Comments on: Do Cellphones Advance Cryptid Photography?

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 15:58:02 +0000

I think there is always going to be a little suspicion with cryptid photos no matter what the quality. If they are blurry, they are called fake. If they are too clear, fake. There is a sense of of people being a bit jaded by the poor quality of photos and hoaxes over the years which i feel makes them a bit over critical at times of photos that would be acceptable if they were of anything other than a cryptid. I am not totally free from guilt in that department. At this point, I have to agree with DWA’s sentiments. Photos of known animals can be blurry yet still be accepted as real, wheras cryptid photos are taken with a grain of salt no matter how good they may be and in fact ironically being too good will cause almost as much suspicion as blurry ones I’m afraid.
Rillo777- You sure do know your cameras. I know very little about photography, but agree with you that it is losing some of its integrity with the advent of digital technology as well as ever improving phtoshop trickery. A photo sure doesn’t prove as much as it used to.

By: DWA

DWA — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:56:10 +0000

OK, forget anything I said about cell cameras possibly being of marginal use to crypto. What I’ll call Rillo’s Rules effectively preclude that.

If “tell-tale signs” really do include “shaky camera, cutting away from the image, in and out of focus” then you can rule out anything taken by an amateur suddenly encountering a cryptid as real. Because the footage WILL be: shaky, cutting away from the image and in and out of focus. Look at the Manitoba footage if you don’t believe me. That’s what happens; you’re caught off guard, you grabshoot, you’re on superextreme zoom, the car hits a dip….oh, and because you’re off guard it’s your 13-year-old at the controls…

And I can guarantee you that when a good still image of a real live sas shows up, it WILL be “too good to be true.”

Because, you see, we blew our chance to get this right the first time. The P/G footage was TGTBT. If that pic is of a known animal we’d know which one. Clearzabell. But we got this irrational idea in our heads that this was a guy in an ape suit – an idea that has never had a shred of evidence produced to back it. The only way that is NOT a sasquatch is if it is (1) some other cryptid and wouldn’t that be a coup or (2) a guy in an ape suit. And 40 years now and no evidence of a suit, and no video, hoax or otherwise, has come forward that is even a fraction as good. Why? The logical reason: P & G were on the only truly extended hunt ever for the sas, in remote country where many sightings had occurred recently, on horseback for mobility, camera eternally at the ready. So THAT becomes a reason it’s fake! “Oh, he was looking for one.” YES! That’s why the shot is so GOOD…

…but it’s useless now. We brainwashed ourselves, blew our chance, and no photo evidence of a cryptid will ever be believed. It’ll always be TGTBT.

We’re sad, we are.

By: Rillo777

Rillo777 — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 03:13:19 +0000

I’m one of those prehistoric photographers who still use film. It’s hard to argue with a negative. Sure, even a neg can be faked by a pro, but in this digital world why bother? Far easier to photoshop in whatever you want and it is my opinion that digital has hurt the integrity of photography. (I argue this with my colleagues at work all the time). Sad to say, but the ease with which digital can be faked has cast a certain suspicion over all cryptid (or UFO, or ghostly) pictures.

That aside, the image produced by cell phone cameras is a very low resolution that makes enlargment even to a 4X6 size iffy in some cases. They’re fine if a big cat or a bigfoot happens to pose a few yards away, but beyond that….After all, they are supposed to be phones not cameras! Perhaps their best use in cryptozoology would be as a last resort sort of thing where you see something but don’t have another camera with you. And they would, I suppose, at least be a record that you saw something and maybe could create interest in further investigation.

On the other hand, digital cameras routinely double the focal length so a 75mm lens, for example would become a 150mm, and thus they have a better image resolution at greater distances with the proper lenses, of course. I expect that those who prefer digital will soon be able to get very interesting photos from 300 or 400 yards away, or more. Now if we can just figure a way to spot the fakes!
We probably all need to familiarize ourselves with the tell-tale signs like those that have recently been mentioned: shaky camera, cutting away from the image, in and out of focus, etc. Those apply to moving images. In still photos a good rule of thumb is the old addage: if it looks too good to be true, it probably is. Just my ten cents worth

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:27:33 +0000

Well, now that you guys mentioned it, it could be one exciting STONE for all we can tell in this photo.

By: DWA

DWA — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:13:50 +0000

Well, things-in-the-woods, don’t get too discouraged.

That could be one exciting cat, if science ever catches up to it.

Or England could wind up showing us the absolute extremes in genetic mutation among users of cellphones. Does anyone really know how boiled vegetables and cell towers interact? We could start seeing cats identified as all sorts of things. My eyes are now so ON that little island.

And there’s always Loch Ness. Not too far a drive for all that.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:03:08 +0000

And guys, you need to remember this is england. We have wiped out almost everything bigger than a squirrel. And it rains a lot. And we eat a lot of boiled vegtables. And this guy lives in Trowbridge. For us cats sitting in fields are pretty exciting.

By: things-in-the-woods

things-in-the-woods — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:56:18 +0000

ok, clearly this photo is nonsense. Its a cat. But at least it keeps us all smiling.

The encouraging thing is that this is actually a reasonable quality photo, by which i mean the definition and focus is pretty good. When I read the headline, I thought we were going to be treated to some blurry pixellated mess of the kind i get on my camera phone. But the technology is oviously improving all the time, and many camera phones are now as good as a standard digital camera. As such, they can only be a good thing.

We need to consider that if there was a bigfoot standing where the kitten is then we have something fairly serious and worthwhile to look at.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 00:45:00 +0000

Right Kittenz, I said that. I think the ease of use and quality will definately improve.

By: sschaper

sschaper — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 23:00:48 +0000

I tend to forget that my cell -has- a camera.

That looks like a healthy black tomcat to me. Nice tree in the background, though.

By: jchip

jchip — Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:49:26 +0000

I think the “black panther” in this picture is little more than perhaps a slightly overweight housecat. Blobcat would actually be an apt name for a house cat.