It looked like that at the time, honest....hic.

But you raise a good question: can anyone tell me what is artistic/interpretative rather than just a photo?
I tweaked the colour and contrast a bit on that one, but then most people do I would guess, and the rest of the effect just came because I deliberately aimed at the sun.

So is it Art or just plain crap? (As I shouted to passers by outside the Tate Modern)

Speaking as a photographer, I think what you have here is the perennially troublesome 'flare' effect, where light is bouncing around inside the camera lens, causing all manner of irritating light patches over the picture; due mainly to the camera being pointed directly at the light source. For a full explanation:

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/flare.html

Sorry to be a bore . . .

PS: Although I do believe scientists got images of an aura around the King Stone (Rollrights) back in the late '70's/early '80's. They would have probably used infra-red or U/V imaging. I do remember reading that it had a vague pinkish aura winding round it like a snake or something similar.

Unfortunately, I doubt very much that conventional film would record anything like that, but there's always an exception. It would be *extraordinarily* rare, though, I would imagine.

It's probably only Lens Flare.