by

       The presence and origin of orbs continues to be pondered by paranormal enthusiasts all over the world. What are these spherical anomalies that continually show themselves in photographs taken at allegedly haunted locations? Despite almost overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many believe these glowing balls of light represent the discarnate spirits of souls still wandering the Earth. They point to these as globules of energy as a kind of vehicle necessary to transport the entity in and out of our physical realm. This premise seems to match up with the popular theory that spirits are comprised of - and employ - energy to manifest themselves.

       On the surface, this certainly seems to be a splendid validation of their existence, especially for those anxious to prove claims of the supernatural and display said proof to a clamoring public. But do orbs exist as an actual object, or are they merely photographic misinterpretations brought about by the limitations and functions of the device used to capture them?  With all this in mind, why do many (including yours truly) remain skeptical of much of what is presented in terms of photographic proof of the afterlife while others point to orbs as definitive evidence of the same? Using some of the most commonly-asked questions and statements about these anomalies, let's examine some of the more probable alternatives to orbs being a clear-cut paranormal entity.

You hear about orbs being nothing but dust or moisture particles, but here is a picture taken in a place with seemigly no dust or moisture present. Therefore, how could anything anomalous showing up on film be anything but by definition....paranormal?

       This is a recurring theme and a common misnomer amongst many who feel they have captured this "phenomena" on film. For the most part, it is relatively simple to determine that orbs are primarily reflections of dust, insects or moisture particles that have been illuminated by a flash camera and that were photographed extremely close to the lens. Stomping on a rug and snapping a quick picture or taking a photo outdoors during or after a rainstorm will easily reproduce such effects. Particles of dust appear most often to be transparent, though a small percentage will give the "appearance" of being quite solid.

       Here's a quick test you can perform while reading this to see the effects of objects close to a visual source: Place your finger very close to your eyes and look directly at it. Does it appear you can see "through" it? This is much the same scenario when an object is very close to a camera lens.

       The reality is that dust is everywhere whether we can see it with the naked eye or not. Turning on a flashlight in a dark room or seeing a ray of sunlight coming through a window and watching dust cross the shaft of light will tell you this is true. Even in the cleanest spaces, dust particles are all around us. In fact, a great deal of these particles are comprised of flakes of skin that naturally and constantly emanate from all living things. While that may be an unpleasant illustration, it is very much a fact of life. As far as snapping pictures outdoors in locations such as in cemeteries - there are so many possible explanations and variables for what might appear in a photo or what may have caused it that it is difficult - if not impossible - to blindly accept them as a valid paranormal event.

       Dust remains in the air and will redistribute because of air currents, whether caused by wind, human movement, static electricity or convection (the difference in air temperature between two surface areas).

       Moisture particles, which appear for the most part as solid, white "dots",  may have what looks like a sort of "tail" behind them as they move though the air (above). Such particles won't form unless there is residual moisture in the atmosphere or on objects (trees, buildings) that retained it from say, rainstorms. The exception is if relative humidity reaches 100%, it is probable that a mist or dew will form, resulting in the presence of such particles. Some point to moisture particles having the "tail" on the bottom, creating the appearance of moving upward. Again, wind (or simple air flow) can move moisture or dust particles in any number of directions quite easily. While you may appear to be in a very calm environment, the fact is air continues to flow all about you.

       The length of the flash is also an important factor in creating the appearance of leaving a trail. The farther away the target is from the camera, the longer the flash will take in order to illuminate the scene properly. As the flash begins to fade after its initial flare, the continued movement of the moisture (or insect) will be captured as a fade - hence the tail/streak behind the more solid object that had been caught at the initial flash.

If these "orbs" are dust, insects or moisture which have very irregular shapes, why do they always appear to be in circular form?

       The circular shape (above left) is based on the fact that your camera has an aperture that is also circular-shaped. What you shoot will take on the same form. Some cameras may have an aperture that is diamond or hexagonal shaped, therefore causing the orb to take on that same shape (above right). In a nutshell, it is not necessarily the shape of the object you are seeing, but the camera lens itself causing it to take on that form. A second, but no less important factor is the distance from the lens to the object in question. If an object is too close to the lens itself, it projects itself onto the CCD (the chip that records the picture in digital cameras) as a flatter image, thereby becoming distorted. Conversely, an object farther away within the prescribed camera range (or, "depth of field") projects itself onto the CCD as a sharper, more "pointed" image. This, in summation, is what orbs generally are. Distorted images caused by their close proximity to a single lens camera.

  Multiple photos were taken in rapid succession, but orbs only appeared in one. If dust, etc. is always present, how can this be explained?

       Trickier question. Just be aware that because dust is always present doesn't necessarily mean it will be in the same spot each time or show itself every time you take a shot. Dust is always moving through the air and will do so in a cluster for the most part, but certainly not always. Also remember that when looking through a lens you are looking at a very small field of vision.

If dust indeed travels in clusters, why do we see many pictures with only one orb in them?

       Because dust is in a constant state of movement, its location and dispersal will always vary from shot to shot. It is not inconceivable then that a single particle of dust may show up in any particular photograph. Another thing to bear in mind is that many single orb photos are of insects. Its circular form, as previously stated, is determined by the shape of the camera aperture and the distorted appearance is produced by its distance from the camera.  The closer to the recommended depth of field it is, the more defined its shape will be.

       Please note: Insects and moisture are very reflective objects when a flash is used and can create single orbs from a greater distance from the camera than dust, which is duller and does not reflect light as well. Insects and moisture particles tend to show as solid, white objects (above left) while dust particles emerge as more transparent for the most part (above right).

      Other bits and pieces you should be aware of in regards to orb photography are: 1.) The use of a flash. Almost all orbs show up when flash photography is used thereby causing the necessary illumination to reflect against them. This does not mean they will only show up when a flash is used. Sunlight may also be a great source of illumination in daytime orb photographs.  2.) Orbs tend to show up better on dark backgrounds. 3.) The type of camera being used also plays a role - orbs tend to show up more on compact models rather than DSLR (digital single-lens reflex camera). 4.) Most of the time you are using a hand-held camera, so there are going to be exposure and focus variances that occur automatically within the camera itself from shot to shot, even when it's moved ever so slightly that it seems imperceptible. The zoom features, amount of light present and the distance to the object you are shooting cannot be easily controlled (if at all) by most people using digital cameras, which is for the most part, the camera of choice these days. Capturing "orbs" with film cameras - not surprisingly - is much rarer, yet not impossible. 5.) Shooting pictures around reflective objects like windows, picture frames and even glossy walls can cause a reflection back into the lens that can easily be misconstrued for something anomalous.

Some orbs appear to be partially obscured by objects. Does this not prove that these objects aren't close to the camera lens and have noticeable mass?

       Digital cameras have a drawback to them inasmuch as detail within the photos they produce tend to get a bit distorted when taken in areas that are too dark, too bright or where one color tends to dominate the setting. The more compact models are especially susceptible to this. You should always look closely at the anomaly when this happens. It almost always will appear to be very faint in color compared to the object that appears to be obscuring it.  The orb - in essence - is being overpowered by the color or brightness of the object it is in front of - which creates the illusion of the orb being obscured. If enhanced with the proper photographic software, you would be able to discern the "orb" is in fact positioned in front of the object that appears to be partially blocking it out.

       You have seen orbs that appear to have faces inside them.

       Distance to the camera plays a large part in this. Usually those orbs that have been shot closer to the lens produce this type of detail as they show up larger. The size of the orb will influence how much structure appears within it as does the condition of the camera lens itself. A camera lens is actually made up of a few separate lenses and all models of cameras tend to vary somewhat. If you have a smudge or speck of dust on the lens, or two pieces of debris that cross over each other at the time of the shot, it can affect the appearance of the photo drastically by making the already distorted image appear as if it has detail inside of it.

       Something else to consider would be that no matter how expensive the camera, every lens has some sort of imperfection. These imperfections can create very random patterns in the body or 'nucleus' of the orb.  The higher the resolution of the camera, the more distinct the patterns will be.     

       In the end, the single important facet that one must always, always be conscious of is something parapsychologists refer to as pareidolia. Our brains have an instinctive ability to try and make sense out of visual chaos. We all are familiar with those Rorschach tests where the psychologist shows the patient the ink blot and asks what it represents to them. A more common example we're all familiar with is perceiving a distinct shape in a random cloud formation. (Any object that appears to be something other than what it actually is is called a 'simulacrum'.) These are all very normal reactions for people and in fact may have a great deal to do with the human survival trait of being able to recognize faces from a distance with only a small amount of detail available to them. This trait may also come into play when presented with varying shades of light or random images. Below is one of the more famous examples of mass pareidolia - the "demonic" face that emerged on the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack on New York City. This particular photograph of merging smoke and shadows has been circulated around the world and labeled by millions as positive proof of a higher power at work during this catastrophic event.

       You have photographed a high number of colored orbs. Why?

       Here we need to talk about light. Nothing more, nothing less. When white light (or any light of only one color) travels through any transparent object that does not have matching sides or edges, the light is then broken down into its many basic components (i.e., colors). This is how rainbows are formed - when drops of water act like a giant prism breaking up light into individual colors of the spectrum. In the case of colored orbs, the transparent object  (dust) accomplishes the same thing. Additionally something called 'moire' (more-ay) patterns - wherein a "grid" is overlaid against another - can result in an object being portrayed as a single color. Digital cameras with higher megapixels show more detail, which goes a long way into explaining why you capture so many colored orbs as this higher resolution can produce this effect.

       Incorrect "white balance" or the  'temperature' of certain colors in a digital photograph can also lead to color manipulation. Here is an excellent explanation of White Balance and how it can adversely affect digital photography.

       This is a more common example of a transparent object breaking light down into its essential components. Soap bubbles.

       In professional photographic terminology, the color associated with orb photographs are what falls into the larger category of "artifacts" which is "any undesired alteration in data introduced in a digital process by an involved technique and/or technology". In the case of digital photography - pixelization. Another term to be aware of is "purple fringing", wherein what seems to be a purple-colored haze around the outside edge of the orb appears. An image taken against a sharply contrasting background (i.e., dark to bright) will at times result in this something like this :

       Many people have a strong belief that various orb colors are based on "moods" or "auras" that surround the spirit. This is a strong indicator of their own individual belief system, which while very important and a vital aspect to anyone's being, may not take any of these mitigating factors into consideration.

Why is there such a focus on orbs these days? Is this a new phenomenon?

       Hardly. In fact up until a few years ago, orbs were predominantly the sole property of UFO enthusiasts who were certain these balls of light somehow signaled the presence of extraterrestrial biological entities who had come in visitation to our planet. Orbs were theorized to be anything from miniature spacecraft belonging to a diminutive race of aliens to spy probes sent by curious inhabitants of a distant galaxy.

       What really started the orb craze among paranormal devotees was the advent of the digital camera. When they first appeared on the market in early 1990s, they were a less-expensive alternative to typical film cameras. There was no film to purchase or administer to and they provided pictures without the delay associated with the developing process. For paranormal enthusiasts this was a boon in terms of cost and time.

       The problem for a number of years was these older digital cameras had pixelization issues, wherein the camera would in essence "fill in" gaps in the photos thereby creating what appeared to be spots or "orbs" in the photo. Also, the closer proximity of the built-in flash to the lens decreases the angle of light reflection to the lens which results in an increase of the reflection of light off solid particles, creating "backscatter" which in photographic terms is what orbs are. The big issue in terms of this whole mess is that digital cameras display a penchant for losing detail in under-and over-exposed areas. Here is a very good example of the difference between shooting an allegedly haunted location with digital (left) vs. 35mm (right) cameras submitted by the Australian Ghost Hunters Society.

       Newer models of digital cameras with higher resolution (6 megapixels or greater) have eliminated much, but not all of this and modern advances in digital photography now provide sharper, clearer pictures than ever before. In fact, today's advanced digital technology provides a vast array of advantages to its user: Re-doing a photo immediately if you don't like the result and eliminating those photos which you choose not to keep are just two small examples of the advantages available.

       One of long-standing advantages of film is that the negatives can always be referenced in terms of legitimizing the photo. This wasn't always the case with digitals. In fact, with the arrival of graphics editing programs, like Photoshop, it was easy to manipulate any digital photo to the degree that forgery would be almost imperceptible except to those with a solid background in forensic photography. This changed with the development of EXIF (Exchangeable Image File Format) data. This data is attached to each digital photo taken and can be read in editing software. It essentially acts like a negative for digital photos inasmuch as it records exposure information (f-stop, shutter speed, whether a flash was used) as well as if the photo was somehow altered by an extraneous program (like Photoshop). This for all intents and purposes is the 'digital negative' and is vital for analysis.

Is there any such thing as a legitimate photo of an orb? Do they even exist and how can you tell you have caught something genuine?

       It is extremely rare that anyone takes a picture of something luminous that could also be seen with the naked eye. Common sense would tell you it's difficult to point and shoot as something appears and disappears in a fraction of a second. Sheer blind luck would have to play a huge part in that scenario. That being said, people have always witnessed strange globes and streaks of light. Being in the right place at the right time with a camera at hand is another story. I myself have seen weird light anomalies with my own eyes that defied any rational explanation. Are these spirits or ghosts? It's easy for the believer to say so, but proof may often somehow elude us. Eliminating all reasonable causes for these light anomalies, can one say it's paranormal? Certainly.

       There is probably a rational explanation for 99% of orb photos taken. Frankly, that number may be a little low. If orbs are photographed in allegedly 'haunted' locations, how does one explain capturing them in other decidedly 'non-haunted' places. Simply saying "Ghost are all around us.", does not begin to address the main issue which is the simple fact that orbs can be reproduced quickly and simply by anyone caring to do so.

       If one sees an anomaly with the naked eye that emits its own source of light and in turns illuminates objects around it, you may be on to something. I have seen such a thing in the presence of 3 others who saw it as well. (Please note the glaring absence of a picture of said object.) There are also many instances of people seeing 'bouncing balls of light' who indeed have captured them on film. These remain an enigma and the best possible evidence of something anomalous. One still has to ask: is it a naturally-occurring environmental phenomenon or a sign from the spirit world? I think it's fair to say that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe.

       Barring someone coming forth saying they saw an object at the same time it was photographed and providing adequate documentation, I have no choice but to conclude that in all but the rarest of cases, orbs are easily explained away as nothing more than camera artifacts and tricks of light.

       With all this being said, how does one use a digital camera to one's advantage during an investigation and ensure good, quality photographs?

       First, let's talk about settings. It is probably best to have your camera on the 'sport' mode. This will ensure a higher shutter speed, making it easier to get clear pictures of an object in motion. A slow shutter speed can really be a disaster as it most likely will result in any moving object leaving a trail behind it which will no doubt lead you into the 'false positive' scenario. Sport mode also is an advantage in low-light and can compensate for camera shake.

       A Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) camera is always a good choice. Much of this naturally depends on what you are able to spend. I never suggest that anyone go broke investigating the paranormal. An affordable digital camera may not not have all the bells and whistles you would like, but one with the best quality you can afford should do the trick. It is, therefore vitally important that you understand all possible scenarios as I've outlined above when using it during investigations. A lower-end camera should not mean you have to compromise your investigation by being fooled by that camera's limitations.

       Forget 'digital zoom'. This is an effect that can be done on a computer when you download your pictures. Don't pay extra for this. Your picture resolution is compromised when you use it anyway.

       If you're buying a more compact model, get one with at least 6 megapixel resolution. Make sure the photo size is set as high as possible. You want to be certain it's using all those megapixels and not simply the default setting - you will get much higher quality pictures. Will cameras with a higher number of megapixels eliminate orbs? Probably not, but they may reduce them to some degree.

(body)