Hi there, question for photographers..

tonybodhran · 30-06-2012 11:09pm #1

Hi all, I have a question about an old ufo picture that was taken in the 1970's with an olympus 35 ecr rangefinder stuck on infinity. Please ignore the nature of the subject matter in the photo, I just want to know your opinions on one thing.

Which object is in front of which in the photo?
Also why is this so?
If you can help I would greatly appreciate it .Thanks.
Here you go.

humberklog · 30-06-2012 11:41pm

The toy car is in front of the Forero Roche tray.

Why is in front of it? I dunno, suppose the guy taking the photo thought it'd look better.

tonybodhran · 30-06-2012 11:46pm

humberklog wrote: »

The toy car is in front of the Forero Roche tray.

Why is in front of it? I dunno, suppose the guy taking the photo thought it'd look better.

No I mean why is the car in front of the other object from a technical photographic perspective? I'm looking for someone to explain exactly why that car has to be in front of or behind the other object in this particular photo.
Thanks.

humberklog · 30-06-2012 11:53pm

But the car is in front, it's blocking the view of the bottom part of the spaceship.

It's not really technical analysis as such. If you put something in front of another then you can't see the object behind (or part of).

tonybodhran · 01-07-2012 12:00am

humberklog wrote: »

But the car is in front, it's blocking the view of the bottom part of the spaceship.

It's not really technical analysis as such. If you put something in front of another then you can't see the object behind (or part of).

That's what I thought , I thought it was pretty obvious myself but on websites that discuss ufo's people argue black and blue that the "spaceship" is in front of the car in this photo.

It's not a model car by the way, it was owned by someone who was staying with the man who took the picture and was parked beside his house.

humberklog · 01-07-2012 12:03am

Well basic physics top trump photographic gimmickry here. The real broom-broom is blocking the view of the P-Diddy Motha'ship.

nunn351 · 01-07-2012 12:08am

Looks to me like the space-ship has just landed on top of the Cadillac in Western Arizona

humberklog · 01-07-2012 12:13am

I think there is a technical error to the story though.

The Trip35 will focus between .600mm out to 3m. After that it's on to infinity and beyond (ahem). Which would mean the car is less than 3m away.

I know this camera well and by the blur of the car I'd say the photographer was about 2m away. He would have only got about one third the image of the car in the shot. Maybe less.

tonybodhran · 01-07-2012 12:24am

humberklog wrote: »

I think there is a technical error to the story though.

The Trip35 will focus between .600mm out to 3m. After that it's on to infinity and beyond (ahem). Which would mean the car is less than 3m away.

I know this camera well and by the blur of the car I'd say the photographer was about 2m away. He would have only got about one third the image of the car in the shot. Maybe less.

It wasn't an olympus trip it was an ECR rangefinder, if that makes any difference but I will check about the details again. Thanks.

humberklog · 01-07-2012 12:34am

5m range on the ecr.

tonybodhran · 01-07-2012 8:26am

Thanks, that's all I wanted to know.:)

Tallon · 02-07-2012 12:29pm

wtf is going on here?

artyeva · 02-07-2012 3:33pm

Tallon wrote: »

wtf is going on here?

it's a bin lid with a load of crap hot glued to it... and a toy car. and there's a 5 pager in the mysteries of the unexplained forum that'd make yer head melt but it's worth the goo for the photos of the 'aliens' with 70s hairdo's and ray guns :pac::pac::pac:

DaireQuinlan · 02-07-2012 3:49pm

artyeva wrote: »

it's a bin lid with a load of crap hot glued to it... and a toy car. and there's a 5 pager in the mysteries of the unexplained forum that'd make yer head melt but it's worth the goo for the photos of the 'aliens' with 70s hairdo's and ray guns :pac::pac::pac:

holy moly. I just skimmed that. Sometimes I despair for humanity

EyeBlinks · 02-07-2012 4:14pm

Yis are all wrong ...it's a piss poor photo of one of the hats at Royal Ascot
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/royal-ascot-2012-outrageous-hats-gallery-1.1099209

:rolleyes:

A Ferrari Rocher :pac::pac::pac:

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 4:37pm

artyeva wrote: »

Tallon wrote: »

wtf is going on here?

it's a bin lid with a load of crap hot glued to it... and a toy car. and there's a 5 pager in the mysteries of the unexplained forum that'd make yer head melt but it's worth the goo for the photos of the 'aliens' with 70s hairdo's and ray guns :pac::pac::pac:

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car,its in a car park and it belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph. There are other photos of the car park and other cars as well.This is why most people try to argue that the crazy looking ufo is in front of the car and why I was asking photographers what they thought.

Gregor Samsa · 02-07-2012 4:52pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph.

How do you know it's not a toy car? Because the man who took the photo said so?

Everything about the photo as it stands has the appearance of being a (relatively) close up shot of (relatively) small objects.

That the yoke is behind the car, however, is fairly certain.

artyeva · 02-07-2012 4:59pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph. This is why most people try to argue that the crazy looking ufo is in front of the car and why I was asking photographers what they thought.

oh my goodness, how i've been mistaken.

suuuuuuuuure it is.

a real car. and a UFO.

not a bin lid and a toy cat AT ALL. nu-uh. no sireeee bob.

*backs away slowly*

:rolleyes:

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 5:00pm

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph.

How do you know it's not a toy car? Because the man who took the photo said so?

Everything about the photo as it stands has the appearance of being a (relatively) close up shot of (relatively) small objects.

That the yoke is behind the car, however, is fairly certain.

See my answer above. I was certain of that myself but others who claim to know things about photography swear blind that its in front of the car.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 5:00pm

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph.

How do you know it's not a toy car? Because the man who took the photo said so?

Everything about the photo as it stands has the appearance of being a (relatively) close up shot of (relatively) small objects.

That the yoke is behind the car, however, is fairly certain.

See my answer above. I was certain of that myself but others who claim to know things about photography swear blind that its in front of the car.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 5:02pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph.

How do you know it's not a toy car? Because the man who took the photo said so?

Everything about the photo as it stands has the appearance of being a (relatively) close up shot of (relatively) small objects.

That the yoke is behind the car, however, is fairly certain.

See my answer above. I was certain of that myself but others who claim to know things about photography swear blind that its in front of the car.

Sorry, i edited my answer but it didnt save, there are other photos of the car park it is sitting in along with other cars.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 5:17pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

That would be great explanation except its not a toy car. It belongs to a man who was staying with the person who took the photograph.

How do you know it's not a toy car? Because the man who took the photo said so?

Everything about the photo as it stands has the appearance of being a (relatively) close up shot of (relatively) small objects.

That the yoke is behind the car, however, is fairly certain.

See my answer above. I was certain of that myself but others who claim to know things about photography swear blind that its in front of the car.

Sorry, i edited my answer but it didnt save, there are other photos of the car park it is sitting in along with other cars.

If there are any photographers who have experience of photographing small models I would appreciate straight answers to a few questions about some other photographs without being condescending..

02-07-2012 5:51pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

If there are any photographers who have experience of photographing small models I would appreciate straight answers to a few questions about some other photographs without being condescending..

But you can clearly see the car is in front of the mish-mash of objects behind it. It's so close to the camera that it's entirely out of focus.

Despite that, I love this thread and I love Humberklog's first no-nonsense response that outright states it's a toy car and a Ferrero Rocher tray before the OP even gets a word in about it being a real car.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 6:22pm

KKV wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

If there are any photographers who have experience of photographing small models I would appreciate straight answers to a few questions about some other photographs without being condescending..

But you can clearly see the car is in front of the mish-mash of objects behind it. It's so close to the camera that it's entirely out of focus.

Despite that, I love this thread and I love Humberklog's first no-nonsense response that outright states it's a toy car and a Ferrero Rocher tray before the OP even gets a word in about it being a real car.

Hi I understand that, but there is evidence that the car is real, so im trying to figure out what exactly is going on or if it is even possible for this picture to have been taken in the way its said it was. I got my cameras wrong in the original post, this particular photo was taken with a n early 1980's Ricoh Singlex TLS camera, focal length 55mm, is there any setting that you could use that would make a full size car out of focus if you were focusing at something behind it like that? Thanks.

Tallon · 02-07-2012 6:34pm

I literally still don't know what the heck is going on

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 6:51pm

Tallon wrote: »

I literally still don't know what the heck is going on

Its very simple, in my original post there is a picture taken in 1980 with a Ricoh singlex 55mm focal lenght. This is claimed to taken in a car park in with a full sized car out of focus in the foreground with a supposedly large odd looking ufo in focus hovering in the background. Is there any way this could actually be the case with this camera? If not why not? If so what would the circumstances be, settings distance etc. please treat this as just a question about size distance and focusing and ignore the fact that its a really dumb looking ufo...

Gregor Samsa · 02-07-2012 7:00pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

Sorry, i edited my answer but it didnt save, there are other photos of the car park it is sitting in along with other cars.

I haven't seen these photos, so maybe they're undeniable proof, but I'm having a hard time imagining how the car as depicted in the photo quoted above could possibly be positive identified with any other photo of a car in a carpark. It's so out of focus that, apart from the rough shape, there's no identifying features at all that could be used to say "Look at this photo. See, it's the very same car!".

But I digress. It seems that this photo is a ripe topic for discussion amongst it's target audience, so I'm sure this ground has been well and truly covered before, and you've taken your considered opinion on the matter, which I have no inclination to question.

I can't be of any help regarding your technical question about the camera in question, but hopefully someone else can.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 7:28pm

phutyle wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

Sorry, i edited my answer but it didnt save, there are other photos of the car park it is sitting in along with other cars.

I haven't seen these photos, so maybe they're undeniable proof, but I'm having a hard time imagining how the car as depicted in the photo quoted above could possibly be positive identified with any other photo of a car in a carpark. It's so out of focus that, apart from the rough shape, there's no identifying features at all that could be used to say "Look at this photo. See, it's the very same car!".

But I digress. It seems that this photo is a ripe topic for discussion amongst it's target audience, so I'm sure this ground has been well and truly covered before, and you've taken your considered opinion on the matter, which I have no inclination to question.

I can't be of any help regarding your technical question about the camera in question, but hopefully someone else can.

Hi the object in question is photographed in the vicinity of other cars in the car park also, the cars were confirmed to have been there, im just using this picture because the object is behind the car in this one, either the person set up a scale model of the car park including lampposts and recreations of the cars in the car park or he faked it some other way using trick photography or it's real, I'd be happy to find out any answer that's correct.

Tallon · 02-07-2012 7:46pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

Its very simple, in my original post there is a picture taken in 1980 with a Ricoh singlex 55mm focal lenght. This is claimed to taken in a car park in with a full sized car out of focus in the foreground with a supposedly large odd looking ufo in focus hovering in the background. Is there any way this could actually be the case with this camera? If not why not? If so what would the circumstances be, settings distance etc. please treat this as just a question about size distance and focusing and ignore the fact that its a really dumb looking ufo...

No, I mean I cannot figure out if you're trolling or crazy!

It's a toy car with gold painted grapes

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 8:20pm

Tallon wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

Its very simple, in my original post there is a picture taken in 1980 with a Ricoh singlex 55mm focal lenght. This is claimed to taken in a car park in with a full sized car out of focus in the foreground with a supposedly large odd looking ufo in focus hovering in the background. Is there any way this could actually be the case with this camera? If not why not? If so what would the circumstances be, settings distance etc. please treat this as just a question about size distance and focusing and ignore the fact that its a really dumb looking ufo...

No, I mean I cannot figure out if you're trolling or crazy!

It's a toy car with gold painted grapes

Ok.. Moving on if anyone has anything helpful to say appreciate it, I've already said there are other pictures of the car along with other cars in different photographs with the same object, some of the cars are in focus some aren't, the cars were confirmed to have been in the carpark, the reason I chose this picture if because the object appears to be behind the car, which it isn't in others. I'm only asking for.an explanation if this shot is possible using this camera. As this is supposed to be a photographic forum I'd appreciate comments based on the questions I'm asking. Please keep non technical comments to yourself. Thanks.

DaireQuinlan · 02-07-2012 8:49pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

Ok.. Moving on if anyone has anything helpful to say appreciate it, I've already said there are other pictures of the car along with other cars in different photographs with the same object, some of the cars are in focus some aren't, the cars were confirmed to have been in the carpark, the reason I chose this picture if because the object appears to be behind the car, which it isn't in others. I'm only asking for.an explanation if this shot is possible using this camera. As this is supposed to be a photographic forum I'd appreciate comments based on the questions I'm asking. Please keep non technical comments to yourself. Thanks.

yes, yes it is. It's a picture of a model car with some assemblage of pie plates and ball bearings spray painted gold behind it. Car is so OOF because it's within inches of the camera, and the yokeimibob is a foot or so behind it and so in focus. For any other explanations conspiracy theory forum is that way ->

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 9:21pm

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

Ok.. Moving on if anyone has anything helpful to say appreciate it, I've already said there are other pictures of the car along with other cars in different photographs with the same object, some of the cars are in focus some aren't, the cars were confirmed to have been in the carpark, the reason I chose this picture if because the object appears to be behind the car, which it isn't in others. I'm only asking for.an explanation if this shot is possible using this camera. As this is supposed to be a photographic forum I'd appreciate comments based on the questions I'm asking. Please keep non technical comments to yourself. Thanks.

yes, yes it is. It's a picture of a model car with some assemblage of pie plates and ball bearings spray painted gold behind it. Car is so OOF because it's within inches of the camera, and the yokeimibob is a foot or so behind it and so in focus. For any other explanations conspiracy theory forum is that way ->

So it's impossible to have a full size car out of focus like that by photographing it with a Ricoh Singlex TLS if you are focused on something at distance behind it? Can anyone give me a straight answer about the camera used? Jesus I'm only asking a simple question about cameras on a camera forum I'm not asking whether you believe in ufos.. An answer from someone who knows the camera might be useful. Does anyone who actually knows anything about a Ricoh actually have a comment? If not im very sorry to have disturbed you.

Tallon · 02-07-2012 9:29pm

What colour was the camera?

Mountainsandh · 02-07-2012 9:47pm

I'm not half as knowledgeable as the others so take my contribution with a great dose of caution, but everything seems wrong to me. The out of focus entire car, the brightly lit car and spaceship and pitch black background (like short flash, powerful enough to light a humongous spaceship some distance away but no other background ????

and if not, what kind of lighting is there in that carpark to light something like that ???), and the hot pixels for a 70s camera (little red & blue dots), they could be there from scanning/printing I guess, not sure if that would make any sense.

Maybe I'm just talking absolute rubbish here, as I said.

How someone could argue the car is behind the spaceship is puzzling.

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 10:01pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm not half as knowledgeable as the others so take my contribution with a great dose of caution, but everything seems wrong to me. The out of focus entire car, the brightly lit car and spaceship and pitch black background (like short flash, powerful enough to light a humongous spaceship some distance away but no other background ???? and if not, what kind of lighting is there in that carpark to light something like that ???), and the hot pixels for a 70s camera (little red & blue dots), they could be there from scanning/printing I guess, not sure if that would make any sense.

Maybe I'm just talking absolute rubbish here, as I said.

How someone could argue the car is behind the spaceship is puzzling.

It is a very strange picture yes, the reason people on other websites argue that it's behind the object is because the car itself is real and that can be proven, people really hate this photograph, I dont blame them it's got all sorts of things that are weird. But I have no interest in asking about the other photographs as this is the only one with the object behind the car. All the pictures show the object in the same glowing colors no matter what distance it seems to be at from the camera, so the light is not coming from the camera flash or the street lights which can be seen in the other photographs. If it's real the light is somehow coming from the thing itself.
Again all I want to know is it possible to take a picture with a full size car out of focus and a distant large object in focus like that with this particular camera, if not then there is some other kind of camera trickery involved.
All the pics are 35mm film, this has probably been scanned more than once, so the pixels are most likely from that.
And PS thanks for responding like an adult.

Tallon · 02-07-2012 10:37pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

the car itself is real and that can be proven

Prove it!

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 10:55pm

Tallon wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

the car itself is real and that can be proven

Prove it!

what has that got to do with the one question I've been trying to get answered? It makes absolutely no difference whether it is or not. Im asking a theoretical question.
Are there any other adults on the forum?

Tallon · 02-07-2012 10:57pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

what has that got to do with the one question I've been trying to get answered? It makes absolutely no difference whether it is or not. Im asking a theoretical question.
Are there any other adults on the forum?

You've mentioned it at least 3 times on this thread, you brought it up, not me!

All I ask is that you make good on your word and prove it's real

I'm an adult by the way, you can even ask my Mam. She doesn't even mind me being up this late!

GhostInTheRuins · 02-07-2012 11:04pm

No, there is no way for a full sized car to be more than completely in frame with a 55mm lens on that 35mm camera and also be so defocused as the one in that picture is. The car in that image has to be a small model within inches of the lens to create that effect. No to mention that the lighting makes no sense for any scenario apart from both objects being small.

Does that answer your question?

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 11:04pm

Tallon wrote: »

tonybodhran wrote: »

what has that got to do with the one question I've been trying to get answered? It makes absolutely no difference whether it is or not. Im asking a theoretical question.
Are there any other adults on the forum?

You've mentioned it at least 3 times on this thread, you brought it up, not me!

All I ask is that you make good on your word and prove it's real

I'm an adult by the way, you can even ask my Mam. She doesn't even mind me being up this late!

Ive asked the same question about the Ricoh camera about 10 times, thats all i want to know, i have no interest in discussing the entire case,if i cant get a camera question answered on a camera forum ill go elsewhere, why are you even commenting if you don't know anything about the camera?

tonybodhran · 02-07-2012 11:07pm

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

No, there is no way for a full sized car to be more than completely in frame with a 55mm lens on that 35mm camera and also be so defocused as the one in that picture is. The car in that image has to be a small model within inches of the lens to create that effect. No to mention that the lighting makes no sense for any scenario apart from both objects being small.

Does that answer your question?

Finally..thanks. Thats all I wanted to know.
Cheers.

Tallon · 02-07-2012 11:12pm

tonybodhran wrote: »

why are you even commenting if you don't know anything about the camera?

Because I know quite a lot about model cars and ferrero rocher

frozenfrozen · 02-07-2012 11:15pm

The guy had 50 strobes setup all around the carpark to light the ufo. my uncle michael collins was there and santa replied to my text and said it was true

Splinters · 03-07-2012 9:39am

This may just be the best topic Ive read on boards in a long time.

OldGoat · 03-07-2012 10:07am

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

tonybodhran · 03-07-2012 12:36pm

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

Fire away, I'd love to see experienced photographers who know what they are talking about cast a critical eye on some of the other ones, there are about 800 surviving photographs, there were over 1200 originally supposedly of various types of craft and supposedly of various sizes from 5ft to 21 ft.

They were all taken between 1975 and 1982 the early ones were taken on an Olympus ECR Rangefinder 35mm, the later on the Ricoh Singlex TLS 35mm

Here are a few of the best ones from the 800 surviving photographs:

Tallon · 03-07-2012 12:43pm

Why is this thread still ongoing? Is it a wind up

You can clearly see it's a toy car, taken at an angle and light setup to look like a magical flying space machine...

You even linked to what looks like setup shots... I find it a bit strange (Well not really strange, more obvious) that the car is never in focus... maybe because it's a toy?!!!

This is a picture of a truck, with some idiot holding a plate of sambos above the camera

Here, the photographer tries to alter the size by making it appear the last picture is of trees in the foreground, when it's clearly a few weeds, and he's taken this from the ground

Go away with your nonsense, then calling everyone childish when they don't agree with your magic men from mars

Goolay · 03-07-2012 12:47pm

OldGoat wrote: »

Photo-challange to re-create the image perhaps?

Challenge Accepted!

105AD724125842BAA040BFE48C5F2246-0000341111-0002917315-00800L-52EAE2C9731641C8A3E1B71A6BEA27EC.jpg

This time with actual Alien contact.

DaireQuinlan · 03-07-2012 12:53pm

Goolay wrote: »

Challenge Accepted!

This time with actual Alien contact!

Wait ! That car is clearly BEHIND the alien !

DaireQuinlan · 03-07-2012 1:06pm

Tallon wrote: »

Why is this thread still ongoing? Is it a wind up

You can clearly see it's a toy car, taken at an angle and light setup to look like a magical flying space machine...

You even linked to what looks like setup shots... I find it a bit strange (Well not really strange, more obvious) that the car is never in focus... maybe because it's a toy?!!!

Go away with your nonsense, then calling everyone childish when they don't agree with your magic men from mars

yeah they're laughably badly done, maybe just the sheer volume of them has bludgeoned the the more ... eh ... feeble minded ... into submission. There's a worrying amount of them with the saucers bunged into trees as well. What's that all about ? It's like an illustrated drivers manual for UFO pilots, with hilarious 50's style voiceover:

"What's Graak doing wrong, folks ? What's that ? A tree ! That's right ! Watch out for that tree, Graak !! Oh No ! Looks like Graak has come a cropper again ! Silly Graak !"

cue Graak (looking like a still from some dean martin show shot during the 70s) smirking embarrassingly.

tonybodhran · 03-07-2012 1:33pm

Any insinuation that you were childish is based on the fact that you dont appear to be able to read and answer a simple question with civility.

Hi there, question for photographers..

Comments