Photographing lightening

It's part experiment, experience, and part technology.


Basically you pick an open spot, or at least one without nearby
objects that can move such as trees. Movement with lightening is not
a problem, but it is with foreground objects.

Use a good tripod.
Use a focal length to cover the entire area in which you are
interested.

AT ASA 100 or 200 I'd use at least f-16 if available. Typically I
prefer to use at least one or two stops open from the smallest for
sharpness. I would not use an ASA or equivalent of faster than 200.

Use the B setting and either a remote or cable release.

Point the lens at the area you think will most likely have a few
flashers.

Lightening is bright even though the actual strikes are relatively
thin.

Leave the shutter open for a few strikes (not more than 3 or 4), or
less if you see one that looks good. This is where the experience and
practice comes in.

Then look to see what you have. This is where the luck comes in.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Roger Halstead writes:

It's part experiment, experience, and part technology.


Basically you pick an open spot, or at least one without nearby
objects that can move such as trees. Movement with lightening is not
a problem, but it is with foreground objects.

Use a good tripod.
Use a focal length to cover the entire area in which you are
interested.

You should probably mention that these instructions are for
photographing lightning *after dark*.

AT ASA 100 or 200 I'd use at least f-16 if available. Typically I
prefer to use at least one or two stops open from the smallest for
sharpness. I would not use an ASA or equivalent of faster than 200.

Use the B setting and either a remote or cable release.

Point the lens at the area you think will most likely have a few
flashers.

Lightening is bright even though the actual strikes are relatively
thin.

And something should also be said about the dangers of lightning.
Since I'm not an expert, let me refer you to the National Lightning
Safety Institute at www.lightningsafety.com. Unfortunately many
things you'll want to do to get good lightning photos turn out to be
somewhat dangerous.

Leave the shutter open for a few strikes (not more than 3 or 4), or
less if you see one that looks good. This is where the experience and
practice comes in.

Depending on your equipment, you may be able to measure the background
light level and any artificial light sources in the frame, and figure
out how long you can leave the shutter open without rendering *those*
items in a way you don't like.

Of course, here in r.p.d we can assume you're shooting a digital
camera, so you can also just experiment and see right away how it
worked :-).

Then look to see what you have. This is where the luck comes in.

Luck is important.

Persistence is important (I haven't been very persistent at all about
lightning photography).

And finally, *editing your shots* (that is, selecting the good ones
and making sure nobody ever sees the others) is terribly important.

Douglas Kiesing has some useful advice, some spectacular photos, and
unfortunately also a lot of examples of why editing your photos is
important before you present them, on his site at
http://lightningboy.com. Here's a particularly spectacular image:
http://lightningboy.com/images/ev/0169-IMG0002.htm. He scores
*really* high on persistence.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:16:24 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

You make some good points. Things I don't even stop to think about as
they seem so natural.

Roger Halstead writes:

It's part experiment, experience, and part technology.


Basically you pick an open spot, or at least one without nearby
objects that can move such as trees. Movement with lightening is not
a problem, but it is with foreground objects.

Use a good tripod.
Use a focal length to cover the entire area in which you are
interested.

You should probably mention that these instructions are for
photographing lightning *after dark*.

AT ASA 100 or 200 I'd use at least f-16 if available. Typically I
prefer to use at least one or two stops open from the smallest for
sharpness. I would not use an ASA or equivalent of faster than 200.

Use the B setting and either a remote or cable release.

Point the lens at the area you think will most likely have a few
flashers.

Lightening is bright even though the actual strikes are relatively
thin.

And something should also be said about the dangers of lightning.
Since I'm not an expert, let me refer you to the National Lightning
Safety Institute at www.lightningsafety.com. Unfortunately many
things you'll want to do to get good lightning photos turn out to be
somewhat dangerous.

I really am a storm chaser and have had some "close encounters",
although they are usually with wind, or hail but I was standing by a
fire crew who had moved their rig out into the country and onto a hill
fairly close to where I used to live.

They had dispersed their equipment as there was a tornado watch and
the hill had the best view within 50 miles.

The storm was close, but not "all that close" when our hair began to
stand on end. Every one dove for the cars and trucks.

I hadn't been inside more than a couple of seconds when the lightening
struck. It hit a radio tower about a 100 feet from the truck and
smaller strikes hit the ground around us. I don't remember any of the
cars of trucks being struck.


Leave the shutter open for a few strikes (not more than 3 or 4), or
less if you see one that looks good. This is where the experience and
practice comes in.

Depending on your equipment, you may be able to measure the background
light level and any artificial light sources in the frame, and figure
out how long you can leave the shutter open without rendering *those*
items in a way you don't like.

Of course, here in r.p.d we can assume you're shooting a digital
camera, so you can also just experiment and see right away how it
worked :-).

I've had pretty good luck using film, but the scanners don't seem to
like a negative, or slide that is mostly black. Digital OTOH is
easier to use..."depending on the camera". The D-70 is a bit handier
than the E20-N, but with the lens stopped down and using the bulb
setting with the remote, or cable release in the case of the E20-N
they both work quite well. Noise is not a problem using dark frame
subtraction in either camera.

And... as you say, the digital lets you see, more or less, what you
did get for a shot.


Then look to see what you have. This is where the luck comes in.

Luck is important.

Persistence is important (I haven't been very persistent at all about
lightning photography).

And finally, *editing your shots* (that is, selecting the good ones
and making sure nobody ever sees the others) is terribly important.

I use almost everything, but the less than good are examples of how
difficult it can be to get good shots such as clouds, movement of
nearby objects, etc... I also keep the less than perfect as "some
day" I might figure a way to salvage one.


Douglas Kiesing has some useful advice, some spectacular photos, and
unfortunately also a lot of examples of why editing your photos is
important before you present them, on his site at

Don't forget that many which are artistically poor can be good
examples of what to look for in a storm and what to use as signs of
time to bail... :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

http://lightningboy.com. Here's a particularly spectacular image:
http://lightningboy.com/images/ev/0169-IMG0002.htm. He scores
*really* high on persistence.

Should the tripod be of the metal variety?


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
...


On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:16:24 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

You make some good points. Things I don't even stop to think about as
they seem so natural.

Roger Halstead writes:

It's part experiment, experience, and part technology.


Basically you pick an open spot, or at least one without nearby
objects that can move such as trees. Movement with lightening is not
a problem, but it is with foreground objects.

Use a good tripod.
Use a focal length to cover the entire area in which you are
interested.

You should probably mention that these instructions are for
photographing lightning *after dark*.

AT ASA 100 or 200 I'd use at least f-16 if available. Typically I
prefer to use at least one or two stops open from the smallest for
sharpness. I would not use an ASA or equivalent of faster than 200.

Use the B setting and either a remote or cable release.

Point the lens at the area you think will most likely have a few
flashers.

Lightening is bright even though the actual strikes are relatively
thin.

And something should also be said about the dangers of lightning.
Since I'm not an expert, let me refer you to the National Lightning
Safety Institute at www.lightningsafety.com. Unfortunately many
things you'll want to do to get good lightning photos turn out to be
somewhat dangerous.

I really am a storm chaser and have had some "close encounters",
although they are usually with wind, or hail but I was standing by a
fire crew who had moved their rig out into the country and onto a hill
fairly close to where I used to live.

They had dispersed their equipment as there was a tornado watch and
the hill had the best view within 50 miles.

The storm was close, but not "all that close" when our hair began to
stand on end. Every one dove for the cars and trucks.

I hadn't been inside more than a couple of seconds when the lightening
struck. It hit a radio tower about a 100 feet from the truck and
smaller strikes hit the ground around us. I don't remember any of the
cars of trucks being struck.


Leave the shutter open for a few strikes (not more than 3 or 4), or
less if you see one that looks good. This is where the experience and
practice comes in.

Depending on your equipment, you may be able to measure the background
light level and any artificial light sources in the frame, and figure
out how long you can leave the shutter open without rendering *those*
items in a way you don't like.

Of course, here in r.p.d we can assume you're shooting a digital
camera, so you can also just experiment and see right away how it
worked :-).

I've had pretty good luck using film, but the scanners don't seem to
like a negative, or slide that is mostly black. Digital OTOH is
easier to use..."depending on the camera". The D-70 is a bit handier
than the E20-N, but with the lens stopped down and using the bulb
setting with the remote, or cable release in the case of the E20-N
they both work quite well. Noise is not a problem using dark frame
subtraction in either camera.

And... as you say, the digital lets you see, more or less, what you
did get for a shot.


Then look to see what you have. This is where the luck comes in.

Luck is important.

Persistence is important (I haven't been very persistent at all about
lightning photography).

And finally, *editing your shots* (that is, selecting the good ones
and making sure nobody ever sees the others) is terribly important.

I use almost everything, but the less than good are examples of how
difficult it can be to get good shots such as clouds, movement of
nearby objects, etc... I also keep the less than perfect as "some
day" I might figure a way to salvage one.


Douglas Kiesing has some useful advice, some spectacular photos, and
unfortunately also a lot of examples of why editing your photos is
important before you present them, on his site at

Don't forget that many which are artistically poor can be good
examples of what to look for in a storm and what to use as signs of
time to bail... :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

http://lightningboy.com. Here's a particularly spectacular image:
http://lightningboy.com/images/ev/0169-IMG0002.htm. He scores
*really* high on persistence.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:27:53 GMT, "Marc"
wrote:

Should the tripod be of the metal variety?

Doesn't matter. You get a lightening strike that close and the tripod
will be the least of your worries. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


"Roger Halstead" wrote in message
.. .


On Sun, 27 Jun 2004 03:16:24 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

You make some good points. Things I don't even stop to think about as
they seem so natural.

Roger Halstead wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:27:53 GMT, "Marc"
wrote:


Should the tripod be of the metal variety?


Doesn't matter. You get a lightening strike that close and the tripod
will be the least of your worries. :-))

Roger, if you are going to write extensively about lightning and
photographing these storms, you must learn the difference between
lightening and lightning. The former is the brightening of an image. The
latter is the thunderstorm effect. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't
both words, but they are, and they have completely different meanings.

Gary Eickmeier

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:22:21 GMT, Gary Eickmeier
wrote:



Roger Halstead wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 01:27:53 GMT, "Marc"
wrote:


Should the tripod be of the metal variety?


Doesn't matter. You get a lightening strike that close and the tripod
will be the least of your worries. :-))

Roger, if you are going to write extensively about lightning and
photographing these storms, you must learn the difference between
lightening and lightning. The former is the brightening of an image. The
latter is the thunderstorm effect. It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't
both words, but they are, and they have completely different meanings.

Just one little letter...makes such a difference. Fingers don't
always type what they are supposed to and the spell checker doesn't
care. :-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Gary Eickmeier

Roger Halstead writes:

Just one little letter...makes such a difference. Fingers don't
always type what they are supposed to and the spell checker doesn't
care. :-))

As someone once asked me, do you mean "does not" or "doe snot"?

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken