Articles ~ Skeptics Corner ~ Orbs ....Smorbes by Scott B. Denning

Well, it's time to put in my two cents on the "orb phenomenon" -- though, by the time I am done, it may be more like two dollars...

First off, I want to say that I do not automatically discredit or seek to debunk claims of the unusual. I have been around enough odd things myself that I cannot completely discount *any* possibilities. Heck, I do energy healing! Which is an "out-there" area so far as many people are concerned, and difficult to "prove". So I know what it's like to have people look at one askance.

But I *am* skeptical as a matter of course, and I always seek an ordinary answer to a seemingly extraordinary event before straining to swallow an extraordinary explanation.

The photographic anomalies which have come to be known as "orbs" are something which I have followed with interest. However, I have become rather alarmed at how quickly these anomalies have become synonymous with the presence of spirits. Labeling them as "orbs" is one thing: a handy, descriptive term as a common basis for discussion. But on more than one occasion I have heard people refer to orbs as "entities", which strikes me as an unproven and unwarranted leap. Such a casual labeling, I think, imperils the credibility which paranormal researchers work very hard to establish. It is also not in line with the scientific research process, and a reliance on evidence rather than feelings or faith.

One viewpoint which I have heard expressed many times is "orbs are basically only found in 'haunted' areas". Supporters of this view point to the fact that orbs are seldom seen outside of areas with a history of haunting activity.

I have two basic responses to that:

1) Orbs may indeed be found outside of haunted areas (more on that later), and

2) Where is the control for such a statement?

The scientific method is based upon an experimental hypothesis -- a question or supposition to be tested -- a method to test the hypothesis, and the results of the test. But results of such a test are basically meaningless unless placed in perspective; the results must be compared against a baseline of 'normal' readings, which are known as the "control" for that test.

Where is the control for orb photos? When someone says "I get orbs in haunted areas, but not in other areas", I have to reply, "How often do you take dozens/hundreds of flash photos in areas that *aren't* reputed to be haunted? How many other abandoned/empty buildings do you walk around late at night, flashing photos?"

It would be *very* interesting to take, say, 200 flash photos in a "haunted" building, then (using the same camera) shortly thereafter take 200 more in a similar building nearby, one without a history of haunting phenomena. However, I have never heard of such an experiment being conducted, and if one has I would be very interested in hearing about it.

I know that orb photos are often gained outdoors, especially in cemeteries.
I say a "novel" view of orbs because, in all of my researches on this subject, the following has never been discussed as a possible explanation for orb anomalies, except in the most passing of references. Dust and moisture droplets are often discussed as possible explanations for orb photos, but to my knowledge this explanation has never been presented in detail. Again, if there is something out there on this, please let me know.

(Note: The following may seem familiar to some people. A version of it was featured on the "Far Shores" paranormal site, and has been reproduced and linked to on several other websites.)

When I first got my digital camera I put it through the paces, trying a variety of settings and scenes to test the output. I was taking photos of one of our beautiful New Mexico sunsets to test the color range and light sensitivity of the camera, and found that just about every flash photo I took had 'orbs'! It was in fact difficult to take flash images that evening which did *not* contain orbs. (The same scene shot without flash had no anomalies.) What was more, I was actually seeing the "orbs" with my naked eye -- they appeared as bright little sparks in the air as the flash went off. (This was, in fact, what drew my attention to the "orbs" in the photos.)

While I live in an area with a lot of history, it still seemed unlikely I could so casually get spirit photos. I flashed some more photos, with the same results. I puzzled over it for a while. Then a possibility occurred to me, and I went to the barn to get something to test my hypothesis.

I got out a spotlight and played it across the yard and saw in the light's beam what I can see in the late afternoon's slanting sunbeams: insects. Hundreds of tiny insects flying above the lawn, disturbed by my walking across the grass. The flash of the camera strobed each little bug into a point of light, which the camera's infinite focus transformed into an 'orb'. With the powerful spotlight beam I could follow their courses above the yard -- the faster ones seeming to leave meteor streaks of light as they flew through the beam. It was really quite beautiful. But very natural.

When I consider how many orb photos are taken outdoors in grassy cemeteries and around old buildings, it is not hard to extrapolate my experience out to encompass those settings. People moving about after dark, in grassy areas (especially in very old cemeteries which are not so well kept, and may be unmown or weedy) would stir up many insects.

"Aha!" people might say. "But what about the many orb photos which are taken *inside*! Are you saying there are insects in my house?"

Well, yes. While insects are less common indoors, I still suspect that insects as well as dust could explain many orb photos taken inside structures. Even the best-kept house may have insects or fleas brought in on pets, and the flying insect you can't discern in standard lighting may well gleam in a flash photo. (When you change a light bulb, aren't there often tiny winged insect carcasses in the light diffuser? We share our homes with more insects than we care to think of.) I have seen many "orb" photos where a family pet is featured in the picture, and I always have to wonder if maybe the critter needs a flea bath.

I suspect it is the wing surface of the flying insects which provides most of the area of reflection. Since the wings are beating rapidly, out of the many possible insects in the camera's field of view only a certain number would have their wings at the correct angle at the moment of strobe to provide reflection directly back at the camera's lens. But even very tiny insects have an appreciable surface area of wing in relation to their bodies -- little versions of the bounce reflectors used by photographers!

If you have seen with your bare eyes the insects flash in the strobe, and then see "orbs" in the photo you took at that moment, it is hard to doubt the connection.

Have your camera set to flash. Walk around a grassy area a few times, sweep the grass with your feet, shake the bushes. Then stand still and start flashing. (With the camera. Unless you just want to groove on the night. <g>)

Let your eyes defocus a bit, then click the shutter. If there are insects in the air, you may well see them with your naked eye as they reflect the camera's strobe. They look like little strobes themselves, or fireworks.
You can occasionally see this effect through the camera's viewfinder, but it may be easier to notice when the light source is coming from beside you. Try leaving both eyes open when you click the picture, and you may see them spark with the "unoccupied" eye. You can also try holding the camera beside your head, beside your shoulder, at arm's length, above your head, etc.

As mentioned in the previous post, a good bright spotlight (mine is a theater-type "baby spot", but there are many other types) will provide another check. Hold it still, and the insects will come to you. Sometimes there are so many tiny insects about the light it feels like you are underwater, and you wonder how you keep from breathing them in. Sweep it around, and you will see insects flare in reflection as the beam passes across them.

We live in a richly active environment, from the little critters which live on our skin cells to the insects which roost on the undersides of leaves. But most of the time we don't notice the bustle of the little creatures around us, until something like this points it out.

Addressing some potential objections folks may have to my advancement of insects as an explanation for some orbs.

1) I am *not* saying that all orb photos are due to the presence of insects.

What I am presenting is something I observed, the photos I took at that time, and the theory that under similar circumstances orb photos may result from insects in the camera's flash.

I will say, however, that I find it very interesting that even supporters of orbs as proof of spirit presence sometimes find it necessary to distinguish between "normal" orbs (such as dust, camera flares, etc.) and "paranormal" orbs.

2) What about cold weather? Aren't insects less active then, especially at night?

Sure. Though there may be other factors, such as the presence of people at times and places where the insects usually wouldn't be disturbed.

But I have also observed that insects are around most of the time. An example: my wife and I attended the 150th Anniversary celebration of Ft. Craig, south of Socorro NM in the first week of November of this year. Even though it was in the southern part of the state, it still got pretty cool around sundown. My wife was sitting on one of the ring of haybales around the dance area, and I was standing behind her. After a time of unconsciously waving away bugs, I realized that there was a thin cloud of gnats/midges around my head, around my wife's head, in fact around the heads of everyone within sight. I noticed it again when we were watching the flag-lowering ceremony. I wonder, if I had taken photos around our heads at the time, if I would have gotten "orb" photos...

And indoors, of course, the conditions are different than in the wild. The comfort zone which we maintain in our homes is also amenable to insects.

Actually, I am conducting an experiment right now. I am going to let the compost bowl stay in the kitchen until it develops fruit flies. Then I am going to flash a lot of photos in the kitchen. <g>

3) What about other photographic anomalies, like mists and other shapes?

I find mists and distortions very fascinating, and am concocting experiments to eliminate other ways they might be created. For the moment, I don't see how insects could be responsible for any but the circular/spherical "orb" form.

There are dozens -- hundreds! -- of websites devoted to orb photos, and many viewpoints presented. Some are 'true believers' ("This is a photo of my grandmother, appearing for us as an orb"), but many people take a "This is interesting, what do folks think it is?" approach.

Some of the "grandma's photo" crowd are **very** touchy about any theories for orbs which do not involve visitation by disembodied spirits. For these folks, the idea that the photographic anomaly is Grandma is very comforting, which means if you challenge their interpretation you are attacking their faith -- always a sensitive issue. (Personally, while I accept the idea that folks who have passed over might sometimes hang around or return for whatever reason, I hope my grandmother has better things to do over there than show up as a blob in snapshots. <g>)

I came across a Yahoo group dedicated to a critical appraisal of orb phenomena. The members represent a range of beliefs/approaches, and some are doing practical research to attempt to reproduce "orb" photos, and thereby eliminate mundane causes for some photos.

Here's another orb forum:

Here's a FujiFilm page devoted to the question:

And a page where someone interacted with Fuji and got a response:

Note that the reply from Fuji includes a statement that "newer Fuji cameras cope better with dust particles". You could take this at face value, and accept that many orb photos have been an artifact produced by flash photos using early designs of digital cameras -- artifacts reduced/eliminated by more sophisticated design. Or you could go the conspiratorial route, and suggest that Fuji has discovered the "wavelength" at which spirits appear and has designed their new cameras to filter out spooks, denying the world proof of the other side (for whatever reason such denial would benefit them) <g>.

The vast majority of "orb" photos are gained by digital cameras, using flash. It is possible to gain orb photos under other situations, but basically the "orb explosion" corresponds with the widespread availability of autoflash fixed-focus digital cameras. William of Occam (you know, that guy with the Razor that cuts right to the point) would suggest that the simplest explanation for orbs is that they are an artifact of digital photography. We suddenly have lots of orb photos, because suddenly lots of us have digital cameras.

Here's some of the other viewpoints I have encountered:

There are suddenly many more spirits about, and they are making themselves more evident.

Sorry, that is too much like "End Times" talk, and sounds suspiciously like the plot for the "Ghostbusters" movie. Dissociating the greater number of orb photos from the technology used to gain them just doesn't work.

Humanity has accidentally happened upon a technology which can capture spirit images.

Man, I would love to believe this one! But the same thing was suggested when photography was first invented -- in the early days of photography, many blurred images and double exposures were seen as evidence of spookery, and were sometimes used to deliberately mislead people. It was even popular for a while to have a portrait taken of your family, then have the photo of a deceased loved one "burned in" on the photo so it seemed that they were watching over the family from the other side.

Digital cameras are "superior" to film cameras in gaining orb photos.

Well, since the majority of orb photos are gained digitally, this is demonstrably true. But there are several factors at work here. First, digital photography is *much* cheaper than film photography, so people take many more pictures and therefore have more chances at producing orb photos. (I have also heard people say "Most of my photos had orbs in them!", but they don't say how many uninteresting photos they deleted on the spot.) I don't know about you, but I sure can't afford to take hundreds of photos on film at each investigation site! -- yet this is common practice with digital. The other factor to consider is that the digital imaging chip is very different from emulsion film. Anyone who has enlarged a digital image to the point of blockiness will see the basic structure of the image is based upon contrasted pixels, rather than the grain structure of film. Because of this, digital images, especially those gained by simpler designs of cameras (which the majority of digicameras on the market are), are more prone to contrast artifacts than film images.

Here's one thing to note: sometimes people will respond by saying that they weren't using flash, and therefore the orbs in the photos must be self-illuminating. Maybe. But the default for most modern auto-exposure cameras is for the flash to be on, meaning you typically have to override it to turn it off, and the auto-exposure feature on most cameras uses flash as a fill-in for all but the brightest conditions. Any time someone reports, "I don't think the flash was on", I have to assume it was. I have also seen supposed "flash-less" orb photos, where the rest of the photo clearly indicates that a flash was used. I don't think the person was deliberately misrepresenting the conditions under which the photo was taken, they just didn't realize the flash was filling in.

Some people claim to see orbs with the naked eye, and without a camera or flash.

This is fascinating, and I certainly don't discount the notion that they might actually be able to see something others cannot. I know several people who have proven to my satisfaction that they regularly see human auras, and I have myself seen wispy auras surrounding people's heads.

But if someone says that they regularly see floating blobs of light, rather than calling in the ghost hunters my first reaction would be to recommend that they posthaste get them to a doctor, not to get their head examined but to get a complete medical workup. Seeing floating blobs can be an indicator of serious medical conditions including high blood pressure and detached retina, and if such is going on they should catch it as soon as possible.

When you enlarge orb photos, they sometimes look like faces!

I have looked at hundreds of "face orbs". I have looked at thousands of clouds. I see faces in clouds. Also dragons, porpoises, bears playing trumpets, and once even what was obviously a mouse orgy. One of the reasons I am married to my wonderful wife is that, when I point at a cloud and say, "That one up there looks like Godzilla..." she will say, "Yes, and he's breaking an airplane in half!" We see the same things -- one reason we are together. Some people see faces in orbs. I do not.

Enlarge *anything* and stare at it, or stare at anything long enough, and you will find shapes and make associations. It's what our brain does -- it looks for familiar patterns in unfamiliar data. Case in point: there was a webcam which for a long time was operating in a basement of a supposedly haunted house. The scene showed was a door, and part of a dirt floor in front of the door, with a shallow hole dug into the floor. The camera was static, with regular refreshes. The site explained the supposedly haunted nature of the building, then asked people to write in with things they observed. For me, this was interesting for about 2 minutes, then it was about as much fun as, well, staring at a hole in the ground. (Give me the Loch Ness cam any day!) But people would write in with long descriptions of things they saw in the wood grain of the door, or the dirt in the floor... If you look at something long enough, especially when you are *trying* to find something, you are going to find shapes. Expectation has a lot to do with it... I am still not sure if the webcam wasn't a joke. I could point a webcam at the wall next to me here, and stream it on the net. If I called it "wallcam" and said that it was an image of the wall in my house, a few people might stumble upon it, and a few people might get into it as a joke, but basically it would just be a waste of bandwidth. But if I called it "ghostcam" and included a made-up story that ghostly apparitions had appeared on the walls over the years, I bet I would get people writing in telling me all the things they had seen in the plaster of the wall.

Another thing which makes me twitch is anytime folks say, "Once I manipulated the photo, the face/ghost/shape is much clearer." (For "manipulate", you can also use "process", "augment", etc.) Hey, manipulation is *manipulation*! Process any image enough, change the contrast, run it through filters, and you will get something different. Look at the "Face on Mars" images! The NASA raw data is pretty dull. But run it through enough image manipulators and it ends up looking like the mask from Scream.

Please don't think that I absolutely discount all orb photos. But I believe that there are enough genuine mysteries in the world, that we don't need to create artificial ones by an uncritical acceptance of "proofs". I also think that we need to constantly apply critical thinking to anything extraordinary, both to keep a high credibility level against critics and to be ready for the truly extraordinary when it comes around.

bove, I have posted some of the "insect orb" photos I got in my back yard. I posted them again not to belabor a point, but as an illustration in a discussion of how expectations and presentation affect perception.

I stated these previously, that they were the result of flash reflections off of flying insects. But what if I had posted them on the Internet and simply said that I took the photos in my back yard, and that:

-- the house I live in is old
-- at least one person has died in the house
-- people who have lived on the property before us have said they thought both of the houses were haunted
-- a friend who says all the women in her family are psychic, said that she saw the spirit of an old man here once
-- the property is near Indian lands
-- the property is near Indian ruins, where people have reported seeing strange lights over the ruins
-- a horse died on the spot where this photo was taken, and is buried there
-- my dog sometimes suddenly runs toward where this photo was taken, and barks
-- we have found old foundations, when digging just beyond the gate in the photo
-- there are wooden grave markers in the front yard

I could honestly have mentioned any or all of these things, because they are all true.

Yet -- they don't have a dang thing to do with the fact that I got pictures of insects!

But if I had posted the photos with any of the above comments, I would bet that I would get many replies from folks convinced that I had gotten spirit photos.

It is, of course, the difference between the sort of posting you see all the time, and a full investigation. An investigation would address the points above, and find that:

-- the grave markers are left over from Halloween a few years ago (people always ask who is buried there...)
-- my dog suddenly runs in that direction and barks because there are sometimes horses on the other side of the fence and he wants to play with them
-- the "nearby" Indian ruins are 6 miles away
-- the foundations are from old animal pens

As for the more "paranormal" points, all of the statements are true. People have thought our house is haunted -- they heard weird noises. (Turned out there were squirrels under the floor and a beehive in the ceiling.) The last owner of the property did die here, and our friend said she saw him sitting in a chair. The little house next door does have a history of haunting type activity, including a shadow form I myself saw.

But -- even these more "paranormal" reports have nothing to do with the fact that I photographed insects! Yet the type of casual reporting all-too-common on the Internet would suggest a connection, and a paranormal cause for the orbs in the photos.

This discussion is not directed at experienced investigators, who are already familiar with the need to carefully and objectively examine all aspects of extraordinary reports. It is rather a cautionary tale for those new to researching the paranormal, and a plea for objectivity and reason (and a certain degree of skepticism) when attempting to draw conclusions.

One claim encountered many times is that "orbs only show up in haunted places", offered as proof of a spiritual connection. I'm afraid that this claim just doesn't hold up for long. Even the briefest review of orb photos shows that, for every orb photo taken in a supposedly haunted location, there is one that came from someone's living room or back yard. So, are these folks' houses and yards also haunted?

The answer is, actually, all too often, yes -- they become "haunted" after the fact, that is, once folks see orb photos, and because orbs are increasingly becoming automatically associated with spirits, they conclude that their locales must be haunted, and start finding *other* "evidence" to support that conclusion! Thus, by circular reasoning and based upon an assumption, the mere presence of an orb in a photo leads to the generation of a situation that explains the orb...

Cruise around on the paranormal forums for a bit, and you will find dozens of examples of postings like:

"I took these photos in my house, and there were these funny blobs of light. A friend told me they are called 'orbs' and they mean there are spirits in my house. We never thought of our house as haunted, but once we started talking about it my husband remembered there was that time his keys disappeared then reappeared, and several people have said they feel cold in our kitchen... Our daughter also sometimes has nightmares."

Once handed the idea (the conviction) that orbs=spirits, people are usually able to find several extraordinary things to support the first assumption. This is an unfortunate, casual distortion of the scientific method, because what folks end up doing is using several extraordinary assumptions to "prove" another extraordinary assumption.

Writer Paul Theroux tells a story, I think it was in "The Great Railway Bazaar", which exemplifies this kind of thinking. While travelling, he falls into conversation with a couple who say they are interested in the supernatural. They relate to him how they came into possession of a fetish figure, which a "knowledgeable" acquaintance told them was evil, and advised them to dispose of it. "So, what happened?" Theroux asked. "Nothing!" they replied. "But something bad sure would have happened if we hadn't gotten rid of it!"

This version of "logic" is all too common, and may be encountered anywhere unusual subjects are discussed. I for years worked in a bookstore, and was in charge of ordering the books for the psychic/UFO/conspiracy sections, and have had many encounters with people interested in such things. And there are many people who will leap from Point A to Point F without any consideration of the points in between. (And a few who can teleport straight to Z...) It was sometimes difficult to balance my interest in the paranormal with their assumption that, because I was interested and knowledgeable, I was also a "believer".

UFO researcher John Keel is famously quoted as saying "Belief is the enemy". The more I research these subjects, the more I agree with him. Because a belief is very easy to pick up, but *very* hard to put down. Once people have accepted a belief, they sometimes do the most amazing contortions to hold onto it, even presenting less credible things in support of the original belief. UFO researcher Jacques Vallee (whom I respect for his reasoned approach) calls it the "ratchet effect" -- once you accept an extraordinary belief, you sometimes have to accept even more extraordinary beliefs to support your position on the first belief, and almost against your will you find yourself being pushed toward a polar extreme of absurdity.

Case in point: I was watching a special on crop circles, and they had on a "true believer" who felt that crop designs were symbols sent by superior intelligences to convey higher knowledges to mankind. When presented with proof that some of the circles in question were in fact the work of human pranksters, he replied, "Well, it does seem that some crop patterns have been physically caused by humans. But we have analyzed the patterns, and we don't think that human beings could have come up with such extraordinary designs. So the patterns must have been put in their brains by higher intelligences, and the humans are just the channels for this information!" True belief is truly stubborn.

(And, speaking as a human, I am always a bit insulted when people say "Humans couldn't have done this!" Humans are capable of wonderful vision and feats; to say that aliens built the pyramids is an insult to human ingenuity and the toil of generations of workers. Hey folks -- don't sell out your own species so readily in favor of your "superior space brothers".)

The study of urban legends is also very illustrative on this. (Also called "urban myths", or in England "FOAF ["friend-of-a-friend"] tales", urban legends are seemingly-possible but ultimately untrue tales, which usually teach a moral lesson, and are spread by word of mouth. The Kentucy Fried Rat, The Mouse in the Coke Bottle, and Spiders Hatching in the Hairdo are all examples of ULs you might have encountered.)

A person I worked with at the above-mentioned bookstore was a veritable seine net for urban legends -- she would strain every passing one out of the popular stream of consciousness, and present it as factual. (I am not criticizing her in this -- it is a very common occurrence, and just about any UL you can mention has been presented at one time or another as "straight news" in papers, on slow days.) One day she passed on to me the "Superman heart attack" story, which involves a situation where rescue workers find a tragic result of fantasy role play: a woman tied up on a bed, with her husband/boyfriend/lover passed out/dead on the floor in a Superman/Batman/Zorro costume. (The slashes represent the flexible nature of ULs -- the basic framework remains the same, but the 'corroborative' details change to reflect current interests and local color.)

"Oh," I said, "that's an urban legend. It's been around for a long time."

"Oh, no!" she said. "My aunt told me about it, and it happened in her town!" (The 'friend-of-a-friend' thread common to most ULs.)

"Well, I really doubt that," says I. "I heard that one about 15 years ago, and it's been written up in the urban legend books."

She: "But my aunt read about it in the local paper!"

Me: "Well, maybe -- lots of urban legends have been passed off as straight news, especially during the 'October Silly Season' (a traditionally slow time for news, where editors are more willing to put in less credible stories to fill space). But I really think it's an urban legend."

At this point, I went out onto the floor (one of the advantages of working in a large bookstore is that it is like having a library at your fingertips) and got a book on urban legends. And there it was: a whole little chapter devoted to this particular urban legend.

I showed it to her, but she was still unwilling to accept that the whole thing might not be true. (And at this point she was feeling that I was attacking her aunt's veracity more than the story itself.) She stubbornly stuck to the story, even in the face of evidence that it was not true. It had to be true, she said, because there was a picture with the story!

Me: "What was the picture of?"

She: "The ambulance they carried the man away in!"

I thought I would perform a little study.

I've just finished going through the file of photos I have taken with our digital camera. The photos are mostly all conveniently located in the camera download file, so all I had to do was open the first one then arrow through them.

As I went, I counted photos where flash had been used. I also noted photos that had "orbs" in them.

The result: of 338 digital photos involving flash, 71 had "orbs" in them!

My calculator tells me that works out to a wee smidgen over 21%.

21 percent of my photos had "orbs" in them! Little round flares of light, where nothing was to be seen with the naked eye. In some locations, every photo had "orbs"; one photo has as many as 2 dozen blurry little round suckers.

The photos included people and pets. Sometimes children were in the photos. Some of the photos are of sunsets.

Some of the photos were taken at Christmas, and Halloween. Some were during parties, where lots of people were in attendance. Sometimes there were just one or two people. Sometimes no people are in view.

The locales include various rooms in our house, our back yard, friends' apartments, several different convention centers, and a city street.

All these different subjects, and settings, and 21% of the photos have little blurry circular blobs in them. How to explain it?

-- Am I particulary attractive to ghosts/spirits/angels/alien probes/light beings?

Well, my attractiveness is a matter of opinion and open to debate, but I really don't see how that could be it. I don't feel *that* special. Maybe it's my cologne...

-- Are there ghosts/spirits/angels/alien probes/light beings simply everywhere?

Sure seems like it, by this "evidence". They especially seem to like convention centers. And dogs.

-- Is my $90-on-sale-at-WalMart-last-year digital camera particularly able to get images of ghosts/spirits/angels/alien probes/light beings?

Y'know, I think I'm missing a bet here. I should have bought up the whole stock of these cameras when they were discontinued -- I could hawk 'em on eBay as "orb cameras" and make a bundle! My friend Bob came up with the perfect sales line: "If there are orbs there, it will photograph them!" It's the perfect claim: how can you prove it's not true?

I could be awed, and delighted, at my new connection with ghosts/spirits/angels/alien probes/light beings.

Or I could be pissed off that the Polaroid corporation sold me a camera which is designed in such a way that it allows over 20 percent of my photos to be ruined. If I want to print up these snapshots, I'm going to have to Photoshop out all the damned orbs.

Life is choices...

BTW -- that dripping you hear is sarcasm.