Thunderstorm at 10pm over Crater Lake, Tuesday. Shooting was extremely difficult while eating sand and small rocks roaring over the cliff walls in the 40mph winds. I was sheltered behind a large rock shooting the only perspective I could at the time, given a 3-minute exposure.
5D, 17-40 at 22mm, 2-stop GND, 190 seconds at F11, ISO 100.
How appropriate that the lightning is over Wizard Island. Too bad it doesn't touch down there. This is a magical image. But I would like to see it just a little brighter overall with the white rock in lower left darkened. I think that might bring out a little more color in the sky and the distant peak.
Craig, thanks for the input. I do agree with you about possibly darkening that bright spot at left. I want to keep a nightime feel here though, and especially with potential noise issues, I wouldn't want to push it brighter.
Posted by Hans Hibbard on July 14, 2007 at 9:49 PM
This looks like a fun type of shot to take...or frustrating because I'm sure there's never lightning when you wish there'd be.
I like the composition including the lead-in path. I'd suggest making the path just a little darker though. I find my eyes jumping back to it as I try to explore the area in the picture.
Marc,
Great image, great drama and detail. However, if you are going for realistic it isn't. Not even close in my book - the FG is way to bright. If you want to go for art-full image where realistic isn't a concern then its a winner...
Posted by Zack Schnepf on July 15, 2007 at 2:33 AM
I dig the surreal quality of this image Marc, I also like the dark tonality. The lightning just adds the Adamus elemental icing on the cake. Very interesting image!
I think this is excellent. I agree with toning down the white on the rock. I'm not sure I agree with the realistic comments. In fact, I'm not sure realistic should apply to any image other that documentary, species identification, or news shooting.
Then if we are not concerned with "realistic" then why all the talk about minimal processing, getting it right in the camera, not adding or removing significant elements, an accurate representation/depiction of what "I" saw etc
Realistic does apply to nature and landscape photography at least in my opinion. I didn't say "exact" or "documentary" . One meaning of realistic from wordnet is "representing what is real; not abstract or ideal" with a Synonym "naturalistic" - interesting synonym for nature photography . This is what I meant here. One can create an interpretation of a scene and still have it realistic so I respectfully disagree with you.
Moreover I was giving this feedback to Marc and I was considering his motivations with his photography. Marc is very vocal about what he is after and that he strives to represent what he saw. I also said "Great image, great drama and detail." I didn't mean my comments as an attack on the image. It just was my feedback.
Thanks for the comments. Phil, you'd be really surprised at how bright that ridge was on the original file, as haze reduced the luminosity of the background and the glow from the horizon to the west was most prominent on this ridge. I did darken the rock at left a little. I did a lot more to bring out the brightness of the top half than the bottom. Maybe too much grad there.
It's a tough call on what constitutes "surreal" at Crater Lake - in any other place, you wouldn't have an indigo lake surface like this! I like the elements and exposure on the right half of the image, Marc - the rest less so.
Bonus points for sitting up on a rock during a thunderstorm... that takes real artistic dedication!
Fun, attractive shot. I'd prefer either more lightning strikes or one big one as apposed to that one you caught (I"m sure you would too...and I'm sure we'll see one on ESS). I do think a square crop here is much stronger though.
I'd say a 3 minute exposure isn't very "realistic". You are bringing out light that isn't as apparent to the eye, especially at 10pm. Blurry water isn't realistic either...and a black and white image surely could be the farthest thing from realism, but who cares. Most people dont...I dont. Do I like the shot? Does it make me want to be there? Does it make me want to own it or wish I took it? Yes, Yes, Yes.
All, respectfully stated of course...and not directed at anyone in particular.
Discussion
14 replies5D, 17-40 at 22mm, 2-stop GND, 190 seconds at F11, ISO 100.
I like the composition including the lead-in path. I'd suggest making the path just a little darker though. I find my eyes jumping back to it as I try to explore the area in the picture.
Looks like an exciting evening with the storm.
Great image, great drama and detail. However, if you are going for realistic it isn't. Not even close in my book - the FG is way to bright. If you want to go for art-full image where realistic isn't a concern then its a winner...
Realistic does apply to nature and landscape photography at least in my opinion. I didn't say "exact" or "documentary" . One meaning of realistic from wordnet is "representing what is real; not abstract or ideal" with a Synonym "naturalistic" - interesting synonym for nature photography
Moreover I was giving this feedback to Marc and I was considering his motivations with his photography. Marc is very vocal about what he is after and that he strives to represent what he saw. I also said "Great image, great drama and detail." I didn't mean my comments as an attack on the image. It just was my feedback.
Bonus points for sitting up on a rock during a thunderstorm... that takes real artistic dedication!
Tom
I'd say a 3 minute exposure isn't very "realistic". You are bringing out light that isn't as apparent to the eye, especially at 10pm. Blurry water isn't realistic either...and a black and white image surely could be the farthest thing from realism, but who cares. Most people dont...I dont. Do I like the shot? Does it make me want to be there? Does it make me want to own it or wish I took it? Yes, Yes, Yes.
All, respectfully stated of course...and not directed at anyone in particular.