Err...Aura of the flower?

[Akasha]

Thanks!

[CzechWoods]

very inspiring pic. thanks for sharing

[Amilee]

That is so...Wow...just wow. I don't care if it's a mistake or not it's just...wow.

[Akasha]

Okay good. I'm not the only one that feels this way about it.

I'd still like more opinions though.

[staticonthewire]

My guess (with the scant info I have regarding CCDS used in digital cameras) is that what you're seeing here is "blue bias". Sometimes CCDs are balanced to be more sensitive in certain color ranges than they are in others. Frequently you will see a blue tint or glow in pictures taken out of doors or an excessive yellow or orange tint in pictures taken indoors.

This is especially true with cameras set to autoflash, or cameras that have a toggle for "indoor" or "outdoor" settings.

This could also be a bit of "butterfly wing" effect - this lovely flower in bright sunlight might reflect almost to the point of light amplicfication.

...

Of course, in neither case does a somewhat mundane explanation mean you're not seeing the flower's aura.

In a similar vein, there have been many explanations for Kirlian photography, but very few explanations of how or why those pictures change when they do, and in the way they do - for example, Kirlian photos of someone drinking alcohol as compared to Kirlian photos of someone doing a "hands-on" healing.

[Akasha]

Yes, it could have very well been what you're talking about, although this picture was taken in the shade, and we took other pictures of flowers at the same time that day without anything similar. Although they were of different colors. The flower itself striked me before I even went to take the picture, perhaps partially due to the fact that it was a single, perfect looking flower with clovers all around it, could have made it seem more special. And I have never seen the colors do that while on the preview. That is not to say that your suggestion is not the case, and I do agree that it does not necessarily rule out other possibilities.
Although now I am wondering if something similar happens when we see auras...not that our eyes are the same as cameras, but still something to think about. If it was similar, it may show that it's not just a "fluke".

[staticonthewire]

Yes, it could have very well been what you're talking about, although this picture was taken in the shade, and we took other pictures of flowers at the same time that day without anything similar. Although they were of different colors. The flower itself striked me before I even went to take the picture, perhaps partially due to the fact that it was a single, perfect looking flower with clovers all around it, could have made it seem more special. And I have never seen the colors do that while on the preview. That is not to say that your suggestion is not the case, and I do agree that it does not necessarily rule out other possibilities.
Although now I am wondering if something similar happens when we see auras...not that our eyes are the same as cameras, but still something to think about. If it was similar, it may show that it's not just a "fluke".


Some folks speculate that auras impinge directly on our mind, and have no physical reality at all, that they are a purely spiritual phenomenon. But I'm inclined to think not.

I'm guessing from the color of this flower (and from the image of its aura you captured) that it reflects a very high percentage of the UV light that hits it. If you want to try an interesting little experiment, light a match, blow it out, and then touch a petal of this flower with the still-hot tip. I'd bet the spot you touch turns from this beautiful pink-violet to a sky blue. If it does, it would indicate that this flower includes multiple pigment layers, and is a species that is the insect equivalent of a neon sign, very attractive to bees and the like.

I don't think your photo is a fluke. I think you could be correct when you speculate that an aura must have some physical reality. If we see it with our eyes, if we can take a picture of an aura with a camera (and many people say you can), then auras must have a physical reality. So there is no conflict at all between the camera manufacturer's high-falutin' explanations and your much more straightforward understanding.

I think it's a beautiful picture in any case. Very nice. Did you use a macro lens?

[Akasha]

Hmm…I haven’t given the nature of auras too much thought, but I don’t think that there’s a definite line separating the physical from the spiritual. I am not saying that they are both one in the same, but it is more like a continuum of different energies, vibrations, dimensions, or whatever you may call them, that start crossing over each other and overlapping. Perhaps auras are one of the things within that range, and the colors that we see physically could be reflective of a spiritual reality, or something of a higher vibration. This doesn’t just have to do with auras, but many other things as well, including our senses and certain qualities that something has. I kept the flower, although it’s all shriveled up now, with the petals looking a bit purpler looking than before. I will try to remember that if I pass by one of these again.

Thank you…I enjoy photography, but in my opinion, as far as photo quality goes, this is a poor picture. The flower is beautiful, but it’s fuzzy and out of focus. No special lenses, just my friend’s average digital camera. I wish I could have gotten a better picture of it, I’ve taken photos of flowers a million times and I’ve never noticed a color around it this vibrant. Thank you for your thoughts and comments.

[Shawn Blackwolf]

I would agree with you , Akasha...

I would posit the aura as a system's frequency...

Interestingly , via Gematria , the word :

Aura = 208 , which also equals the number value for :

Full spectrum light + charge = 208

Full moon = 208

And , oddly enough , but of course...

I am ( 21 ) seeing ( 26 ) color ( 162 ) = 209

[Akasha]

Please explain Gematria?

[staticonthewire]

Wow, Shawn - Gematria? I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but sometime you've got to tell me how Gematria fits into faery...

[Shawn Blackwolf]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gematria

http://mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=159786

For a beginning : Please continue , if interested , with the
rest of my posts in the qabalah thread...of course , you
should read other's views...

I am one most do not agree with...

But I do know things , most do not...enough said , for now...

( You did ask ... :lol: )

[Glowingsun]

My digital camera makes blue hazes appear when the light hits the lens.
like this..

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp221/starcatcher2002/heathersfaceshots007.jpg

[GEBS]

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Artifacts_01.htm

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=blooming
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=chromatic+aberration


It looks like digital artifacts to me. :whatgives



Artifacts refer to a range of undesirable changes to a digital image caused by the sensor, optics, and internal image processing algorithms of the camera.


Chromatic aberration or "color fringing" is caused by the camera lens not focusing different wavelengths of light onto the exact same focal plane (the focal length for different wavelengths is different) and/or by the lens magnifying different wavelengths differently. These types of chromatic aberration are referred to as "Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration" and "Lateral Chromatic Aberration" respectively and can occur concurrently. The amount of chromatic aberration depends on the dispersion of the glass. Chromatic aberration is visible as color fringing around contrasty edges