Storm Chasing...

Keith said:

This is photography. If you find out where you got it I would want to seek
permission to add it to my personal philosophical newsletter. I use a lot
of photos, as a point getter, and to stop boredom.

Keith


"SleeperMan" wrote in message
...
Pete D typed:

Yeah, pretty poor shot. Not one I would show others.

"Kevin McMurtrie" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
"Seymore" wrote:

http://www.macmurph.com/photodb/pict...cture_id=20552

Seymore...
Owner of an F717/S85... and luvin' it!
remove "REMOVE" to reply

You have the grainy adaptive sharpening filter. Now paint some UFOs
in there.

How about this one?

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Storm.jpg

(BTW: It's not from me...)

kreb typed:

Keith said:

This is photography. If you find out where you got it I would want
to seek permission to add it to my personal philosophical newsletter.
I use a lot of photos, as a point getter, and to stop boredom.

Keith


It seems that my niece got it from her friend over chat... I'll ask her to
get him in touch and i'll let you know. It's a question, though, if pic is
his or he got it elsewhere... :-) I hope it's not one of those stories: i
got it from the one who got it from a guy, who got it from another
guy...etc---

SleeperMan typed:

kreb typed:

Keith said:

This is photography. If you find out where you got it I would want
to seek permission to add it to my personal philosophical newsletter.
I use a lot of photos, as a point getter, and to stop boredom.

Keith


It seems that my niece got it from her friend over chat... I'll ask
her to get him in touch and i'll let you know. It's a question,
though, if pic is his or he got it elsewhere... :-) I hope it's not
one of those stories: i got it from the one who got it from a guy,
who got it from another guy...etc---

Sooo...
It is one of those stories...
her friend got it from Internet somewhere, so, i don't have a clue, who
actually shot it or owe it. Sorry... but i guess you can use it, and write
unknown author or similar below it.

In article ,
says...
this is awesome!! do you know -- oh yeah, this is one from an unknown source.

what are the best settings, etc to take a photo like this??

1/30 on a tripod?

thanks for the treat!

Composite shot.

schuetzen - RKBA! typed:

SleeperMan wrote:

Pete D typed:

Yeah, pretty poor shot. Not one I would show others.

http://www.macmurph.com/photodb/pict...cture_id=20552
Seymore...
Owner of an F717/S85... and luvin' it!
You have the grainy adaptive sharpening filter. Now paint some
UFOs in there.


How about this one?
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Storm.jpg
(BTW: It's not from me...)

this is awesome!! do you know -- oh yeah, this is one from an unknown
source.

what are the best settings, etc to take a photo like this??

1/30 on a tripod?

thanks for the treat!

Good question - i think that tripod is a must. Then, a looot of luck and
some knowledge and you're there.

J. A. Mc. typed:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:28:41 +0200, "SleeperMan"
found these unused words floating about:

SleeperMan typed:

kreb typed:

Keith said:

This is photography. If you find out where you got it I would want
to seek permission to add it to my personal philosophical
newsletter. I use a lot of photos, as a point getter, and to stop
boredom.

Keith


It seems that my niece got it from her friend over chat... I'll ask
her to get him in touch and i'll let you know. It's a question,
though, if pic is his or he got it elsewhere... :-) I hope it's not
one of those stories: i got it from the one who got it from a guy,
who got it from another guy...etc---

Sooo...
It is one of those stories...
her friend got it from Internet somewhere, so, i don't have a clue,
who actually shot it or owe it. Sorry... but i guess you can use it,
and write unknown author or similar below it.

NO ... you can't -legally- use it!

Depending upon the level of protection and registration the imager
made for this, you could face serious fines IF caught ... it's up to
you to estimate the risk.

It's strange though...i looked some pics of storm (found with google) and
almost all have copyright or owner name on the pic. Too shame that this one
haven't...

J. A. Mc. typed:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:47:19 +0200, "SleeperMan"
found these unused words floating about:

J. A. Mc. typed:

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 17:28:41 +0200, "SleeperMan"
found these unused words floating about:

SleeperMan typed:

kreb typed:

Keith said:

This is photography. If you find out where you got it I would
want to seek permission to add it to my personal philosophical
newsletter. I use a lot of photos, as a point getter, and to stop
boredom.

Keith


It seems that my niece got it from her friend over chat... I'll
ask her to get him in touch and i'll let you know. It's a
question, though, if pic is his or he got it elsewhere... :-) I
hope it's not one of those stories: i got it from the one who got
it from a guy, who got it from another guy...etc---

Sooo...
It is one of those stories...
her friend got it from Internet somewhere, so, i don't have a clue,
who actually shot it or owe it. Sorry... but i guess you can use
it, and write unknown author or similar below it.

NO ... you can't -legally- use it!

Depending upon the level of protection and registration the imager
made for this, you could face serious fines IF caught ... it's up to
you to estimate the risk.

It's strange though...i looked some pics of storm (found with
google) and almost all have copyright or owner name on the pic. Too
shame that this one haven't...

I understand, as I often posted to a binaries group. ALL of my images
have a copyright, usually small and fairly unobtrusive. I've pretty
much stopped posting since a few began vociferously complaining about
'defacing' the image.

Many don't think to put copyrights ON their own websites ... !

I guess you're right...if pic would have at least some EXIF info...

J. A. Mc. typed:

On Sat, 26 Jun 2004 08:46:15 +0200, "SleeperMan"
found these unused words floating about:

schuetzen - RKBA! typed:

SleeperMan wrote:

Pete D typed:

Yeah, pretty poor shot. Not one I would show others.

http://www.macmurph.com/photodb/pict...cture_id=20552
Seymore...
Owner of an F717/S85... and luvin' it!
You have the grainy adaptive sharpening filter. Now paint some
UFOs in there.


How about this one?
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/Storm.jpg
(BTW: It's not from me...)

this is awesome!! do you know -- oh yeah, this is one from an
unknown source.

what are the best settings, etc to take a photo like this??

1/30 on a tripod?

thanks for the treat!

Good question - i think that tripod is a must. Then, a looot of luck
and some knowledge and you're there.

Smallest aperature, possibly with an ND over the lens, then the
commensurate exposure value for the 'normal' scene. HOPE the strike
comes while the shutter's 'open'.

HOPE is the magic word...
But, i wonder - how do you make the lightning to STAY STILL while the
shutter is open? So that pic is not blurred...
I saw some pics on the web and they are shot with F8 and shutter open for 6
seconds - and perfectly sharp, too - like this one:

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/lightning.jpg

SleeperMan wrote:



HOPE is the magic word...
But, i wonder - how do you make the lightning to STAY STILL while the
shutter is open? So that pic is not blurred...
I saw some pics on the web and they are shot with F8 and shutter open for 6
seconds - and perfectly sharp, too - like this one:

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/lightning.jpg



Because the lightning flash is so short lived and/or it's not moving in
relation to the camera?

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

G.T. typed:

SleeperMan wrote:



HOPE is the magic word...
But, i wonder - how do you make the lightning to STAY STILL while the
shutter is open? So that pic is not blurred...
I saw some pics on the web and they are shot with F8 and shutter
open for 6 seconds - and perfectly sharp, too - like this one:

http://www.angelfire.com/ex/protoncek/lightning.jpg



Because the lightning flash is so short lived and/or it's not moving
in relation to the camera?

Greg

I guess this is it... at least it must be, as there's no other explanation.
Maybe i should try out one day