Comments on: Mood Photography

By: AttacusAtlas

AttacusAtlas — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:13:41 +0000

In the paragraph following the first cited block, there is a typo. Should read “Those who BELIEVE they can see an aura around other people”.

If only explanations like this would change people’s minds…

By: HHC

HHC — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 18:44:11 +0000

Kirlian photography explained, thanks!

By: KeithJM

KeithJM — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:52:29 +0000

“Depending on your point of view, for any extended object, like a gas cloud, it is all computer enhancement. CCD cameras just don’t work like our eyes do since they don’t respond to light in the same way as our cones do. They have different wavelength responses and also accumulate light over periods of minutes/hours.”

This is true, but the goal of the software in CCD cameras is to reproduce the colors as they WOULD be seen by our eyes (there are definitely problems with CCDs and the software associated, that can make purple appear blue from excess ultraviolet filtering, etc). For many astronomical photos, the telescope records infrared and ultraviolet light that is not in our visible range, and then compresses the represented range so it IS all visible to us (so we can see it in the picture).

The process doesn’t manufacture pixels, but it does mean that the vividly colored images you see from Hubble, while representing real light captured by Hubble, don’t really represent reality in the same way a digital photo from a CCD attempts to do.

By: Paul Hatchman

Paul Hatchman — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 02:52:53 +0000

“Whenever I see a pretty picture of an astronomical object, like a gas cloud, or even the surface of Mars, I always like to know how much of the color I am seeing is computer enhancement.”

Depending on your point of view, for any extended object, like a gas cloud, it is all computer enhancement. CCD cameras just don’t work like our eyes do since they don’t respond to light in the same way as our cones do. They have different wavelength responses and also accumulate light over periods of minutes/hours.

Because the surface brightness of an object is independent of distance, even if you were just a few light years away from the relatively bright Orion Nebula, it would look exactly the same colour and brightness as it does unaided or through a small telescope (excluding atmospheric effects), it would just be bigger. You would really not see much in the way of colour, because it is emitting the same amount of light per unit area, still below the eye’s ability to detect much colour.

It is just another of those counter-intuitive things about astronomy, that telescopes don’t increase the brightness of extended objects, they only magnify them. Why bigger telescopes make objects appear brighter than smaller ones (without actually doing so) is actually quite interesting. A good explanation can be found here: http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1/index.html

By: DOYLE

DOYLE — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 19:49:52 +0000

Take the ruse one step further.Inevitably the aura would have to be diagnosed and plotted for psychological wellness.Then some psudo practitioner would prescribe remedial products to bring the aura to an optimum hue.Phenomenon + remedy = dollar bill.

By: SARA

SARA — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 18:35:59 +0000

Well, that was enlightening. I had one taken at a fair at the insistence of a friend. I just assumed it was an even greater scam than it is. That is was just a random coloring being added around the image of the person without reading anything in actual existence.
I think if I provide the real explanation to my friend, she will almost certainly tell me that the ionized field is the aura and that science has just proven auras exist.
Her head will skip right over the lack of correspondence to health/happiness and the lack predictability in the aura.
Aura’s are as hard to disprove to people as astrology. They are fun, vague and provide hope in some unexplained spirit life. That is the core attraction of new age BS.