Talk:Backscatter (photography)

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.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject History of photography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics C‑class 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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]

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]

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]