Elements of a convincing UFO photo.

[Hamster]

I was just reading about the UFO Windfarm story in the UK and I was thinking perhaps I might make some "UFO sighting" photos for my own amusement.

From a PJ perspective, what would you think would be the elements of a good "UFO sighting" photo?

The objective is for the photo to look convincing at first glance but an obvious fake if subject to the most basic analysis.

Would be a fun project to kill some outdated film.

[David William White]

That does sound like fun. Most of the 'UFO' photos that I have seen were purposely poorly taken (to hide the wires or make it seem like a grab shot) and I think that is one of their 'bonafide' characteristics.

What would make it hilarious is to show blow-ups that reveal improbable and unthinkable characteristics of UFO's, like for instance, they have propellers, or a close-up of a cockpit with an alien wielding a Nikon, or other such revelations.

[Frank Szabo]

That does sound like fun. Most of the 'UFO' photos that I have seen were purposely poorly taken (to hide the wires or make it seem like a grab shot) and I think that is one of their 'bonafide' characteristics.

What would make it hilarious is to show blow-ups that reveal improbable and unthinkable characteristics of UFO's, like for instance, they have propellers, or a close-up of a cockpit with an alien wielding a Nikon, or other such revelations.

I think a little green man mooning the photographer through a flying saucer's porthole would be friggin' hilarious.

I smell a weekend project.

[AutumnJazz]

Build a large UFO model, hang it from a very thin string (magicians wire?).

Old dirt road surrounded by nothing in the night.

[arigram]

I think a little green man mooning the photographer through a flying saucer's porthole would be friggin' hilarious.

[pauliej]

Elements of a convincing UFO photo? Isnt that one of those oxy-moronic things? I would hold out for a grainy photo of Big-foot, to show all the doubters out there...

paulie

[Joe VanCleave]

I suspect there's a direct correlation between the demise of the UFO photo and the demise of film photography.

Back in the early 1970's my brother and I did a faked UFO picture, on color print 110 film. Vivitar 110 camera with flash, if I recall correctly. I'll have to find these images and post them. We used an aluminum pie tin, suspended by a thread from a broom handle. The person holding the camera crouched down behind a shrub at night, pointing up to the sky, with the UFO suspended in the air behind the shrub.

We thought it was cool.

As for faking a UFO picture today, I suppose PS has killed off any possibility of credibility. In the film days, you could still fake such pictures, but it was harder to make it believable.

~Joe

[Frank Szabo]

I had no idea such a cartoon actually existed - this is great!

[rockphotog]

What about a double exposure?

[2F/2F]

Though I don't really understand idea behind the the "From a PJ perspective" part of the question, this is what I think. From a photojournalists perspective, the best possible UFO photo would be one that was widely witnessed and/or photographed and/or reported by others, and that was backed up by scientific evidence to lend your story some real validity.

Technically speaking, a photo that was perfectly technically sound and had lots of detail would help. UFO photos never are.

...but really, these are all only considerations for people with any brains. All you really need is a bunch of idiots as an audience to be taken as credible.

I would look into the techniques employed by Jerry Uelsmann. Printing from multiple negs, masking, etc. Fun and challenging stuff to try to pull off.