Roping out stage of the Cheyenne tornado

This is an excellent record of a natural event. To be in the right place at the right time is worthy of one set of accolades. I should add to this my impression that the picture is well composed, balanced and exposed. Just as it is with no changes, please! But again, it is more the subject than the photograph of the subject that makes this a very interesting, compelling shot. Have camera, have film and. . . . be there!

Awesome on a number of levels...both photographic and as a document of nature. As to John Marsden's demands for a tripod, record shots.... multiple angles, small children in the foreground, chickens flying through the air.... to demonstrate the "skill of the photographer"; I say grow up! By the way, no model release.... shame, shame, shame.

This is an awsome picture, congratulations!

 

However, the electronic version is flawed. It is easy to see a line in the upper center part of the picture as well as some ``dust'', that were not intended to be there. My guess, Ian had a wonderful photo and wanted to post it but he didn't wanted to pay a professional scan, so he did it on a cheap scanner (with little dust control). So, what is the problem if Robert Cartright cleans it a little bit with Photoshop, its not like he retouched the negative or something like that.

 

The photograph is splendid and the editing improved the electronic file (without loosing the original by the way).

To fred, et al.

 

What is it that you have against the edited versions of this image? You say that you are in favor of critical discourse on photo.net but are quick to condemn the new images that are, in effect, visual critiques that demonstrate their arguments. Pretty ironic, since this is a website dedicated to a visual medium.

 

Perhaps you think that a photograph is an untainted reflection of reality and should stand on its own? Anyone who uses more than one lens, a filter, or develops their own photos will tell you that it isn't. This however, is another argument all together. I thought the photo was great and could be stronger were it not for a few very minor kinks. I think the edited pictures demonstrated similar issues like distracting foreground objects, color balance, scratces on the image, etc. If you disagree, I encourage you to criticise the message and not the medium.

 

Ps, re: "include a checkbox designating 'Okay to edit this image.'" I think people know what they're getting into when they post their photos to a public forum. It isn't up to you or anyone else to squash forms of constructive criticism that you personally have deemed to be inappropriate.

 

-Ralph Nader

I couldnt have said it better myself.

Oh dear. For a couple of weeks POW was looking up (Oct 29, Nov 12). We now seem to be losing momentum again. I suppose I was hoping for too much from a free site...

 

Anyway, even though photonet may be free, it wouldnt cost any more to select PsOW that are worthy of the reasons for POWs existence. The "About" section of POW states that the photograph should be an "example of a good composition", and implies that it should be both "inspirational" and "educational" to other photonetters. Furthermore, the self stated definition for photonet itself is, "photo.net is an online learning community of people improving their photography expertise." Now, I dont think either of these descriptions do any justice to either photonet or the POW section, but they have been written by whoever is in charge, so I would assume and expect the site to follow those general guidelines, whether access is free or not. I dont like peoples suggestions that the sites quality can be anything at all, just because it is free. Its free for us, but big money is being spent on it nevertheless. That money is being wrongly spent if the site is spiralling downward in quality.

 

About the actual quality of the image: it is atrocious, and not only the electronic version. Those of you who said otherwise should please open your eyes. There are the following obvious shortcomings, and many smaller ones: *major* scratches, a lot of dust on the image, three electricity lines running across the frame (just above the horizon), a white-tipped post, a distracting line of grass stumps (at the very bottom of the frame), 23KB JPEG size (no photograph can look good at this size), obviously fake colours, poor range of tonal values throughout the scene (i.e. too low contrast), what looks like a lackadaisical attempt at the rule of one-thirds, and poor scanner settings. It looks like the scan has been made with a print rather than the negative, although I cant readily believe that someone would post a scanned print to photonet.

 

Now, the digitalisation problems I could accept, grudgingly. Not the compositional and technical errors though. How are we, as mostly amateurs, going to learn from this image? Are we meant to be inspired by this? It is a sorry combination of errors culminating in a pathetic image of what is a very overwhelming subject. Karsten Moran asked, "I wonder what Bresson would say to this "decisive moment"?" Well, I dont think he would be too impressed. Tornados of this nature happen every day somewhere in the world, and they are all basically the same. They have no individual characteristics or personality traits which can be immortalized on film. On the other hand, an expression of a certain emotion, registered on a persons face, will never be the same again, anywhere on earth, at any time in the future. It can only be precisely recorded if photographed at that moment. This is what Bresson was after in his photography. To compare a photograph captured at a truly "decisive moment" with a photograph of a tornado is rather detrimental to the former. Even within Ian Whitmeyers other posted work, there are other images of tornadoes, some of which are distinctly better technically and artistically. And really, photographing tornadoes in their dying moments is positively SAFE compared to photographing, say, lions in the wild, or underwater photography, or street photography, or...

 

Robert Cartright - if you had left out the phrase, "I could not resist. I hope you dont mind that I cleaned it up a little", nobody would have paid any attention to your "fix", or anyone elses touch-ups. This has been going on regularly now in POW and other image critique threads. There definitely should be some sort of box to check to give permission for others to edit images. Some people are offended by others messing with their work, and this would give them the option to upload their work while guaranteeing that no changes would be made visible to the public. Not having this option just gives people like me one more excuse for not posting work. I think that Ken Carrikers comment that the touched-up photos "just don't look real" is going a bit far. The camera didnt see the dirt on this image, neither did it record the scratches. If anything, the touched-up ones are more "real". Removing the post (which may have been deliberately placed below the origin of the tornado, to help the composition) or deleting the wires is in a different category from removing dust, though.

 

I agree whole-heartedly with John Marsdens statement that "We should be looking VERY critically at the pictures posted." It is of no benefit to anyone to make declarations such as "...and very well photographed to boot", or to say it is "awesome!" (there must be at least five different spellings of the word "awesome" on this page). That basically implies that the photograph is a wholly acceptable image of a terrific sight. Which I dont think it is.

 

I wish we would get more actual photographers (as opposed to casual photonet surfers) commenting on POW. The majority of the people currently commentating would say "awesome" to a particularly poor beach snapshot taken by someones aunt.

 

Scott Blairs comments are so far fetched that I wont bother to sustain an argument against them.

Wyoming should pass a law that all grazing lands be well mowed and free of posts and electrical wires just in case someone may want to take a picture of a tornado passing through. Sometimes Samuel's pompous dissertations are amusing, but I find the one above just pompous. As a former resident of the southern tip of tornado alley (and current resident of the freak southern tornado belt) I am intrigued by the shot and captivated by the disarming beauty of the calmer end of what could be a destructive force (complete with the freakish colors and cloud formations that accompany them). To say that a picture of a tornado (in any stage) is inherently unemotional totally disregards the experiences of the potential viewers - it's been a long time since I had to hunker in a church storm cellar, but I know people who's lives have been destroyed by tornadoes, and I'm sure images such as this would bring back plenty of emotions. Isn't that what photography is supposed to be about?

The image presented in this picture is something that most of us will never see. However the poor technical production has robbed me of a greater experience. It is precisely because this is unusual that I would like to see clearly what is going on.

 

A great photographer is able to combine technical skill with thoughtful image capture. Nothing irritates me more than a great photo opportunity reduced in quality by poor photographic skill.

 

I strongly doubt that the photographer wanted to portray an image of a tornado complete with irritating scratches and dust marks.

 

Putting this picture on photo.net was very generous of Ian. However it is not an excellently crafted example of this sort of photography. If the criticisms made can be appreciated, the future pictures if Ian or anyone else is taking them, should be a lot better.

 

Sam does us all a great service by sparking debate about photographs. I may not always agree with him but I respect his attention to detail and passion for a photograph.

 

The quality of POW may be deliberately variable otherwise there would be just a list of 1 or 2 word praising comments. However also I'm sure that the variability of the chosen image has lots to do with the state of deep thought entered into by the selection panel. Barley water' I'm sure has a lot to answer for.

Way to be on site for this one. Access is one of the keys to great pics.

 

And WHEN are you photo.net guys going to pick something other than LANDSCAPES?

Samuel Dilworth wrote that this picture has "obviously fake colours." Well, obviously Mr. Dilworth has never been anywhere near a tornado. The sky turns an eerie grayish green, Samuel. This lack of knowledge puts his other criticisms in perspective.

 

I lived in Tornado Alley for 25 years and saw several tornadoes up close and personal in that time. This is a pretty wimpy tornado, but the photo is a good representation of what they look like. These colors are not fake.

 

This is not a landscape photo, folks. It is a photo of a tornado. When these things happen you don't get time to scout the location, choose the best perspective, or set up a tripod.

 

Yes, it is a technically flawed photograph. So what? Who says every photo has to be technically excellent? To all of you criticising this photo: I challenge you to post a better tornado photograph.

I didn't say anything about photos being a reflection of reality; they are a reflection of a photographers vision. So keep your damned hands off other people's vision. We can all use Photoshop, so there is no need to prove your skill.

Hi, I'm just a newbie here,but thought I'd enter the discussion. Great shot -- no doubt. Could it be cleaned up -- yeah. (Fight amongst yourselves as to whether it should be done here, for all to view.)

 

Here's what I see with this shot. It's journalism, pure and simple. Is that allowed here? No, it's not a landscape. If you want it to be an artistic image of the vengeance of God, then edit that poor sign out. And it is no longer journalism then.

 

When you shoot a tornado, you can spend very little time selecting a spot to shoot from. I would imagine mostly you're just praying it doesn't turn your way. Last summer I took off into an approaching storm (after the tornado sirens went off) with my photography equipment. As soon as the wind really picked up and the sky turned green immediately to my right, I just got out of there as fast as I could (expletives deleted).

 

So... yes, those colors could definitely be real. I say take it into Photoshop, clean it up and be done with it. Great shot.

I had a dream about a tornado last night. It was after viewing this photo. I wonder if this says anything about this image? Awesome...

As an admitted amateur, I concur with John Marsden when he states that, "We should be looking VERY critically at the pictures posted." I for one hope to learn from such critical posts, especially if those posts are constructive. Having seen some of John's work and the work of others on Photo.net that I admire, including this pic, I appreciate the effort that goes into sincere critical analysis.

 

As to those who protest "Not having this option just gives people like me one more excuse for not posting work;" I have to ask, why do you need an excuse. I dare say its always easier to criticize than hold oneself out to criticism. Sorry, John, absence evidence, me thinks you have mistaken Mr. Dilworth's hubris for passion.

 

 

Now to the pic at hand. No doubt the surface of the photograph is poor; scratched and dusty. As to composition, I doubt given the proximity of the funnel, time was sufficient to do little more that frame and shoot. Still manipulation in lab/computer might well produce a more pleasing version. As to the colors, Mr. Dilworth shows more of his ignorance of mid-western/western storm skies than he does of his own photography. Having lived on the eastern edge of tornado alley for 40+ years I assure you the colors are an excellent representation of an approaching storm. There may indeed be some fade, but a photograph is not the real thing, is it. It is captivating because of the subject matter. As to the lack of tonal quality I would appreciate a bit more discussion on the topic. Finally, how dare anyone post a scanned print to Photo.net. Scandalous.

 

Better to not post at all. Right Samuel?

 

I wonder.

 

People say the picture is not a good one, but could not have done better.

 

If they didn't do it. Why are they complaining.

 

The picture has been taken and is nice. Why compare it to any other.

 

If you can see better inspiration. Take one yourself.

 

If you are not. Why waste your time with critisism.

My first thought was that the "dust and scratches" were actually partial reflections off a car window, suggesting that the photographer had to make a quick shot through through his car window. But hey, I'm looking at it on a crummy old laptop. I know I've sure had to rush some shots when photographing natural occurences. I've got lots of poorly composed, unlevel, blurry Aurora shots, but when your're rushing around in the freezing darkness, the main goal is to try and try again. Either way, thanks to Ian for posting his pictures.

 

Perhaps a "perfect" picture is not what's needed on POW, this one has generated lot's of discussion - although I think I learned more from the photograph than from the critisism. Personally I like the composition as is, I don't think anything in the foreground would add to the picture. Just one opinion.

I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like.

 

What grass are you guys smoking?

 

I've seen about three critical comments worth reading on this forum. Some long monologue about the composition, colours, etc. Some others recommending removing the scratches, or scanning the negative instead of the print, etc.

 

Good criticism. But I had to wade through 200 "Great picture!" comments, and 150 "But the sky really is that colour!" comments, and 50 "This is journalism, not photography" comments. I'd say a moderation system is in dire need here. Can anyone say "Browse at 3 when reading Slashdot?"

 

Finally, we've had to suffer about 20 moderation-style comments, like the useless one I'm now typing, just because this forum almost completely lacks any sort of critical comment that would help photo newbies like myself learn.

 

Ah, well. It's free. Post what you like. But please, please, please, someone put a moderation system in place, so that comments like mine can be moderated down to "0: Offtopic" and comments like: "Awesome! This really inspires me!" can be moderated down to "0: Redundant."

 

Duh. It's a photo of the week. Of course it's awesome in some fashion.

 

Thanks. Browse at 3.

 

I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like.

 

I have a slide at home (unfortunately no slide scanner) that I took outside of my apartment of a storm rolling into south Louisiana (I forget if it had tornadic activity) and the entire sky was a freakish shade of yellow, like someone put a mustard dome over the earth. I know I wasn't smoking anything and I'm pretty sure my camera wasn't either.

"I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like. "

 

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it can't exist. I've never seen a thermonuclear explosion, but I'm quite certain they exist. If you don't believe me, check out my photo folder. I've a shot of clouds near the core of storm that are the sickliest shade of yellow; the color hasn't been altered one bit.

 

Before anyone rants about how I dared post photos that were scanned with a flatbed, consider this. Not all of us have deep pockets; I can't afford a 'Blad, so I use a RolleiCord, I can't afford a film scanner (or the fee to have it done correctly) so I use my admittedly crappy scanner. The cash I spend to further my photography hobby comes from the same pool that that pays the mortgage and clothes my son. I'll be more than happy to purchase a slide scanner; send me an email and I'll give you the address you can send your check to. That being said, I think PhotoNet is a great place for beginners to have their work evaluated (as long as one ignores pompus comments about daring to use a flatbed scanner or having a power line in a photo).

 

I think the tornado photo is amazing; one should consider that when photographing a beast as violent as a tornado, one does not have much time to set up the tripod and obsess about lighting values for 20 minutes. Such behavior tends to get one killed. Technical merit aside, I think many of you fail to understand how difficult it is to be in the right place to capture a photo of ANY tornado. I like this photo, if for no other reason, because I know how rare such a shot is.

 

D.E.

 

Budding Amateur Photographer

(keep the pompous comments to yourself)

 

P.S. The following photo was shot around 3 p.m., it was really that nasty.

I believe it is better to have very few really good pictures compared to poor ones on POW. I learn a great deal more from the socalled Embarrassingly bad POWs that some of the members find offending to even look at ;-).

 

Initially I am of the opinion that one of these POWs is a work of art. When all the utterly pointless exclamations like I wish Id been there and Magically wonderful are over, John, Sam and some others start to point out all the flaws, This is when I actually begin to improve my photographic skills. As they comment on for them elementary stuff, and wonders how such mistakes even could be shown on photo.net I start to re-evaluate the picture and learn from these mistakes and realize that Ive done some(or all) of them myself, without knowing. You are dead on when you say that every picture should be regarded with the most critical eye and have its flaws pointed out, but dont rave about how low the standard is (yep! thats you Sam). Endure these POWs in favor for us less experienced members, let alone the photographer him/herself, who learn from your postings.

 

I'm new in photography and was expecting to read a lot of good comments on the art of photography that could help me become a better photographer but I can see that this place should be called Battle.net. Too bad this forum could be a really good thing for all of us who want to learn more and even to those who already know a lot. Too bad for the creator of this site, Im sure that is not exactly what he had in mind.

"Great picture!" Like it or not, that is a valid criticism as well as a helpful one. Nothing inspires passionate disdain so much as banal approval.(or so it seems) The disdainful are far more garrulous than the "easily impressed".

If the photograph is bad, it will be ignored. If it is good, the accolades will be terse. If it is truly great, it will spark a debate. Maybe that is how they choose the POW.

 

After a good night's sleep, I figure I should add something useful to the conversation besides: "Moderate, please."

 

1. Critics of the photomanipulators: Why do you have a problem with one artist's rendition of another artist's work? Throughout history, artists have built on others' work. The famous quote that applies here has to do with seeing further because of the shoulders of giants.

 

Mozart did it, so why can't we? Only recently, with this horrible Intellectual Property craze the corporations have forced on us has art become something that only the original creator and the companies that stole it from him are allowed to manipulate.

 

What happened to collaberation between artists? Shame on you that lambasted the photomanipulation artists in this forum.

 

2. JPEG quality. Someone mentioned the filesize of the JPEG. Without talking about the complexity of the image, the filesize doesn't correspond to the compression quality. JPEG compresses the image of a wall with few colour variations quite well. It won't compress a garden scene with hundreds of colours and complex shapes as well. I don't think this image is sufficiently complex to make the resultant filesize very large. If you don't believe me, go to my fractals page: http://faemalia.net/Fractal -- every image was compressed with 90% JPEG quality, but filesize can vary dramatically. Notice the correlation between image complexity (contrast/colour/shape complexity) and filesize.

 

3. "Those colours are real, and Philo's comment about not seeing them notwithstanding, I've seen them." Fine. I haven't. And you can't tell me it's because I'm in Taiwan right now or that I lived in California for a couple of years. For me, the image looks unnaturally coloured. I'm not criticising the photo, but defending others who said the colours look unnatural. Personally, I think it's a point that's reached the end of its useful discussion.

 

4. "Tornadoes are dangerous! Wow, this guy coulda died." Hmmm. Maybe it's that Kansas City upbringing again, but I seriously doubt it. This picture scared me about as much as Bambi. It looks cool, yeh, but that tornado is about as dangerous as a sign in the wind. Sure, maybe the bolts on the sign will come loose, and the sign will decapitate you, but probably not.

 

That funnel is in its dying stages. The famous footage of the guy under the overpass as a tornado goes by was at a far more dangerous stage of the tornado than this. The photographer may not have had much time to frame or setup for the photo, but not because of any personal danger, unless there's some other funnel I'm not seeing (maybe behind?). Remember, Twister (the movie) was just bad cinema, not indicative of reality.

 

5. "'Awesome' is valid criticism." No, it isn't. It's a valid opinion. Opinions are useless without some backing. If someone said: "Awesome! Those unreal colours add a sense of otherworldness that is enhanced further by the strange white tip on the signpost..." etc, then I'd say great! Someone said why it's awesome. Just saying "Wow, that's cool. It makes me feel good! And scared! Wow!" is not useful except to tally one more person that liked it. But, duh, it's a PHOTO OF THE WEEK. It got that way because people liked it.

 

"I think having a monthly photography project would not only allow us to post up pictures that we otherwise wouldn't but would also give us an excuse to take more photos."

 

What a great idea! This is the best idea I've seen on PhotoNet for quite some time.