Alex Krasotkin
Well-known
Colleagues, I just want to share with you this mysterious shot that was taken during St. Trinity Day in one of the churches in rural Russia during last summer. You can see this blue light at the right side of the picture, which flies out from lady confessing to a priest. I was shooting during two days and all neighbouring shots on the film did not have that magic light, which looks like a spirit running with a fast speed. The same effect you can see while shooting cars moving on the night cityscape pictures, where long shutter speed creates a bright line of lights. I have also inspected the film and have not found any defects of the emulsion. I clearly remember that there were no any sparks or other lights during this scene. The shot was taken wide open with 1/15 shutter speed by Leica M7, Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph, Fuji Superia 400. It all speaks that film captures more then human eye. What do you think?
best regards,
Alex
best regards,
Alex
Attachments
btgc
Veteran
As blue artifact is near icons, I assume there is chance it's something we can't explain. Let's see what others say.
snausages
Well-known
The ghost of 90's comedy?

Morca007
Matt
Pretty obviously proof of god's existence.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
You should post the image on that very visited "Religious thread", so the content could become more... photographic.
Or not: maybe the image will go there by itself very soon...

Or not: maybe the image will go there by itself very soon...
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Is this shot scanned from the print or the neg? If it's from the print, have it printed again, and see if it still shows up.
They look like scratches to me, but I'm no emulsion expert. However, as a good Catholic boy I can't discount the miraculous light....
They look like scratches to me, but I'm no emulsion expert. However, as a good Catholic boy I can't discount the miraculous light....
mike.TTL
Member
Could be any number of things (static, scratches, Martin Lawrence, a defect in the film etc). I don't think it's necessary to turn to the supernatural to explain this.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
If not a scratch on the negative, it actually appears as something very small close to the lens.
martin s
Well-known
hans voralberg
Veteran
Something on the scanner?
gho
Well-known
Can you replicate it?
MartinP
Veteran
From the colour and straightish shape it is probably a deep scratch in the emulsion, leaving only the film-base colour behind. Or it could be something to do with Wombles.
Edit: wtf ?? I have over 1000 posts. I was out in minus four on Sunday making pictures of the ice around the shore of a frozen lake - so I'm not here all the time, honest.
Edit: wtf ?? I have over 1000 posts. I was out in minus four on Sunday making pictures of the ice around the shore of a frozen lake - so I'm not here all the time, honest.
Last edited:
tritiated
Well-known
What ever it is, its tack-sharp and has a smooth rendition. Definitely proves the existence of Leica-glow. Praise be!
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Quick Alex! Sell it on eBay!
Don't they have a category for spiritual sightings by now? Fits right in with the angel-shaped cheese curls and such.
Don't they have a category for spiritual sightings by now? Fits right in with the angel-shaped cheese curls and such.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
So you mean the blue light on the left side of the picture, or am I looking at the wrong thing.
Mathematically analysis:
The distance it traveled is about 3 feet, in 1/15 second. That means it's moving at about 50 kph (30 mph). The intensity of the light has to be pretty bright. At f/1.5, I think a street scene would probably need about a 1 second exposure to produce the same intensity. That means the light would be about 4 stops brighter or about 16 times as bright.
Mathematically analysis:
The distance it traveled is about 3 feet, in 1/15 second. That means it's moving at about 50 kph (30 mph). The intensity of the light has to be pretty bright. At f/1.5, I think a street scene would probably need about a 1 second exposure to produce the same intensity. That means the light would be about 4 stops brighter or about 16 times as bright.
hans voralberg
Veteran
So you mean the blue light on the left side of the picture, or am I looking at the wrong thing.
Mathematically analysis:
The distance it traveled is about 3 feet, in 1/15 second. That means it's moving at about 50 kph (30 mph). The intensity of the light has to be pretty bright. At f/1.5, I think a street scene would probably need about a 1 second exposure to produce the same intensity. That means the light would be about 4 stops brighter or about 16 times as bright.
Nitrous-powered, genetically enhanced fire-fly?
wde60
Warren
Looks like it comes from the rear of the figure in black as he bends near the candles.
jjovin
Established
You really need a good story to go with it.
Then advertise it on religious sites to get pilgrims to flock
from all over the world like croats did with Međugorje.
You could make a fortune!:angel:
Then advertise it on religious sites to get pilgrims to flock
from all over the world like croats did with Međugorje.
You could make a fortune!:angel:
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
Nitrous-powered, genetically enhanced fire-fly?
A very evolutionist theory...
Now creationism will land, and we'll repeat the other thread here...
pakeha
Well-known
ah Alex, i see you have a Leica, well maybe here is the problem, perhaps a good FSU is required
Share:
-
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.