 20 photos of which these attract the most attention.

originally posted by: waverlyhills
a reply to: lovebeck

It appears that despite how interesting it would be if this were true, the photography skeptics are correct and this is debunked. This sort of trickery is why no-one believes in anything anymore however. There are so many out there faking phenomenon that on the offhand chance that someone actually catches something interesting and real no-one believes it anymore ,it's a shame Really

I believe the Aesop fable we can reference here is called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"...

I'm sorry, but did I miss something? How was this debunked? Because, Lovebeck said so? Really? Lovebeck continues to state that the photo couldn't have been taken from a plane at 34,000 feet, and the whole time I'm wondering (I'm not a flyer), but is there really that much shake up there? Wouldn't it be pretty smooth sailing, except for some occasional turbulence.

a reply to: Rezlooper

Lovebeck thinks a lot of things but if you have ever shot with a Nikon D800 then you are going to produce stunningly detailed shots like those in the thread. The camera is designed for highly detailed commercial/fashion shoots and the pilot knows how to use camera – the exif data shows this.

Edit: and using super wide angle lenses begins to negate the effect of shake/blur when using slow shutter speeds. Lovebeck might take a lesson or two from the pilot in regard to photography technique.