Lightning Inside of a WaterSpout..Unbelievable Picture

page: 7
38
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I'm solidly in the "motion blur" group now, having studied the image and all the posts about it. The arc motion would be consistent with the motion of the camera created by triggering the shutter. The S3 Pro has .05 sec shutter lag (between triggering the shutter and beginning the exposure.) The lightning was striking at a rate of about 1 bolt every 8 or 10 seconds, so I was just holding the camera with the shutter button partly depressed, and hitting the trigger when the sky lit up. A lot of the bolts were multiple strikes, where the arc takes the same path repeatedly, so I managed to get several strikes captured within the 10 minutes or so that I was shooting the event. Normally I would set the shutter for 5 to 30 seconds and shoot with small aperture. On this evening, it was still twilight in the area that I was shooting, so I used a medium aperture for better overall sharpness.

No one has mentioned that in the ground contact area, there is no area of the ground or pole that "front lighted" by the bolt. The whole area is a silhouette, which means that the lightning was beyond the first trees, possibly hitting the road, a sign, a car or tree on the other side of the road. Where the light goes across in front of the power pole, the pole is not lit up in the surrounding area, which definitely suggests that camera motion caused the effect. It's exactly what I would expect to see if I triggered the shutter while swinging the camera.
Here's an example of the technique, from my D P Challenge portfolio.
D P Challenge portfolio image




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MelonMusketeer
I'm solidly in the "motion blur" group now, having studied the image and all the posts about it. The arc motion would be consistent with the motion of the camera created by triggering the shutter.
that's what it looks like from the low resolution image but since you have the full resolution image to look at that would give you more information.



No one has mentioned that in the ground contact area, there is no area of the ground or pole that "front lighted" by the bolt. The whole area is a silhouette, which means that the lightning was beyond the first trees, possibly hitting the road, a sign, a car or tree on the other side of the road. Where the light goes across in front of the power pole, the pole is not lit up in the surrounding area, which definitely suggests that camera motion caused the effect.


After watching the now famous illusion in the STS-75 video, I don't always draw the conclusion that an object that looks like it's behind another object really is, especially if it's a light. But it sounds like you're saying you think the lightning was behind the power pole and not in front of it? That's also what my guess is too.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
wow that is a rare pic, never herd of this before.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Wow, what a great picture!! S&F I love lightening pictures. Here is one of mine.




posted on May, 28 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
I agree - I think the effect of a strike in/on a waterspout would be 'marked', to say the least. In fact I also suspect that the reason such a thing has never been captured is that it would probably demolish the spout at both ends, and possibly the bolt would simply be dissipated or redirected. And of course if the (salt)waterspout is in operation, there is *already* a reasonably good conductor (way better than air) in place, and so maybe there would be no arc at all, just some other sort of slower, gentler conduction of the charge.

But I'm no expert on lightning, so these are w-a-guesses..!


A spout would be a very good attractor for lightning and would be hit before it got close to the charged clouds. The energy in a typical lightning strike would immediately turn the spout into a lot of hydrogen, oxygen and vapour.

There isn't really a 'gentle' discharge with lightning because the potential is so high.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
"Motion blur" is fine for the lighting bolt up to a point. If "motion blur" is the cause, then the blur has given the lightning bolt four facets. From left to right, (1) a darker area, (2) the bolt itself, (3) another darker area and (4) another lighter area, (or highlighted area). The pylon, on the other hand is more or less the same in width as the other pylons in the picture. Of course, the width of the pylon could be diminished by the background light from the bolt. The pylon looks to be solid, and there are no discernable added facets to the left or right in the same way as the lightning bolt, if you accept the notion of "motion blur". It has to be said also that a waterspout is mentioned by the photographer. All in all, an interesting picture...like the Norway spiral.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The problem I am having is that i could recreate that, probably even better looking then that, in photoshop.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

The photographer saw no waterspout(s). He assumed it was present because waterspouts are sometimes associated with thunderstorms.

Lightning strikes are not a single instantaneous event. More than "motion blur", I think "time lapse" is probably a more accurate description.Restrike

Look at how the bolt moves in this video.


[edit on 5/28/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by smurfy
 

The photographer saw no waterspout(s). He assumed it was present because waterspouts are sometimes associated with thunderstorms.

Lightning strikes are not a single instantaneous event. More than "motion blur", I think "time lapse" is probably a more accurate description.Restrike

Look at how the bolt moves in this video.


[edit on 5/28/2010 by Phage]

In the post I read, the photographer mentions earlier photos of the waterspout forming. I like your video however, it shows the "drift" of a lightning bolt and its speed drift implicitly. It also shows that the bolt nicked a piece of the tower it struck, that is interesting too.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 

I don't think so. But I haven't seen the second photo. Have we?
www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 5/28/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Lightning strikes are not a single instantaneous event. More than "motion blur", I think "time lapse" is probably a more accurate description.Restrike

Look at how the bolt moves in this video.


[edit on 5/28/2010 by Phage]


Notice that at the end of the strike in the video, the bolt breaks up into bright globs.
I think that is what is seen as the streaks of light crossing the power pole, and in the middle of the bolt in the original photo because the width of the light is just too uniform. I don't think that the bolt of lightning moved in the photo. This would continue to be a mystery if the pole hadn't lined up exactly with the strike.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by exinterp
The problem I am having is that i could recreate that, probably even better looking then that, in photoshop.


Please do so.
It doesn't have to match the scene closely, any half-decent lightning shot would do, but it would need to be done in such a way that we cannot pick it as being edited...

At some point we have to accept that pretty much anything can be recreated with various ps techniques and then ask yourself - Did this person look at a lightning shot he had, and then say "Aha, I know what I'll do, I'll do some clever editing and make it look like a waterspout, and then post it on the Interweb..." (insert evil laugh).....?

Or... do we simply accept that someone genuinely captured something that looks unusual, and use PHOTOGRAPHIC analysis skills to try to explain it instead...?

I'm going with the latter, thanks.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Or... do we simply accept that someone genuinely captured something that looks unusual, and use PHOTOGRAPHIC analysis skills to try to explain it instead...?


I'm in that camp too. After studying some lightning video made with high speed cameras and slowed down, I'm actually surprised we don't see blurring effects more often in lightning pictures. Or maybe there are but the blurred photos don't get distributed like the crisp photos do?

What probably makes this picture so unique and special if there are other blurred lightning images out there, is the way the blur gets brighter on the right to create an illusion of a cylinder! It's an awesome effect! But just a coincidence I think.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Wow beautiful picture, I remember when this storm made its way up the coast to where I am.

We had a near record (if not one) of lighting strikes that night it was pretty insane they were striking land only a few feet from my house at multiple times.

The photo looks like it's clearly taken from the water and there is a stretch of land probably where it connects to another island and another mass of water on the other side which is typical of that area.

I checked out his other photos, he's a talented guy.

Don't let the naysayers get to you, some people will troll and say anything and everything is fake, it's kinda sad they just can't appreciate things for what they are.

Thanks for sharing!



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by exinterp
 


Cool, can't wait to see your recreation!

Quick question, why would that bolt be blurred and nothing else in the picture blur, including the cloud bolt in the upper right hand corner of the pic?
Everything is so clear and crisp. I don't think it's a drifting lightening bolt and I don't think it is a blur, I'm leaning towards the plasma/shockwave theory.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

In most images of lightning strikes the bolt is extremely overexposed. This one isn't. That's why we can see more detail than in other images.

I've seen a number of waterspouts. This really doesn't look a lot like a waterspout and the source cloud does not seem to be the right kind of cloud to produce a waterspout.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Oh I definitely agree it's not a waterspout and the blur explanation seems to be a good fit.

But I'm not so sure about the overexposed vs normal or underexposed argument. For example, you say this picture isn't overexposed? So let's say we re-took the picture and overexposed it, perhaps by, say, increasing the ISO of the film without changing the exposure settings. Wouldn't the blur actually get even brighter in the overexposed version? The brightest part of the lightning strike appears as though the image has already saturated the film so I wouldn't expect to see that get any whiter. But the non-saturated parts of the image I would expect to get brighter if it were overexposed?

Now if the exposure was increased by just leaving the shutter open longer, that may or may not make a difference, depending on whether the lightining strike continued after the shutter was closed (or if more restrikes happened).

By the way I didn't think this lighting strike was moving like the video you posted, but that was an interesting effect on the video, thanks for posting it. What do you figure caused it to move like that, maybe the wind blowing?



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

To clarify: I said it isn't extremely overexposed. If it were more overexposed the "transparent" areas of the bolt would be more saturated, obscuring the detail and we would only see a big fat bolt.

The movement of the bolt is not necessarily consistent. The saturated areas are where the bolt persisted for a longer period than the areas which appear transparent.

I don't think the bolt was moving in the same manner as the video either. I suppose the motion in the video could be a result of the ion channel (through which the bolt travels) being blown by the wind.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Referring to the video posted, Maybe the movement of the cloud caused the bolt to move with it.

And yet it stayed connected to the tower.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for the clarification. I didn't completely understand what you were implying before, but I do now and it makes sense.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join