Lightning over Northern Arizona, 2004

I'm not a night photography specialist at all, but I just can't imagine how the house's walls (areas near the lamps) could remain properly exposed (rather than over-exposed) with such a combination of film, aperture, and shutter-speed.

 

Then, what's more, Brian said, that a selection was created in PS to LIGHTEN the foreground - right ?

 

Last issue: if a selection was indeed made to "BRING OUT" (= LIGHTEN) the foreground, how would it ever appear so bright around the trees, at the TOP of the trees...? If that's indeed the case, the PS work is really VERY bad and makes no sense at all: indeed, why include black hills and black trees in the selection !?!

 

All this leaves me with many questions on my mind...

It's a fantastic shot, the balance given by the two forks of lightning splitting above each house really sets this apart from other lightning shots. I'm not really qualified to comment on the Photoshop thing.

 

As for the 'snapshot' comment- taking a 30 second exposure at night using a tripod is not a snapshot. And who cares if a photo is a snapshot. The 'Afghan Girl' picture by Steve McCurry was much more of a snapshot than this image, and is one of the most famous in the world.

Marc, I have to admit that my initial reaction to this image was one of doubt that it was a single image. There are still niggling issues with the image that trouble me but it's in my nature to give people the benefit of doubt.

 

Brian has posted a couple of other images in the same series but unfortunately both have similar selections applied to them in Photoshop.

 

If I were Brian I'd now post the original file for all to see.

Lightning rarely falls with 2 branches on 2 houses - and such scene is even much more rarely captured by a camera. In terms of originality among other lightning shots, if this isn't manipulated, it hits the ceiling on my scale.

Yes... I think seeing the original would greatly help this discussion.

 

I would also love to read a clarification by the photographer about the technical bits, I included in my previous post.

 

Now what I don't see, Keith, is the selection you seem to have noticed in the 2 previous shots... I'm going to take a look again, but as far as I can tell, they had no white aura around the trees etc. What am I missing...?

Marc, you could be right that there is no selection made in the other images from the series. I've had another look in Photoshop and can't decide whether what I'm seeing is a selection or just crude artifacts.

 

If there is no evidence of a selection then this could be interpreted as further proof that this is indeed a single exposure.

The lightning appears like a great hand grasping at the houses from the sky. This "hand" adds lots of impact--even, I think, on a subliminal level.

 

Does it matter that the lightgning bolts weren't simultaneous? As it is, the image probably better captures the awe Brian felt than would a short exposure of one bolt.

 

I find Brian's image outstanding!

I think we are looking at one image, two layers.

On in the front (houses, trees etc etc) and a second one as the background containing mountainlines, sky and lightnings.

And this because, i don't seem to understand whether the "forks" actually hit the houses or something in the background.

If a lightning hit both houses imho, the amount of light hitting the sensor would be monstrous. if the lightning struck behind the hills, then the trees in the middle are glowing for no reason. Unless there was a pond behind to reflect all this light. And last but not least, if you take a closer look between the left part of the lightning and the glowing trees in the middle, u'll see a treetop floating.If you check the other photos i doubt that you will find it. Try taking a closer look in photoshop.

If that picture is all real and Brian had the chance to capture that amazing moment of nature, then i think Brian did a really good job and we should all congratulate him for being honoured with Photograph of the week.

If not, oh well...it's not the end of the world.

Louis ... (and to be clear) when I said 'same for me' is to say that candid, street and photojournalist are playing in the same ground of snapshooter... snipper with camera...

coming back to this picture, I think there was a set up, at least a tripod and long exposure to capture less than instant reality... I thought but it was denied... darkroom/PS job. Anyway, IMO this picture doesnt belong to snapshot category but is a worked/waited picture, and there nothing pejorative in my mouth saying that too. I would stand on my very first comment on this one.

By the way, the entire portfolio deserve a visit too. Thanks to the elves, although I am extensively visiting the photo database (and not from the TGP but rather randomizing...), I didnt know Brian folders...

happy to have met and congratulations Brian!

1. snapshot or not, great shot. why must it be established that a photographer worked with an advanced bag of skills before declaring a photograph to be great? great photographs are often alot less about the photographer than many of us care to think.

 

2. mark g., brian says it is a single shot. therefore it is.

Doug, agreed, but if it IS a montage it should be declared as such ;-)

Man!

 

 

 

A lightning stike is, technically speaking, actually thousands of extremely fast sequential strikes that begin at points of high electric field on the ground (tracers), then arc toward the charged cloud(s). They are too fast for the human eye to see as individual strikes. (Source Motorola R56 Site Installation Practices). I find it interesting that a long exposure 'slows down' or integrates this even further.

 

I guess my minimal experience with Photoshop means I don't recognize the 'poor use' of PS. A local lab owner commented to me once that photographers don't often buy photography, unless it is something they can't do themselves. This was the converse of my own observation I call 'I can do that syndrome'.

 

Whatever it qualifies as, or doesn't, it's fun and congratulations Brian. If you feel your hair standing up during your lightning-chasing, lay down flat and keep your arms and legs close together!

 

Murray

Wow! What an interesting thread. With my PS expertise Im frightened to expose my name and my portfolio to even have half of these photographers! I like the picture, it is a great photograph. No, it isnt good enough to be posted on the wall, but yes, it is good enough to get kudos from lots of us and deserves to be POW! I do have to agree with certain people though, this image looks like a composite purely from the white border in the center on the treeline. The other 2 images in the folder posted from this night of shooting lightning dont show this white border. I think lots of people feel cheated when they see this, although I am also one who is inclined to trust the photographer when he says it is not and congratulate him on his achievement! Im very curious though as to why Brian hasn't uploaded the original. Even if it is a 2 image composite, at least everyone will know and be happy to know how you pulled it off! Lets all learn from each other and be constructive... why do some photographers take such an offensive stance?

Wow, looks like I have some catching up to do. Let me do my best to address the questions/observations that have piled up here in the 36 hours since I last posted.

 

Yes, this is a single image, and not a composite. The original is now posted here. I'll also post a larger version in my 'Recent' folder for you to examine. This was an image that I never intended to see this much attention, and a bit embarrassed (though honored) that it has achieved such visibility, but in doing it has raised some very interesting points, and initiated some healthy discussion. I appreciate the comments, critiques, and feedback. Even the suspicion is healthy if dealt with in a constructive way and with the condition this image was in I can certainly understand it.

 

First things first. As several have noted, the foreground (up to the treeline and roofs of the houses) was selected (and feathered a few pixels) and lightened in Photoshop. This is the reason for the heightened glow along the edges of the trees and roof lines, which if controlled to some measure, is an attractive and effective feature of this image in my opinion. In this iteration of working with the image, it appears a bit too artificial. I agree with you.

 

Why the exposure of 30 Sec, F8.0, and ISO 400? A thirty second exposure was chosen because I wanted to achieve the longest exposure possible, to record as many lightning strokes as possible. Sixty second or longer exposures would have been my preference, but I did not have my cable release handy. Why F/8.0? The Canon 10D wont focus in the dark, so had to go with manual focus. Being as I couldn?t read the focus indicators on my lens (Canon 17-40L which focuses _well_ past infinity) I had to roughly estimate the focus, and wanted to ensure focus at infinity. Why ISO400? This was a mistake; I was in a rush to capture this lightning and simply overlooked the previous setting of this parameter. I probably would have shot with ISO 200 if I had the choice.

 

If I have not answered your questions, let me know and I will try to address them as soon as I can. Thanks again, Brian

I share your opinion about this being a "healthy discussion".

 

 

Seeing the original, I can now see why: the idea was to let the outline of the trees appear. Unfortunately, the idea itself neglected the fact that the black trees would forever remain black, and the reason why their silhouette now appears is the aura around the trees (which sadly betrays a weak Photoshop effort).

 

30s without a cable release seems a bit of a gamble as well, don't you think ?

 

The real questions here would be: 1. Couldn't you focus manually on the bright area of the houses ? And 2. Why not 60s at F11 ? Probably the answer would be the missing cable release. (By the way, since your original picture is obviously very under-exposed on the ground, the right exposure may have been around 120s at F5.6 or so.)

 

Subsidiary question: did you compensate for the reciprocity effect in your exposure calculation and how did you meter the scene...?

 

Please note: I doubt you needed to look at the indicators on your lens at all, since your lens would generate enough DOF at F5.6 or 8 anyway.

 

 

It was a 400 ASA film. In what sense would a 200 ASA be better ? As I see it - and to my own surprise -, the original is under-exposed, not over-exposed. So you'd indeed need at least a 400 ASA, a longer exposure time than was set, and even perhaps a slightly larger aperture than was set (although you'd probably prefer a smaller one).

 

Conclusion for this week as far as I am concerned: something went really wrong on the photographic technique. No cable release, an under-exposed result, and, based on the comments, a fairly poor understanding of the DOF capabilities of your lens. Finally poor photoshop work (and talking to the angels!) saves the day...

 

I still love this POW, I am glad it was not a composite, but seeing the original and the technical decisions made, I am forced to conclude that your technique wasn't up to the standard. I would now be curious to see what the ideal print of this original would look like. Such under-exposure later compensated in Photoshop may or may not allow you to get a good print... Was this picture printed, and how did it look if it was ?

 

Thanks once again for your replies and this interesting discussion.

You put yourself in position to capture a lightening shot and you knailed it -- Very Good job ..........

 

 

Mark,

 

Thank you for the detailed response. Let me try to add some more information. Firstly, this was shot with the Canon 10D, a digital camera. As such I could have chosen any ISO for the image. Secondly, with the 10D you can set a 30 second exposure without a cable release, but longer exposures demand the electronic cable.

 

The nature of these late-season thunderstorms is that they can cycle (initiate and dissipate) very quickly, and often cycle in and out of an electrical phase in minutes. One has to jump on these storms quickly. If you want the shot, I've learned you can not wait. It was also quite windy and unpleasant outside at the time, and not all-together friendly conditions in which to be shooting, if you know what I mean. I tend to err on the side of a conservative approach under such challenging conditions, to ensure that a shot is achieved, rather than lost for some mistake made in haste.

 

But rather than a technical failure, I see this photograph as a success. An expression of atmospheric joy. When I see it, it arouses in me an appreciation of the great power of nature. Simple awe. I could have easily continued to lounge on my couch, and watch the storm from the safe confines of my warm, snug home. Had I taken a more deliberate approach to photographing this moment - the moment may have been lost.

Thanks for these additionnal details, Brian.

 

 

The question is then: how much noise would your camera generate at a higher ISO setting? If noise would be acceptable, then a higher ASA was clearly the way to go.

 

 

By the way, I'm still curious as for how you metered this scene...?

 

 

Was this POW taken within the first 15 seconds of your arrival on site ? If not, you could have gotten it right - had you spent 15 sec to take the right decisions. All else is irrelevant.

 

The right approach to photography is still, even in these times of Photoshop salvages, to understand technique well, to be quick and sound at the same time, and to do it right. If one expects less from himself, he won't be able to improve much over time.

Brian

 

Many thanks for uploading the original and for drawing a line under the controversy.

 

On balance I prefer the original to the Photoshop version, though with careful work in Photoshop you should be able to achieve a pretty fine print.

 

Well done again for risking your neck and capturing the moment for us all to see.

 

K

Brian, thank you for being such a good sport and for uploading the original: seeing the original is really essential to this discussion. I'm glad this isn't a composite. I still find the scene you've captured to be compelling despite the technical shortcomings. Marc, who is nearly always right, has some very good advice about how to better expose a scene like this in the future. And while you'll probably never get a scene quite like this one again, I'm sure you'll get a technically better shot the next time you shoot lightning.

 

I've enjoyed looking at your portfolio, too. Some very nice shots!!!

While trying to do some kind of gradient effect (from color to black and white gradually)-- I found it was easier to make two layers and delete the top one with the eraser tool-- maybe this isn't elegant, but it gets the job done. I dropped your original in photoshop and brightened it for the foreground. Then I added another layer at the original exposure and took the erase tool (using the fuzzy brush --- whatever it's called) and erased the foreground from the dark picture. Then I dropped the pressure of the eraser WAY down and did some of the treeline. In the past, I've tried doing it the way you did with the selection tool. I've liked this method much more! (easier to get good results). See what you think.

huh... that doesn't look right at all! Maybe i did soemthing wrong... boy do I feel dumb :-)

It looks right in photoshop but not in a browser... I'll have to figure out what weirdness happened here.

Probably a colour profile issue Matt. If you first convert to SRGB it will be as in the browser, then to double check save for web, you get the actual browser preview.

 

Interesting picture Brian, and equally interesting discussion. I do prefer the original, not for aesthetic reasons, but because this is a natural event and as a viewer I would prefer it as is for the record, rather than an [attempted] piece of 'appealing' art work.

This is a great shot.

I thought the comments over a couple of days says a lot about the folks that love images. from Hyper critical and technical to just liking an image.

I am a dummy in photos, loving the image and not paying to much attention to the technical. I am a newby to the group but am stunned by the fine work of all that contribute to this site.

For better or worse, how it got here, wheather it is saleable or not for me is interesting but in general not a big issue. Great shot.

 

I am blessed (or cursed) by ADD and shoot from the hip mostly and when I get one that is cool I am thrilled. I like seeing the world as is, not as we can pose it or recreate it.

No matter how this was done, it is a great image and brings out the stunning power of nature. Fiddled with or not.