The Orb Controversy
Orbs are perhaps the best-known phenomenon that's been attributed to the paranormal in recent years. For those of you who aren't familiar with them, orbs are the ghostly globes that sometimes appear in photographs and videos. They've gained a lot of attention since digital photography became popular.
Those who have studied orbs seem to be sharply divided about what they are. One school of thought is that orbs are a paranormal phenomenon, such as spirits, ghosts, energy beings, or even inter-dimensional visitors. Believers maintain that an orb is the most natural shape for energy to assume. They point out that stars are spheres, as are air bubbles in water and soap bubbles floating in the air.
Skeptics insist that orbs are caused by a combination of airborne objects and the way that digital cameras are constructed, and point out that they seem to have appeared since the advent of digital photography. They argue that because digital cameras use a sensor instead of film, and their lenses generally have a greater depth of field than film cameras, orbs are just a technical "glitch". They believe that orb images are created when the camera's flash reflects off airborne particles or small insects that are very close to the lens, and the sensors interpret the flash bounce-back as a circle or globe. This theory has become known as the Orb Zone Theory, or OZT. The OZT was based upon a prior explanation called "Circles of Confusion" that was developed my manufacturers of early digital cameras to explain the appearance of orbs.
Three factors greatly complicate orb research. The most obvious is that orbs are usually invisible to the naked eye. In addition orbs in photographs and videos range from translucent to nearly transparent, and don't seem to adhere to the known laws of physics. These factors make it extremely difficult to judge their size, density, speed or distance from the camera.
One would typically assume for example, that just as with physical objects, larger-appearing orbs would be closer to the camera and smaller-appearing orbs would be further away. Surprisingly, larger orbs are usually very diffuse or dull in appearance. This would seem to indicate that they didn't reflect much of the flash, which they should have if they were closest to the camera. (If you want to test that for yourself, hold your finger close to your camera and take a flash picture in a dimly lit area. Unless you have a really high-end camera your finger will appear to be glowing brightly.)
Should we then assume that the brighter orbs must be the closer ones because they reflect more of the light from the flash? The problem with that theory is that brighter orbs usually seem to be the smaller ones, which we'd logically think appeared smaller because they were further from the camera.
OK then, let's try a different hypothesis. If the brightness of orbs isn't related to distance, might it mean that brighter orbs are actually more dense, and therefore reflect more light? Maybe... but if brighter orbs are more dense, shouldn't they be heavier and therefore slower moving and closer to the ground or floor? In reality the brighter orbs seem to move more quickly than the duller ones, often climbing or diving at sharp angles, leaving streaks or trails behind them. These are Just a few of the issues that pose real challenges to orb researchers.
In our own research we've been able to produce orbs by shaking a duster in front of a camera, and by photographing in snow and rain. In those instances the Orb Zone Theory was clearly demonstrated, because there was absolutely nothing paranormal about the orb images. On the other hand, there are photos of orbs partially obscured by objects that were too far from the camera for the OZT to apply. In some instances photos taken in calm conditions have shown some orbs to be stationary at the same time that others were in motion; sometimes in different directions. This clearly challenges the theory of airborne particles. There have also been videos taken of orbs moving in ways that no particle of dust or moisture could possibly have moved.
Then there's the issue of the colors or orbs. While the majority are almost transparent, or a smoky translucent color, some are light shades of yellow, orange, green, or light blue. An even smaller number are bright blue, like the flame of a gas stove, pure white, dark red, or even pink. That's quite an array of colors for dust or pollen.
Some proponents of the Orb Zone Theory suggest that the color of orbs is a reflection of the color of the photographer's clothing or some other object in the immediate vicinity. We have a hard time with that one, having personally photographed orbs of different colors while wearing the same clothes, and shooting in the same location. In fact orbs of different colors sometimes have appeared in the same photo. Others say it's caused by the bending of light that reaches the camera lens from a critical point outside of the view of the cameras. While this might be possible, it seems like a stretch to assume that this fragment of spectral light would affect the orb image but nothing else in the photo.
Now let's analyze the argument that orbs only show up only on digital photographs and therefore must be an anomaly of digital photography. Clearly the phenomenon has come into its own since the digital revolution, which on face value would tend to support the OZT argument. We need to be careful, however, not to jump to conclusions without taking other factors into consideration.
Think back to when you last used a film camera. You took a photo, or if the subject was something that you really wanted a picture of, you took several, because you never knew how a photo would come out. You took or sent your film for developing, and you got back whatever you got back. A lot depended on the quality of the work of the film processor. In addition, if images were under or over exposed, more often than not the developer didn't even print them. If you wanted to try to salvage a bad photo you had to send it away to a specialty photo lab and pay big bucks for the attempt, so very few of us did.
Digital photography is a completely different situation. Digital cameras have evolved to the point where their image quality is equal to and often better than that of most film cameras, so more detail is captured. In addition, almost all digital cameras come with some kind of photo editing software that lets you adjust the brightness, contrast, color balance, etc. Instead of trashing a photo that's substandard you can compensate to a large degree for whatever might be wrong with it. This doesn't involve adding anything to the photo; it's simply a process by which the clarity or visibility of what's already there is improved.
What does all that have to do with orbs? A photo taken at night, which may appear almost completely dark, can be lightened, brightened or contrasted. When this is done, additional detail often appears. Sometimes the detail that's brought out includes orbs. Those orbs would never have been discovered if you'd been using a film camera. They'd have remained hidden in the dark. You might even have discarded that photo as one that "didn't come out".
It's also highly unlikely that orbs that aren't visible until a photo is enhanced could be caused by the OZT effect because of something called the "flash range". Simply put, it's the distance from the camera within which the light from the flash will effectively illuminate a subject. Light from a camera flash doesn't just stop or vanish. It goes on to infinity, spreading out and illuminating everything it contacts by a diminishing degree as it gets further from the camera. But at some point that degree of illumination isn't enough to allow the camera to record what's there, so the area is dark. If "OZT orbs" are particles so close to the lens that they fool the camera sensor, they couldn't possibly have been far enough away to be out of flash range, requiring enhancement for them to show in the photo.
So where do we stand on the issue of orbs? Somewhere in the middle, actually. We think that orbs are a lot like UFOs. The vast majority of UFOs were seen or photographed by untrained observers. After investigation many were found to be aircraft, balloons, meteorites, ball lightning, the planet Venus, swamp gas, and in some cases hoaxes. A certain percentage of UFOs, however, can't be explained away. Some were seen by trained observers, such as pilots, military personnel or police. Others moved or performed in ways that no known objects possibly could. We believe that the same is true of orbs; the majority of them can be correctly attributed to natural causes. but a number of them defy explanation.
In closing, we'd like to offer a bit of advice to both believers and skeptics. To those who are serious about orb photography, there are a few simple steps that you can take to make your work a lot more credible. Indoors, try to avoid taking photos or videos in areas where you might have kicked up dust upon entering, or at least allow time for any dust to settle before shooting. Outdoors, avoid shooting when it's windy, raining or snowing. Those simple precautions will eliminate a lot of misleading orb-like anomalies from your photos or videos. It's also helpful to record the date, time and conditions under which the photos or videos were taken.
To those of you who are skeptics, by all means continue to question. It's the way that mysteries are solved, knowledge is gained and myths and urban legends are debunked. But don't be so inflexible that you refuse to consider any point of view but your own. Over time we've come to learn that the earth isn't the center of the universe and the world isn't flat, even though at one time those were considered to be indisputable scientific facts.
Those who have studied orbs seem to be sharply divided about what they are. One school of thought is that orbs are a paranormal phenomenon, such as spirits, ghosts, energy beings, or even inter-dimensional visitors. Believers maintain that an orb is the most natural shape for energy to assume. They point out that stars are spheres, as are air bubbles in water and soap bubbles floating in the air.
Skeptics insist that orbs are caused by a combination of airborne objects and the way that digital cameras are constructed, and point out that they seem to have appeared since the advent of digital photography. They argue that because digital cameras use a sensor instead of film, and their lenses generally have a greater depth of field than film cameras, orbs are just a technical "glitch". They believe that orb images are created when the camera's flash reflects off airborne particles or small insects that are very close to the lens, and the sensors interpret the flash bounce-back as a circle or globe. This theory has become known as the Orb Zone Theory, or OZT. The OZT was based upon a prior explanation called "Circles of Confusion" that was developed my manufacturers of early digital cameras to explain the appearance of orbs.
Three factors greatly complicate orb research. The most obvious is that orbs are usually invisible to the naked eye. In addition orbs in photographs and videos range from translucent to nearly transparent, and don't seem to adhere to the known laws of physics. These factors make it extremely difficult to judge their size, density, speed or distance from the camera.
One would typically assume for example, that just as with physical objects, larger-appearing orbs would be closer to the camera and smaller-appearing orbs would be further away. Surprisingly, larger orbs are usually very diffuse or dull in appearance. This would seem to indicate that they didn't reflect much of the flash, which they should have if they were closest to the camera. (If you want to test that for yourself, hold your finger close to your camera and take a flash picture in a dimly lit area. Unless you have a really high-end camera your finger will appear to be glowing brightly.)
Should we then assume that the brighter orbs must be the closer ones because they reflect more of the light from the flash? The problem with that theory is that brighter orbs usually seem to be the smaller ones, which we'd logically think appeared smaller because they were further from the camera.
OK then, let's try a different hypothesis. If the brightness of orbs isn't related to distance, might it mean that brighter orbs are actually more dense, and therefore reflect more light? Maybe... but if brighter orbs are more dense, shouldn't they be heavier and therefore slower moving and closer to the ground or floor? In reality the brighter orbs seem to move more quickly than the duller ones, often climbing or diving at sharp angles, leaving streaks or trails behind them. These are Just a few of the issues that pose real challenges to orb researchers.
In our own research we've been able to produce orbs by shaking a duster in front of a camera, and by photographing in snow and rain. In those instances the Orb Zone Theory was clearly demonstrated, because there was absolutely nothing paranormal about the orb images. On the other hand, there are photos of orbs partially obscured by objects that were too far from the camera for the OZT to apply. In some instances photos taken in calm conditions have shown some orbs to be stationary at the same time that others were in motion; sometimes in different directions. This clearly challenges the theory of airborne particles. There have also been videos taken of orbs moving in ways that no particle of dust or moisture could possibly have moved.
Then there's the issue of the colors or orbs. While the majority are almost transparent, or a smoky translucent color, some are light shades of yellow, orange, green, or light blue. An even smaller number are bright blue, like the flame of a gas stove, pure white, dark red, or even pink. That's quite an array of colors for dust or pollen.
Some proponents of the Orb Zone Theory suggest that the color of orbs is a reflection of the color of the photographer's clothing or some other object in the immediate vicinity. We have a hard time with that one, having personally photographed orbs of different colors while wearing the same clothes, and shooting in the same location. In fact orbs of different colors sometimes have appeared in the same photo. Others say it's caused by the bending of light that reaches the camera lens from a critical point outside of the view of the cameras. While this might be possible, it seems like a stretch to assume that this fragment of spectral light would affect the orb image but nothing else in the photo.
Now let's analyze the argument that orbs only show up only on digital photographs and therefore must be an anomaly of digital photography. Clearly the phenomenon has come into its own since the digital revolution, which on face value would tend to support the OZT argument. We need to be careful, however, not to jump to conclusions without taking other factors into consideration.
Think back to when you last used a film camera. You took a photo, or if the subject was something that you really wanted a picture of, you took several, because you never knew how a photo would come out. You took or sent your film for developing, and you got back whatever you got back. A lot depended on the quality of the work of the film processor. In addition, if images were under or over exposed, more often than not the developer didn't even print them. If you wanted to try to salvage a bad photo you had to send it away to a specialty photo lab and pay big bucks for the attempt, so very few of us did.
Digital photography is a completely different situation. Digital cameras have evolved to the point where their image quality is equal to and often better than that of most film cameras, so more detail is captured. In addition, almost all digital cameras come with some kind of photo editing software that lets you adjust the brightness, contrast, color balance, etc. Instead of trashing a photo that's substandard you can compensate to a large degree for whatever might be wrong with it. This doesn't involve adding anything to the photo; it's simply a process by which the clarity or visibility of what's already there is improved.
What does all that have to do with orbs? A photo taken at night, which may appear almost completely dark, can be lightened, brightened or contrasted. When this is done, additional detail often appears. Sometimes the detail that's brought out includes orbs. Those orbs would never have been discovered if you'd been using a film camera. They'd have remained hidden in the dark. You might even have discarded that photo as one that "didn't come out".
It's also highly unlikely that orbs that aren't visible until a photo is enhanced could be caused by the OZT effect because of something called the "flash range". Simply put, it's the distance from the camera within which the light from the flash will effectively illuminate a subject. Light from a camera flash doesn't just stop or vanish. It goes on to infinity, spreading out and illuminating everything it contacts by a diminishing degree as it gets further from the camera. But at some point that degree of illumination isn't enough to allow the camera to record what's there, so the area is dark. If "OZT orbs" are particles so close to the lens that they fool the camera sensor, they couldn't possibly have been far enough away to be out of flash range, requiring enhancement for them to show in the photo.
So where do we stand on the issue of orbs? Somewhere in the middle, actually. We think that orbs are a lot like UFOs. The vast majority of UFOs were seen or photographed by untrained observers. After investigation many were found to be aircraft, balloons, meteorites, ball lightning, the planet Venus, swamp gas, and in some cases hoaxes. A certain percentage of UFOs, however, can't be explained away. Some were seen by trained observers, such as pilots, military personnel or police. Others moved or performed in ways that no known objects possibly could. We believe that the same is true of orbs; the majority of them can be correctly attributed to natural causes. but a number of them defy explanation.
In closing, we'd like to offer a bit of advice to both believers and skeptics. To those who are serious about orb photography, there are a few simple steps that you can take to make your work a lot more credible. Indoors, try to avoid taking photos or videos in areas where you might have kicked up dust upon entering, or at least allow time for any dust to settle before shooting. Outdoors, avoid shooting when it's windy, raining or snowing. Those simple precautions will eliminate a lot of misleading orb-like anomalies from your photos or videos. It's also helpful to record the date, time and conditions under which the photos or videos were taken.
To those of you who are skeptics, by all means continue to question. It's the way that mysteries are solved, knowledge is gained and myths and urban legends are debunked. But don't be so inflexible that you refuse to consider any point of view but your own. Over time we've come to learn that the earth isn't the center of the universe and the world isn't flat, even though at one time those were considered to be indisputable scientific facts.
Copyright © Eastern States Paranormal, Inc. - 2006-2008. All rights reserved.