I’ll have a side of orbs with that, please…

-James Cap’n Casper Presnell ; founder, KCPR 

Ever since the term ‘orb’ was coined, their appearance in photos has caused a hotbed for debate. Also known as ’spirit orbs’ or ‘ghost orbs’ (many other variants escape me at present) , these happy little apparitions seem to bounce around our photos at will. There are just as many viewpoints as to the origins of these strange balls of light as there are ways to analyze and name them. For those of you not familiar with ‘orbs’, the prevailing theories for and against go something like this: 

See those odd little balls? Some say they indicate a spirit’s presence in a photo. A spirit, or ‘ghost’, is said to manifest sometimes in this form. Their internal optical structure is highly scrutinized and enlarged to the extents of grain and pixilation in order to discern some telling characteristic from their anomalous form. While these two photos do not typify all of the optical manifestations of ‘orbs’, they are the most general forms of this phenomena. Some ‘orbs’ will appear to be solid, brightly lit objects and will sometimes be displaying movement of some sort. Although the visual forms of ‘orbs’ are many, I will be treating them all in the same manner. Is that Aunt Edna? No, too much hair. 

Some simply debunk ‘orbs’ as specks of dust or moisture droplets in front of the lens during flash discharge. Many an ‘orb’ photo has been slain by the pragmatic pragmatists in the mainstream (debunking) community. Maybe they had bad memories of Halloween as children. 

Whatever the case for either argument, each group clings staunchly to its own view. That having been said, let’s take a deeper look at this heated issue from somewhat of a ‘hybrid’ standpoint. Whether dust, moisture, bugs, or a ‘ghost’, we need to examine the facts behind optical phenomena such as ‘orbs’. As a photographer (shameless plug for http://presnellphoto.com ), scientist, and paranormal investigator I tend to view the issue of ‘orbs’ in what seems to be a rather unique way. While I believe in the paranormal and have many experiences to back up that belief, I cannot put any credence in ‘orb’ photos. Why? I’m glad you asked! We’ll get to the why in a few moments. First, some quick bits from my scientific toolkit and experience concerning ‘orbs’ and cameras. 

I have done several experiments regarding the causes of ‘orbs’ in photos and have tested the effects of dust and moisture at varying distances. I have also looked at the differences between film and digital, and when it comes to cameras, there seem to be two primary factors that influence the appearance (or lack of) ‘orbs’. 

First is the flash to lens-plane distance. If we take a trip back to high school physics, what can we remember about the reflective properties of light? One thing should (hopefully) come to mind: angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. Off-camera flash produces much less direct reflection, which is why professional photographers will use a flash that is separated (and usually diffused as well) from the lens plane of the camera. This type of illumination produces more subtle highlights and overall increases the tonal qualities of both light and subject. Why is this important? Once again, I’m glad you asked! 

In my experience, ‘orbs’ appear on my lower-end cameras. These units are both film and digital, are of varying ages and from different manufacturers. They do however, share two important traits (the second of which will e explored shortly). The primary linking characteristic of the cameras is a very short flash to lens-plane distance. In a couple of cases, that distance is as little as .75″. This configuration leads to harsh reflections in general, but is especially noticeable when there is any type of atmospheric contamination present. While I certainly am not suggesting that every ‘orb’ is caused by the construction of the camera (or am I?… no, really, I’m not ), I can say that I have never witnessed an ‘orb’ in a photo taken with my DSLR (Digital Single-Lens Reflex) with either on or off-camera flash. The bottom line with regards to flash to lens-plane distance is that cameras constructed with the flash placed close to the lens are subject to more direct reflections from any object within the illuminating range of the flash.

The lens system employed also has a major influence on the appearance of ‘orbs’. I have found that less expensive (and hence less complex) lens systems are much more likely to produce anomalies in photos. Fixed focus lenses are the worst culprits, with small to mid zoom point-and-shoot lenses not far behind. As you increase the effective depth of field in which a small diameter lens is expected to achieve sharp focus, a marked increase of image aberrations will follow suit. You may have noticed that in the last couple of years point-and-shoot digital cameras have trended toward larger diameter lens systems, and some have even been endowed with high quality optical components and multiple lens coatings. These features are no gimmick! A DSLR such as one that I employ uses a large diameter lens (67mm or more) and has multi-coated optics. In addition, my lenses all feature low-dispersion glass and optical image stabilization. These characteristics are all intended to decrease chromatic aberrations and to enhance overall image quality and sharpness.

Some may argue that image capture resolution has something to do with the appearance of ‘orbs’. In my experience, I have obtained the same types of phenomena with about the same frequency (usually about 40% to 60%) regardless of resolution. For example, my fixed focus 3.1MP shows ‘orbs’ just about as often as my 7.1MP small-zoom. Both employ small diameter lenses and small flash to lens-plane distances. While I could also go into the JPEG compression algorithms used by different manufacturers as well as different type of sensor chip technologies as they relate to image aberrations, I don’t feel that the discussion is necessarily warranted.  OK. What am I trying to say here? Good question! 

At the end of the day, ‘orbs’ are a waste of time for me. I have grown tired of the ‘orb’ debate and there is not any critical information conveyed by the presence of ‘orbs’. I’ve captured much more impressive and compelling images than those containing ‘orbs’, so to heck with them. I believe there are bigger paranormal fish to fry, as it were, and no matter how many photo labs determine that an ‘orb’ photo was not re-touched or tampered with, it’s still just that; an ‘orb’. 

Author’s note:

–This article is simply a description of the thought process used to arrive at my particular viewpoint. I do not wish to be attacking in sharing my opinions, and hope that I have done so in a fair and universal manner. If you disagree strongly or wish to challenge my statements, please do so as an adult. We cannot expect to get our work into mainstream science by fighting or demeaning one another. 

Thanks for taking the time to read and visit!!

-James Cap’n Casper Presnell