Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Hawkeye_a · Jun 2, 2006, 10:56 AM

Aparently this isfrom an electrical storm in the mid-west (US). Check out the pictures on this blog...theyre absolutely stunning.

http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/200...6th-chase.html

Cheers

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 2, 2006, 11:18 AM

They look fake. I'm not saying they are but they LOOK it.

Hawkeye_a · Jun 2, 2006, 11:22 AM

Thats what i thought as well.....

eitherway, they just look so friggon cool. i'd love to have one of those as a desktop (1680X1050)

turtle777 · Jun 2, 2006, 11:26 AM

I have never seen a cloud pattern like this in my life.
Maybe real, maybe not. Dunno.

-t

schamae · Jun 2, 2006, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

They look fake. I'm not saying they are but they LOOK it.

real, but high dynamic range (hdr).

ShortcutToMoncton · Jun 2, 2006, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

I have never seen a cloud pattern like this in my life.
Maybe real, maybe not. Dunno.

-t

Definitely looks like some photoshop work done on the pics to get them so perfect and distinct, but those drooping "balls" of clouds definitely have a name that I can't remember at the moment.

greg

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 2, 2006, 12:03 PM

These have had heavy photoshop work.

Take a look at this pic:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/9...MG_9279web.jpg

Look at the path and grass in the bottom centre. It is totally over-sharpened and the grass is standing still while the grass everywhere else is a total blur and blowing.

To me it looks like the path, landscape and sky are all separate and were combined.

schamae · Jun 2, 2006, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

These have had heavy photoshop work.

Take a look at this pic:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/9...MG_9279web.jpg

Look at the path and grass in the bottom centre. It is totally over-sharpened and the grass is standing still while the grass everywhere else is a total blur and blowing.

To me it looks like the path, landscape and sky are all separate and were combined.

I said HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE. Please, go look it up.

Perhaps the flickr hdr pool can help you.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/hdr/pool/

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...amic-range.htm
http://www.cybergrain.com/tech/hdr/
http://www.ff00aa.com/en/space/2006/02/16/152204/
http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/dri.html
http://www.hyperfocaldesign.com/hdr-...otography.html

Socially Awkward Solo · Jun 2, 2006, 12:10 PM

I found this info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

It still doesn't convince me but what the hell. I am not Sherlock holmes.

rickey939 · Jun 2, 2006, 12:17 PM

Wow, this should go in the Kansas thread as well....amazing.

Adam Betts · Jun 2, 2006, 12:21 PM

Hard to tell if that one is fake or not but one thing for sure most of them was heavily touched-up to make colors stand out.

Great pics though. I love storms.

Person Man · Jun 2, 2006, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

These have had heavy photoshop work.

Take a look at this pic:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/9...MG_9279web.jpg

Look at the path and grass in the bottom centre. It is totally over-sharpened and the grass is standing still while the grass everywhere else is a total blur and blowing.

To me it looks like the path, landscape and sky are all separate and were combined.

If you read the comments to the post on his blog he explains what he did to the pictures in Photoshop.

powerbook867 · Jun 2, 2006, 01:05 PM

Those are amazing shots! I wish I had that kind of an oportunity to shoot that storm...

starman · Jun 2, 2006, 01:33 PM

Nice pics of this "electrical storm" and not one single bolt of lightning.

turtle777 · Jun 2, 2006, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Nice pics of this "electrical storm" and not one single bolt of lightning.

It's "electrical" because it has been photochopped !

-t

Judge_Fire · Jun 2, 2006, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by what_the_heck

It's "electrical" because it has been photochopped !

-t

J

Monique · Jun 2, 2006, 03:50 PM

Isn't it the beginning of a tornado.

euphras · Jun 2, 2006, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by starman

Nice pics of this "electrical storm" and not one single bolt of lightning.

The lightning is INSIDE the clouds. Two years ago i observed one similar thunderstorm, but not that black - it looked like a japanese paper lampion

JazzCatDRP · Jun 2, 2006, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

Definitely looks like some photoshop work done on the pics to get them so perfect and distinct, but those drooping "balls" of clouds definitely have a name that I can't remember at the moment.

greg

Mammatus clouds

analogika · Jun 3, 2006, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by Adam Betts

Hard to tell if that one is fake or not but one thing for sure most of them was heavily touched-up to make colors stand out.

Originally Posted by TFA

Hi! For those of you who've been asking about camera, settings, processing etc, here's the skinny:

The camera settings should all be embedded in the file's EXIF info -- you can view this either in Photoshop by doing a "View->File Info->EXIF" or by doing a right-click properties on the file (assuming you're using Windows XP.) The camera is an EOS 20D and the lens is the Canon 10-22 EF-S 3.5-4.5 USM. The post processing was mostly curves and levels, some done in RGB, some done after switching over the LAB color. The files were shot as Canon RAW .CR2 in the Adobe RGB color space and edited as 16 bit TIFFs. Some photos, like the shot of the barn and the tractor, had almost no post processing done to them; others, like the shots of the mammatus, needed a slight Luminosity (in LAB mode) S-curve to bring out the definition the clouds and a curves gradient on the ground to simulate a ND gradient filter. I think I did a a/b color curves tweak in LAB in some of them as well to better seperate the color tonalities (RAW, by nature, is flat until you post-process it).

there you go.

Mastrap · Jun 3, 2006, 07:42 AM

Isn't that amazing. On his blog the comments are without exception "OMG that's great" and here at macnn the comments are "OMG that's fakerblades lol".

Read the guy's comments and 'how this was done' before getting all steamed up for crying out loud.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 3, 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

TLook at the path and grass in the bottom centre. It is totally over-sharpened and the grass is standing still while the grass everywhere else is a total blur and blowing.

To me that looks more like curvature of field. From the post above, he uses an ultra-wide consumer level zoom. They aren't known for having the lowest distortion. Blurred edges with sharp centers, keystoning, and vignetting are all hallmarks. It's even worse with digital because the small CCD frame requires even wider lens designs with more compromises than the equivalent angle of view in full frame 35mm.

Great pictures though. Too bad his equipment is letting him down.

tooki · Jun 3, 2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Adam Betts

Hard to tell if that one is fake or not but one thing for sure most of them was heavily touched-up to make colors stand out.

Great pics though. I love storms.

Bright colors in no way indicate photoshopping. Great photos are great photos, and that doesn't require Photoshop. (I am in no way a professional photographer, but I have gotten great pix with amazing color by taking shots when the light was right.)

And to everyone who poo-poos post-processing: Ansel Adams, perhaps the most famous photographer ever, did extensive work in the darkroom, which is the analog equivalent of Photoshop: bringing out details captured in the negative that a standard print could not reveal. Selective manipulation of areas of an image is a time-honored tradition in printmaking. There's no reason why it should be considered blasphemy when done digitally.

tooki

Adam Betts · Jun 3, 2006, 01:47 PM

I have nothing against post-processing, that's what I love doing but I'm just simply pointing out that they look a little fake-ish due to heavy color/level post-processing, not necessarily because they're photoshopped (as in manipulating the image with different layers.)

The image above brought out colors that only existed digitally and that caused a suspension of disbelief. Ansel Adams' works never caused a suspension of disbelief so there's a difference here.

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 3, 2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Adam Betts

The image above brought out colors that only existed digitally and that caused a suspension of disbelief. Ansel Adams' works never caused a suspension of disbelief so there's a difference here.

Where do you get that from? Adams routinely used heavy filtration (e.g. a red filter) not to mention the fact that he used black and white. His pictures in no way looked the way the scene did to the naked eye -- even without considering the fact that his prints were heavily burned and dodged.

Suspension of disbelief is exactly what you do when you look at any of the great pictorialists. It's not the real world you are looking at, but a representation, and an interpretation.

analogika · Jun 3, 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Adam Betts

The image above brought out colors that only existed digitally and that caused a suspension of disbelief. Ansel Adams' works never caused a suspension of disbelief so there's a difference here.

Um, dude, that's just because you have no ****ing clue.

The reason Ansel Adams' processing doesn't strike you as unnatural is simple: It's because he's so damn good at it.

That is why he is revered as one of the world's best photographers.

Duh.