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.

 

How to take pictures of UFOs

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ET_CONTACT
 

i noticed the other day i abstractly answered why they are demonic but not why they are blury b/c of that the demonic ones- i mean the like how in the world ones - are blury b/c of this if you were a demon and your whole purpose was to lead the world away from God then would you let people see the ufos or make them kindof blurry first instinct is let them see it then they have to believe in it bu t if you actaullly think about that theres aot more lying and sin when its a mystery

and buy the way to answer the whole religious people see ufos not christians who are #1not involved in the occult #2 have friends that if you ask them if they knew you are a christian they wouldnt be suprised



cjb

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
'i noticed the other day i abstractly answered why they are demonic but not why they are blury'

Did you? Perhaps I missed it.

''b/c of that the demonic ones- i mean the like how in the world ones - are blury b/c of this if you were a demon and your whole purpose was to lead the world away from God'

Kind state here your evidence for such a conclusion. Have naughty saucers been bombing churches of all persuasions?

'then would you let people see the ufos or make them kindof blurry first instinct is let them see it then they have to believe in it bu t if you actaullly think about that theres aot more lying and sin when its a mystery'

The technology of the phenomena is a mystery. The rest is your own belief system.

'and buy the way to answer the whole religious people see ufos not christians who are #1not involved in the occult #2 have friends that if you ask them if they knew you are a christian they wouldnt be suprised"

I became a Christian more than 40 years ago, although I don't visit churches etc to worship.
While I have felt like crawling under my car some nights while shooting stuff, the ultimate aim, to gather data for Scientific research, has been relatively successful and for that I thank my Guardian Angel and my Faith.....chris



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Ok, since this has to do with taking pictures, I guess this would be a good place to post. I came across this site, not thinking that it would actually peak my interest.
Well, it definitely peaked my interest to the point that I want to know if these pictures are actually real.
I mean, if it is real, this craft is magnificent! It looks like it could be a transportation craft of some kind or maybe it is extracting the carbon dioxide here and is possibly transporting it back to the "home planet"...LOL!!!
Seriously though, I would like to know if anyone else has seen such photos and if so, do you know if it is real or fake? I really would love everyone's opinion. Here is the link: www.ufocasebook.com...



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by adamslover
 


That was a huge thing at one point... unfortunately it was also a huge hoax.
Find the thread Isaac Caret drones and read on. There're lots and lots of pages to get through. Have fun



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


B-GAWK!! You rawk!! Your photography tips are the bees knees. I recently took a digital photography/ photoshop class in college. Loved it, of course. I have taught myself so much, but I've learned so much cool technical, necessary stuff that I'd be lost without, through the good graces of my awesome digital photog teacher at school. You explain things alot like him
Ever hear of Scott Kelby? Same sorta thing, he wrote some great books on the matter. though i think he neglected to mention the ufos



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cjb
 
chris...


thank you for not bashing what i said but simply asked where i got my evidence and brought up points

but next time please just quote the thing because you cut me off

think about it most people who believe in the paranormal dont believe in God im not saying oyu are an occultest if you are a christian ufo sighter but its like this

the whole perpouse of christmas coming in the church was to attrast pagans to try to "save" them although some may say this is not a pagan holiday it clearly is and some christians calebrate it most christians do that doesnt make the person bad just ignorant in knowing the thingds that you have to warn them about its the sam e as the ufos

it was brought in the church to attract paranormalists but it is clearly demonic my proof is hard to explained but if you want my argument look for a movie called unidentified it explains vertything



[edit on 1-7-2008 by iesus_freak]



posted on Jul, 1 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
you really can't take any pictures. they're hyperspace based.



posted on Jul, 2 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Good thread watch_the_rocks,
here is an addon :
i just translated that video into english,
i think y'all need to watch it.
i never saw anything about this subject in english.

www.youtube.com...

dont forget to check the video description for more informations.



posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 10:05 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


Thank you for all of the great information on photography. I don't care if you are shooting UFOs or IFOs the information is quite valuable. I just started shooting with a Minolta SLR I recently purchased.

Just had a few questions you may be able to help me with:

I have my own dark room and I love to shoot B&W. Should the settings be different for B&W and Color? I can't find any information that says that I should compromise the manual settings for B&W film.

Is B&W just a waste of time when shooting UFOs. I am able to get amazing contrast with B&W film and I wonder if this would be beneficial for this kind of photography.

Has anyone ever done a study to determine the odds of intentionally photographing a UFO? How many hours would you have to sit alone in the dark before you actually see anything? Is this kind of statistical information even possible?

Just as a side note; even if it is a crazy idea to hunt UFOs I promise you that it is still fun just to get out and explore. You will probably get the most interesting and unrelated photos when you are out "ghost hunting". Do I really need a good reason to "get off my ass and do something"?



posted on Jul, 20 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   


Should the settings be different for B&W and Color?


No. I often use a DSLR as a lightmeter when I'm shooting B&W. As long as the ISO speeds are the same, it's all good.


Is B&W just a waste of time when shooting UFOs.


No. B&W is just as good as colour most of the time, especially if you are able to pull great contrast out of it.

Personally, I think if you were to just sit there and wait for a UFO, it's never gonna happen. So it always helps to have as much knowledge as you can and have a camera on you all the time.



posted on Jul, 22 2008 @ 12:17 AM
link   
is that camera in the first post is to old and it doesnt look like it uses digital media like flash.

utter crap this post should be flagged!

cant take pictures of ufos let alone someones wedding with that antique. If a guy showed up at my school with that camera e would smash it into a thousand peices!



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tigpoppa
 


Yes, that "old" camera uses 35mm film. One advantage is that if you want long telephoto lenses, there are far more used manual focus lenses for film cameras than DSLRs (more so with Canon than Nikon) and film cameras themselves are very small and light. Some investigators would rather have a shot of a UFO on film since it's more difficult (but not impossible) to manipulate a negative without leaving artifacts.

There are many disadvantages to using film though. It would suck to have to take a day shot of a UFO on grainy high speed film since that was what was in the camera. Only high-end film cameras have features like bracketing and spot metering. And naturally you won't know if you got the exposure right until the film is developed. Exposure is the most critical part of shooting strange lights in the sky. Get it wrong and you'll just have shapeless blobs that could be anything instead of what you saw.

You may be surprised that wedding photographers successfully used film cameras for decades. And good luck smashing one of these cameras -- they're generally built like rocks.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   
As scowl pointed out, it is indeed quite hard to smash these cameras. It just so happens that the one I talk about, the T-90, got the nickname of 'The Tank' because it was built so solid. I own two DSLRs, including Canons latest model, but if I had to trek the Sahara they'd be staying at home because in comparison they are very flimsy and plasticky and prone to breakage. The T-90, while not having AEB, does have spot metering.

Film is still used by many professional photographers who need the robustness and quality, and pretty much all fine art photographers use it as well.
Also, all the movies you see at the cinema are recorded on film, and then scanned in frame-by-frame.
Digital has less dynamic range than most films, which basically means there is less variance between the pure blacks and the pure whites, which is vital in pulling detail out of a photograph.

The estimated number of equivalent megapixels film contains varies a lot, but good films are generally accepted to have about 16 or more. To get a digital SLR that has that sort of resolution, you're looking at $5000+, when you can just grab a roll of Velvia and an old T-70 or something for $60.

Digital has huge huge advantages over film in terms of having instant results and being able to adjust things such as ISO, but it would be quite silly to presume that analog media has become redundant.



posted on Jul, 24 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by watch_the_rocks
 


The professional DSLR's are very well made with magnesium alloys but they still have a good chance of breaking if you drop them. I've knocked plastic DSLR's like the D30 (from 2000) with no problems. I once dropped a 1D on the floor and it was off to Canon repair. My film cameras like the AE-1 and A-1 and older ones have been dropped, pounded, and abused but I've only had one shutter failure.

Not all movies are shot on film but most are. Every year, a few more get shot on digital. Panavision's Genesis is really making headway here.

Professional digital cameras have about the same dynamic range as the best 35mm film. They have much less exposure latitude than negative film however and that's why it's really important to get the exposure correct. It's similar to shooting slide film.

Some slow speed very fine grain 35mm film may have the equivalent of 12-16 megapixels but the medium speed negative film you're more likely to use is closer to 4-8 megapixels. I've scanned a lot of this and that's where detail turns into grain.

Unless I'm expecting UFOs to drop out of the sky I leave all my expensive cameras at home and carry around a Powershot SX100 with image stabilizer. I can shoot 1/15th of a second with no motion blur. It's terribly noisy but it does have the near equivalent of a 28-300mm f4 zoom lens which is not something I would carry around on a 35mm body.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Nookster
 

This is a great article!

I have taken hundreds of daytime UFO pictures with my Canon DSLR D40 using the "Sky Fishing" Method. I have documented that method here: skyfishing.wordpress.com...



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by skyfishingufo
 


Your "sky fishing" only gives you out of focus blobs that could be anything from insects and birds to distant planes and helicopters or even airborne leaves. You don't even say what shutter speed you took these shots, only that it was a "quick" shutter speed.

I've taken many pictures that contain similar things and subsequent shots showed that they were actually planes and birds as they got closer or moved to reveal more recognizable shapes. In fact it's very common to take a wide shot of an apparently empty sky and discover later that a plane or a bird was in the shot.

I have a great shot of something in the sky that looks just like a classic domed saucer flying over Seattle. No, it wasn't the Space Needle. It was a seagull whose head and wings were curved to make a perfect outline of a flying saucer.



posted on Jul, 29 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I tell you what. I'll take my D-80 out to Stephenville, and see what I get, but I don't think they want me taking their pics, any more than my wife wants me to take pics of other girls.



posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
hello

it's my first post here.

I originally came here via the CARET Drone Case, and i'm french.

How to take a good UFO picture ?

In France, we have a nice guy called Jean-Pierre Petit, ancient CNRS physician, very clever guy who tries to make scientific explorations of UFOs cases here in France (UFO = OVNI in french)

JPP made the claim that using web diffraction filter, put before the lens of the camera can create spectroscopy images of a picture taken. With this image, you can know a lot of parameter of what you shot : temperature, constitution, etc.

He says that if every UFO researcher should have this kind of filter with him every time he carry his camera, because due to the high number of ufos seen every month, there would be very soon a lot of spectroscopy images that would allow to do scientific researches from these datas

the interesting point is that you get better datas with a small object rather than a big, zoomed one...


everything is here :
www.ufo-science.com...
and in french : www.ufo-science.com...

and here his website in english : www.jp-petit.org...


please tell me what you think about this.


cjb

posted on Sep, 4 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barroud


In France, we have a nice guy called Jean-Pierre Petit, ancient CNRS physician, very clever guy who tries to make scientific explorations of UFOs cases here in France (UFO = OVNI in french)

JPP made the claim that using web diffraction filter, put before the lens of the camera can create spectroscopy images of a picture taken. With this image, you can know a lot of parameter of what you shot : temperature, constitution, etc.

He says that if every UFO researcher should have this kind of filter with him every time he carry his camera, because due to the high number of ufos seen every month, there would be very soon a lot of spectroscopy images that would allow to do scientific researches from these datas

the interesting point is that you get better datas with a small object rather than a big, zoomed one...


everything is here :
www.ufo-science.com...
and in french : www.ufo-science.com...

and here his website in english : www.jp-petit.org...


please tell me what you think about this.


Hi Barroud,

For several years I have been supplying Spectrum images of UFOs to members of the Scientific community who first advised me on how to capture data for true Scientific research (...the same Scientists I work with have already investigated Hessdalen).

I agree that it's the most important way to gather data to understand the ufo phenomena, far better (and more exciting...) than say a clear pic of a disc hovering closeby in my view.

It is necessary for the ufo to be a point light source to get good results, and the camera must be aimed to the one side of the object being photographed to pick up the Spectrum thrown through the grating. Much Scientific data can be gleaned from a good Spectrum image. It is also imperative that the camera is calibrated by shooting known light sources as well.

Here is a link to an early report (although we have much better data now...)

http//www.surfin.com.au/mtreport.html

I look foreward to the results of our later work being published in the future....chris



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join