Lightning Fingers

Marc, I agree with Chris on this, it is merely a matter of philosophy and perspective. You and I (like most people) are driven to photography by different forces. Highly composed and premeditated images seem to inspire you. Whereas I am drawn to photography by the unending creativity and originality of the natural world. It is my loss that I cannot appreciate great fashion or great B&W nude photography, but that is just the way it is.

 

You find that there are millions of lightning pictures and in some way you find them similar. I find that there are billions of studio and portrait photos and I find them all the same.

 

To me, this photograph illustrates greater care of composition, timing and technical expertise than most studio or portrait photography. You claim that there could have been no premeditation or composition because Cory didn't know if the lightning would strike. Suppose he consulted with the NWS and determined the electrical density of this particular storm and had found this particular location weeks in advance. Suppose he had built a mount for his camera on his car and had been through 10 storms only to get this one photography. Is it not creative of him? How can we accurately judge POW when what I find creative you do not and what you deem as genius I dispise.

 

It is simply a matter of perspective. Astrophotography is probably the most technically demanding of photography (using traditional film) at its highest level, and yet the vast majority of its most difficult subjects have not and will not change for billions of years. Is it not creative to strive to capture the orion nebula using a 26 year-old manually guided telescope and a '78 pentax spotmatic just because the actual film exposure is "only" a carefully calculated time interval?

 

In the end it should be about images: digital, film, CCD, photoshop, etc, it shouldn't matter. It is what inspires and fascinates audiences and photographers that should be pursued, and creativity is everywhere no matter the "difficulty" or artistic technique used to attain it.

 

I am a VERY amateur photographer, and the world needs lightning pictures and it needs portraits to inspire less talented people like myself to accquire new skills - they BOTH require immense skill ... and plenty of luck.

 

Cory, congrats, I'd give you a 9 for creativity too.

Cory - When shooting timed shots like this, what kind of aperture do you use? And how do you determine the length of time you want to use, or does that make a difference? And lastly, in what way did using bulb setting give you lighting of the sky that you didn't like? Thanks.

I never spoke about "high art", and it isn't a football match - no "vs". This being said, you make interesting points... "It is merely a matter of philosophy and perspective." Yes, I did say, that this was just my opinion.

"You claim that there could have been no premeditation or composition because Cory didn't know if the lightning would strike." IF and also WHERE. I understand creativity as a control over ALL parameters to achieve a planned result. Other definitions are of course possible.

Of course, the photographer has had to control this and that, to be able to freeze this moment at all. But no possible conrol of the shape of the lightning - the lines, rather -, and no possible control of where in the frame it will be. This, I believe, can't be denied, and it means that this genre itself doesn't allow FULL control of light, composition and shapes. I didn't mean anything more than that, and most certainly, the photographer had to go through many things to make this capture possible - and therefore surely has a great merit.

My goal here is not establish any sort of "superiority" of a genre over another. I'm not THAT stupid...:-) Just wanted to introduce the concept of creativity as opposed to originality, because I'm certainly convinced that a picture doesn't have to be original NOR creative, nor something really new, to be GREAT. And the way it will be great is then great aesthetically. This POW, no doubt, is aesthetically very good.

I certainly don't regard the studio work I do on daily basis as always very creative either - actually it almost never is...:-) But the daily studio work happens to be all about control of ALL parameters - no control in the studio means failure. What I find very interesting is that a shot like this POW actually shows mastery in a totally different way: the art of making everything possible and "ready" to capture a magical moment, without really knowing EXACTLY what it will be like. As such, it isn't THAT different from street photography of human subjects... no superiority, no inferiority judgement meant at all, and certainly, nothing photographic worth to be "dispised"... Just looking at similarities and differences between genres, because that's what the elves' comments were ingeniously inviting us to do...:-) Regards.

Thanks for the extra comments Cory, nice to know that I remembered it correctly about lightning starting off at ground level and then heading up to the sky!

 

The lightning storm that I was refering to was quite surreal, it only seemed to be coming from one field, there was no thunder, no rain, nothing but eery beams of light rising into the air. That was on the outskirts of Norwich in England. I thought that it must be some kind of fancy lighting at a rock concert at first, but when I stopped and looked, there was absolutely nobody there, not a sound to be heard either. I've seen a similar dry lightning storm in Australia too, whilst travelling on a Greyhound Bus from Alice Springs to Adelaide one night many years ago. It made the journey more interesting at any rate!

My draw into photography, and my continued pursuit of it, is emotional. I was 19 and hopelessly in the throes of unrequited love when I chanced upon photography, which immediately energized and transformed my living. The camera and the photograph have enabled me to grapple with my perspectives on a hostile world, a world that I feel is grinding at the core of my soul. If it were not for our own personal responses, and those of people who have loved us from infanthood, that world would have devoured each of us long ago.

I have learned, through the postings of Cory, Justin and Marc, that this photograph has very high merits I was unaware of, so my opinion has shifted from yesterday, but I can still look at this photograph with near complete emotional detachment. I can look at the lightning and marvel at its beauty, but I certainly cant feel it. I can read how Cory accomplished it and be amazed at his perseverance and his courage, but I cant hear or feel the power of it. Ive seen plenty of thunderstorms and have been shaken by thunderclaps and lightning bolts, but none of that is coming through to me. I dont say this to fault the picture, but perhaps to identify the genre, or the subject matter, as one that is less significant to me, although I am aware that reading the continued thread has changed my opinion from yesterday, so I suppose Im open to still further change.

Justin said: You and I (like most people) are driven to photography by different forces. The most amazing thing about photography, I find, is that it can be something different to each one of us, and it is still photography. Photography is bigger than us. Its bigger than thunder and lightning, bigger than the human body, bigger than Photoshop. To many, its a scientific instrument, or an income, or a means of self expression. It could be anything. To me, its an avenue towards self awareness and Im not made more self aware by this photo. Im not reminded of how fragile I am as a human being, or how powerful I am as homo sapiens. Im not reminded how people less fortunate than I am are suffering, or how simple and beautiful a childs smile can be. It is a picture of lightning. An excellent picture of lightning. But thats all I see in it.

I will probably die without ever understanding my own work.

Marc, you are right on the title, on a second glance I realize that it seems to carry a conotation of adversity or of even a necessary inferiority of one to the other. I certainly did not mean that.

 

As an audience we all deeply understand the subjects which attract us the most. Be it empathy, sympathy, etc, we see creativity in different ways. Perhaps I can clarify my point further.

 

Your definition of creativity is total (or as near total as is possible) control over all variables of your subject -- "FULL control of light, composition and shapes." My point was that creativity can exist in the shape of every lightning bolt. Cory was creative enough to repeatedly try to capture this lightning and show us that each megavolt of electric potential and each megalux of light is a beauty in itself. It exhibits such symmetry and striking colors that exacting composition is not absolutely necessary for it to be very pleasing asthetically.

 

I also did not literally mean "dispise" I was creating a hypothetical case where I do not understand the subtleties of tonality and lines that would make a great studio shot. Others are fascinated and excited by those aspects of photography.

 

I look at Cory's picture and feel the storm and can marvel at the heat, light, and energy that is discharged in a fraction of a second. It connects with me intellectually and aesthetically.

 

You are most certainly right, it's not a football match - but like a football game it needs both sides and creativity has other definitions.

To what extent is a photographer willing to risk failure? I imagine Cory has gone out hunting for lightning shots and come back with nothing that he'd want to share with the rest of us. We've all gone off on photo treks with images in our minds and invariably come back without them . . . but hopefully with other ones, perhaps even better. This is the thrill of the hunt. Creativity is not necessarily the need to control all variables, but rather to be able to see and record harmony where others might only see the mundane.

 

This approach is perhaps the luxury of the hobbyist. The professional must be able to get predictable results or he will soon be looking for another line of work. Is it appropriate that a professional should cut the serendipitous shot very little slack and treat it as though it were a studio setup?

This image is a beautiful image, well captured, perfect composition, color, and lighting. I would hang it on my wall.

Small moderator edit made here: Just doin my job :-) See the guidelines on the "About" Page for POW.

Hats off for Mr. Burgess for the most eloquent contribution by far! I wish I could add something of the same quality, but all I can think of is to thank you for making me think. Thanks to Cory's beautiful photo and you all, I can just enjoy this interesting discussion, whilst outside thunder strikes and lighting cracks (it's true).

The discussion in this thread is interesting, thought provoking even. The discussion, however, begs the issue. Just LOOK at that shot. I lived in Wisconsin for 30 years, until Dec/2000. I have seen lightning just like that pictured. The earth-cloud bolt behind the tree plus the cloud-cloud strikes above make this a very dramatic shot. The colors are believable, I've seen them.

 

As is, the composition is terrific. However, cropped to 4x5/645 proportions with the loss taken on the left edge is very strong as well. I'd probably take a strip off the bottom as an additional bit of cropping; perhaps half the distance from the bottom of the frame to the top of the silhouette on the left side. I usually prefer the 1:1.5 ratio of the 35mm frame. This lightning works in both formats. I too would hang it on the wall.

 

I'd give it 9/9

 

Jim,

San Diego

The Photo.Net Cropping Society strikes again. Where do youse get off?

Can't you guys get it through your skulls that once you purchase this image you can matt it to your hearts' content? Stop telling the photog how to crop his own pictures. If you don't like it, get out the scissors and do it yourselves (once the check has cleared the bank). Don't forget, Cory charges by the square foot. Snippings are at your own expense.

The composition here is totally fortuitous... I mean... how did Cory know that the lightning was going to strike where it did? Come on! He took a chance and played percentages, got a great picture... but God himself did the composition bit. Shall we take the credit for a summer's day? A storm breaking over Half Dome?

Cory should rightly be praised for seeing the statistical potential in the set-up. He (She? I never know with these American names... let's assume "he") maximised his chances of getting a successful shot by using his judgement and took the risk (apparently both an aesthetic risk and a physical one) of setting up his tripod and betting that something wonderful might come out of his efforts. And it did.

I liked Cory's "Lion At The Zoo" story too... another exercise in chance. This is a bloke who likes to throw dice, and sometimes comes up trumps. But he counts the cards, don't you know...

No-one could have predicted this. No-one would have bet the kids on it's turning out. So all your "wows" and "gee whizzes" are wasted. What we have to face is that Cory made a gamble here and beat the odds.

During this storm, I was inside, hiding under the table. Where were you?

I still don't see this image as flawed in any way, even though it has been suggested it was simply a matterof luck that this photograph succeeded where it has. Until Tony Dummett posts a better image of lightning from her own portfolio, this one will have to be the 10/10. Some may not agree with other's opinions, but to suggest when one person's comment of "wow" is somehow "a waste" is the sort of condescending attitude that we don't need here on photonet. If someone else does good, it doesn't hurt to congratulate him on it. This is a very STRIKING photo, even though it required a lot of patience, the photographer had the sense enough to realize what he had and post it here for us to enjoy.

"The composition here is totally fortuitous... I mean... how did Cory know that the lightning was going to strike where it did?"

Most likely, he watched and studied the storm for a while after a lengthy chase...... That's what I do.

"Come on! He took a chance and played percentages, got a great picture... but God himself did the composition bit."

If your premise is that because God made what is in the frame, the photographer isn't responsible for the composition- then I guess God himself is to be given sole credit for the composition of your landscapes. You had no control over the landscape itself, after all.... and just happened to be there. All you had to do was not screw it up, right?

"Shall we take the credit for a summer's day? A storm breaking over Half Dome?"

Nah. But we sure can take credit for the work it took us to get there at that particular time, and for having the technical/creative skills to know how to optimize the 3 dimensional scene for a 2 dimensional medium.

"He (She? I never know with these American names... let's assume "he") maximised his chances of getting a successful shot by using his judgement and took the risk (apparently both an aesthetic risk and a physical one) of setting up his tripod and betting that something wonderful might come out of his efforts. And it did."

Pretty much sums up all photography.

 

Hmm. A little bit of point-missing, combined with good, honest, old-fashioned disagreement, are unfortunately turning the conversation a little acrimonious this week.

 

In a twist on one of the classic nature photography debates, we're now wondering if a lightning shot can be truly creative, and by extension, if any landscape image is truly the work of the photographer. After all, the landscape isn't created by the artist behind the camera. However, I think we can agree that there are very creative landscape images, where the photographer worked to come up with his or her composition, creating photographic order out of visual chaos in a thoughtful way (paraphrasing Galen Rowell). The debate is raised now because, inarguably, there is an element of chance in lightning/storm photography. For all the planning that can be done, for all the patience required, for all the knowledge of storm patterns, landscape, and exposure techniques, the lighting either shows up or it does not. We cannot deny that element of chance, but neither should we deny the achievement of the photographer, capable and positioned to take advantage of that chance.

 

However, does that mean that the image is "creative", whatever that means? Creativity is subjective, no doubt. If your personal definition of creativity requires that all of the elements be under the image-maker's control, then this cannot be a truly creative image. It is very important to realize that that evaluation doesn't imply that the image must have less impact, be less of an achievement, or be less aesthetically pleasing. I do believe that nature images can be very creative, and I think lightning images can be so as well, but that's just my opinion.

 

The creativity debate could easily hinge on a comparison to studio photography, where, in theory, all of the elements are in the photographer's control. I'm not sure I'm qualified to make the comparison, because I lack the necessary studio experience. Certainly, there is a creative element to designing the lighting, setting, and other factors in a studio photograph, though rarely is there a studio image that doesn't involve some element that wasn't expressly created for that shot.

 

For what it's worth, I don't think Marc, Tony, or anyone else has to produce a better lightning shot to hold to their evaluations of the image. But neither does that mean that it isn't a wonderful example of its genre, nor that that was no effort, thoughtfulness, or even creativity involved.

 

Enough ramble. Enjoy.

"It is very important to realize that that evaluation doesn't imply that the image must have less impact, be less of an achievement, or be less aesthetically pleasing"

 

I agree. The assessment of the image itself is totally subjective and may or may not be anyone's cup of tea. However, I got the inkling that some on this board somehow found the achievement itself more luck than "skill", and that's where I have a disagreement. The implication is that the photographer is somehow less worthy of praise because nature was more responsible for the image than the photographer recording it. I'd say it's a 50/50 "chicken or the egg" thing. My personal experience with this genre of photography has probably tainted my opinion of it, since I have spent countless hours pursuing such images, only to walk away with a small handful....

 

I guess I just have a problem with the artsy-fartsy crowd which believes anything not completely whipped-up by the imagination and executed to perfection is somehow inferior (creatively).

 

There are lots of digital artists out there that make awesome images, but I sure as hell ain't going to put them on a pedestal and say they are more creative than Galen Rowell, Muench, Wolfe, etc....

 

... and that's the story I'm sticking with :-)

Chris,

You've misunderstood my critique. I like the picture.

And if someone can convince me that the photographer knew that the lightning was going to take this shape, in this exact direction, then he gets credit for composition.

If not, the other elements in the picture - some trees on a hill and a lot of sky, including a nice cloud - hardly qualify as a masterful exercise in layout.

What I was saying is that we should praise the photographer here for persistence and for taking the time to learn how lightning might behave in a given situation, and then for taking the chance to beat the odds just a little to get a shot that few others would have captured.

Lightning is almost the textbook definition of a random event. You can't take credit for capturing a well-shaped random event, as such. What you can (rightly) take credit for is the effort involved in setting up to optimise your chances of getting something extraordinary on film. Something that others did not do (as we were hiding under tables).

Concerning more traditional landscape photographs, there is much more of chance to find the best position, light etc. to make as perfect an exposure as possible. It's a different ballgame to lightning photography, and landscape photographers play to higher standards precisely because they have so much more time to control what they shoot (although there are still many random elements involved, much more so than a studio setup). The skills required are different to storm-chasing.

This is not to belittle storm-chasing in quest of dramatic lightning shots. Lightning shots can be beautiful things to look at, as this one is. It is merely to distinguish lightning photography's standards from other forms of photography. To praise the composition of this picture is to praise the shape of a random event determined by God (if there is a God).

It's the photographer's forward thinking and intelligent judgement that really deserve praise here. He saw the potential of the situation (forgive the pun), as he did in his "Lion" shot, and came back to take a chance at capturing it.

Cool.

If one watches an electrical storm long enough, he or she can get an idea about where the general area of lightning strikes have occured and are going to occur. So, you COMPOSE your shot, and wait for the right lightning to occur within the shot. That's how I'd take credit for a random event, just like people do every day in Vegas -- they win money through a random event and then take credit for it by keeping the money! That's the best I can do in Cory's defense. I'm not elloquent enough to argue why I think Cory SHOULD be given credit for this composition, but I think others above have done a fine job. Frankly, I'd rather be out taking pictures than trying to sway peoples minds on a web site.

Cory can be given credit for composition! I mean, he did point the camera that way and this is what he got, so it sounds composed to me! :o) Get off this site and go take photos!

"See ya, bye!"

I have a lot of respect for those willing to go out in stormy conditions and stand by a metal antenna with a camera on top to take this kind of photo. Very nicely done.

Toby has captured the essence of it. Well said Toby, you are one who has the ability to see things in perspective. Cory IS probably out taking another fine lightning shot. And this picture has inspired me to do the same.

I was out shooting more lightning shots last night and picked up two interesting ones (here and here for those interested). Not quite the dramatics of this one but you can see I was shooting.

It has been quite a discussion so far. No single photograph could get unanimous accolades from such a large and diverse group. I think I'll leave the debate for others to argue.

PS. I am a He.

Fantastic shot Cory, the lightning "hand" effect is great. Congratulations on POW. Well deserved.

Great photo shot.. I love the blue tint the best and I am not sure how you did that.. but it's probably natural, right?.

I am a lightning freak myself.. but I always seem to have a problem with rain getting on my camera as well as the lense, or windy conditions on a long shutter speed making the trees look blurry.

 

Awesome shot!! you are a brave guy. Thanks for the tip on Tripod use too.

 

 

Note to Elliot - The aperture I would choose depends on the type of lightning. These ones that crawl across the sky aren't as bright so I shoot at f8 or wider. I was out last night shooting with my DSLR so I had the luxury of seeing the shots immediately. I stayed at f8 most of the time. One large bolt hit the ground across the lake and it was so bright it was completely blown out. That shot would have needed f22 to work. For time, I usually do 30 seconds. It is enough time to catch a strike and add add some detail to the sky. While the shutter is open it is still gathering light so really long exposures can end up over-exposed if there are other light sources, like city lights, in the shot. When using bulb to keep the shutter open and then close it after a strike, the shutter time can very, so one shot may have no sky details, another may have an overly bright sky. I use the set time just for consistant results.

Note to Tony - For the most part I don't sell prints so all they could do is crop the one on their screen. I did know that the lightning was going to strike in that direction. I just didn't know it was going to look the way it did. We get this crawling lightning a lot and it will hit in the same general area repeatedly. It isn't always as random as one would think. I could have set up the camera last night and got a couple dozen shots without moving the camera. I wouldn't put the lion shot in the Luck category. Animals are very habitual and it was very probable the lion would be back on his rock at the same time every day. I was pretty confident I could get that shot the way I wanted it. I do count the cards but I would be the first to admit that sometimes nature seems to slip me a few aces under the table.

Cory, congratulations on the planning and preparation to capture an image I like a lot!

I've tried a few times to take lightning shots, but don't live where lightning and thunderstorms happen frequently.

 

There's clearly some luck involved in this type of photography, but, if you hadn't been at the right place with good film, a camera properly set up (good idea on the car window mount) and pointed in the right direction at the right time, we wouldn't be reading all these diverse opinions!

 

I'm a little surprised you saying you were out with a digital camera didn't crank up the digital versus film debate too!

 

Congratulations on taking a photograph worthy of selection as a picture of the week!