Talk:Backscatter (photography)

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This article was nominated for deletion on 13 August 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Orb (paranormal) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 27 June 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Backscatter (photography). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Text and/or other creative content from Orb (optics) was copied or moved into Backscatter#Backscatter in photography with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Backscatter (photography). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Backscatter (photography) at the Reference desk.

Photography: History

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

‹See TfM›

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Broken link

http://www.thebutterflygift.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=57 link is broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vzaliva (talk • contribs) 01:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cat's eye effect

The last example image description says that it demonstrates purple fringing and the "cat's eye effect". Could somebody provide a link to what this effect is, since quick search for this phrase does not give a definitive explanation. 128.12.136.11 (talk) 19:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal

The only source we have for the supposed paranormal explanation of this very unextraordinary class of photographic artifact is somebody on some website saying how silly the idea is. I propose to remove the section as inadequately sourced unless we can find a good reason to believe that such hypotheses are proposed at all seriously by anyone. --TS 15:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My research on this subject doesn't extend beyond typing "orbs" into Google, but the hits mentioning spirits and ghosts are way up in the millions - it's exactly not a rare association. I think censoring all mention just makes the article look incomplete. K2709 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. My own incredulity that this could ever have been taken as evidence for the paranormal got the better of me. I've discovered a Discovery Channel page that describes the history of what I can only term "orb mythology" in ghost hunting, also neatly describing how it was debunked. --TS 17:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Noel Edmonds mentions Orbs in his biography - this could be the citation needed, but other than hearing it mentioned on "I Haven't A Clue" I had no access to the book --193.118.251.61 (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Paranormal" section does not cite any sources and is written in a biased style. Why is this even in the article? "Orbs" are a photographic artefact. There is a no evidence for any supernatural explanation, In fact, every example of an Orb can be easily explained scientifically (take a look at the links at the bottom of the page which explain how to create your own!). I propose that the Paranormal section be removed, the fatc that lots of people believe this nonsense does not make it worthy of inclusion. Alastairthegreat (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the section should stay if lots of people believe the nonsense. As for more "solid" references, how about Klaus Heinemann (Ph.D., incredibly enough)? [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexmaster (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

specific Klaus Heinmann referance I would like to see included = http://orbs.wikispaces.com/experiments-authenticity+of+orbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chedca (talk • contribs) 22:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ONEWAY, this section has been removed. This article can and should be linked from the ghost hunting and spirit photography articles, but not vice-versa since this is a well-documented phenomenon and there are not mainstream sources which connect these orbs to paranormal activity (only deprecated fringe primary sources). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that orbs could be paranormal activity cause then how come you can capture orbs moving on video cameras and even seeing them moving across the camera (without taking a picture). I also have picture's of a few orbs shaped like butterflies and the scale is clearly too big to be a real butterfly. So how can it be a "photographic glitch" when we don't get orbs all the time in every photo and some people never ever capture them at all even if they have same camera etc. explain? 14:20, 2 August 2010

Whether or not orbs truly ever have any paranormal basis - its a pretty common theory. I dont think the wiki needs to be a debunker of legends, it should still note that a good number of people do indeed believe it. The wiki page for "moon landing" has a section on the theories that it never even happened. Actually, it links to an entire article about the theories. I was disappointed to find this page with no reference at all as to the 'theory' or even unsubstantiated belief that orbs may have a paranormal aspect. - Joe C 28 February 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.105.223 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Whether or not Wikipedia strikes the stance of debunker, at least the paranormal background of the phenomenon should be presented first. Some pre-photograph phenomena have been cited elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitodama http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Mountain_Lights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning 63.82.23.2 (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Does no good to debunk something then remove all traces of its existence. Then you have wasted your time debunking nothing. See Rod (optics) for a more complete treatment.Kortoso EMFDYSI (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backscatter/merge discussion

This is being discussed at WP:FTN#Orb (optics). The consensus was to redirect to backscatter. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not kosher to have a discussion about the Orb (optics) article on another page, and then once the discussion is over, announce a so-called 'consensus' here. It's the second time the article has been broadsided recently, as when here, the article was merged, again with no discussion here. This is in very poor form; it does not reflect a good faith effort to include the editors here in the discussion. Please conduct discussion about the fate of the Orb (optics) page here. That's what the page is for. Or at the very least, announce on that page that article's fate is in discussion elsewhere, before the... er... consensus is reached.

And for the record, I will reiterate, the Backscatter page is ultimately about a broad concept of physics, and includes references to other specific instances where the term is used. Now the editors on the Backscatter page seem committed to conflating the disparte subjects (physics, flash photography and computers) because they share the same word. There is no need to conflate these subjects. What is really called for is a disambiguation page for the word backscatter, that could include each of the subjects that include the term backscatter.

And for what it's worth, the Orb(optics) page is poorly named. It's an article about artifacts digital flash photography. It has gone under several different names including Orb(photography) and Orb(paranormal). Please note that Orb (photographic) does redirect to Orb (optics) and Orb (paranormal) is the one that goes off into make-believe land. This has confused the issue, of course.

I appreciate your understanding in hearing my points. I know we can and will do better. Thanks. 842U (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal orbs are different

In many circles of paranormal investigation they have rules for defines an "orb" for them. Typically that they emit light, have their own unique flight path, and so on. On this grounds the paranormal section should be removed as they are referring to different things. When these types of orbs appear in paranormal photos or video, they will just call it dust, or a reflection from a surface. The orb in the example photo at the top of the page can be reflecting off the guy's sunglasses, watch, the gatorade bottle, the thing in his hand. So again, the section should be removed. 74.102.104.252 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A flash is not necessary to capture orbs in images.

The main articles primary statement is that orbs are produced when using a flash. As an explanation of the appearance of orbs in photographic images in an encyclopedia entry this base information is incorrect. Orbs also appear in images without flash or strong light sources. Including and explaining this would improve this page explaining orbs being found in images from optical devices. The Wiki entry explains a particular type of photographic aberration, but with this definitive answer being provided to the question of 'Orb Optics' and not acknowledging the appearance of orbs in images without flash, the Wiki entry is incomplete being more pertinent to the subject of how to recreate orbs in an images than explaining the appearance of orbs in an image. As stated in a comment above 'the page is poorly named' for the actual subject it covers and amending it to suit could rectify this. Gavtempler (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal content, redux

Discussion at Fringe Theories Notice board. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sargel-18

Is anyone an adequate writer that is familiar with Sargel18, the Sargent of light aka Bryan Williams, discoverer of orbs and the wanaque New Jersey vortex in 1998. Ramahamalincoln (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]