Thanks so much for the kind words and comments everyone.
aFeinPhoto.com wrote:
Stupid awesome....again. What was the exif for the lightning? Seems like just shooting a bunch of shots and getting lucky? Killer bolt and great convert
aF
Thanks and I get the best results with lightning with the trigger at 1/4 second between f/11 and f/14 @ iso 100.
It does depend on the lighting conditions though. This workd out well due to the sun being covered by the dark storm clouds.
Just stunning, really digging the vertical orientation on this image awesome moody overall comp with a great conversions, looks like you have become great friends with Nik Silver
Ray Still
Ray,
Thanks so much and I have been getting good use out of it.
One of my better photo investments.
Its a money shot because of the bolt, which is added. So, nice image, not a "true" money shot.
Personally the bottom of the frame is to much. I would eliminate a bit of the bottom. most viewers on this post are looking online, where they start with the bolt and scroll down, which means of course the bolt draws you in. When viewed fully, the bolt stands out, and attracts the eye, but doesn't "draw in" so much when it is such a small part of the frame.
patrickphoto wrote:
Its a money shot because of the bolt, which is added. So, nice image, not a "true" money shot.
Personally the bottom of the frame is to much. I would eliminate a bit of the bottom. most viewers on this post are looking online, where they start with the bolt and scroll down, which means of course the bolt draws you in. When viewed fully, the bolt stands out, and attracts the eye, but doesn't "draw in" so much when it is such a small part of the frame.
Patrick,
Thanks and I have thought of cutting a little off of the bottom.
I will likely do that when I print it.
Klaus, real good image. But I have to differ with all the other posters on this in that I think the added bolt and bright spot looks too contrived and added in. The photo is so good on its own, adding what you did only lowers it a notch or two in my book. But I guess if it makes it more salable then maybe it is doing what you want. I just can't help but scratch my head and wonder why you feel that is needed in this otherwise excellent photo.
Peter
Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com
Agree with Peter. Cutting and Pasting, even from the same storm and general location, is bad karma. Lightning photography is difficult, and composites are somewhat of an affront to anyone who's taken pains to be at the right place at the right time.
I do like to tonal scale and scene!
-Greg
p.s.
Let me get back up on my soapbox...
IMO, the brightness and size of the cloud area illuminated by the lightning looks overcooked and, well, fake. If the scene was much darker, and if the lightning illuminated the distant rocks as well, it wouldn't look so out of place. Try re-mixing the recipe, but use less garlic this time.
I have to agree with a few others here that it feels a bit like 'cheating' since the bolt is added to a perfectly composed shot that never would have happened by chance (which would have been a true money shot IMHO).
But most people don't seem to care as long as the final image is spectacular, and I'd have to agree with them on that - it is a great composite shot!
Vern Dewit wrote:
I have to agree with a few others here that it feels a bit like 'cheating' since the bolt is added to a perfectly composed shot that never would have happened by chance (which would have been a true money shot IMHO).
But most people don't seem to care as long as the final image is spectacular, and I'd have to agree with them on that - it is a great composite shot!
V.
Thanks.
Perhaps but if I had brought the trigger with me at the exact time of this shot was taken then it would have been. Same storm, same clouds, just a few minutes apart. I will post the shot w/o the bolt and see how it looks.
Klaus Priebe wrote:
I added a bolt to the image here from the same storm. Hope you like it.
I had two immediate reactions when I looked at the photograph before reading your text.
1. Spectacular and dramatic scene and very suitable for the BW treatment - overall a compelling image of this iconic scene and different from quite a few that I've seen.
2. The lightning struck me (oops, awful pun) immediately as being faked in post. It doesn't look like real lightning that would have naturally appeared in this scene - in other words it isn't believable to me.
As I think about it a bit more, I have two issues with the inclusion of the lightning bolt.
1. First, as above, it is not visually believable to me. Now I'm not one of those who believes that a photograph must be objectively "accurate," but I do feel that it should be "believable" - and to my eyes this lightning is not believable.
2. Photographically I think that the lightning bolt actually weakens the image. You have this tremendous and beautiful object in the center of the astonishing bend in the river canyon, backed by the dark and dramatic sky filled with storm clouds - yet now the eye it distracted away from that wonderful central feature to... a very small (and not believable) lightning bolt. In contrast, the storm itself (minus the added lightning) forms a wonderful dark counterpoint to the light tones in the canyon. I guess I'm saying that not only is it not believable, but for me it distracts me from the central and wonderful elements of the image.
I realize that my reaction is different from some of the very strong positive responses on the first page of this thread, but I wonder if they understand your clear statement about adding the lightning in post (and I applaud you for your honesty - though I would have known anyway) or if they have really thought about what real lightning looks like and how it would appear in this scene.
I think that the photograph would be more compelling without the lightning in this case.
