Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs above Hatfield

Originally posted by Phage

1) Geostationary satellites are very dim (because of their altitude). The image you posted is a 5 hour exposure. It is doubtful that a geostationary satellite would appear that bright (if at all) in a 20 minute exposure. It is extremely unlikely that the photographer would have seen a geostationary satellite with the naked eye.

Geostationary satellites appear all the time in astrophotos and often in much less time than 20 minute exposures, true you probably will never see one with the eye but take enough photo's of the sky and they turn up all the time.
Here is an example with just 10 second exposures.
stargazerslounge.com...
And another with a regular dslr...
stargazerslounge.com...

That said this is definitely not one of them.

Note the pics linked to are not mine.

reply to post by pazcat

The OP was not taking astronomical photos.

Example 1

Skywatcher 250PX 10'' Dobsonian

stargazerslounge.com...
Some nice light gathering capability there.

Example 2

Celestron Advanced C8 NGT

stargazerslounge.com...

Notice how dim the satellites are in your examples, even when using a telescope.

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?

Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs ....? Unindentified alright....not much stunning I must say.

Sec.line.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by pazcat

 

The OP was not taking astronomical photos.

Example 1

Skywatcher 250PX 10'' Dobsonian

stargazerslounge.com...
Some nice light gathering capability there.

Example 2

Celestron Advanced C8 NGT

stargazerslounge.com...

Regardless on whether he was taking astro photos or not, you are saying they are unlikely to show up in photos at all with 20 minute exposures. Which is not true, they show up all the time.
And these are an example of what geostats look like regardless of arpeture. Sure the first one is most likely from the dob but that doesn't relate to what is in the OP's pics in any way.

The second pic is not with a Celestron, it's a standard widefield shot probably at around 50-70mmn no telescope used, you are reading the guys signature which lists the gear he owns. Even though he doesn't say what he used it's easy enough to tell what he was doing from the pic alone.


Basically they are just examples of what geostats looklike to a camera and the fact they are quite easily caught too. However it is nothing like the OP, I'm just trying to point out that it's not a geostationary satellite and that they can be easilly captured on camera is all.

reply to post by splittheatom


Chinese lantern from underneath. The photographer probably released it themselves.

Stunning:
1. Causing or capable of causing emotional shock or loss of consciousness.
2. Of a strikingly attractive appearance.

Stunning would be a crystal clear photo of a real UFO, don't ya think?

Originally posted by zatara
Photographer captures stunning images of UFOs ....? Unindentified alright....not much stunning I must say.

As has been noted before, the whole UFO/Alien field has not had a lot of interesting stuff happen with it lately. No good video sightings that look real. No good abduction accounts that sound real. Nothing particularly noteworthy. We're definitely in the doldrums here, waiting for the next big thing to debate.

What will it be?
A signal from space?
A mass sighting with multiple witnesses, videos, physical evidence?
Government leak?
We need something.

What is all the technical fuss about? Jason has already replied to me that the single object picture was a one second shot. In that picture there is a yellow to orange circular image and there is no strong lighting anywhere, there is also a secondary image to the right and slightly above with the same characteristics and only differing in the colours and that includes the 'beardy' bit, a near cloud reflection perhaps, and the light diffused. That makes some kind of sense since that secondary image is there, unless of course the camera is prone to reflecting a ghost image within its gubbins in everything it takes, that's not so good. What the object is could be mundane enough.

reply to post by smurfy

The technical fuss is in regard to the possibility of the objects being geosynchronous satellites. They cannot be since they are in the northwest

As irrelevant as it is, I'll take this chance to concede to Pazcat that it is possible to capture geosync satellites with a time exposure of a few minutes.

reply to post by Phage


So Phage, do you have an opinion as to what the pictures detail?

I'm curious to your assessment of the pics in question. You've been lax in stating your opinion in this case. What are they, IYHO?

All the people with photographic experience of optics are correct.
Experience counts for a lot.

Here, you can *prove it to yourself at home, right now*.
Get a magnifying glass, and project an image of a light onto a wall.
If things arent perfectly lined up, you get the effect seen in the UFO photos.
Works best with a point light source, or one that is far away.



Mine on the left, the Hatfield UFO on the right...


Thats a simplified explanation of course. This isnt how the Hatfield photos were done.
The problem is that with an imperfect lens, you get this effect seen on the edges. A combination of spherical aberration and an imperfectly flat focus plane. Good lenses cost a LOT of money, and even then there is no guarantee of perfection.
All we're seeing here is that the Hatfield photographer used a lens that isnt perfect.
Any photographer with experience would tell you that.
Oh yes, thats right, they already did.

These photo's have me puzzled. Interesting. I tried to think of ways to create this effect in my head , but came up empty and puzzled by the photos. I am almost as baffled by the photos as the norway spiral.

Jason, a couple of things that puzzle me.

The specs for the Canon60d show that the sensor has effective pixels dimensions of 5200x3462. The "original size" image (on flickr) showing three lights (the long exposure) has dimensions of 5184x3456 pixels, so that jibes pretty well with the specs. The "original size" image showing the "cone" is 2304x3454. There seem to be quite a few missing pixels somewhere. Did you crop that image?

In the long exposure I see this circular thing superimposed over the motion blurred tree. I can't really figure out what it could be. I know you said that the window was opened but it looks like it could be a reflection.

I also notice that the cone seems to be in very sharp focus yet the trees and stars are not. Granted, the aperture was quite wide but the depth of field seems odd. It's as if the cone is much closer to the camera than the trees are.

reply to post by alfa1


Does it for me.

Identical.

These points are environmental lights and lens artifacts that anyone regularly using a compound lens camera sees. Classic shapes. This is not paranormal or extra planetary.

You can even see the optical ghosting of the supposed Hatfield UFO to the right of the main image due to multiple lens optics.



And again my point about the other picture also following the curved distortion optical lens flare shape due to the lens.



I've personally taken photos with 35mm cameras for the last 34 years and have also worked with professional photograpers in my advertising design work. These photos show optical artifacts.

Jason, to get rid of these optical effects in your pictures you can do the same thing I did and get a lens hood for the end of your lens (and maybe a better coated lens too).

Keep watching the skies.

reply to post by alfa1


Very interesting.


Star from me.

reply to post by alfa1


wow, well done , star for you sir..

it certainly looks like a lens artefact to me. ....maybe a lens cover would help ??

snoopyuk

reply to post by Phage


Thats an orb.

It's an alien ghost posing for the picture...

... can't you see the V he's making with his spectral fingers?

99% sure this is lens flare as demonstrated above. Other options are satellites, but I think Phage is correct that that picture is facing in a north westerly direction (by the way the star motion trails) so it's probably not a goes satellite - but a photo with moving stars non moving trouble me still unless those non moving stars are just noise.

I would think the 60d possessed a better sensor than that, my sony a55 cost much less and doesn't have that much noise... but i have a 700$ wide angle f2.8 lens vs the kit lens he's using. But I thought noise came from the sensor not the lens.

Originally posted by Blue Shift

Originally posted by Jasonlreeve
reply to post by ommadawn

 

Fair enough. You can have a percentage of all the money I've made from the images. What's 35 percent of diddly squat?

Oooh Lovely, Yes Please!

reply to post by alfa1


WOOOHA! That looks Identical to my photo! In fact That looks so much like what I photographed I am a bit shocked!

It seems so inconceivable to me that it was lens flare though, as I saw this object with my eyes! Some have claimed that your eyes can have the same effect. Im unconvinced by that at the minute, I feel I would know if my eyes where playing a trick on me!

I just dont know! I really dont! Im more confused and amazed by what i saw, than I was at the time!

reply to post by thepixelpusher