Outstanding lightning shot

Right place at the right time with the right knowledge to operate his gear. Great Image too
 
Im very surprised to see the national geographic put their name to such a heavily composited image.
I understand all the elements that make the image are from there, happened there but they wouldn't allow the same for say, lions, editing in multiple animals to make it look like there were hundreds.
Nice image but fake none the less
 
But surely this is the only way to shoot lightning? 70 shots is more than usual, but even one 20 second exposure could give anything from no strikes to, ummm, lots of strikes.
 
but to then put them all into the same frame digitally?

Too much IMO.. it's a mess. That rock jutting in from the left hand side is awful too. I think that's a really poor image actually. Take away the composited elements, and each one of them would be an average lighting shot.


Meh.
 
Matt9581 said:
Nifty fifty??
Click to expand...

Cheap (<£100) 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can get them for all makes of body , I think. Can give brilliant results for the price. Well worth getting.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
but to then put them all into the same frame digitally?

Too much IMO.. it's a mess. That rock jutting in from the left hand side is awful too. I think that's a really poor image actually. Take away the composited elements, and each one of them would be an average lighting shot.


Meh.
Click to expand...

I like it. Nice sort of hellish feel and different from most lightning shots. The rock gives some sense of size, and in any case, he'd quite likely have fallen down the cliff had he tried to move right :eek:

And isn't the point rather that has conflated the images? Isn't this what gives it impact? And how else would you shoot lightning? Had he done a single 83 minute shot instead of a series of 20 sec exposures, (using a sooperdooperbigstoppa...) would that have been OK? How is this different from the way multi-shot star trails are obtained?
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
Im very surprised to see the national geographic put their name to such a heavily composited image.
I understand all the elements that make the image are from there, happened there but they wouldn't allow the same for say, lions, editing in multiple animals to make it look like there were hundreds.
Nice image but fake none the less
Click to expand...


National Geographic. 1982. Pyramids.

'Nuff said!
 
jon ryan said:
Cheap (<£100) 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. You can get them for all makes of body , I think. Can give brilliant results for the price.
Click to expand...

For the price? Brilliant results full stop. Not much beats a 50mm prime for sharpness.
 
Pookeyhead said:
For the price? Brilliant results full stop. Not much beats a 50mm prime for sharpness.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree - probably the best way to spend money on kit there is at the moment. My reservations are only about build quality and weather resistance, but that really is being picky.
 
DemiLion said:
National Geographic. 1982. Pyramids.

'Nuff said!
Click to expand...

I see where your coming from but that was done on a small section of the image with the sole purpose of making a front page. The image wasn't presented on the cover as a whole "look at these pyramids" it was manipulated to fit the cover.
But i stand by my word and say the only wow factor it has is a "wow that's so unlikely its gotta be fake" factor.
 
I think we all know, and a vast majority of the public too, that it's a multiple shot. Why should that detract from the feel of the shot?

The only thing that spoil it for me is those boats :shrug:

Phil.
 
Simon photo said:
Im very surprised to see the national geographic put their name to such a heavily composited image.
I understand all the elements that make the image are from there, happened there but they wouldn't allow the same for say, lions, editing in multiple animals to make it look like there were hundreds.
Nice image but fake none the less
Click to expand...

Going by that all long exposure is "fake" as its not what really happened at an exact snapshot in time.
Rules out Blurred water, star trails, light trails and anything else by that definition.
 
Pookeyhead said:
but to then put them all into the same frame digitally?

Too much IMO.. it's a mess. That rock jutting in from the left hand side is awful too. I think that's a really poor image actually. Take away the composited elements, and each one of them would be an average lighting shot.


Meh.
Click to expand...

More or less agree with that.

Very like what it is possible to do with the Clone Stamp tool. Just keep duplicating parts of the image throughout the pic. Not that it has been done here, but the effect appears the same. The final result is overdone. Too many lightning flashes. "Less is more" is a good rule of thumb for such things.
 
Absolutely, 100% don't buy into the photo must represent what was there in reality school of thought but, in this case, do agree that it's overdone.
 
gnirtS said:
Going by that all long exposure is "fake" as its not what really happened at an exact snapshot in time.
Rules out Blurred water, star trails, light trails and anything else by that definition.
Click to expand...

No no no you don't get me. Im talking about stacking image on image on image.
In this case 70!
It becomes far removed from a long exposure and not entirely an honest image.
 
specialman said:
'Engineered' is a better term. If it was fake it would be something like digitally created lightning in Photoshop.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, may just as well be drawn in using ms paint in my opinion.
I could think of many words for it but im trying to boost my karma at the moment.
Image stacking has always been, in my opinion a bit fake, sorry to any practitioners but its hardly normal by any means and like i said, surprising that Nat geo put their name to it
 
Simon photo said:
No no no you don't get me. Im talking about stacking image on image on image.
In this case 70!
It becomes far removed from a long exposure and not entirely an honest image.
Click to expand...

So, just like a star trail shot. Or a light trail. Or a milky waterfall. Or a stitched pano.

If you think that lightning shot was 'not entirely honest', how do you feel about the shots from Hubble?
Hubble pointed at a tiny patch of southern sky in repeat visits (made over the past decade) for a total of 50 days, with a total exposure time of 2 million seconds. More than 2,000 images of the same field were taken with Hubble's two premier cameras &#8212; the Advanced Camera for Surveys and the Wide Field Camera 3, which extends Hubble's vision into near-infrared light &#8212; and combined to make the XDF
Click to expand...

Why does it matter how an image was obtained?

Edit to add: Um, just as gnirtS has already observed (oops!)
 
Last edited:
Well I think that it's a stunning photo :thumbs: and for those that are decrying this as faked, it's worth remembering that strictly this was a 23 minute exposure, I know that in this instance it wasn't but right timing and bit of luck there is nothing to stop you doing a 20 or 30 minute exposure, I've done them myself :thumbs:
 
joescrivens said:
Lol @ the killjoys.

Great capture, impressive.
Click to expand...


Killjoys for not liking it? I see... LOL


I have no issue with digital montage whatsoever if that was the killjoy thing you refer to. I do a lot of it myself.

I don't like it because compositionally, and technically, it's crap. Get over the "WOW!... look at all that lightning" and what you left with? some blurred boats, an ugly outcropping of rock poking in and little else to recommend it.

It's a mess.


If that makes me a killjoy, so be it.
 
:nono: Some of these posts are getting very close to the boundary. I hope it's obvious which ones without me having to point them out.

That's not the way we do things around here. If a photographer isn't here to defend himself then it's poor etiquette to start picking at his work on the open forum.
By all means discuss the technique, the kit or the merits of composite shots but please leave the critique for those who have actually asked for it - I'm sure you'll find plenty in the feedback and critique sections ;)
 
OK point taken... but this isn't an image we've dragged off Flickr to give a good panning, nor is it something that another forum member has posted when they didn't ask for critique; this is something widely published worldwide by National Geographic. What you're suggesting is it would also be poor form to criticise a movie we've seen because the director isn't here to defend himself, or make comment on a TV programme we saw... or a painting hung in the V&A.

Where do you draw the line?

[edit]

Would THIS thread fall foul of the same treatment?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=447192
 
Last edited:
Fully agree with your comment about not necessarily needing expensive kit to get a good result Jon.

Hats off to the photographer for capturing and stacking multiple shots together to get this final image.....obviously a style that appeals to him.

Very much marmite....I'm not sure I like the amount of manipultaion that's gone into it but like all photography it's a matter of personal taste.

We've had some nasty lightning storms down here of light (not unusual for the time of year) ....could do to try capture something of them myself!
 
Tend to agree with Pookeyhead. Just like discussing any published art work. It is up for discussion and why not.
 
ernesto said:
Tend to agree with Pookeyhead. Just like discussing any published art work. It is up for discussion and why not.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought... otherwise what this forum is actually doing is denying people free speech. It's published work out there, freely open to criticism by anyone who cares to criticise it.

I'm sure the forum rules are there to protect people from ridicule when posting on here, or to protect them from less well behaved forum members who drag up an image to use as a means to belittle someone. This however, is giving opinion on widely published work.

Sorry Sarah.. but I disagree with you, and if we can't discuss work that's widely and publicly published in the media, then this forum's rules are ridiculous.
 
Pookeyhead said:
OK point taken... but this isn't an image we've dragged off Flickr to give a good panning, nor is it something that another forum member has posted when they didn't ask for critique; this is something widely published worldwide by National Geographic. What you're suggesting is it would also be poor form to criticise a movie we've seen because the director isn't here to defend himself, or make comment on a TV programme we saw... or a painting hung in the V&A.

Where do you draw the line?

[edit]

Would THIS thread fall foul of the same treatment?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=447192
Click to expand...

I agree ... mods perhaps we should redefine the line?... professional publications are ok or some such.

It is, after all, an interesting thread about photography.
 
Pookeyhead said:
OK point taken... but this isn't an image we've dragged off Flickr to give a good panning, nor is it something that another forum member has posted when they didn't ask for critique; this is something widely published worldwide by National Geographic. What you're suggesting is it would also be poor form to criticise a movie we've seen because the director isn't here to defend himself, or make comment on a TV programme we saw... or a painting hung in the V&A.

Where do you draw the line?

[edit]

Would THIS thread fall foul of the same treatment?

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=447192
Click to expand...

Has it occurred to you that use of the phrase "it's crap" maybe where you overstepped the mark, even if it were the photographer that posted your general manner is rude at best :shake:
 
MWHCVT said:
Has it occurred to you that use of the phrase "it's crap" maybe where you overstepped the mark, even if it were the photographer that posted your general manner is rude at best :shake:
Click to expand...

Then say so if that's the issue. Making out we can't comment on something published in the public domain is just confusing... although I do think it's crap not very good.

Sarah didn't say "David, watch you language use please" She said we can't comment on another's work unless they are here to defend themselves.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Then say so if that's the issue. Making out we can't comment on something published in the public domain is just confusing... although I do think it's crap not very good.

Sarah didn't say "David, watch you language use please" She said we can't comment on another's work unless they are here to defend themselves.
Click to expand...


Biiiig difference between saying 'it's crap' and I think it's crap. Only one of those statements can be valid.

And I'd say you are wilfully misrepresenting what Sarah said, which was:

If a photographer isn't here to defend himself then it's poor etiquette to start picking at his work on the open forum.
By all means discuss the technique, the kit or the merits of composite shots
Click to expand...
.

As to the bit about being allowed to offer an opinion whether or not the photographer is there to offer a defence, that's different. Opinion should always be allowed as long as it's considered and constructive. Some photographers are dead and would find it difficult to defend their work, for instance.

However, to baldly say 'I do think it's crap' with no effort to be constructive is, well, crap.

Please respect the individual, and focus the criticism on what, in your opinion, needs changing.
 
jon ryan said:
Biiiig difference between saying 'it's crap' and I think it's crap. Only one of those statements can be valid.
Click to expand...

(sigh)...

It's clearly my opinion.. what else could I give? I didn't think I'd have to explain that it's my opinion. So.. saying "I think it's crap" is OK and saying "It's crap" isn't? Really? If a mod wants to give me a dressing down for using the word crap, fair enough, but this semantic nit picking is ridiculous.


jon ryan said:
And I'd say you are wilfully misrepresenting what Sarah said, which was:

"If a photographer isn't here to defend himself then it's poor etiquette to start picking at his work on the open forum.
By all means discuss the technique, the kit or the merits of composite shots "

.
Click to expand...

I was. Leaving aside that I think it's crap, I gave a very full explanation as to WHY I thought it was not very good. I'll do so again too.

My complaint with this image, is only partly to do wth the photographer actually. I'm just as disappointed in NG. National Geographic have a reputation for publishing breathtaking images of the natural world, but there's nothing there representative of it IN MY OPINION. There's nothing there that bears any resemblance to reality, so NG are quite honestly leaving themselves open to criticism just the same way they did when they decided to move pyramids!

I've already discussed the shot: Take away all those multiple shots, and publish one frame from it, it would be pretty dull. There are many examples of lighting on these forums, by forum members that would be immeasurably better. A shot of lightning is just a record of an event, what makes it stand above the rest is the sense of scale you get by including something else of interest. This however, is a very boring scene with some smudges in it, which may, or may not be boats.

jon ryan said:
As to the bit about being allowed to offer an opinion whether or not the photographer is there to offer a defence, that's different. Opinion should always be allowed as long as it's considered and constructive. Some photographers are dead and would find it difficult to defend their work, for instance.
Click to expand...

Apart from using the word crap, why was the above not constructive?

jon ryan said:
However, to baldly say 'I do think it's crap' with no effort to be constructive is, well, crap.
Click to expand...

But I did... you just forgot to read past my use of the word crap and see what else I was saying elsewhere in the thread.

jon ryan said:
Please respect the individual, and focus the criticism on what, in your opinion, needs changing.
Click to expand...

I did.... this is getting boring now.
 
Pookeyhead said:
(sigh)...

It's clearly my opinion.. what else could I give? I didn't think I'd have to explain that it's my opinion. So.. saying "I think it's crap" is OK and saying "It's crap" isn't? Really? If a mod wants to give me a dressing down for using the word crap, fair enough, but this semantic nit picking is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You seriously can't see the difference? Seriously? How about 'today is Sunday' vs 'I think today is Sunday'. Or 'Marmite is crap' vs 'I think Martmite is crap.

I was. Leaving aside that I think it's crap, I gave a very full explanation as to WHY I thought it was not very good. I'll do so again too.

My complaint with this image, is only partly to do wth the photographer actually. I'm just as disappointed in NG. National Geographic have a reputation for publishing breathtaking images of the natural world, but there's nothing there representative of it IN MY OPINION. There's nothing there that bears any resemblance to reality, so NG are quite honestly leaving themselves open to criticism just the same way they did when they decided to move pyramids!
Click to expand...

This is an improvement - you are supporting your opinions and using comparative examples to lend verisimilitude to your argument. However, you continue to make wildly inaccurate statements (see underline) that fly in the face of clear reason. Quite a lot in the image - the lightning strikes, the rock - must bear at least some resemblance to reality, or how else would you have been able to identify them as rock and lightening? Please endeavour to be more rigorous in your statements.

I've already discussed the shot: Take away all those multiple shots, and publish one frame from it, it would be pretty dull. There are many examples of lighting on these forums, by forum members that would be immeasurably better. A shot of lightning is just a record of an event, what makes it stand above the rest is the sense of scale you get by including something else of interest. This however, is a very boring scene with some smudges in it, which may, or may not be boats.
Click to expand...

Again here you are expressing your opinions as if they were proven facts. They are not. You need to learn to separate fact from opinion, and make clear in your writing which is which.

43/100
 
jon ryan said:
You seriously can't see the difference? Seriously? How about 'today is Sunday' vs 'I think today is Sunday'. Or 'Marmite is crap' vs 'I think Martmite is crap.
Click to expand...

Troll is trolling.



jon ryan said:
This is an improvement -
Click to expand...

Wow.. thank you massah! LOL



jon ryan said:
you are supporting your opinions and using comparative examples to lend verisimilitude to your argument.
Click to expand...

Troll is trolling.

However.. I did in the original post.

Here's what I FIRST wrote..

pookeyhead said:
Too much IMO.. it's a mess. That rock jutting in from the left hand side is awful too. I think that's a really poor image actually. Take away the composited elements, and each one of them would be an average lighting shot.
Click to expand...

I then followed it up with...

pookeyhead said:
I don't like it because compositionally, and technically, it's crap. Get over the "WOW!... look at all that lightning" and what you left with? some blurred boats, an ugly outcropping of rock poking in and little else to recommend it.
Click to expand...


Discuss my use of the word crap by all means, but stop accusing me of not giving constructive criticism please.




jon ryan said:
However, you continue to make wildly inaccurate statements (see underline) that fly in the face of clear reason. Quite a lot in the image - the lightning strikes, the rock - ...... ZZZZzzzzz........
Click to expand...

You're just being pedantic.. and a troll. That's my last word on the matter. Talk to yourself if you wish.
 
Asha said:
like all photography it's a matter of personal taste.
Click to expand...

Perhaps there wouldn't be so much upset if we all agreed to accept this fact ^^^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top