Fireworks

This is a good example of digital processing to produce an interesting photograph that otherwise couldn't be seen by the eye. Except for the multiple lightning bolts and smooth water, it looks pretty natural, to my eye at least. I think the point here is not an image that is visually accurate but rather one that is visually interesting.

I've never stacked photos before, so I'm showing my ignorance (as well as my desire to understand) with these questions. I can't understand how a series of photos, each 15 seconds long, can be combined and yet still have sharp clouds that don't show the movement those clouds would have made during 75+ seconds. Finally, it seems to me that an area consisting of multiple stacked shots would tend to be darker than a single shot of that area (am I showing my film origins here?). It's probably more appropriate for me to research the technique, but perhaps someone can provide a quick explanation since the process is so central to this image.

I've never stacked photos before, so I'm showing my ignorance (as well as my desire to understand) with these questions. I can't understand how a series of photos, each 15 seconds long, can be combined and yet still have sharp clouds that don't show the movement those clouds would have made during 75+ seconds. Finally, it seems to me that an area consisting of multiple stacked shots would tend to be darker than a single shot of that area (am I showing my film origins here?). It's probably more appropriate for me to research the technique, but perhaps someone can provide a quick explanation since the process is so central to this image.

First of all I want to thank everyone for the great commentary on this picture, that's highly appreciated and the time that everyone takes to offer his/her contribution is something that we should never take for granted. So, thanks!!
This picture was taken around sunset from atop a vertical cliff which is about 100 meters above the sea level. You can see a google earth view of the area here in attachment.
Honestly speaking, I wasn't completely sure about this one, it was quite an experiment for me doing such a composite from 5 different exposures, and I worked so hard and for so long on this picture that at the end I wasn't sure anymore that it would have worked.
This picture came out from a combination of some decent skills on Photoshop ;-), and a shameless fortune on the field. The fortunate factor being the fact that the clouds didn't move very much during the shooting sequence. I mean, they were moving of course, but the movement was slow and I guess it was mainly around the center of the storm - where, by the way, the bolts came from. In fact I don't think that those big clouds that are the main feature of this picture are actually the origin of the bolts. You can see a cumulonimbus behind those clouds, particularly on the upper part of the picture. That's the main body of the storm I guess, a sort of small cyclon - or, as a meteoroligist friend of mine told me, a "supercell" - with strong vertical gusts, and all the rest was turning around it.
About what made me decide for a composite, well, we might consider that if I had kept the shutter open for 75", I would have recorded exactly the same number of bolts on a single exposure. This is what I actually did, but unfortunately with 75" of exposure the clouds were badly blurred, and that's the reason why I opted for taking a number of faster exposures to be combined together. I noticed that the lightnings had quite a regular pace - more or less one every 10" - so I simply realized that by keeping the shutter open for 15", I would have easily recorded at least one bolt on each exposure. I did this for about 12 times, and then I chose the best 5 images to be stacked together. With this "trick", I've been able to produce an image with more or less the same number of bolts as the one exposed by 75", but with the clouds far less blurred.
For what concerns the actual making of the composite, well, it was a bit of a nightmare. As far as I know there are at least two ways of stacking pictures on Photoshop, one being to manage each picture as a different layer and working with the eraser at different opacities to remove the unwanted elements from each layer. The second, the one I chose, is copying and pasting single parts of each image on the image chosen as the main layer.
First, I chose the picture with the best looking clouds and water, using it as the background layer. Then I started selecting the bolts from the other images with the lazo, taking care of smoothing the selections by about 30-40 pixels, in order to paste them into the background layer in the easiest possible way. The nightmare was that I had to copy and paste not only the bolts, but also a small portion of clouds above, the surrounding bright glow and the bolt and glow reflection in the water. This has resulted in tens of different small selections, and with different opacities.
There are certainly a few aspects of the image that requires some work, as someone pointed out. This is a kind of "work in progress" image for me, so I appreciate the suggestions.
I hope to have answered most of the questions on how this was made, but of course I'm available for answering more questions if I can. I really appreciate the discussion, thanks again to everyone.
Paolo

Thank you Paolo describing the technique you used and the reasons why. Your image is excellent and it draws me in.
The comments from John A. and Peter Daalder made me think. First John has an interesting idea. How would one combine the long exposure necessary for these lightening shots with a short exposure to show the waves in the ocean. I'm not sure it would look right, but it sure would look different, perhaps edgier.

I agree with Peter about the 3 areas of interest. However, I want to feel closer to the island, more like I'm a part of the image. The crop below draws me underneath the clouds, more into the photo. This crop, changes the mood. I sense more danger, I feel intimidated. Maybe it just works for me. BTW: Your whole portfolio is very nice and good luck with the publication of your new book.

Paola, as I hear you describe your choice on how to combine images, I thought I might make a comment that is relevant to my earlier comments.

The method you chose to combine your images would really exacerbate the difficulty of the process of combining your images. Different digital exposures automatically align when dropped over each other if you have used a secure tripod and that one thing alone will solve most problems/frustrations in the process. But what I find with the cutting and pasting method is that you rarely "take" enough over and find you need just a bit more for a proper blend.(I used to try things this way as well!) This is amplified when you are trying to mix several exposures and in several areas of the image--the horizon and on the water. Stacking will give you all the info you could need in the right place in the image. The stacking method allows for unlimited play to get the blend right and to place things, like the reflections, in the visually correct place.--I also hope that when you discussed erasing, that you are meaning on a mask and not the image itself!

Stephen, stacking digital images works because each layer is normally opaque and so the top layer is the only one that is seen. You can adjust this with blending modes and transparency, but also through masking/erasing so that one image will blend (feathering) into another.

As to the crops here, I think everyone has their own interpretation of a scene, but I do believe that these change, dramatically, what this image conveys as presented. Aside from my problems with the unrealistic elements, I actually find the image impressive and well composed. I don't feel the image to be loose or unfocused (subject-wise) and the extra spaces are what give it a wonderful elegance and allow the image to go beyond just description or documentary. This is a very serene image except for the violence of the far off storm. We are safe as a viewer, but can recognize the tentativeness of our situation as we look out across the water. We are allowed to feel the anticipation of what is approaching or relax in what has passed. As the crops get tighter, the image does not get better in any way, but becomes substantially different and less I believe. We lose all sense of dichotomy and it starts to become just another photo of something rather than one that transcends its subject. It sort of starts to feel like a sports photograph, where the action is simplified and important but I think I prefer to enjoy the entire setting, not only the game, but the air, the water and the possibilities.

eliminated the repeated post

The rock needs to be closer to the foreground and given more prominence. Otherwise, and EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT image, whatever method was used to achieve the result.

John, thanks for the Paola, but I'm afraid I am a boy, unfortunately... ;-D

About your comment on the combine method, I must I often - or better, almost always - use the blending method of stacking images as layers and the blending them by mean of mask and brush. The vast majority of my pictures are actually panos made by stitching together 3, 4 or more vertical takes together. I often take pictures in this way because of the many advantages you get, first for the obvious larger size that allows to deliver far better image quality when printing, but also for the increased field of view that lets you produce images of strong visual impact thanks to the extreme perspective you can achieve; you can see - if you want - an example here of what I mean, among many others: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9363671&size=lg

Second, I often blend exposures together, everytime I can avoid the use of grad filters. So I'm actually pretty familiar with the technique you mention, and of course I always use a sturdy tripod when I am out in the field, and in this case as well, as you can imagine, being the exposure 15"...

So, the reasons for using a different blending method this time was that, being each take 15" long, everything was changing in every other exposure. Island and horizon line apart, there were actually a lot of alignment issues here as you can imagine, as the water was different in every single shot, the shape of the clouds was different, and their position too into the frame (although slightly, but in any case sufficient for not having a perfect matching). To be honest, I started working with this image applying the blending method you mentioned, jut to realize after a while that it was terribly complicated. This was actually part of the nightmare I mentioned in my previous post, and I was tempted to give up. Fortunately, I still gave it a try with the other method and I finally made it.

A few words about the crop suggestions: thank you Peter and Greg for taking the time to offer your own compositional interpretation of this picture. I see the reasons why you proposed this alternative versions and I found they both have their strenghts, although I tend to prefer the pano version proposed by Greg. However, I think the 5x4 aspect ratio of the original still better fit my aim of showing that small island lost in the vastity of sea, and at the mercy of the pounding elements.
Thanks again to everyone.
Paolo

John, thanks for the Paola, but I'm afraid I am a boy, unfortunately... ;-D

About your comment on the combine method, I must I often - or better, almost always - use the blending method of stacking images as layers and the blending them by mean of mask and brush. The vast majority of my pictures are actually panos made by stitching together 3, 4 or more vertical takes together. I often take pictures in this way because of the many advantages you get, first for the obvious larger size that allows to deliver far better image quality when printing, but also for the increased field of view that lets you produce images of strong visual impact thanks to the extreme perspective you can achieve; you can see - if you want - an example here of what I mean, among many others: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9363671&size=lg

Second, I often blend exposures together, everytime I can avoid the use of grad filters. So I'm actually pretty familiar with the technique you mention, and of course I always use a sturdy tripod when I am out in the field, and in this case as well, as you can imagine, being the exposure 15"...

So, the reasons for using a different blending method this time was that, being each take 15" long, everything was changing in every other exposure. Island and horizon line apart, there were actually a lot of alignment issues here as you can imagine, as the water was different in every single shot, the shape of the clouds was different, and their position too into the frame (although slightly, but in any case sufficient for not having a perfect matching). To be honest, I started working with this image applying the blending method you mentioned, jut to realize after a while that it was terribly complicated. This was actually part of the nightmare I mentioned in my previous post, and I was tempted to give up. Fortunately, I still gave it a try with the other method and I finally made it.

A few words about the crop suggestions: thank you Peter and Greg for taking the time to offer your own compositional interpretation of this picture. I see the reasons why you proposed this alternative versions and I found they both have their strenghts, although I tend to prefer the pano version proposed by Greg. However, I think the 5x4 aspect ratio of the original still better fit my aim of showing that small island lost in the vastity of sea, and at the mercy of the pounding elements.
Thanks again to everyone.
Paolo

A wonderful picture, a magnificent hard work and tremendous interesting discursion technically and aesthetically. I think it was a good choice this photo of the week.

Photography is in trouble these days because the concept of visual"truth" is becoming archaic. As soon as I read the word "composite," the image had zero value in my mind.

This is simply outstanding! The island makes this image, by standing strong in the middle of the fireworks and force of nature. The clouds and lightning are superb!!

Stunning image, Paolo!! Yes, there are ways to improve it slightly, but it is still a stunning image, regardless.
Without being there, it is probably not easy to make a jusgement on ways to improve it, but I possibly would have tilted the camera up a tad so as the horizon was at the bottom 1/3rd of the image and so as to remove the less interesting foreground water which would have added more of that brilliant dramatic sky.

It doesn't work for me. There's something about it that doesn't look 'natural' and that pushes me away. I have the same problem with most HDR shots. I usually can't quite identify what it is that makes them feel "wrong" but I can't ignore it either.

Thanks for sharing and how you did it. I love to work with color more then b/w but would like to see you do a b/w version just to compare if you feel like it. I would agree with the crop illustrated above. Sharper eyes then mine noticed it. I would of overlooked it if it had not been pointed out. Beautiful photo.
Wonder how that technique would work with the Leonid meteor shower we had last night/early this morning?

Love it. It made me look, and look again, and look again. My unscientific test. If it draws me in again and again. Well done.

My favorite part is the sky. I agree with Photo.net's crop suggestion. I also have hit the wall with retouching. I have practiced years of my retouching myself, including when you had to do it with the enlarger, and at this point it's been overdone, and doesn't yield much. Photography to some degree is about reality. When you start building your own reality from scratch, you might as well be painting. I'm not saying pshop has no place, and I've seen people do great things with it, but something about the lighting and depth in this shot immediately struck me as not real, and that was it. The colors are great, and lightning is not easy to capture, and clearly a majority of people like the shot. I like it, too, but I'm not wowed by it.

The only thing missing since this IS a storm is the anger of the sea. The mood is not right! The lightning and clouds are great but over all the photo lacks that finishing touch.

John, I did already a b/w version of this, and I think I will offer both versions on my website.
You can find it here in attach, thanks for asking this.
Paolo

Richard, I think you're right. Unfortunately, the sea was deadly calm. So calm that even only 15" of exposure were enough to smooth out the surface almost completely.

Thanks Paolo
Your fast:) They both are very nice. I really like the tones of the b/w and the colors of the original.
Both are wall hangers!

PS> 7 is your lucky number in the ratings :)

absolutely stunning!!

Really nice shot!