danc Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 First of all, I apologize for not posting this in the photography forum, but it's much more than just photography at hand here. I think anyways. Also, not everyone checks out the photography forum and I'm looking for as much input as possible here. So, I was in Northern Minnesota on the weekend. I was staying at a friends place who happens to live on a spectacular bay on Lake Superior. It's the kind of place that I could just sit and stare out into the lake for hours and hours on end. And I did just that. Of course I had a couple of cameras with me. But little did I know that there would be a full (or near full) moon over the lake on Saturday evening. And it decided to hang in the sky right over a magnificent rock structure that has a cave running through it. Some light fluffy clouds made it the perfect scenario. I mean I could go back there 1000 more times and not find a better night. So, I proceeded to take a bunch of photos. I tried different shutter speeds and aperture settings to get that perfect shot. Sadly, I wasn't totally pleased with my effort, but that's another story. When reviewing my photos later that evening, one photo stood out from the rest. I had captured a strange beam of light that seems to have originated from the moon, and continues to make a looping curve over the rock structure, and then disappears. This was a 25 second exposure and the light was not visible to the naked eye. I have no idea what it could have been. So I'm asking for suggestions, or better yet, a difinative answer. Here's a typical shot without the streak. And here's the unexplained mysterious streak of light. Help!!
Greencoachdog Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) That there is one of them Unidentified Flyin' UFO's!!! Are you sure you didn't bump or wiggle your tripod?... kinda like in this pic... Edited July 22, 2008 by Greencoachdog
JohnF Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Crazy looking. It doesn't look like a contrail. Have you considered some kind of wave emanations from a transmitter satellite? They might be intermittent and not easily visible to the naked eye but cumulatively they'll show up on the time exposure. Just a guess though. JF
misfish Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Dan you take great pics. No need to try and get in to the Gossip tabloids. LOL Very cool what ever it is. TFS Dan
Nemo Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Yep no expert here but I think GCD is on to something with a nice photo to boot. On a 25 sec exposure the slightest movement could be captured. Maybe post on a photography forum. Beauty spot no doubt. I guess this means you need to go back there. Nemo
tjsa Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Crazy looking. It doesn't look like a contrail. Have you considered some kind of wave emanations from a transmitter satellite? They might be intermittent and not easily visible to the naked eye but cumulatively they'll show up on the time exposure. Just a guess though. JF THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU DAN!!!!!!!!!!! RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uhh..........I have no idea.
ehg Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 With the suns light reflecting off the moon and then being captured through your lens over a 25 second period it must be bending through your camera lenses or the atmosphere. The light is originating from the moon and having many things that will bend it through that time. Great pictures there anyways. ehg
Guest skeeter99 Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 it can be easily done with the camera it is a trick you play with the shutter speed and it exposes over the photo as you move the camera race car adds do this all the time with the streaking car I have dome it with my camera to get same efects and look extra terestrial
danc Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Posted July 22, 2008 Hmmmm. Well I'll add a couple of things here. This is not a camera shake issue. I set my timer to release the shutter 10 seconds after I depress it, and then stand well back from the camera. Besides, the rest of the photo is sharp. I'm satisfied that there was no camera movement. Lens flare? Why in only one of about 50 photos would I have lens flare? Besides, lens flare looks totally different than that. Again, I'm satisfied that it's not lens flare. I'm still stumped.
tjsa Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 First of all, I apologize for not posting this in the photography forum, but it's much more than just photography at hand here. I think anyways. Also, not everyone checks out the photography forum and I'm looking for as much input as possible here. So, I was in Northern Minnesota on the weekend. I was staying at a friends place who happens to live on a spectacular bay on Lake Superior. It's the kind of place that I could just sit and stare out into the lake for hours and hours on end. And I did just that. Of course I had a couple of cameras with me. But little did I know that there would be a full (or near full) moon over the lake on Saturday evening. And it decided to hang in the sky right over a magnificent rock structure that has a cave running through it. Some light fluffy clouds made it the perfect scenario. I mean I could go back there 1000 more times and not find a better night. So, I proceeded to take a bunch of photos. I tried different shutter speeds and aperture settings to get that perfect shot. Sadly, I wasn't totally pleased with my effort, but that's another story. When reviewing my photos later that evening, one photo stood out from the rest. I had captured a strange beam of light that seems to have originated from the moon, and continues to make a looping curve over the rock structure, and then disappears. This was a 25 second exposure and the light was not visible to the naked eye. I have no idea what it could have been. So I'm asking for suggestions, ar better yet, a difinative answer. Here's a typical shot without the streak. BTW, that looks like Hollow Rock, did my qualifying dives there to get my NAUI diving certificate, in JANUARY!!!. Swam right through that gap. Damn that was cold, in non form fitting wetsuits.
jwl Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 kinda reminds me of a few pecular days in "high"school
danc Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Posted July 22, 2008 BTW, that looks like Hollow Rock, did my qualifying dives there to get my NAUI diving certificate, in JANUARY!!!. Swam right through that gap. Damn that was cold, in non form fitting wetsuits. Hollow Rock it is Tom.
Greencoachdog Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) Hmmmm. Well I'll add a couple of things here. This is not a camera shake issue. I set my timer to release the shutter 10 seconds after I depress it, and then stand well back from the camera. Besides, the rest of the photo is sharp. I'm satisfied that there was no camera movement. Lens flare? Why in only one of about 50 photos would I have lens flare? Besides, lens flare looks totally different than that. Again, I'm satisfied that it's not lens flare. I'm still stumped. Well it does look like there was a bit of wind, maybe a stray microburst? Have you checked to see if there was siesmic activity in your area around that time? I'm just guessing here. If you'll look at my pic, the rest is pretty sharp too, you can tell who everyone is and what they were wearing. I'm not saying it's camera movement for sure, because I don't know exactly what it is. It just looks similar to camera movement. Edited July 22, 2008 by Greencoachdog
danc Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Posted July 22, 2008 If you'll look at my pic, the rest is pretty sharp too, you can tell who everyone is and what they were wearing. Do you mean to tell me that the folks in your photo weren't sitting in the roaring fire pit while enjoying their beverages Glen?
Greencoachdog Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Do you mean to tell me that the folks in your photo weren't sitting in the roaring fire pit while enjoying their beverages Glen? Na... we was just stayin' cozy!
Tarzan's Jane Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 It is celestial....and it could be any number of possibilities.....like: Michael kicking butt to get to whoever, wherever, or a loved one keeping tabs on ya....or a deceased individual having a blast visiting special places that hold much meaning...
Greencoachdog Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 It is celestial....and it could be any number of possibilities.....like: Michael kicking butt to get to whoever, wherever, or a loved one keeping tabs on ya....or a deceased individual having a blast visiting special places that hold much meaning... Were there mushrooms in the Spaghetti sauce tonight Twi???
Tarzan's Jane Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 OMG...and I just finished some spaghetti...no word of a lie....there's a word for people like you haha I like mushrooms but not your kind
modny Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 oh dont worry about that.. i was just flying home from outerspace. busy weekend.
Garry2Rs Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 In the days of film, the proper exposure for the moon was said to be f16 at the film speed. IE f16 at 1/100th of a second with 100ASA film. The moon is the same as any other object that is front-lit by the sun. 25 seconds is 24.99 second too much exposure for the moon, and that's fine if you want to let the foreground print in. I think what you have is a light on the tail of a high flying airplane that was caught moving across the field of view. The light trail starts or stops in mid-air because that is when the shutter either opened or closed. The trail disappears into the moon because they are both over exposed and show as featureless bald white.
Moosebunk Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 Thanks Garry.... for nuthin'. lol. I like the UFO stuff better than that intelligent "sounding" response, which will be discredited because it's not very fun. Probably someone was up on the moon looking down at ya Dan and they flipped a big lunar booger at ya. Lucky the atmosphere burned it up before it got ya in the eye and gave ya some crazy space conjunctivitis.
danc Posted July 22, 2008 Author Report Posted July 22, 2008 LOL Moosebunk. Garry, that's about the best explanation I've heard yet. I didn't even think of the fact that it could be the tail light of an airplane. And yes, my moon shots are usually over exposed. I'm not using a DSLR and have nowhere near f16. I usually just experiment with shutter speed and f stops and take tons of shots, and if I'm lucky, I get a few good ones. And of course I wanted to include the foreground in my shot. I still don't understand why the light goes directly to, or directly from the moon. The overexposure issue doesn't explain that to me. Thanks for the comment..
Greencoachdog Posted July 22, 2008 Report Posted July 22, 2008 (edited) http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recent...n/N_America.php Edited July 22, 2008 by Greencoachdog
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now