I saw this for the first time on Bigfoot Encounters:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/frazee.htm

This is very disconcerting for anyone hoping to one day photograph a creature in the field. Most digital cameras (which is what I carry around) don't allow you to fiddle around with exposure and such. And it's not like you'd get a lot of time to do that anyway should you see a 'photo op' suddenly appear in the field.
So, I put this question to the forum: is there a way to get better photographs of such a dark object in the field? Different exposures, different type of camera, different type of film? I can't imagine anything worse than being in the field, getting that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture a photo of a creature and get home and realize you got a black dot amidst other black dots (the dreaded blobsquatch).

Wow very "revealing" photos, as in how UN-revealing they are! This is very interesting.... Even in the best conditions, sqatchie would be almost "invisible".

with any wildlife that is hidden in vegetation, this is going to be an issue.
Of course, those photos are a bit misleading as they are of very poor definition, so there is no opportunity to work with them in any kind of photo editing program(which can do wonders for poor photos or poorly exposed photos, in the right hands.). However...this does bring up the point that we need to try for GOOD photos..not marginal ones, if we are going to use them as "proof" of anything.

Check out how well concealed this deer is... would you have seen it if I hadnt told you there was a deer there?

Im more skeptical that science will except this animal exists by a photograph, than I am skeptical the animal is out there... I hope it happens by a picture, but I just dont see that happening - regardless of the quality. Unfortunately really, especially with that newly discovered Ivory Billed Woodpecker and that fuzzy piece of footage.

Hey, thanks for posting this article. It should come in handy on another forum where I am in a heated debate about the existence of sasquatch.

Back in the 1960's til about the early-1980's I worked in photomicroscopy. That's taking pictures of things under microscopes or various macro set-ups. Getting enough light & the correct lighting for the subject was always really important. My husband got transferred, and we moved. I never got back into the field of photomicroscopy on a regular basis after that. I missed the development of digital photography. There's alot I don't know about that. I'm learning, since I got a digital camera in 1992. However, I definitely know the basics of photography.

Bigfoot aren't gonna stand around & wait, 20 feet away from you, while you fumble around getting your camera out & setting it up, just so you can take a snapshot or two. (Consider this -- it's the difference between a motion-detecting light that turns on immediately at a sound, or you physically hearing a noise in your front or back yard, getting up from your chair & walking over to turn on your light so you can see when you look outside!).

I have a relatively empty backyard. If I see my dog, or a squirrel, or whatever, doing something interesting or cute, I've gotta be ready (as in camera in hand, turned on, and in the right mode for light/distance/whatever). There's no messing around here--get the shot or loose it. That's simple. How can you expect anything different in the woods with a wild animal? As practice, do just that. Try to photograhp your pet or some other animal in the places & poses you would like. They don't like to pose or sit still. Time yourself while you do it. That's an enlightening experience!

Back in the late 1980's, we had a woodchuck who set up residence in my veggie garden. I got up one morning, looked out the window, and there was a huge pile of dirt at the side of my garden. I checked it out, and yep, there was a big hole! It was so big one of my kids could have fallen in! I thought, "What the heck???!!!" I filled it in. The next day, the same thing, and the day after that & the day after & the day after... I tried for days to get him on video. I never managed. It seemed like he knew when I was watching him. That's probably really not the case. He wasn't psychic. I think he could hear me setting up to tape him. Never did get a good video.

I understand the disappointment/outrage at some of the blobsquatch photos that have been been posted on the web. It's easy to criticize. Yeah, its all that & more... Just total frustration! And if you were the person behind the camera, and actually saw something awesome, tried to photograph it, and were totaly shot down, how would you feel? Think about it. It could be you, the next time you're out in the woods!

Photography is all about physics... Available light, the restraints of lenses/aperature... If you have a camera that actually uses film, then the film speed and the film you are using... It goes on & on... But these are the rules of nature...of physics. That's plain & simple. You can't change that.

Its my opinion that the best way to get actually good photos of a bigfoot is using game cameras setup & properly maintained. The lenses have to be damned near perfect to please everyone. Even then they won't. I have never personally used night vision cameras. I can't comment on that. I will tell you that even if you get a clear, wonderful photo of a bigfoot, it will be questioned & disbelieved by the general community & media. Just about all you'll get out of it is personal satisfaction. Your photos...you know it was real. You can always blow it up & hang it on your mantle. At least you'll know the truth about it.

A couple of years ago I worked a very little bit with one of those tiny surveillance video cameras. It was really cool. Resolution was good. The focus range was good. I have no idea how you could set something like this up in the woods. That's just a thought I'm throwing out there to those of you who are interested.

Those are my thoughts for tonight.

Hiya, Miss Bunny!

I think you're right. It's not threatening for people to acknowledge a new fish or frog or plant, or a bird thought to be extinct but is not... or an even large sea creature somewhere out in the Pacific Ocean. There's alot of water there! A large hominid creature that's basically been mythical is something else again. Especially if its found in your county or state, or the state nextdoor, or even your country. That hits too close to home! People have pretty much declared themselves the all-knowing top of the food chain. The existence of bigfoot rattles their cages...their basic belief systems.

Wellll, it is kind of hard to find an adult size Ivory Billed Woodpecker costume at the local "Party City" store..

Keep looking, Bukwas, its only a matter of time!

I was wondering, would using black and white film, or a digital set on b/w be more proficient in trying to capture images of something in the bush? Is it easier to distinguish shapes using b&w?

If you are looking for a great guide on outdoor photgraphy, exposures, types of film and speed, check out some of the professional storm chasing websites. They have learned the hrad way (i.e. trial and error) what works best. The names you want to look for are Charles (Chuck) Doswell, Roger Edwards, Charles Edwards, Mike Hollingshed, Eric Nguyen and Tim Marshall. I would recommend Rogers' website: http://www.stormeyes.org/tornado/index.html as a start and go from there. If nothing else, you will get a great education in severe weather climatology, which would benefit field work.

Cheers

I work with those cameras a lot, littlefoot. The aperture is very small (essentially a "pinhole camera", thus the depth of field), most are CMOS instead of CCD (much lower visible light response in CMOS) and the resolution is far inferior to a good handheld digital. And the cheaper ones (read that as X10) have a very limited, fixed gamma range.

But that's only part of the problem. The tiny camera is the cheap and easy part. Either recording or transmitting to a recorder is the more expensive and logistically difficult part. "Unlicensed" transmitters are so low in power that they won't send the signal far enough for them to be useful (unless the critter is actually in the backyard).

I'm putting together a system intended to do the job. It includes a motion sensor to save on batteries, infrared illumination (and a light sensor to tell when that isn't needed), and an on-site digital video recorder, with Velcro to hold it on any convenient tree limb. I may even throw in a solar charger--The battery within the miniature DVR is good for only two hours, but the 40 Gb disc can hold up to 80 hours. I expect to have about $1200 in it. When I'm done, and it's installed, it will look like a squirrel's nest.

I already have the DVR ($800), camera ($160), a small solar panel ($40). Still looking for the right battery (Lithium Ion, preferably) and the best IR array. WalMart has the Velcro and hot glue sticks and I have plenty of twigs and leaves.

What will come out of this rig is digital video ready for viewing on a computer (transferred via USB). The DVR also has a (very small) screen on it for field review. A future "upgrade" will be wireless (maybe using the IR array) transfer to a laptop without dismounting the camera rig.

If I can make it work, regardless if I capture footage of Bigfoot, I'll post the bill of materials and schematics...along with lessons learned... for anybody who is interested.

I have in mind, a power line clearway through the Hoosier National Forest...which begs the question: is there a consensus on what is the best food bait?

edit: littlefoot, I almost forgot to ask, in your microsopy did you ever get to work with a Lyotte filter?

Oz

That's a great question Lou, and one I don't remember ever being brought up before. I don't know enough about photography and optics to even hazard a guess, but I hope someone here does 'cause I'd really love to see this discussed!

I was wondering about that also. Seems like it might give you better contrast than color film. But it's still going to come down to knowing how to use that camera to it's fullest, choosing the right film for the terrain and weather, right speed, exposure, filters, etc.

No, ozman, I don't know much about Lyot filters. Aren't those filters used to focus lasers? I worked in an industrial research facility. There was a laser in the building, but I never had the opportunity to work with it. I wonder, that's a pretty expensive setup up you're working on. Aren't you worried about vandalism or theft?

Louisa, I've been thinking about black & white photography & various color filters as a means to enhance detail in nature & wildlife photography. I've never really been into weird scenes. I've used filters to accentuated sky phenomena, but that's about it. I prefer good composition as opposed to special effects. At work I used them quite often in various combinations to bring out details that would be not otherwise be obvious. I guess I should get the filters I have packed away with my SLR & play a little bit with them out in my yard. In some instances it would help, in other instances you'd see very little impact. I do know that you could ruin that "shot of a lifetime" if you had the wrong filter on your camera. At this point, I'm thinking using color film, and playing with it later might yield more versatile results. I haven't even thought of light filters in twenty years! I'm also not sure what is available out there these days.

You know who's great with b&w and filters? Sosha. I'm gonna go PM her and ask if she'll come on over and give us her thoughts.

Hey thanks for inviting me in on this discussion Stacy ...I will tell you what my experience has been. Given that most photographs of such creatures would probably most likely be taken in dense foliage or among trees and assuming that most of this type of cover would be green or at least living foliage...most green trees or grass photograph at about 80% black...when I was in school learning about exposure stuff we used to meter off of the grass because grass was always 80% black or gray when shooting black and white pics. So you always knew that that would be a standard measure...so in black and white terms...100% is pure black...all the way to 0% black which would be white. So when you are photographing an animal in foliage...if the animal is 100% black...which a lot of these creatures seem to be...and if it is surrounded by 80% black...that is not much of a contrast to see by. Even in color....the contrast factor is not going to make it stand out...and if it is in shadow...even more difficult. Now...what I found is that there are some digital cameras that can see in the infrared spectrum....which means they can see beyond what our eyes normally see.....you slap a special filter on them and all the trees turn snow white and any animal stays dark because they are not part of the foliage...so here is an example of what it would look like attached here. The infrared seems to also keep good detail in shadows.
The thing that I have noticed about digital is that where film is very forgiving if you mess up on the exposure...digital is not. Like slides you really have to pay attention to the background and foreground. Whites tend to flare out and dark shadows tend to have a lot of noise in them as far as enlarging goes. If you have a very small subject in the photo and try to crop it in digital....it doesn't seem to enlarge well. So unless your close with a digital or have very high megapixels...I dunno....I like digital for ease of use and keeping film processing costs down and I am looking at getting a canon eos digital...but...the only camera I have found that can do the infrared is the old Olympus C2020 with the special filter....so...

Above The most important thing about any kind of wildlife photography...is being ready to get the shot....I don't know how many pics I have missed cause I was fumbling around with the camera....that is where digital makes me crazy that whole time delay thing when you press the shutter drives me mad...and 1 second is all it takes for an animal to move out of the frame....I dunno...for sassy I think I would stick with my tried and true manual focus eos elan with the 100-300 zoom and some 400 high def kodak film and hope for the best lighting I could get!

http://www.microscopy.fsu.edu/primer/java/filters/lctf/

littlefoot, the Lyot filters as used in microscopy aren't really applicable to lasers, but some very similar components certainly are. (not for focusing, rather for wavelength tuning)

Yes, the camera / dvr rig would be an expensive one to lose or have vandalized. That's why I hope to make it indistinguishable from a squirrel's nest (at least from the ground). After yesterday's experiments, I find that I will also have to include a heater and blower for the lens areas and figure out a way of using those only when needed...I was afraid of that. More parts, more battery, more complex.

Thank you Sosha!!

If I'd had to guess, I'd have said the b&w would have shown more contrast, so I'm glad you cleared that up. It makes perfect sense!

We were just talking the other night as we were out on one of our night drives, and (I especially) kept missing shots of deer in the fields with a digital, that for that kind of thing a plain old 35mm dinosaur would be a better option, precisely because of that stupid delay. My old Canon Sure Shot was great and served me well for a lot of years, but it's old enough now that I can't count on the pictures to be clear anymore, so I've pretty much decided that I need to replace it and have both cameras with me all the time.

(Looks like I'll be hitting eBay here in a few minutes! )

That is yet another beautiful picture you posted too. You are very talented. Thanks for sharing that, and thanks again for your input!

Hope this is the right thread to get this in on.....
Has anyone ever been to a site: www.hometown.aol.com/osareal/index.html? It details PRRT's and how Bigfoot may use them.
I looked it over a while ago but the site has been blocked by work so I can no longer access it. Could someone pop over there and have a boo and let me know their thoughts on this? I am highly skeptical but admitedly, wisdom has come from stranger angles. ]
I looked over the photos posted last time I could get on...and then sat here with SFS and looked....we couldn't really see anything....even after the liberal use of the dreaded Red Pen was used by the website owner....
So really looking for insight here...thanks in advance!

Cheers

Um, it's transparent that it's bull$hit.

umm...my thread or the website?
Did you have a boo at the "pictures"? any thoughts or am I off my nut? Thanks for the reply!

Cheers

Boomer! Not to stray too far off-topic, but I love your avatar. Do you have a bigger version of it that you could post, and did you do that yourself?

The website and their notion of transparency.

Thank you....when I first saw it the initial thought was WTF????? But, being open minded, I gave it a chance. Even had an experienced field resercher look at the site....he thought the author was smoking crack! We both thought it was a nice shot of the trees though Can you feel the zen tonite?? Thanks for not seeing what 2 others didn't see either
Hey, I bet there's a pile of crushed rocks near by!

Cheers

Click to view attachment


I wish I could take credit for the illustration....no time to sit and do that these days (how I miss pencils!)
I'll try and post the big version here. All I did was go onto google and typed in bigfoot pics, bigfoot art, sasquatch pics/art and then went to "Images" on the top. Aftrer a bit, I found this one....I'll ;post some others.
Thanks again!

Cheers

I would not rule out crack, smack, crunk, reefer, MD, JD, CC, CR, bipolar disorder, insanity, feeble mindedness, lobotomy, inbreeding, nor EB Syndrome.

....that and they probably tried those stupid rocks again....(pun INTENTED!)

Cheers

I am going with a partial lobotomy...they can still work a blinkin' camera! Why oh why does a flesh and bllod creature get shunted to the paranormal realm....it's hard enough to be taken seriously without all the hookum, do these "researchers know what this does to the credability of the rest of the community? .....sheesh....Hard Copy here we come!

Cheers

OhmyGOD, what a load of crap! I thought Dallas Gilbert was bad, but he's just a quiet, delusional old man. This Osareal broad is really touched in the head on top of being delusional.

Well, Im not an expert in photographs. But, when looking at a picture on the internet or wherever - I use my paint feature to "Invert" the colors. I think it helps me, but - I think it would be better to not have to manipulate the photo at all --

Thank You!!!! Did you see the BF in the sand pit? ooooooooooooookkkkkkkkk there.....how about the Migration thru the trees???? I don't know WHAT they are smokin' but man...they should share if it's that good.....forget BF research...their experteese is in the hydroponic field
That website proudly brought to you by Prof. Cheech and Fieldn Researcher Chong....I'm sorry, I'll stop now
See attached for their media contact
Cheers


We tried every application in my photoshop program...from B&W to colour change...you name it....no sasquatch....did see that damn elusive woodpecker though . There's enough tangents in research to not have to resort to the paranormal for an explanation. Thanks for the input!

Cheers

OK -- I just clicked on the link for that website posted above. I like to think I am very --- tolerant, and I rarely if ever lose my temper....

I want back the 5 minutes it took out of my life --- RIGHT NOW !!!!!!!!

Who owns that site? Does being pro kill or No kill -- Matter at all if you think this animal is TRANSPARENT???

Sorry, didnt mean to rant.. Im going back to my corner now...

Hey,
Maybe if ask nicely, she'll send you some crushed rocks that enable the imbuer to travel back in time....5 minutes reclaimed! Don't feel bad....I actually wasted time there trying to see WTF she was seeing....guess I didn't eat the correct combination of minerals....
To qoute a song..."she talks crazy talk....."

Cheers

Wrong method, you didn't SMOKE the correct combination of rocks ...

Ah yes....that would hit the blood stream quicker right? Just did...look behind you...can you see me? No, then it MUST work...cough....cough! Hey, the Big Guy wants a hoot...."see" you later?

Back to the subject at hand...various filters do neat things with Black and White film...

A yellow or red filter will darken the blue sky for dramatic cloud effects. A green filter will lighten foliage in a scenic composition, which would be the way to go in photographying a bigfoot. Also a green filter accentuate reds. Since filters absorb some light that would otherwise reach the film, the exposure must be adjusted
according to the filter being used. A red filter will increase contrasts.

There are also orange filters, blue, yellow....they all do about the same thing...lighten or add contrast...but I would still stick with color because it would be the best for distinguishing a dark mass against foilage...many different colors can look the same in Black and White....blue and white will look the same in Black and White and so will Red and Black...or Dark Gray...so....color is better...

Well, perhaps I shouldn't post this because I still don't know what a PRRT is... However, I've never seen a website like this before! I thought I had pretty well scoured the web. Guess I was mistaken.

When my youngest daughter was young she was fascinated by cameras. She took some pretty awful pictures. Her favorites were taken of herself with one of those cheapie disposable cameras--Her favorite subject was her own face photographed at her arm's length. Considering that these cameras were designed to photograph something at a bare minimum of 8 feet, the results were very blurry.

My daughter's silly photos were better than those on that website. Somebody owes me 5 minutes out of my life for the time it took to check it out!!

Ok, are you all ready for this mouthful? I was wrong on the aconym...it's PPIT: Photosynthetic Pezioelectric Induced Transparency (PPIT) and has to do with H2S???? That is hydrogen sulfide! Sour Gas!! it is lethal!! Sure would make BF dissapear.....he's frickin' dead! I don't knwo about anyone else, but sour gas is a real concern in Alberta....small leaks have caused entire communities to be evac'd double time! Says on the google search that this....."researcher" has been at this since 1974....wow....good on ya zippy I would surmise that this is what she associates the smell of BF with....fisrt the smell then POOF! BF is gone.....I guess she thinks he eats whatever, farts and dissappears OK there
J Vaughn has this link posted on his website...if anyone knows him, they might want to switch him on to this lunacy....
Cheers

Sosha, thanks for your input on color vs b&w.
That pic you posted was beautiful!!!!!

Oh Boomer, I live on the shores of Lake Michigan, across the lake from Chicago. We don't have the sulfur gas problem here. I did come across the piezoelectric/bigfoot thing a few months ago. That's okay about the PRRT/PPIT mistake. I just couldn't figure it out.

Bigfoot is a flesh & blood critter as far as I'm concerned. Shape-shifting/transparency/beam-me-up-Scotty type opinions are things I don't even consider. Doesn't make sense to me. That's me & my opinion. Thanks for clearing up that PRRT thing -- it would've had me wondering for a while!

So Boomer, I'm curious, what do you think of this whole bigfoot thing? (Its okay to disagree with me!! )

I am firmly in the camp that saquatch is an animal...pure and simple. It is likely that it is a higher evolved primate of the homo genus tree...what branch, I don't know. I do not subsribe the element of the paranormal attached to BF at all. This PPIT nonsense does nothing but confuse the issue further.
This osreal (or whatever) has slipped into the mystic realm too much. Nations folklore asribed certain traits to BF that were explained away by the use of the supernatural. They can disappear in the blink of an eye right? Take into consideration their sp eed, agility, colouring and generations of genetic instinct and there's your explanation....the ancient ninja clans raised "hide and seek" to a new level hundreds of years ago...it is called "inpo"..the Art of Hiding.
Homo sapiens arrogance limits the amount of acceptance we can take on things unknown. We have to reason it to death all the time instead of just accepting the fact that because it is..IT IS!. We refuse to accept anything anymore, even with such a volume of evidence. Murderers have been convicted on a lot less evidence than has already been put forwward on the existance of BF.
It is universally frustrating to see what the scientific community takes at face value as opposed to things shot down even with backiing eviidence....
Thanks for the reply!

Cheers

Olympic figure skating just started. This message will be quick! I just love that! My favorite! Okay... back to bigfoot (during commercials!!! )

For me, its easy to see why some people espouse the paranormal/disappearing bigfoot. I don't care if its the Scotty thing, or the PPIT, or whatever. Doesn't make much difference. These nuts claim it because it can neither be proven nor disproven.

What they do is set up a mood & scenario with their line of bullshit, describe it, and then, "POOF!!" there goes the bigfoot, up in the wild blue yonder, because of their inane theories. What it amounts to is, just because they said it, its so, because they stated their "theory" ahead of the game. It doesn't make sense because it never had to. They already told you how you should think, so that's the way it is. Its entirely illogical & irrefutable right from the beginning. That negates any logical argument in thier minds.

I think I'm setting up some simple criteria when contemplating answers to people who have "theories about bigfoot:

Things to remember:

1. Just because they say something, doesn't make it so.

2. Don't assume that everyone you want to deal with is as smart as you. Some of them aren't as smart and really believe what they've stated. You can't argue with them because they don't understand. Some are smarter. They have already set up the scenario so you can't disprove what they've said. Sometimes the toughest thing is to walk away. In instances like this, the most disappointing thing for them may be no "audience" at all.

3. Some things just aren't worth discussing. Disregard them & don't be tempted to engage in legitimate debate. Its not on the agenda. (Refer to #2)...


I think I'll save this & keep adding to it as the occassion arises, if I remember. Sometimes its easy for me to forget my own little rules...

Sooooooooo, back to Olympic figure skating!!! Bye!