It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Photographers take on UFO photo guide and capturing in general

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:31 AM
link   
Because of world UFO day the Twitter account of the CIA posted some old guidance documents about how to take (good) UFO pictures.

See: www.twitter.com...

Despite this document being dated I was wondering if there are some (amateur) photographers here on ATS who would like to give their take on these documents, or even open up a discussion on capturing UFO/UAP's on film/digital form in general.

As I said the document seems dated and points to the use of Tri-X film. This type of film seems to have an ISO value of 320 or 400. The document suggests not using a shutter speed below 1/100.

Now, as a child of the digital age, the combination of 1/100 with ISO 400 to me doesn't seem to be aimed at capturing fast (illuminated) moving objects/phenomena, though I'm aware we are talking about the 40's-50's (can't find a date on the released documents).

From my own experience, 1/250 still gives some blur when dealing with fast movement, like for instance taking pictures of race cars on top speed in normal daylight. 1/100 is the bare minimum when not using a tripod in certain conditions (if you don't have a steady hand).

I'm aware playing around with other settings like diaphragm, lens types, etc. could give various results. That's in fact the reason of my post.

As this is my first topic, please feel free to give your take on the subject, hands on experience of capturing on film using these older types of cameras, applying this info to the modern age, ...

Who knows we'll find some clues or at least learn something along the way.

Shoot!




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

A racing car shot with 1/250 would still be somewhat blurry and you would need to to some panning to capture it. You could put your ISO at AUTO and still would need at least 1/500 to be able to get a "UFO" in the frame.
(in motion that is) Which still would be a very lucky shot, because you would need find it through the viewfinder first.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hellas
a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

A racing car shot with 1/250 would still be somewhat blurry and you would need to to some panning to capture it. You could put your ISO at AUTO and still would need at least 1/500 to be able to get a "UFO" in the frame.
(in motion that is) Which still would be a very lucky shot, because you would need find it through the viewfinder first.


Exactly! You are right about the panning (which gives a cool effect on these shutter speeds)!

Now this begs the question what would they expect to see or find of interest with instructions like these. Surely they wouldn't go for the estetics? Perhaps one good shot of a (stationary) object?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:18 AM
link   



Exactly! You are right about the panning (which gives a cool effect on these shutter speeds)!

Now this begs the question what would they expect to see or find of interest with instructions like these. Surely they wouldn't go for the estetics? Perhaps one good shot of a (stationary) object?


Well with the settings they've given, nobody will ever capture a UFO. Which might be exactly what they want



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I've used miles of Tri-X and it can be pushed to 1600ASA even 3200 if your camera would do it. Now taking UFO pictures it would work if you and it were steady Developing your own you could draw some more out of the film but it would be really grainy.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Hellas

Now that would depend on who the document was initially intended for before it was released by the FOIA.

I'm wondering if these settings where state of the art back in the day or not.



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: mikell
I've used miles of Tri-X and it can be pushed to 1600ASA even 3200 if your camera would do it. Now taking UFO pictures it would work if you and it were steady Developing your own you could draw some more out of the film but it would be really grainy.



Thanks for the contribution!

I presume we are talking post 60's here (no offense
)? I'm new to this, but I found around these period there was a change in the standard making faster shutter speeds possible on the same type of film (if relevant at all).

So basically you'd take an underexposed picture that you can correct partly in development with some loss in quality?



posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I can't help you with your question, sorry, but would like to know the answer for it now.

And thanks for the link to that "paper". There ARE tips I had never thought of before and that would definitely be helpful in compiling info about a UFO sighting with photographs, haha.




posted on Jul, 4 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
The important thing is context. A zoomed in blurry image of a light is just that.

Take lots of pictures. Include some wide angle shot showing the overall setting, putting the light or object in context

Same applies when using video.

If you capture something strange in a one of pic, provide the previous and subsequent pics - even if they werent taken in the same location

If you take a pic from your back yard, then provide other pics of the same view for comparison

Failure to do these simple things just screams fake.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join