Been on this a site a long time and now I get pics

page: 4
149
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Just to clarify my position on this, I have looked at the first 5 images and all bear the same information regards Photoshop I am assuming the others are the same.

However this could easily be created by the software used to process the RAW data files into JPEG because the software was written by the same company as Photoshop.

What I want to do is have a native JPEG image from the camera just so we can forget about the idea of any editing, unfortunately I cannot do this with a RAW data file so any speculation at this point is a little premature in my opinion so please take the situation in perspective.

Thanks




posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   


No where in my entire posts did I say this was a hoax. I asked one simple question to a small fact. I do not have to wait for the original files, I am asking about these ones.



thats disrupting the process of getting the real files so we can all make a decent zoom



Show me where in my threads, that I have tried to disrupt logic please. I did not say the OP is lying anywhere in my posts, where did you get that from.

you say that he modified it in photoshop he said he didnt, and you keep saying that.. isnt that to say he is lying




I am a Computer Scientist bud, I don't have to wait for "other people".


oh yeah... im a senior computer programmer and i dont really like to wait, neither to write mail after mail about something completely irrelevant


+12 more 
posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I would suggest taking a deep breath, the OP has posted over 10 images, describes the event and offers to provide the raw images to ATS for analysis.

In just over 2hours he has been blasted by some accused by others as being somewhat less than forthcoming, which I find very disturbing.

This is ATS, we are here to ponder the what ifs, some of us gather here in hopes that one day the "smoking gun" appears.

Let us analyze and not accuse, ask questions not jump to conclusions, the OP has already shown very good patience in addressing the questions presented, I commend him/her for that.

All I ask from the membership is to be respectful, we want to gather information not chase away anyone who posts something new.

Let us seek the truth in a civil manner.


 


My apologies for the overreaction, and thanks for helping me identify it.

Please continue to be civil




[edit on 6/27/2008 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by shunia
 


What exactly is your point. People are just trying to get the facts and do a thorough analysis. jhill76 has asked valid questions and he hasn't been rude to anybody.
Now, do you wish to share with us what's really got you so angry today, cause I know it's not jhill76. Disrespect would be not taking the time and effort to evaluate these pics.

[edit on 27-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


If the camera's focus is on a distant ..... i.e. infinity focus, then foreground objects will definately be blurred. If the degree of zoom is sufficient, foreground almost blurs to the point of being invisible.

I know this as my passion is taking photos of the green flash that often occurs just as the sun goes down. It takes a huge amount of telephoto to capture a green flash, as well as patience, and mine are mostly over the sea. The foreground is always sorely blurred. No help for it, unless I focus on the foreground and then hold that focus and apply it to the sun.

I'm pretty certain that I wouldn't have that clarity of mind if I saw such an object. I WOULD take video, though, rather than stills, if I could hold the video still.

I still believe this is a good photoshoot. I've watched aircraft at night for years, and certain "signatures" of lighting present themselves. I see no red lights....... and the greenish light nor the whitish lights don't look symmetrical.

Looking forward to analysis by a professional. I don't see any glaring problems with the photos.

Cheers



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I can't answer for other people, but many times when I want to post a pic on a forum, I always run it through a photo editor to make it a smaller file size. Not everyone has the best internet speed so I try to be accommodating to all.

Perhaps the pics straight from the camera memory can be uploaded to another place where everyone can see them.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa
... so any speculation at this point is a little premature in my opinion so please take the situation in perspective.

Thanks




Thats what ive been trying to say...



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


Where did I say he modified it in Photoshop? Please quote me on that one PLEASE. I said I was reposting what someone asked earlier that didn't get answered.

This could be a prototype to a new aircraft for all we know. I have been over my credentials already on this site, this thread is not about me.

Why do I feed the trolls?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Can you post a quote where someone has 'Blasted' the OP?

I, for one, can not find such a post in this thread.

Thanks.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by theukbloke
... I can promise that these images came right out of Adobe Lightroom - not photoshop ...



New Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® software is the professional photographer's essential toolbox, providing one easy application for managing, adjusting, and presenting large volumes of digital photographs so you can spend less time in front of the computer and more time behind the lens.

from Adobe website


So may be lightroom added the tag. A Photoshop tag may not mean it is edited with Photoshop.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Exactly. I for one do not see where anyone has blasted the poster. We have asked legitimate questions.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by theukbloke
 


Then where does Photoshop come in to play? Usually people use Photoshop only to edit photos. There are other uses for photoshop, but I'll await your reply.


here



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by skywatch
 


I did not say he used Photoshop did you read my post? I said usually people use Photoshop to edit Photos. No where did I say the OP used Photoshop.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
"No one is to blast anyone until I blow this whistle!
Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say 'Jehovah'."
Now, does anyone have a theory about what's in these pics?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
What i find interesting is in the first pic the blue/green light is in the middle of the two white lights, But in the latter pics it has moved to the right of the white lights.

So if these 3 lights are on the same craft and fixed then the shape must resemble looking at the "Starship enterprise" (From Star Trek) from directly behind ie the 2 white lights situated on the engine stalks behind the body while the blue/green light is situated on the main body, So as the craft rotates the position of the 3 lights would change in that way. (Hope that kinda makes sense) So having that kinda configuration in mind i can't think of any plane or helicopter that fits the description.

BTW I'm in no way saying the craft is the same shape as the enterprise, Its just a familiar way to explain the way the lights would need to be. And possibly something to consider.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by theukbloke
... I can promise that these images came right out of Adobe Lightroom - not photoshop ...



New Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom® software is the professional photographer's essential toolbox, providing one easy application for managing, adjusting, and presenting large volumes of digital photographs so you can spend less time in front of the computer and more time behind the lens.

from Adobe website


So may be lightroom added the tag. A Photoshop tag may not mean it is edited with Photoshop.



Thats what i told you 2 pages ago... but no you just wouldnt listen would you



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:16 PM
link   
"Blasted" was an overreaction by myself out of frustration.

My apologies, I will edit that out of my post.

Thanks for pointing out the mistake I made.

Please carry on with the civil discussion.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
On picture #1 here is the full data on it:




Here's the full data:

XMP

Already Applied True
Blue Hue 0
Blue Saturation 0
Brightness +50
Camera Profile ACR 4.2
Camera Profile Digest 163ED9375EFF2B9D5C27CC0C43623AD1
Chromatic Aberration B 0
Chromatic Aberration R 0
Clarity 0
Color Noise Reduction 25
Contrast +25
Convert To Grayscale False
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Date/Time Digitized 2008:06:14 22:28:32.00+01:00
13 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes, 30 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2008:06:14 22:28:32.00+01:00
13 days, 3 hours, 49 minutes, 30 seconds ago
Defringe 0
Exposure -1.14
Fill Light 0
Firmware 1.0.3
Flash Compensation 0
Flash Fired False
Flash Function False
Flash Mode Off
Flash Red Eye Mode False
Flash Return No return detection
Focal Plane X Resolution 4438.35616438356
Focal Plane Y Resolution 4445.96912521441
Green Hue 0
Green Saturation 0
Has Crop False
Has Settings True
Highlight Recovery 0
Hue Adjustment Aqua 0
Hue Adjustment Blue 0
Hue Adjustment Green 0
Hue Adjustment Magenta 0
Hue Adjustment Orange 0
Hue Adjustment Purple 0
Hue Adjustment Red 0
Hue Adjustment Yellow 0
Image Number 0
Image Size 1,024 × 683
Lens 28-75mm
Lens Info 28/1 75/1 0/0 0/0
Luminance Adjustment Aqua 0
Luminance Adjustment Blue 0
Luminance Adjustment Green 0
Luminance Adjustment Magenta 0
Luminance Adjustment Orange 0
Luminance Adjustment Purple 0
Luminance Adjustment Red 0
Luminance Adjustment Yellow 0
Luminance Smoothing 0
Modify Date 2008:06:27 23:01:48+01:00
3 hours, 16 minutes, 14 seconds ago
Parametric Darks 0
Parametric Highlight Split 75
Parametric Highlights 0
Parametric Lights 0
Parametric Midtone Split 50
Parametric Shadow Split 25
Parametric Shadows 0
Red Hue 0
Red Saturation 0
Saturation 0
Saturation Adjustment Aqua 0
Saturation Adjustment Blue 0
Saturation Adjustment Green 0
Saturation Adjustment Magenta 0
Saturation Adjustment Orange 0
Saturation Adjustment Purple 0
Saturation Adjustment Red 0
Saturation Adjustment Yellow 0
Serial Number 530131774
Shadow Tint 0
Shadows 0
Sharpen Detail 25
Sharpen Edge Masking 0
Sharpen Radius +1.0
Sharpness 25
Split Toning Balance 0
Split Toning Highlight Hue 0
Split Toning Highlight Saturation 0
Split Toning Shadow Hue 0
Split Toning Shadow Saturation 0
Temperature 2,357
Tint +3
Tone Curve 0, 0, 32, 22, 64, 56, 128, 128, 192, 196, 255, 255
Tone Curve Name Medium Contrast
Version 1.0
Vibrance 0
Vignette Amount 0
White Balance Custom
White Balance Auto





EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 548 bytes (0.5k)

Aperture Value 2.8
Create Date 2008:06:14 22:28:32
12 days, 19 hours, 59 minutes, 31 seconds ago
Custom Rendered Normal
Date/Time Original 2008:06:14 22:28:32
12 days, 19 hours, 59 minutes, 31 seconds ago
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Program Shutter speed priority AE
Exposure Time 1
F Number 2.8
Flash Off
Focal Length 75.0 mm
Focal Plane X Resolution 4,438.356164 pixels/inch
Focal Plane Y Resolution 4,445.969125 pixels/inch
ISO 1,600
Make Canon
Max Aperture Value 2.8
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name Canon EOS 40D
Modify Date 2008:06:27 23:34:31
5 hours, 6 minutes, 28 seconds ago
Resolution 180 pixels/inch
Scene Capture Type Standard
Shutter Speed Value 1
Sub Sec Time Digitized 00
Sub Sec Time Original 00
White Balance Auto





As far as I can see, all of the other pictures are the same, with the same modifcation date of today.



[edit on 27-6-2008 by greeneyedleo]



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


My theory:

I think it is an unidentified craft, which in terms can be considered a UFO, but I don't believe it is of alien origin.

I think if it was alien in origin, there would have been fighter jets running behind it.

But, the lens flare in this case, is a perfect point pointed out earlier in this thread.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


we're suppose to listen to you??? You're prancing in a lightning storm as the tallest object in a field? hahahaaaa

Seriously though, thanks for that interjection of calming humor. You seem to accomplish that at very opportune moments, and I thank you.

____________________

I use photoshop because it's quick and easy to crop and use layering, once you get used to it. I've had otherwise (IMHO) excellent photos rejected from various forums becuase the tag indicates "photoshop". Photoshop is like "Xerox" ....... it's become the flashword for "fake" in the same way as xerox has become the flashword for photocopiers>

Let's take these photos from a different direction. If there are those of you that think this might be a "photoshopped" i.e...... added-after-the-initial-shoot photo....... what would you guess the lights are?

I think this is a UFO. Not implying it's extraterrestrial, just staying with the definition of UFO>






top topics



 
149
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join