Is this picture real?

[ArtRosen]

It looks like the tornado is in the center of what appears to be a tiny supercell. Is this even real?

[phil882]

It looks like the tornado is in the center of what appears to be a tiny supercell. Is this even real?

I don't see a tornado, only a nice rainbow in a well defined rain shaft.

[hurricaneman]

Its not a tornado, its a wall cloud and this looks like the type that could produce a tornado

[Ian]

i think it is. it's just been fairly heavily manipulated with hdr.

what i dont get is why some people think it's a fantastic picture. the cloud is cool, but i've seen cool clouds before.

[NaoPos]

This picture was in "this week in pictures"...

Apparently, it's a vertically stacked panaroma.It's real. While it's probably been compressed to fit the normal viewiers screen, i think it would look a lot better blown up.

My vote is Real.

And as far as it being a cool pic, i'd say so. just because I've seen better, fiercer looking clouds, doesn't mean you can't appreciate the beauty of a "tamer" looking storm. It's why we all took the time to post on weather forums, because we're all weather nerds.

[Ian]

And as far as it being a cool pic, i'd say so. just because I've seen better, fiercer looking clouds, doesn't mean you can't appreciate the beauty of a "tamer" looking storm. It's why we all took the time to post on weather forums, because we're all weather nerds.

it's cool but not a top pic ever as i've seen some insinuate (not in this thread).

[Matthew-Northern Italy]

Pretty nice HDR

[Amped]

Real, the contrast was probably enhanced. There maybe a funnel but I don't see a TOG

[k***]

i see a badass multivortex in there

[A-L-E-X]

i think it is. it's just been fairly heavily manipulated with hdr.

what i dont get is why some people think it's a fantastic picture. the cloud is cool, but i've seen cool clouds before.

I agree, plus it's been sharpened way too much-- look at some of the edges on those clouds... that's edge enhancement to the max!

[Amped]

In case you missed it here is the UFOnado from the western forum.

http://www.americanw...post__p__851720

[BadgerWXman]

It's real, just over-touched as usual with these pics. I'm not buying a tornado in there.. at least no possible way to tell from that pic.

[eekuasepinniW]

some people really need to have the unsharpen mask tool taken away from them.

[MacChump]

lazy bastards never took down their christmas lights

[Msalgado]

lazy bastards never took down their christmas lights

LOL Awesome catch.

[Ian]

some people really need to have the unsharpen mask tool taken away from them.

one of the bigger issues with photography these days is people seem to totally accept heavily processed photos

[The Dude]

one of the bigger issues with photography these days is people seem to totally accept heavily processed photos

Agreed. There's a fine line between photography and computer graphics. The above picture is stunning, but I'm hesitant to compare it to actual photos.

As the digital camera has become prevalent, it has become increasingly difficult to determine where to draw the line from the types of manipulation you could do with film in the darkroom, and the manipulations you can do with computers. At some point, at least in my mind, the finished product becomes more of a computer graphic than a photograph. That said, it's a blurry line (though I'm sure folks will use some sort of photoshop tool to sharpen it...).

[Juliancolton]

Agreed. There's a fine line between photography and computer graphics. The above picture is stunning, but I'm hesitant to compare it to actual photos.

As the digital camera has become prevalent, it has become increasingly difficult to determine where to draw the line from the types of manipulation you could do with film in the darkroom, and the manipulations you can do with computers. At some point, at least in my mind, the finished product becomes more of a computer graphic than a photograph. That said, it's a blurry line (though I'm sure folks will use some sort of photoshop tool to sharpen it...).

I almost never post-process my shots, except cropping/rotating. Almost everything on flickr explore nowadays is oversaturated "kitsch" (as some photographers I know call it). I've trained myself in photography based purely on what comes out of the camera... otherwise, you never really know how to use it.

[Ian]

Agreed. There's a fine line between photography and computer graphics. The above picture is stunning, but I'm hesitant to compare it to actual photos.

As the digital camera has become prevalent, it has become increasingly difficult to determine where to draw the line from the types of manipulation you could do with film in the darkroom, and the manipulations you can do with computers. At some point, at least in my mind, the finished product becomes more of a computer graphic than a photograph. That said, it's a blurry line (though I'm sure folks will use some sort of photoshop tool to sharpen it...).

People like to say that Ansel Adams did work on his stuff in the darkroom etc., but most of those processes were much simpler and less dramatic than what is becoming common with HDR etc. I personally don't like HDR very much, mostly because people don't seem to have a sense of what still looks natural. Shadows are a part of life etc!

[Ian]

I almost never post-process my shots, except cropping/rotating. Almost everything on flickr explore nowadays is oversaturated "kitsch" (as some photographers I know call it). I've trained myself in photography based purely on what comes out of the camera... otherwise, you never really know how to use it.

I mostly don't want to spend the time post processing. I don't see how people have fun spending hours doing that. There are a few things which need to be done to digital files to process them properly usually, but that can be limited to small levels/contrast adjustments if taken correctly. There are lots of excellent photographers these days thanks to the proliferation of DSLRs etc. There are also a lot of buddy networks on places like flickr which elevate mediocre photogs way more than they should be.

[forkyfork]

weather photos should look as close to reality as possible

[eekuasepinniW]

I personally don't like HDR very much, mostly because people don't seem to have a sense of what still looks natural. Shadows are a part of life etc!

Agreed... I can never get past how fake and unnatural it usually looks.

People need to embrace graduated neutral density filters more, even though picking the perfect filter for the given scene can sometimes be a pain.

[tacoman25]

Given the proliferation of photo manipulation these days, I think it means something that this picture still stood out. It's a spectacular image, enhanced or not.

If it were easy to produce a real photo like this, we would see them all the time and this one wouldn't have even been noticed.

[Ian]

Given the proliferation of photo manipulation these days, I think it means something that this picture still stood out. It's a spectacular image, enhanced or not.

If it were easy to produce a real photo like this, we would see them all the time and this one wouldn't have even been noticed.

It's a cool image one way or another. I don't however think there is much correlation to how things go viral and their actual quality these days. I took a crappy cell phone vid of windy rain that got 10,000 views in 2 days because it got picked up by the Post and I saw better timelapse stuff of the same storm that was virtually ignored as it did not hit the press quick enough.

[Tom]

lazy bastards never took down their christmas lights

Maybe they were celebrating Christmas in July

[Juliancolton]

I mostly don't want to spend the time post processing. I don't see how people have fun spending hours doing that. There are a few things which need to be done to digital files to process them properly usually, but that can be limited to small levels/contrast adjustments if taken correctly. There are lots of excellent photographers these days thanks to the proliferation of DSLRs etc. There are also a lot of buddy networks on places like flickr which elevate mediocre photogs way more than they should be.

Agreed. It amazes me how some of the stuff with 200 favorites and 10,000 views on flickr is something that doesn't stand out at all from a technical or artistic standpoint. I guess it's like anything now, somebody gets their hands on a D60 and has the ability to share pictures with 500 contacts on facebook, etc. that have a straight horizon and pretty colors, and they're instantly a semi-pro. It's good in some ways, but mainly it just dilutes the value of a skilled photographer.

Given the proliferation of photo manipulation these days, I think it means something that this picture still stood out. It's a spectacular image, enhanced or not.

If it were easy to produce a real photo like this, we would see them all the time and this one wouldn't have even been noticed.

It's not easy, but it's not hard... http://www.google.co....3.6.3.6-1l14l0

[tacoman25]

It's a cool image one way or another. I don't however think there is much correlation to how things go viral and their actual quality these days. I took a crappy cell phone vid of windy rain that got 10,000 views in 2 days because it got picked up by the Post and I saw better timelapse stuff of the same storm that was virtually ignored as it did not hit the press quick enough.

That's true...once stuff goes viral, sometimes it just gains momentum because it happens to get the proper exposure at the right time.

[tacoman25]

It's not easy, but it's not hard... http://www.google.co....3.6.3.6-1l14l0

What makes this photo stand out to me, though, is the layers of the cloud structure, the vivid rainbow, the distance from the storm (close enough to capture details, yet far enough to give perspective on size, etc), and the suburban setting (many of those other thunderstorm pictures are out on the plains in the middle of nowhere).

[Ian]

What makes this photo stand out to me, though, is the layers of the cloud structure, the vivid rainbow, the distance from the storm (close enough to capture details, yet far enough to give perspective on size, etc), and the suburban setting (many of those other thunderstorm pictures are out on the plains in the middle of nowhere).

I think that's fair. It's definitely a striking image one way or another. It immediately reminded me of the Eric Nguyen image of the tornado/rainbow/house. It's certainly not often you get a combo of elements and vis coming together. My main point was it's good, but not among 'the best'. I see people like brettjrob produce tens of better images a year. There is something to be said about the urban element tho I like the field imagery better usually myself for some reason.

[A-L-E-X]

Agreed. It amazes me how some of the stuff with 200 favorites and 10,000 views on flickr is something that doesn't stand out at all from a technical or artistic standpoint. I guess it's like anything now, somebody gets their hands on a D60 and has the ability to share pictures with 500 contacts on facebook, etc. that have a straight horizon and pretty colors, and they're instantly a semi-pro. It's good in some ways, but mainly it just dilutes the value of a skilled photographer.

It's not easy, but it's not hard... http://www.google.co....3.6.3.6-1l14l0

Honestly, you don't even need a DSLR to take a great picture-- it's more about the eye of the photographer and being at the right place at the right time rather than any piece of equipment one is carrying. Award winning pictures can be taken even with throwaway cameras. I have 2 DSLR and neither gets used very much (just special occasions), because I'd much rather have portability. I also dont like the mirror-box optical viewfinders and mechanical shutters-- they are a relic from the days of film, vestigial appendices lol. I'd much rather have an EVF with histogram, exposure info, white balance, etc. built into the viewfinder-- it's much more informative and useful that way. Fortunately, the new generation of professional cameras are moving in that direction, moving away from "single lens reflex" altogether.