Lightning Fingers

I believe this is known as cloud-to-cloud lightning. I like the purplish cast. I can't imagine warming it up or any other color shift.

Well said, Cory.

 

re. the Lion shot... I didn't mean to imply that it was a lucky shot, quite the reverse. It was great piece of foresight and anticipation (as well as resulting in a very good image, very good indeed).

 

How do you tell where lightning is going to strike? (apart from the obvious point that it needs a cloud).

i love the shot. however, i find the little lightning rod just above the tree somewhat distracting.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=954549

A lightning shot with some originality imo. Here again, the photographer has done all it takes to capture the lightning, just like Cory did. And he was probably lucky too, just like Cory was a bit lucky too.

But in this particular image, I see a creative intent. The photographer seems to have prepared everything to capture not a pure lightning shot, but a more aesthetical and more moody shot. In this intent, I see some attempt to be creative, eventhough the genre, as I explained above, seems to be limited as far as control over the elements are concerned.

If we look at Cory's picture, the lightning itself is far more impressive than in the picture I posted here. But that's god's part. Creatively, and aesthetically, I prefer the picture I posted here. 1) Because it has a real composition. 2) Because it has a soul.

Just an opinion, obviously - to foster the discussion... In polite terms please... Regards.

Sorry Mark, but the picture you directed us to, misses the mark by a long shot. What you have done is to illustrate instead, how this photo by Cory really does stand out above the crowd. Your example is a far cry from the excellent composition seen here.

Maybe so. You might want to tell me why, though...

I already stated that the lightning itself was quite clearly nicer (more branches, branches upside down, and better surrounding light in the sky) in Cory's image. So, if that's what you mean, it is agreed.

Yet, if we look at this "2nd image as a whole, in what sense am I "off the mark" when I say that I see a more composed image, with a creative sense of drama, which I don't quite find in this POW ?

Thanks for soon "en-lightning" me with your explanation... (Hoping that this play on words will finally help me to understand a bit more about lightning photography...:-)

The other image may feel more dramatic because one feels the awesome power of lighting intensely when it seems close to the viewer (sort of like the way tractor-trailers "feel" larger in the city than on the highway). Framing it off the deck in the other image gives that sense of nature encroaching. In the POW, it appears more at a distance, allowing us to view it in more of an abstract way. Though the angles in the other image, creating a strong left-to-right flow, make it more dynamic in one way, it doesn't feel more thoughtfully composed to me than the POW.

 

In the end, though the other image does have a sense of immediacy and presence, there are technical strengths to this image (as Marc mentions) which make it very successful in my opinion. Hopefully, I can prefer this one without knocking the other harshly. Enjoy.

I think Mark has demonstrated the larger truth that seems to get lost a lot. Photography is a very subjective subject that cannot be converted into an objective scale, contest, or ranking. When we look at an image we will all see and feel something different. What we take from an image and how we respond has more to do with who we are than the photo we are looking at. For example, Rene Asmussen has a great shot called 'What's Coming'. To me I love that shot because the look on the girls face reminds me of how I feel at times thinking back on a tragedy in my life. Nobody else would see that the way I do. Sure there are images that you can say '...out of focus, bad exposure, crooked horizon...' but when the shots get to a level of technical competence, there really is no such thing as 'best'. One person's five is another person's ten. They are both right in their own vision and nobody should really tell them their score is wrong (I am referring to comments I have seen unrelated to this shot). I prefer to think of the POW as a pretty descent shot that the elves have chosen to showcase rather than the BEST shot of all shots for the week.

 

To Tony - It seems we get two kinds of storms around here. One is the 'all hell breaking loose' thunderstorm with lightning going off randomly around the sky and rain so hard you probably couldn't get a descent shot anyhow. I have been out 3 times in the past two weeks and the first two times were this kind. The second kind I recognise right away. The lightning will be cloud to cloud or hit the ground in the same area repeatedly. The cloud to cloud lightning usually flashes several times in an area. These kinds can last a lot longer than a typical thunderstorm. The other night I had a storm like this and was able to set up a couple of shots based on the 'hotspots' in the sky. Just another form of making order out of chaos I guess.

 

In an earlier, post, Marc stated that "the lightning itself is far more impressive than in the picture I posted here," and is certainly allowed his opinion. As a dramatic element, he is certainly right, it is bigger, brighter, closer and scarier.

 

In a technical sense (and I'm sure Chris and Cory will agree), however, the lightning in Cory's photo is not only much rarer but is a sign of a much more violent discharge.

 

I may be wrong, but if I had to guess, Cory took this picture as either 1.) the storm was just starting up or 2.) on the very border of the storm front. Discharges like this (again correct me if I'm wrong anybody) occur from cell to cell or within cells and require a much larger variation in potential within a localized air mass caused by very high wind speeds and temperature diffences within the cell. The other lightning bolt is the grounding of a charge - not a massive equalization in potential amidst the clouds.

 

Marc is right that the other photo has a lot of character and story for a lightning shot. I imagine this is something that studio photographers feed upon. As someone who is scientifically oriented and primarily attracted by all technical and scientific aspects of photography, I find the rarer and stranger bolt of Cory's to be more interesting and pleasing.

 

Just another way to point out that art is different to us all - and maybe to interject more even-keel discussion.

Impressive shot.

 

Most of my thoughts have already been expressed by others above, pro and con, so I won't repeat. The only thing I would add is that the picture, while dramatic, does not have a lot of depth. As a portrait of cool lightning, that isn't a big deal, but as a landscape, it seems like everything is happening on one plane, the silhouette of hte treeline, the doggy-head shaped cloud and the lightning look like they could all be pretty much at similar distances, so that although the fingers are stretching out, there isn't really anything that stretches out to or from the viewer to make it a more dynamic shot. As someone said above, a foreground element like a farmhouse or a lit windmill (as per Daniel Bayers incredible blue gels in his comet image), or light on some trees or something that shows the density of the clouds somehow would give this so much more weight. Daniel's comet picture is great example, the windmill makes it so much more intriguing. Here it is http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=186666

 

Here's another nice shot by Kevin Bjorke that emphasizes more than the event itself, http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=493204

 

 

This is a great capture, beautifully exposed and lightening-wise, beautifully composed, just wish it had more than one terrific element. Just being greedy.

 

As Marc did, I posted the links to other pictures just to emphasize my point, not to steal anyones POW thunder (or lightning as it were), so forgive me if doing so is inappropriate or rude.

 

Congrats on the POW.

"When we look at an image we will all see and feel something different."-- Cory Christensen.

Of course, Cory, you are absolutely right here. I'm also glad you added, besides this subjectivity in the appreciation of art, that there are technical parameters and a few other parameters (not many) which can be judged objectively. These objective parameters are, I think, what led all of us so far, to acknowldge that this POW is technically very good and overall an "impressive" image in its own genre.

The subjective part of it being that some of us are more or less interested in certain images.

Justin,

"In an earlier, post, Marc stated that "the lightning itself is far more impressive than in the picture I posted here," and is certainly allowed his opinion. As a dramatic element, he is certainly right, it is bigger, brighter, closer and scarier."

I think you read this the wrong way, Justin. I meant that Cory's lightning - itself, not the picture - was more impressive.

"In a technical sense (and I'm sure Chris and Cory will agree), however, the lightning in Cory's photo is not only much rarer but is a sign of a much more violent discharge." you added.

Well, yes, I agree absolutely with this, and that's exactly what I meant. Was my English letting me down again ? :-)

"The other photo has a lot of character and story for a lightning shot."

Yes, and this is precisely my point, and my only point about this picture I posted a link to. This alternative shot I liked is composed based on a chair turned "the wrong way", and is nicely framed by the wooden structure. What's hapening in the sky then becomes really PART of a composition which shows a global intent of elaborating a "moody" shot.

Cory's shot needs no such elaboration of a "moody set-up", as the multiple branches are already fabulous, and so is the cloud lit in the middle and the light itself around it.

From a scientific point of view, Cory's shot is certainly excellent. From an aesthetical point of view, it is great in the air, and in my opinion a bit weaker on the land. Nothing wrong with the land in this shot, but I personally (subjectively) feel that the foreground doesn't play any role to add to my aesthetical pleasure. Basically, it all happens up there in Cory's shot - as I see it.

That's the difference I see between the 2 shots. Powerful lightning in Cory's image, and less powerful and less impressive lightning in the other shot, but the other shot is creatively stronger to me, as it has managed to add a mood to the design proposed by God in the sky. That doesn't make any of the 2 shots "better" than the other one objectively; but SUBJECTIVELY I prefer a more creative image with a mood rather than a cold scientific image of a very impressive natural event.

Side comment: I don't prefer this shot because I'm a "studio photographer" - I have been traveling in over 20 countries to take outdoor photographs of people for a living for 5 long years -, but because I pesonally have less interest in scientific miracles than I have in creative photographs that would have a real story to tell. My human heart likes to feel an emotion, and Cory's image shows a power that I can't FEEL, but only SEE. IMHO, a creative set-up can help us to FEEL MORE THAN WE SEE...

Subjectively, Marc G.

Ok, I am a babe lost in the woods of photography, forever wishing I had more time to devote to it. BUT this shot is inspiring for me because, thus far, nature has been my primary subject. Congratulations on the POW and thanks for sharing this awesome image. I see it touched off a tempest of talk--interesting to read this photo philosophy 101.

is create a feeling where none exists. Each person has their own subject preferences and prejudices that they bring to any image they view. This is probably no more evident than in nudes where differences in opinions are extreme. An image is just an image. It takes a mind to make it more (or less).

Cory, you hit the nail on the head when you commented that a photograph cannot create a feeling where none exists. You mentioned that each person brings with him his own subject preferences which is true. Some prefer images that are staged, while others prefer images that are more real, more natural. I don't see this is a science photo at all, it is to me a landscape. More than that this picture reminded me, and will always remind me of the afternoon two years ago when I was hiking the Appalachian Trail, and after 5 weeks I arrived at Max Patch, a mountainside consisting of an open expanse of grass with a few trees, to set up my tent for the night. The lightning began as I was setting up my tent. It didn't let up. I ran and ran as fast as my legs would carry me with my backpack down the other side of the mountain, running for my life, into the shelter of the woods, with the lightning striking all around me, my tent left behind. At the edge of the woods was a lean-to where I stayed that night with another hiiker, happy to be alive, and watched the lightning. And if any other viewers have ever similarly run for their lives from the power of lightning, you may understand how this image can take you back to another place and moment in time. This picture succeeds in bringing back vividly an awesome memory.

I love the color of the sky. The lightning is awesome!

I often stop to view lightning photos, but this one is probably the best one I have ever seen. It's truly awe inspiring.

what i always wanted my lightening shots to be.

Is that a streamer that I see coming out of the tree or is it just another bolt far behind the tree? If it is a streamer, I believe it's pretty rare to catch one.

 

Just prior to a lightning striker, one or more streamers will come up from various objects on the ground, each one attempting to connect to the main bolt coming from above. The one coming out of the tree looks like one that failed.

 

Here's an image that shows a failed streamer coming from a tree: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/shockinglecture.html. Scroll down to see a closeup.

 

Even further down the page check out the images of folks with their hair standing on end. Don't wait around to take a picture if this happens to you, by the way.

I hate to harp on this, but there seems to be the thought that a pretty scene is enough. Maybe or maybe not, there was an opportunity to have a choice of foregrounds. Trees are pretty, but a barn, a church steeple, a town, a windmill, hell..a bunch of headstones from a cemetary ala Moonrise over Hernandez! (where would THAT picture be if it wasn't for the KILLER foreground?? it would be ..sokay..ho hum..) Seeing as you have to set up a tripod, find a spot to settle in, there are choices to be made. A pretty backdrop serves to set up the foreground, just like great scenery in a stage play is only a backdrop for the wonderful things that go on in front of it. Great foregrounds give images DEPTH! It's hard to always get these two elements together, but it's something to strive for. It's pretty, no doubt, but could be more dramatic by creative foreground selection. Tell me why I'm wrong..

Moddy, makes me feel cold...

Excellent exposure and very beautiful nature photo.

6/7

Great colors and "fingers", they seems to become a tree.

Congrads Cory, Very Awesome shot, you like me were at the right place at the right time. although yours is most definitely better I am partial to mine as well because it was my first shot, and I was the dumb one outside with a tripod. See Lightning strikes in Steve Gibson's folder.

 

Great Shot any more like it i would love to see.

you are a Professional hunter!