Posted by Jamie Botdorf on January 27, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I notice that we have a lot of meteorologists on the forum. I'm really a neophyte when it comes to understandng weather and its impact on potential shooting locations. I'm guessing I'm not the only one. Have any of you written or considered putting together a "Photographers Guide to the Weather"? If not, this might make an interesting article for the NPN site or a magazine. It would be great to have some sort of guide to help understand what conditions/cloud formations lend themselves to interesting sunrises/sunsets, foggy mornings, etc. Just a thot...
Posted by Jim Casteel on January 27, 2009 at 1:30 PM
I agree that it would be very useful, if there were a book available I surely would pay for it! I get excited if I can predict a good sunset 3 hours in advance.
Posted by Jody Grigg on January 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM
One of the things I would be interested in knowing would be when to expect Inversions based on the weather patterns.
Well it seems that meteorologists by trade have a close bond to the nature aspect of photography. Like many of the photographers here in this form, when the tornado siren sounds, we tend to grab a camera and head outside, while others are headed for the basement
I would be open to "Co-Authoring" a article for NPN if another more "seasoned" photographer wanted to help on the photography aspects, I have all the graphics for the weather side of things..... Nice looking High-Res Numerical Output, Skew-T's (Observed and model based), etc etc etc
Maybe a case study, where we can plan a shoot, and document the stuff we used in the forecast, what we considered, links to the data we used, and anything else that would be of interest to the members.
Drop me an E-mail if you wanna collaborate on such a project. I am in Colorado, but could make a week-end trip to many of the places nearby.
Posted by Joshua Hardin on January 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Stan wrote an article on this subject for NPN a few months ago. It can be found here: http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles1207/sr1207-1.html. However, I completely agree that this topic could probably be expanded to fill an entire book. I would likely buy it too!
Posted by Jamie Botdorf on January 27, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Thanks for the link Joshua! Great article, Stan! That is sort of what I was thinking about...but expanding more on the last few paragraphs. I'm less interested in learning how to predict the weather, but very intersted in being able to translate a published weather forecast into..."Oh! I see that there is a cold front dropping down from Wyoming...sounds like a good time to head to RMNP and look for snow ghosts in the higher elevations." or - "hey, the high pressure over Alamosa and the low temperatures sound like a formula for early morning fog hanging around the Sand Dunes...I should go check that out!" (or whatever the reality would be). Sort of the primer - when you hear/see these things in a weather forecast, that will probably translate into such and such conditions for photography (low clouds that might reflect the setting sunlight or thick clouds that are going to obstruct the sunrise so maybe sleep in a little...)
Posted by Ken Wyatt on January 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM
The other options which I find equally effective are to flip a coin or just go out and see what happens.
Posted by Stan Rose on January 27, 2009 at 9:10 PM
Erik, Erik, ever the faithful...
He doesnt mention the superb wind and cloud free forecast i gave him, or the fact that i had the confidence to drive 50 miles through blowing snow and fog this morning on 4 hours sleep cause i new my odds of a clearing were good despite the 'officially' cloudy forecast.
Seriously, i have toyed with the idea of writing a book, (and paying Todd for his cloud-man expertise!) but it would be a major undertaking. I guess i could start small with a chapter.
"Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain
I like the article too Stan. Nice job!
What I am reading here is that it would be nice to understand the details of the weather forecast and then be able to add higher spatial and temporal information to it. Adding this "value" to a forecast often takes years of training and/or experience. For example, a farmer who has worked the same fields for 50 years has an ability to "read the sky". That is, he/she has seen enough to recognize the weather patterns and can infer what is (likely) to happen. This can also be accomplished by a trained weather forecaster who has worked out of the same forecast office for several years and has access to a lot of "numerical guidance". What is so great about this day and age is that the latter provides so much of this information freely on the web from the local forecast offices. Any additional value you can add with come with additional training in weather forecasting (map analysis and numerical weather prediction), or experience in the field.
But all of the training and experience can still produce the wrong results (fog doesn't develop, storm is slow in clearing, etc.). That leaves you with Erik's suggestion of just get out there and see what develops. Repeating this single step is probably the most effective in getting the "dynamic meteorology" image Stan's article encourages you to look for.
As for high resolution modeling data, my group puts that out on the web every day. For example, you can go to http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/mab/hrrr3 and look at 12 hour forecasts generated hourly for the whole US. There are even model runs with wildfire's included if you want to know where the smoke is blowing (for that extra red/orange in the sunset) The latter is not a single simple image on a web page (don't you wish it was that easy). If you want to know about the coming weekend's weather on Monday, then you need to keep in mind that the numerical model forecasts tend to break-down after 3 to 4 days (watch the 5 day forecast on the evening news and see how the forecast for one day changes as the week progresses. Forecasts beyond 4 to 5 days often rely on the use of ensemble forecasts that account for errors in observations and the numerical model. Those can be found online at places like the Penn State weather wall (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~gadomski/ewall.html). The problem for "Joe Public" is this data is geared towards those with training in meteorology (not easy to translate into simple straight-forward answers).
That is a really good article, Stan. A resource like what everyone is talking about would be great.
Posted by John Klotz on January 27, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Excellent job Stan! But if you guys really want to learn about weather spend 5 days chasing tornados with Mr Rose! That was very cool.. when we leaving for the next chase dude! I have been thinking about hanging steel grates on the Pathfinder!!
Posted by Kurt Budde on January 27, 2009 at 10:31 PM
That does sound like a fantastic idea. I'm looking for the same kind of thing Jamie suggests about developing fog, etc. I'd love to be able to translate a bit and see what's happening.
In the mean time, however, I second Erik's suggestion. Just go look.
Posted by Jamie Botdorf on January 27, 2009 at 10:34 PM
Erik's flip a coin suggestion reminds me of one of those "weather rocks"...if the rock is wet, it is raining, if the rock is moving, it is windy, etc...
I certainly agree that part of the fun is heading out and see what develops!
Discussion
13 repliesI would be open to "Co-Authoring" a article for NPN if another more "seasoned" photographer wanted to help on the photography aspects, I have all the graphics for the weather side of things..... Nice looking High-Res Numerical Output, Skew-T's (Observed and model based), etc etc etc
Maybe a case study, where we can plan a shoot, and document the stuff we used in the forecast, what we considered, links to the data we used, and anything else that would be of interest to the members.
Drop me an E-mail if you wanna collaborate on such a project. I am in Colorado, but could make a week-end trip to many of the places nearby.
Ken
He doesnt mention the superb wind and cloud free forecast i gave him, or the fact that i had the confidence to drive 50 miles through blowing snow and fog this morning on 4 hours sleep cause i new my odds of a clearing were good despite the 'officially' cloudy forecast.
Seriously, i have toyed with the idea of writing a book, (and paying Todd for his cloud-man expertise!) but it would be a major undertaking. I guess i could start small with a chapter.
I like the article too Stan. Nice job!
What I am reading here is that it would be nice to understand the details of the weather forecast and then be able to add higher spatial and temporal information to it. Adding this "value" to a forecast often takes years of training and/or experience. For example, a farmer who has worked the same fields for 50 years has an ability to "read the sky". That is, he/she has seen enough to recognize the weather patterns and can infer what is (likely) to happen. This can also be accomplished by a trained weather forecaster who has worked out of the same forecast office for several years and has access to a lot of "numerical guidance". What is so great about this day and age is that the latter provides so much of this information freely on the web from the local forecast offices. Any additional value you can add with come with additional training in weather forecasting (map analysis and numerical weather prediction), or experience in the field.
But all of the training and experience can still produce the wrong results (fog doesn't develop, storm is slow in clearing, etc.). That leaves you with Erik's suggestion of just get out there and see what develops. Repeating this single step is probably the most effective in getting the "dynamic meteorology" image Stan's article encourages you to look for.
As for high resolution modeling data, my group puts that out on the web every day. For example, you can go to http://www-frd.fsl.noaa.gov/mab/hrrr3 and look at 12 hour forecasts generated hourly for the whole US. There are even model runs with wildfire's included if you want to know where the smoke is blowing (for that extra red/orange in the sunset) The latter is not a single simple image on a web page (don't you wish it was that easy). If you want to know about the coming weekend's weather on Monday, then you need to keep in mind that the numerical model forecasts tend to break-down after 3 to 4 days (watch the 5 day forecast on the evening news and see how the forecast for one day changes as the week progresses. Forecasts beyond 4 to 5 days often rely on the use of ensemble forecasts that account for errors in observations and the numerical model. Those can be found online at places like the Penn State weather wall (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~gadomski/ewall.html). The problem for "Joe Public" is this data is geared towards those with training in meteorology (not easy to translate into simple straight-forward answers).
S
In the mean time, however, I second Erik's suggestion. Just go look.
I certainly agree that part of the fun is heading out and see what develops!