Actual UFO Photo

[The Atheist]

This photo was taken by my 4 year old recently.

Lo and behold, once developed, the photo shows a UFO above left of the tree in the picture. The photo has not been amended at all and it isn't a flaw in the paper as we have a second copy printed from the negative. 35mm film for photos.

I can't scan the negative, but it's definitely showing on there and not a flaw in the plastic.

Now, I have no doubt that it isn't little green men from Alpha Centauri, but it is an unidentified flying object. Not a plane or helicopter - we're on the flight path of Auckland Airport and that certainly didn't land there. It's also just off to the north of the flight path, where no air traffic ever goes.

Something blown of the tree is possible, although it wouldn't have been a windy day, going by the leaves.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/ufo.jpg

Come on, let's have some ideas before I go post it at UFO Forums...

[SimonJ1966]

Its a cricket ball, hit by Adam Gilchrist off a poorly flighted delivery from Vetori.

From the SCG too!!!

[The Atheist]

Its a cricket ball, hit by Adam Gilchrist off a poorly flighted delivery from Vetori.

From the SCG too!!!

Aha! That would explain the shape, too!

It is in the right direction for that, so I'll keep it out there as an option.

(why aren't you posting in the cricket thread????)

[El Greco]

Bumblebee

[The Atheist]

Bumblebee

I considered that as we do have bumblebees around, but it's not quite right. Maybe a mutated Chernobyl bumblebee released by ex-KGB agents.

[Beady]

A piece of dirt on the lens.

A flaw on the negative, introduced during development.

A defect in the emulsion, introduced during manufacture.

[pspaddict]

Beady's idea seems the most reasonable. That's what it looked like to me the moment I saw it: a smudge on the lens or defect on the film.

[jsiv]

Flying witch humanoids (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e27_1173581537).

They're usually very busy this time of year.

[neutrino_cannon]

I have to second Beady's suggestions. Notice that there's no sun at all on the object. It would have to be a very strange shape indeed for that to occur were it actually up in the air. A most un-aerodynamic shape, if I may be so bold.

[Niobe]

Check your kid for bionic implants ASAP (s)he might be contaminated.

[Jackalgirl]

My first thought was, "where is it? Is it behind the bee?" too. It looks like its in motion at first glance. But looking at it again, I have to agree with the glob of dirt/bit of stick hypothesis already proposed. I'm assuming that there aren't any other pictures on the roll that had this thingie, or I'm assuming you'd have mentioned it, but what the heck: are there?

[Beady]

Adding an item to my list, it could have been a speck of something that was on the film during exposure, that was rinsed off during development.

That's four possibilities on or inside the camera, itself, that have to be eliminated before it makes sense to start talking about anything else.

[Michael Gray]

Helicopter, without doubt.
On a flight path?
To an Airport?
No, it can't be a helicopter!
(My arse it can't be!)

[The Atheist]

A piece of dirt on the lens.

A flaw on the negative, introduced during development.

A defect in the emulsion, introduced during manufacture.


No, no and no.

It's visible on the negative and isn't a defect. Definitely nothing on the lens as it would be more blurred and other pics taken 10 seconds later don't have it.

[Big Al]

Looks like a helicopter to me. That blur to the right looks like the tail rotor.

[The Atheist]

Flying witch humanoids (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e27_1173581537).

They're usually very busy this time of year.

Sure, could easily be a distant witch on a broom.

I have to second Beady's suggestions. Notice that there's no sun at all on the object. It would have to be a very strange shape indeed for that to occur were it actually up in the air. A most un-aerodynamic shape, if I may be so bold.

UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.

No sun = cloudy day.

Check your kid for bionic implants ASAP (s)he might be contaminated.

Just so long as I don't have to check for anal probes, I'll check that out!

My first thought was, "where is it? Is it behind the bee?" too. It looks like its in motion at first glance. But looking at it again, I have to agree with the glob of dirt/bit of stick hypothesis already proposed. I'm assuming that there aren't any other pictures on the roll that had this thingie, or I'm assuming you'd have mentioned it, but what the heck: are there?

No other pics show it, and as noted to Beady, you can see it on the negative.

Helicopter, without doubt.
On a flight path?
To an Airport?
No, it can't be a helicopter!
(My arse it can't be!)

LOL. It's NOT a helicopter. Because we're on the flight path, helicopters travel overhead frequently and they're kept to under 500 feet around this area, so it would be clearly visible - he has a photo of a chopper taken from about 10 feet from that pic and it's easy to tell it's a chopper.

[The Great Hairy One]

Sheesh, it's obvious!

Look at the cloud bank just below the black speck. Obviously one of the cloud giants has kicked the footy too far, and it's gone over the edge of the cloud. Lucky it didn't crush your house, The Atheist.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Beady]

It's visible on the negative and isn't a defect. Definitely nothing on the lens as it would be more blurred and other pics taken 10 seconds later don't have it.

No, it would not necessarily be blurred; it would depend on the lens, the focus, etc.

How did you rule out a defect in manufacturing or development? How did you rule out an artifact on that frame during exposure, that would have been rinsed off during development?

BTW, what is the frame number?

[neutrino_cannon]

UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.

No sun = cloudy day.


Look at the house and the leaves on the trees. The sun may not be uncontested in the sky, but a roughly cylindrical object somewhere in the sky ought to have some sun on it.

If the object were between the sun and the camera, sure it wouldn't have any glare, but the sun is behind the camera and to the right.

Given that, I suspect strongly that it isn't an actual object in the sky.

I suggest that it's a similar phenomenon these artifacts. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=102929)

[H3LL]

Blimp.

.

[Ex-drone]

The most reasonable interpretation of this single, limited quality photo is that it is a helicopter. Your counter that local flight rules preclude it from being a helicopter is not convincing. You have not excluded the possibility that the pilot was not following the flight rules or had a waiver, and you may be wrong in your speculation of the flight rules themselves. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think you have something extraordinary here, then you require more than this photo. Occam says helicopter.

[LTC8K6]

Motion blurred insect.

[This Guy]

If it's not a helicopter (I think it is) then it's definitely a flying mouse. I would contact a GOOD pest control company ASAP!


:)

[SusanB-M1]

I would just like to compliment the photographer on a very good picture of a tree!

[Davide]

It's probably impossible to ever know for sure what it is, but if you've looked carefully at the negative and there's not an obvious flaw in the plastic film or emulsion, and it only appears on one picture in the roll, chances are the artifact was made by a bit of opaque crud that was on the film at the time the exposure was made.

The crud blocks out the light and you get a nice silhouette of it as an integral part of the exposure. When the film is wound forward, the crud falls off never to be seen again. This is not particularly uncommon though the artifacts are usually smaller (assuming what you posted is a full-frame picture).

[Kopji]

Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg

[J. Arthur Hastur]

You're all crazy. It's a June Bug.

[JanisChambers]

An Abomb! but seriously, kina looks like a blimp to me.

[Hammer_of_Thor]

You people cant see the little green faces in there. I think that is amazing

[Pyrrho]

"Swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - K

[Cuddles]

Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg

It looks to me like either a bit of something on the lens, which would tend to get a halo around it. It also looks a bit like a picture of something with the Sun on the other side of it, but from the shadows on the house it looks like the Sun is in the wrong place. My vote is just for a speck of dirt on the lens.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Well - you can't see the stars, so I reckon it's a hoax!

Oops, sorry, wrong conspiracy theory....

:)

YBW

[Checkmite]

It's a bug.

[joesixpack]

You're all crazy. It's a June Bug.


My thoughts exactly.

[Big Al]

The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.

It didn't have to be - the operative word being airworthy. However, it would have gone down like a lead balloon in the Earth's gravity. If it did manage to hover, the astronauts would have gone through the floor. An unaerodynamic shape doesn't matter in space, but it makes flying difficult in an atmosphere.

[FramerDave]

UFOs often are, eh? That unique interstellar proulsion stuff. The lunar module didn't look all that airworthy, either.



Kind of picking nits here, but the lunar module did not have to be airworthy, as it was never meant to be used in an atmosphere.

Virtually no atmosphere = no need for aerodynamic shapes

Guess I should read the entire thread before replying next time.

[Beady]

I can't tell whether this thread is starting to go silly, or pedantic.

[BenK]

I'm no photography expert but I see other defects in that picture, dark and light spots near the lower left corner and something that looks like a hair coming out of the tree near the middle right. Maybe these things come from the same source.

[Starthinker]

I thought it may be a humming bird as there is another that kinda looks like down below by the tree. Otherwise Beady has it nailed. Notice a hair and other dust on the exposure? I sure do. Just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it isn't crud. It just means the crud washed off before the negative was developed.

http://www.starthinker.com/images/ufo.jpg

[Soapy Sam]

It's a house.

[neutrino_cannon]

I'm pretty sure that the lower object is an out-of-focus leaf starthinker; or at least, that's how my eyes interpreted it.

[EternalSceptic]

I thought it may be a humming bird as there is another that kinda looks like down below by the tree. Otherwise Beady has it nailed. Notice a hair and other dust on the exposure? I sure do. Just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it isn't crud. It just means the crud washed off before the negative was developed.

http://www.starthinker.com/images/ufo.jpg

Interesting, that the other dark spots have brighter halos as well, and some bright spot in the roof has a darker halo. I suspect this is because of the jpeg compression. would be interesting to examine the original. Compression can produce really weird effects.

Your diagnosis is pretty convincing.

[my_wan]

It is very small probably roughly the size of the leafs on the tree. Notice the diffused light around the edges. It is backlight from the lighter clouds. The diffusion is a QM effect much like the double slit experiment. The leaves on the tree have the same effect to a lesser degree. If you moved those leafs farther away the relative size of the diffusion ring will grow until the object loses form altogether. A large object wouldn't have that much of a diffusion ring relative to the apparent object size and still maintain that much contrast. Small leafs and trash can float up an updraft due to rising warm air during midday and doesn't require wind at ground level.

Compare the same effect on a larger object;
http://www.tourcart.net/tourmate/img/cloneImages/269.jpg
In spite of much larger apparent size the edges have much less contrast yet the object remains clearly identifiable. By the time an object that large became unidentifiable there would be no identifiable edges at all.

Here's a self picture using backlight for a very strange effect.
http://img423.imageshack.us/my.php?image=meghostgf1.jpg
I hope I'm not a ghost anyway :yikes:

[Patricio Elicer]

It's official now: since nobody has been able to provide a definite and convincing explanation of the picture, the hard and indisputable conclusion is: alien beings are visiting the earth!!.

Wait!,.... any logical fallacy here? :rolleyes:

[Moochie]

It looks very well defined. I'd say it was added.

M.

[Dr. Lao]

Its obviously a C.H.U.D.

Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dweller


Crafty, it transmogrified into a bee.

[The Atheist]

It's official now: since nobody has been able to provide a definite and convincing explanation of the picture, the hard and indisputable conclusion is: alien beings are visiting the earth!!.

There you go, that's what I thought.

[The Atheist]

The most reasonable interpretation of this single, limited quality photo is that it is a helicopter. Your counter that local flight rules preclude it from being a helicopter is not convincing. You have not excluded the possibility that the pilot was not following the flight rules or had a waiver, and you may be wrong in your speculation of the flight rules themselves. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you think you have something extraordinary here, then you require more than this photo. Occam says helicopter.

Occam's wrong. I can assure you it isn't a helicopter.

(P.S. I take it you don't know me at all. I don't think there's anything extraordinary about it all. I think it's a very ordinary ........... )

If it's not a helicopter (I think it is) then it's definitely a flying mouse. I would contact a GOOD pest control company ASAP!

:)

Aaaaargh! Flying mice!

I would just like to compliment the photographer on a very good picture of a tree!

I thought it was pretty good for a four year old, too!

Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg

I noticed that myself and thought that same thing - maybe I Photoshopped it in when I wasn't looking!

I think the halo is part of the giveaway though and I think Starthinker has it....

"Swamp gas from a weather balloon got trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus." - K

Damn!

Notice a hair and other dust on the exposure? I sure do. Just because it's on the negative doesn't mean it isn't crud. It just means the crud washed off before the negative was developed.

I hadn't seen those, but now you mention it, and I see someone else mentioned the "halo" on them too, I'm pretty sure it's just contaminated developer solution. The bubbly bits at bottom left are a bit of a giveaway - hadn't noticed them before, well spotted. Couldn't really have been on the negative, I don't think, unless it got there during manufacture, maybe.

Odd how it's only one photo, but I agree, the other bits of corruption give it away.

It's a house.

A flying house? Are you nuts?

It looks very well defined. I'd say it was added.

M.

Well, there's no doubt it was added, but was it added to the sky, the photo, the negative or the machine processing the film?

My bet, after sleeping on it and seeing the comments, is machinery/process.

[Skeptic Guy]

I'm voting for the schmutz on the lens theory. It blew off before the next photo.

But I wouldn't rule out a bug, either.

[TjW]

Do they use plastic grocery bags where you live? I've seen them above 5000 feet in thermals. The shape is roughly similar.

[Kopji]

Yeah jpg's can leave weird artifacts. The edge of the roof looks good though. If you really wanted to know, could have it enlarged from the negative.

Could be from a bubble in the developer fluid though, air can leave a clear spot on the neg, which would turn out black when printed.

I ran it through a really big enlarger and you may be onto something tho...
:)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460b29889eebc.jpg

[The Atheist]

I ran it through a really big enlarger and you may be onto something tho...
:)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460b29889eebc.jpg

Aaaaaaaaarrrrrgghh! I've teleported to Roswell! Call Uri Geller, quick!

[Susheel]

Is it one of those trees with fruit that shoots out its seeds?

[buzz lightyear]

This photo was taken by my 4 year old recently.

Lo and behold, once developed, the photo shows a UFO above left of the tree in the picture. The photo has not been amended at all and it isn't a flaw in the paper as we have a second copy printed from the negative. 35mm film for photos.

I can't scan the negative, but it's definitely showing on there and not a flaw in the plastic.

Now, I have no doubt that it isn't little green men from Alpha Centauri, but it is an unidentified flying object. Not a plane or helicopter - we're on the flight path of Auckland Airport and that certainly didn't land there. It's also just off to the north of the flight path, where no air traffic ever goes.



Well, Well, Well,..... The 4 year old leaves a bit of snot on the lens, takes a pic and good old Athiest turns "woo" !
Time to come out of the closet Athiest, drop the tough skeptic front and let the sensitive new age guy shine through.

" The times are a changin"

[wahrheit]

That definitely looks like a grain of sand on the negative during exposure. As has been mentioned before, the entire camera needs a thorough cleaning. Since it was 35mm negative film, a grain of sand would leave the area below unexposed, with a pretty sharp outline, resulting in a dark spot on the print. Dirt on the lense would be more blurred, if not invisible at all.

The halo around it seems to be nothing but JPG artefacts, you can see the same halo around the leaves.

[CurtC]

On a related note, I was involved in the online discussion that sorted out this object: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041207.html

Full size picture here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0412/strange_pryde_big.jpg

On the main page, you can also find links to the same scene a few seconds before, and a few seconds after, this mystery photo.

Any guesses? I'll not spoil it yet.

[wahrheit]

On a related note, I was involved in the online discussion that sorted out this object: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap041207.html

Full size picture here:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0412/strange_pryde_big.jpg

On the main page, you can also find links to the same scene a few seconds before, and a few seconds after, this mystery photo.

Any guesses? I'll not spoil it yet.

The light thingy is very blurry. In photography, that leaves basically two options:

- It's a very fast moving object
- It's not within focus of the lens
(or both)

Given that the image is a panoramic shot made with a very wide focal length (9.1 mm), my best guess is that a tiny, moving object was close to the camera when the picture was taking.

The data in the linked original JPG also says that the camera (a Canon Powershot G3) fired the flash. Given my above assumption, a small object close to the camera, along with the used flash would explain why it is noticeably brighter than the rest of the image. Simply because it is the _only_ object in this picture which reflects light from the flash. Everything else is too far away for a weak built-in flash.

[CurtC]

Yes, very good, warheit. Someone did an image subtraction, with the same scene a few seconds before. Since the camera was on a tripod and the time difference was small (15 seconds IIRC), the mystery object showed up quite well as a bug. The dark streak was it flying by while the shutter was open, the brighter part is the bug lit up by the flash. The smoky looking part is the bug's wings lit by the flash.

Someone did an FFT analysis of the dark streak and extracted a wing beat pattern that's not otherwise noticeable.

[JoeTheJuggler]

LOL. It's NOT a helicopter. Because we're on the flight path, helicopters travel overhead frequently and they're kept to under 500 feet around this area, so it would be clearly visible - he has a photo of a chopper taken from about 10 feet from that pic and it's easy to tell it's a chopper.

I don't follow how this informs you that it's definitely not a helicopter.

Is your thinking that if it were a helicopter you'd recognize it more obviously as such? That's the sort of assumption that leads to plenty of misidentifications of Venus and even the Moon. (Ditto the assumption that because helicopters aren't supposed to go higher than 500 ft in your area that this time one didn't go higher.)

Otherwise, I'd guess it to be an insect relatively near the camera.

[wahrheit]

Cool, thanks CurtC!

I just did such an overlay, it shows the bug or insect pretty well I think. Click the thumbnail for a larger version.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_4514460be54c1ced5.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4855)

[kalen]

I'm pretty sure that the lower object is an out-of-focus leaf starthinker; or at least, that's how my eyes interpreted it.

Out-of-focus leaf? The leaves in the foreground are in focus, and the house in the background is in focus. How can an object in between be out-of-focus?

I think starthinker has the best guess: hummingbirds.

Are hummingbirds common where this picture was taken?

ETA: Would hummingbirds be interested in this particular bush?

[The Atheist]

I don't follow how this informs you that it's definitely not a helicopter.

Is your thinking that if it were a helicopter you'd recognize it more obviously as such? That's the sort of assumption that leads to plenty of misidentifications of Venus and even the Moon. (Ditto the assumption that because helicopters aren't supposed to go higher than 500 ft in your area that this time one didn't go higher.)

Otherwise, I'd guess it to be an insect relatively near the camera.

There's no assumption about it at all - helicopters stay within the 500 ft line or they're likely to get run down by a Jumbo Jet. We get a couple of 'em over a day and the pic isn't one of them.

Even more damning is how much sense the corruption during processing makes. I think that's probably why the object is surrounded by a kind of halo effect - it isn't part of the picture at all.

Out-of-focus leaf? The leaves in the foreground are in focus, and the house in the background is in focus. How can an object in between be out-of-focus?

I think starthinker has the best guess: hummingbirds.

Are hummingbirds common where this picture was taken?

ETA: Would hummingbirds be interested in this particular bush?

No hummingbirds were harmed during the making of this photo!

We don't have hummingbirds in NZ. If you'd said flying fish....

[Starthinker]

In my marked-up photo I was just pointing out two similar objects. I would guess in a good number of cases when you have two similar objects like that, and in this pic I could only find the two, then they are probably related or caused by similar means. Since the lower one looks near the tree, the upper one was probably just as close. The leaves/flowers are in focus so I'm thinking the two spots are insects or hummingbirds.

This is assuming it was not a speck of sand or something on the negative when it was being developed. Remember, a black spot on a picture is a blank spot on the negative, so that very well could have been the case. Even given their location I can see a speck rotating/migrating on the roll from one spot to the other while it was being wound.

[LawnOven]

Scan the image at 1200 ppi. It's too small. just crop the relavent part.

[jimtron]

I make my living as a photographer, and have been doing darkroom work for over twenty years. I agree with those who say: speck of something on the film during exposure. That would result in a well defined shape since it would be right on the negative. A speck on the lens would be much less defined. If it was dust during printing, it would be white, not black.

I disagree with those who think it was Photoshopped. I don't have evidence it wasn't, but if you were to shoot a negative with a speck on it, and make a print, and scan it, and zoom into a low res jpg, I'll bet it would look the same as the zoomed-in jpg on this thread.

To me this photo doesn't seem remarkable in any way.

ETA:

Was this shot with a digital or film camera? Could be a speck on the camera's sensor.

ETA2:

I read the OP again--it was film, right? Not taken with a G3 digital camera?

[jimtron]

Hi Atheist,
When I zoom in on the tiny part of the jpg with the object, it seems to be framed as if it were photoshopped into the rest of the image, can you propose a reason for that effect?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1061460a684d39cad.jpg

The "frame" could be an artifact from JPEG compression, or just the natural edges of the speck (dirt or whatever). If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to. If you were to draw black pixels, with the pencil tool for example, you would have very hard, discrete edges.

[baron]

Moth

[baron]

BTW: It's not black. And at 67K this image has lost a large amount of info to JPG compression, making it especially difficult to judge what it is. The JPG compression is totally consistent with the rest of the photo.

It's unlikely to be a helicopter as there's no reduction in contrast due to distance haze.

I'd say it's a hummingbird hawkmoth. We have them around here sometimes.

[jimtron]

The Atheist: if you wanted to send me the negative, I could make a 4000 dpi scan of it, and host a high res JPG or TIF. PM me if you're interested.

[CurtC]

If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to.If you added the speck in Photoshop, then saved it as a high-compression JPEG, you'll still get the compression artifacts we see, which I think you're referring to as a "frame."

Not that I think it was Photoshopped in, I'm just saying that even Photoshopped objects are subject to compression artifacts just like objects that were actually in the picture.

[jimtron]

If you added the speck in Photoshop, then saved it as a high-compression JPEG, you'll still get the compression artifacts we see, which I think you're referring to as a "frame."

Not that I think it was Photoshopped in, I'm just saying that even Photoshopped objects are subject to compression artifacts just like objects that were actually in the picture.

I agree--it could be Photoshopped or not. My point was that edges of the speck are not evidence of Photoshop.

[JoeTheJuggler]

There's no assumption about it at all - helicopters stay within the 500 ft line or they're likely to get run down by a Jumbo Jet. We get a couple of 'em over a day and the pic isn't one of them.


Sorry--I still don't follow the thinking. (Maybe it's because I took an extra long afternoon nap and haven't gotten the sleep out of my head yet.)

I understand that it's illegal for a helicopter to fly over 500 ft over your house and that it's dangerous and foolish, but how does that preclude it logically? I also understand that many helicopters fly over below that altitude and you can reliably identify them, but doesn't that argue that you might not be familiar with what one looks like if it's higher?

It's illegal and dangerous for someone to cross a busy interstate, but if I had a photo that looked like someone standing on the interstate you wouldn't be able to say that it's impossible, right?

Were you present when the photo was snapped, or is there some other bit of info I'm missing that makes you certain it's not a helicopter?

(The other marks lend credence to the "dirty developer" idea, and I've always been happy to leave stray marks on a photograph unexplained without losing any sleep or resorting to space aliens or paranormal activity.)

[Just thinking]

To me it looks a good deal like a cicada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada) (upper), which are indigenous to NZ as well as by me. They do hang out in trees a lot and their wings are quite transparent, which when fluttering rapidly would almost disappear from view. The lower one looks more like a hummingbird.

[The Atheist]

I make my living as a photographer, and have been doing darkroom work for over twenty years. I agree with those who say: speck of something on the film during exposure. That would result in a well defined shape since it would be right on the negative. A speck on the lens would be much less defined. If it was dust during printing, it would be white, not black.

Yep, that's exactly where I get to. I think the other defects, which I didn't even notice, give the game away entirely.

I disagree with those who think it was Photoshopped. I don't have evidence it wasn't, but if you were to shoot a negative with a speck on it, and make a print, and scan it, and zoom into a low res jpg, I'll bet it would look the same as the zoomed-in jpg on this thread.

That, I can guarantee. I don't even have Photo Shop. I may not be a trustworthy source, however!

To me this photo doesn't seem remarkable in any way.

Me neither. It is remarkably similar to many "UFO" photos, though.

Was this shot with a digital or film camera? Could be a speck on the camera's sensor.

I read the OP again--it was film, right? Not taken with a G3 digital camera?

35mm film camera.

[Kopji]

The "frame" could be an artifact from JPEG compression, or just the natural edges of the speck (dirt or whatever). If you were to add a speck in Photoshop, it wouldn't have a frame, unless you wanted it to. If you were to draw black pixels, with the pencil tool for example, you would have very hard, discrete edges.

Yeah I agree with you. I had time to look over other parts of the image later. The whole spot is only a few pixels wide though, just not enough to tell anything at all.

A way to get at this would be to do an enlargement from the negative and then scan just the spot at a high res. I would think that if it were a problem in the developing, other photos on the roll might show some spots.

[The Atheist]

Moth

Nope

I'd say it's a hummingbird hawkmoth. We have them around here sometimes.

Definitely none of them around here.

The Atheist: if you wanted to send me the negative, I could make a 4000 dpi scan of it, and host a high res JPG or TIF. PM me if you're interested.

Cheers, I'm happy enough with where we're at to go further. If you'd particularly like it, let me know and I'll send it through. I don't think I'll be ordering any copies of it!

I understand that it's illegal for a helicopter to fly over 500 ft over your house and that it's dangerous and foolish, but how does that preclude it logically? I also understand that many helicopters fly over below that altitude and you can reliably identify them, but doesn't that argue that you might not be familiar with what one looks like if it's higher?

It's illegal and dangerous for someone to cross a busy interstate, but if I had a photo that looked like someone standing on the interstate you wouldn't be able to say that it's impossible, right?

Were you present when the photo was snapped, or is there some other bit of info I'm missing that makes you certain it's not a helicopter?

Well, I can't be 100% certain, but I'd be confident that if a chopper had ventured into commercial airspace by as far as it would need to be in that shot, then I would have heard about it. That would be major news over here.

(Then again, it could have been a FEMA chopper out here for talks with some of our neo-cons, preparatory to making the South Island a prison camp for Troofers, but don't let that on.)

(The other marks lend credence to the "dirty developer" idea, and I've always been happy to leave stray marks on a photograph unexplained without losing any sleep or resorting to space aliens or paranormal activity.)

Yep, I agree.

To me it looks a good deal like a cicada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicada) (upper), which are indigenous to NZ as well as by me. They do hang out in trees a lot and their wings are quite transparent, which when fluttering rapidly would almost disappear from view. The lower one looks more like a hummingbird.

They also fly 100 mph and with a cheapo kids' camera and resulting 1/80 shutter speed or thereabouts, it would just be a blur. Lots of cicadas on the tree, though - not a bad guess!

No hummingbirds...

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

[jimtron]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

OMG there could be a UFO in the scanner!!!!! Atheist, I would immediately duct tape the scanner cover down if I were you.

[The Atheist]

It is in the print, though, right? So it's not from the scanner?

Yep, it was seeing on the print that made me scan it. It's visible on the negative as well.

OMG there could be a UFO in the scanner!!!!! Atheist, I would immediately duct tape the scanner cover down if I were you.

I'm taking no chances, the printer and scanner have been sealed and quarantined!

[Timothy]

A piece of dirt on the lens.

Beady's idea seems the most reasonable. That's what it looked like to me the moment I saw it: a smudge on the lens or ...

It looks to me like either a bit of something on the lens, which would tend to get a halo around it. ... My vote is just for a speck of dirt on the lens.

I'm voting for the schmutz on the lens theory. It blew off before the next photo.

Since this is the JR Educational F, let's do some educating. I've seen people use this argument far too many times. This is a situation where "common sense" is wrong. Objects on the front surface of a camera's lens will not be imaged anywhere near the focal surface. (Caveat: a lens can exist that does this, but I defy you to find one used for a consumer camera.)

Dirt on the lense would be more blurred, if not invisible at all.

Yay! The right answer, although you should be far more confident about the invisible part.

So, if you disagree, try it for yourself. Using your own camera, see if you can create an image even remotely approximating the OP photo by placing something on the front lens. You'll find that in the image your object will be either invisible, or huge and transparent, and certainly not anything that would be mistaken for a helicopter at a distance. If you find otherwise, post the photo here.

( Caveat: If there's a window or filter a significant distance in front of the lens, that would change things, but I'm assuming we're using fairly standard cameras without configurations that are too unusual. )

[The Atheist]

( Caveat: If there's a window or filter a significant distance in front of the lens, that would change things, but I'm assuming we're using fairly standard cameras without configurations that are too unusual. )

There you go - another guy who covers all the bases! Even though I use filters myself, it wouldn't have occurred to me to use that caveat. As it happens, my kid's camera is a very basic point and shoot model with no detachable bits or accessories.

It's been an interesting exercise in showing people something and see what the explanations offerred are.

When I posted the pic, I had no idea what it was. I knew it wasn't: dirt on the lens, a deliberate alteration, a defect in the photo paper, a result of the printing process, a helicopter, an aeroplane, or an alien craft. Good work by some of the posters has resulted in - to me - about 99.9% certainty as to the answer - dirt during developing of the negatives. Given that the film is in a sealed container and the camera hadn't been opened, it's the logical answer.

[wahrheit]

Good work by some of the posters has resulted in - to me - about 99.9% certainty as to the answer - dirt during developing of the negatives. Given that the film is in a sealed container and the camera hadn't been opened, it's the logical answer.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say dirt during exposure (in the camera), not during development of the film.

Your kid used classic 35mm negative film, not slide, right?

Then a grain of sand on the film in the camera during exposure will give you a dark spot with rather sharp outline, exactly like in the scan you posted. Also, that grain of sand (or whatever) could have stuck to the film already coming from the manufacturer, embedded in the emulsion. If so, it could still be there, and you can feel it when you touch the negative, or it got washed away during development.

Dirt during development? If the lab had a teaspoon full of sand in their developer, you might get miniscule scratches and fine lines in the pictures (depending on what kind of machine they use), but not a definded spot like this.

Dirt during development causes smear and streaks, bad color, or a fine line scratched into the negative through half the film (grain on roller etcetera).