Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

I'm a longtime photographer. The UFO in that picture is a lens flare from a light source off to the side. That top shape is a classic long exposure artifact with a cheaper lens that has a poor non glare coating. That will still show in using expensive lenses, but not as bright.

Even the human eye sees lens flares off point light sources, but most people tune them out.

Originally posted by BagBing
I'm reasonably certain they're just internal reflections off the window. More images are available here:

www.flickr.com/photos/36250307@N03/6290442704/in/set-72157627875873619

But kudos to the photographer for making the originals available.



Incidently, all DSLRs can take exposures of unlimited time, you just need a cable release.

edit on 19-11-2011 by BagBing because: ATS doesn't like flickr urls!

The article does state that the pictures were taken from outside his window.
Reflection could still be a possibility though, if the guy was deliberately trying to deceive. I don't know why you would say you're reasonably certain though - I mean from where I'm standing they could be absolutely anything.
Personally I think they're more likely to be lens flare of some kind, but who knows.

I saw the word "photographer" and the word "stunning" and all I find is two miserable, low quality, pixelated, low light, HORRIBLE two pictures of nothing. They are pictures of nothing. If those pictures are taken by a photographer, then I hate to see amateur pics. If those are stunning pics, I hate to see bad ones.

When am I ever going to see some 18 Megapixel pics shot with a DSLR + at least 2 minutes of 1080p video that is authentic, very very clear and leaves no doubt its a UFO, not a floating pixel, and verified by many witnesses?

WHEN?

They're lens effects.

Intresting, these look an awful lot like sprites, where electrcity is discharged above clouds. Nice pics

reply to post by TheAlmo


To be fair though, it was the local newspaper that called them "stunning". The photographer (who takes good photos, I've seen his album) happened to snap these and give them to the paper to find out what was in the pics.

Someone on that site was questioning whether or not the window was open. That was my first thought when I looked at the pics. In the second photo off to the right there is a faint glow that appears to be in the same shape as the "object". Not sure if this was already mentioned.

Originally posted by Druid42
A twenty minute exposure will also leave trails, unless the object was moving at the same rotational speed as the earth.

The full photo has trails, the one posted on that article is just a small area cropped from the original, as you can see here.

Originally posted by pianopraze
As you can see his story just does not hold water. The rotation at 20 minutes would be between the two.

And it really was, as you can see on the above link.

Originally posted by thepixelpusher
I'm a longtime photographer. The UFO in that picture is a lens flare from a light source off to the side. That top shape is a classic long exposure artifact with a cheaper lens that has a poor non glare coating. That will still show in using expensive lenses, but not as bright.

Quite right. The origin of the flare maybe Jupiter which is high in the November sky at the moment (November) and quite bright. It is all exacerbated by a long exposure. I suppose the photographer is having a laugh.

Regards

reply to post by Chadwickus


I don't think that's the original, as that image is just 2.304 x 3.454 pixels while the Exif data for the photo says:

Original Image Width - 5184
Original Image Height - 3456

Originally posted by paraphi
Quite right. The origin of the flare maybe Jupiter which is high in the November sky at the moment (November) and quite bright.

Wouldn't the flare move as much (or close to that) as the stars, and in the same direction?

reply to post by cyberether


Look at the Exif of the other photo, that's the 20 minutes (1314 seconds, according to the Exif data, if I'm reading it right) photo.

Fascinating! The unidentified objects have the shape of a VORTEX, the fundamental nature of the universe according to Walter Russell and others! I wonder if they were not moving in the opposite direction of the background planetary bodies and satellites but staying stationary in low Earth orbit. Any thoughts to why that area of the world in particular has seen so much activity?

reply to post by ArMaP


Interesting...

It's the largest copy available it seems.

I'd say reflections in the window, those are clearly lens flares. As for the 20min exposure, unless he's using an equatorial drive, the stars would be trailed. Must have been a very slow news day, as any newspaper snapper would have spotted this immediately.

Originally posted by splittheatom
News Link

This is in my local paper website.
The guy claims to have captured these images over 20 minutes and he claims they were not moving.

What do you guys think?

what pics??.. they musta got beamed out or raptured

They look like lens flares, although they clearly couldn't be lens flares. They look interesting. I think the photos are legitimate, as to what they depict though I couldn't speculate.

The issue of whether the photographer actually took a single 20 minute exposure shot or a series of shots over 20 minutes is poorly explained in the article. If you are shooting the night sky you typically require a substantial amount of light to allow the photograph to develop, so this and the fact that the objects were apparently stationary indicate that a longer exposure would have been used. Although, he did say that he took a series of shots, so perhaps he did both. I'm unsure about star trails. Honestly, if a journo doesn't use or know about photography themselves, they are likely to confuse information regarding it, much like anything else.

On his Flickr he states this:

This is the cropped photo after a 20 min exposure, to find out if the object was moving. After 20 mins I looked at the image and saw 4 separate lights in the sky. Not visible to the naked eye!

Astro Phenomena

This has probably all been clarified but I'll add it anyway.

The first photo looks very much like 3 fallen angels to me.

Obviously lens flare, even has the color of the sodium street lights... Clementson needs help, and not to have his fantasies published in the newspapers. It ain't even a question of what can or cannot be. I can produce lots of lens-flare and call it UFO, but believeing it won't make it so.

Originally posted by amodedoma
Obviously lens flare, even has the color of the sodium street lights... Clementson needs help, and not to have his fantasies published in the newspapers. It ain't even a question of what can or cannot be. I can produce lots of lens-flare and call it UFO, but believeing it won't make it so.

That's a good idea, can you or one of the other photographers create the same anomaly ?


I'm still kind of on the wall, i simply don't know enough in this field