So I took some rather interesting photos of the sky tonight...

And would like some advice as to how to process them in order to keep them as original as possible for posting here. They are NEF (RAW) files. I am proficient in both Photoshop and Lightroom (from a portrait photog standpoint, not like a master image editor standpoint) and would prefer to only use Lightroom for processing in order to avoid any EXIF data associated with PS and to avoid any doubt about them being created and or edited in Photoshop.

When not zoomed in, they just look like a little speck of light in the sky. When zoomed in at even 3:1 I was like, WTF?

Many thanks in advance!

BTW, these were taken in SW Ohio. I was sitting outside thinking about some things and decided to just walk down the drive a bit to get a view of the sky. I noticed this very bright sparkling "thing" that was just hanging out in one part of the sky (I was facing north and seemed to be in the north/north west part of the sky. It did not look like a star to me (I gaze quite often) and my iPhone night sky app did not indicate it was a satellite or planet.

I am NOT claiming I have proof of aliens or even a UFO, but I have photographed something pretty darn neat. Thanks again.

I don't see any photos. Looks like you didn't link them properly.

Sounds like an interesting case, would like to look into it.

Here is one. I just scaled it up as much as I could in Lightroom and converted to jpeg.



Here is the EXIF data that I could come up with tonight. Copied from the file itself from Finder (Macbook).

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


Just needed a few more mins. It is almost 2:00 a.m. where I am so I am moving a bit more slowly that I was at 5:00 p.m., lol.

Here are the first three photos I took. The shutter speeds were faster than the ones I took on the 'pod.

I took these hand held and they were manual focus.

The numbers on the photos are out of sequence (my bad) but I took these three in order. If you want the full EXIF data, I can provide it or post them onto Flickr later where it is super easy to read/get. Again, no editing other than trying to zoom by increasing the scale in Lightroom to 100% and converting from NEF to jpeg.

Photo 1, Hand Held, ISO 1600, 1/20 sec, 200mm (cropped sensor Nikon D80), f 5.6




Photo 2 Hand Held, ISO 1600, 1/5 sec, 200mm, f 5.6



Photo 3 Hand Held, ISO 1600, 1/5 sec, f 5.6

To OP,

The fact that you are so willing to share the origin of these photos along with their accompanied data and stats proves your level of sincerity to me in posting these pics.

You seem like the kind of person who is genuinely interested in what other people think these could be, and I applaud you for not saying OMG DEFINITIVE PROOF OF ALIENZ.

Now to the pictures, some of them seem to have a lot of movement. These could have been caused by a combination of your camera as well as the object moving. I am really really liking the strobe colors, but yeah I have no idea what that is.

Still, very cool thread. I will keep an eye on it and see what others think.

2 seconds with a focal length of 165 will easily cause that effect of a single source of light, such as an airplane.

reply to post by SolarE-Souljah


There was movement within the subject. That is what caught my eye. Not zooming around the sky, but like a morphing/shape change type of movement and that may not even be the way to describe it. I don't want to describe it as twinkling, because it was definitely more than a twinkle!

The longer exposed ones were taken on a tripod with a vibration reduction Nikkor lens. The shorter ones were hand held with same lens. I have only seen weird things twice, both times on my way home from work and this is the first time I was able to get a few photos of something.

I am totally open to all comments, suggestions, and any tips to make the photos better for viewing here. I am not interested in trolls who want to bash and dispute them, hence the openness on my part!

reply to post by Nevertheless


Maybe I was unclear but this thing DID NOT move much out of the area in the sky it was in. It definitely was not a plane. I know what planes look like, and ironically, shortly after these were taken there were three in the general area. Seemed too high up for a plane anyhow, IMHO. When I went back about 10 mins after the last one, it was gone.

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

In the first photo you posted is that the silhouette of a tree? If you don't know what I'm referring to I'll outline it.

reply to post by lovebeck

I don't want to describe it as twinkling, because it was definitely more than a twinkle!

This is a good time of year for scintillation (twinkle).


You may have seen Capella.

reply to post by Phage


Indeed Phage, but you got to admit it is a nice change of pace to have an OP being so willing to accept any ideas from the community instead of the usual "I HAVE PROOF OF EXTRATERRESTRIALS."

reply to post by lovebeck


Looking at exif data its most likely a star or other light source and shows up like that due to camera movement during exposure!

My friend,

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by SolarE-Souljah

 

I am totally open to all comments, suggestions, and any tips to make the photos better for viewing here. I am not interested in trolls who want to bash and dispute them, hence the openness on my part!

It seems you have your mind made up and will reject any and all advice/comments from members as to what it really is?

If you hold a camera and point it into darkness, set the shutter speed to 1/10 sec then it WILL create blur on an illuminated subject.

But hey, whatdoiknow

Be safe be well

Spiro

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Maybe I was unclear but this thing DID NOT move much out of the area in the sky it was in. It definitely was not a plane. I know what planes look like, and ironically, shortly after these were taken there were three in the general area. Seemed too high up for a plane anyhow, IMHO. When I went back about 10 mins after the last one, it was gone.

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

Even on a tripod to make sure you have NO vibration lock up mirror if possible, use self timer or a remote release also as you were using a 200mm telephoto lens any vibration is exaggerated. Also your using a Nikon D80 which is a crop sensor camera so if it was a 200 mm lens that's 300mm on a crop sensor so again any vibration is exaggerated that's all basic info for sky shots wide field astro-photography.

posted by lovebeck
There was movement within the subject. That is what caught my eye. Not zooming around the sky, but like a morphing/shape change type of movement and that may not even be the way to describe it. I don't want to describe it as twinkling, because it was definitely more than a twinkle!

I'm very interested in knowing more about it's motion and shape changing.

Did it look anything like the following video?

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

Maybe I was unclear but this thing DID NOT move much out of the area in the sky it was in. It definitely was not a plane. I know what planes look like, and ironically, shortly after these were taken there were three in the general area. Seemed too high up for a plane anyhow, IMHO. When I went back about 10 mins after the last one, it was gone.

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

Even on a tripod to make sure you have NO vibration lock up mirror if possible, use self timer or a remote release also as you were using a 200mm telephoto lens any vibration is exaggerated. Also your using a Nikon D80 which is a crop sensor camera so if it was a 200 mm lens that's 300mm on a crop sensor so again any vibration is exaggerated that's all basic info for sky shots wide field astro-photography.

Responses like THIS (lol face, really?) is why I was reluctant to post here. I don't claim to be an astrophotographer, but I did use my hands free remote on the 1 and 2 second exposures.

Originally posted by Spiro
My friend,

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by SolarE-Souljah

 

I am totally open to all comments, suggestions, and any tips to make the photos better for viewing here. I am not interested in trolls who want to bash and dispute them, hence the openness on my part!

It seems you have your mind made up and will reject any and all advice/comments from members as to what it really is?

If you hold a camera and point it into darkness, set the shutter speed to 1/10 sec then it WILL create blur on an illuminated subject.

But hey, whatdoiknow

Be safe be well

Spiro

Um, NO I don not have "my mind made up". I can take a hand held photo with out camera shake at 1/10 of a sec. These are zoomed in (used the scale tool in Lightroom) however, the original shots were well focused and did not appear blurry.

I do NOT claim to have seen a UFO or ALIENS or ANYTHING like that, I did however see something and am just trying to figure it out. Thanks,

My friend,

Originally posted by lovebeck
but I did use my hands free remote on the 1 and 2 second exposures.

However, the images you are presenting in this thread are hand held? This is what is misleading people I feel. Your saying one thing but providing another?

So, when you get a reply from a member stating that it is camera shake/blur et al then you can at least understand why

Why not post up the images that were tripod mounted and remote controlled?

Be safe be well

Spiro

Originally posted by lovebeck
reply to post by Nevertheless

 

These were taken with a DSLR and decent lens [..]

The quality of the lens makes no difference.

and the longer exposures were taken with the camera on a tripod, so no camera shake. I do know how to take a pretty decent photo and understand about camera shake, etc...

The circular movement looks exactly like camera shake on a tripod.