Lightning over Miami Beach

[mikemyers]

Taken with Nikon D780, no tripod, no mechanical aids, just an “itchy trigger finger”. Out of 40 or so images, this was at just the right time, but the lightning strike lasted a little longer than in my other shots. I originally went out on my balcony to capture strange clouds, then the lightning started.

780_6305 | 2024-07-21.nef (27.0 MB)
780_6305 | 2024-07-21.nef.dop (14.0 KB)

My first photo last night, of the sky:

Color temperature was still set to 5600K, but to be honest,I didn’t pay attention to the “color”, I was fascinated by the clouds. I’m not sure if I should have left the color alone, as I did, or warmed it up a little. Looking at the other things, I suspect I made the better choice, but it doesn’t look “real” - but again, last night, it didn’t look “real”, it just looked “scary”.

780_6285 | 2024-07-21.nef (27.4 MB)
780_6285 | 2024-07-21.nef.dop (13.7 KB)

[FarmerPhotos]

why di i get this message when trying open dop file,i have downloaded camera optic module?

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

What version are you using?

[FarmerPhotos]

7.8.0 build 63

[mikemyers]

Did this happen with both image files, and if not, which one were you trying to open?

[FarmerPhotos]

got it now must have taken time to configure? Still a busy picture the strike aint actually subject in my eye

[mikemyers]

I had to try it with the Rex_Block preset:
780_6285 | 2024-07-21.nef.dop (30.5 KB)

[mikemyers]

@FarmerPhotos

the strike aint actually subject in my eye

When I was shooting these images, my “subject” was the clouds near the top. I didn’t even realize I had captured the actual strike, but I think there may have been two strikes.

I was oblivious to all the color you brought out!

If you’d like to, you can post your own .dxo files, right under the photo, so others can try out your version. Up to you.

[mikemyers]

@FarmerPhotos

must have taken time to configure?

I mixed what I liked about my image, and what I liked about your image, and tried some crazy combinations in settings, but got this:

780_6305 | 2024-07-21.nef.dop (28.5 KB)

I didn’t capture what I expected, but I like this more than what I expected.

Time to move on.

Keep at it - I see things in your edits that I didn’t realize were there, like all the “red” coloring near the bottom.

[FarmerPhotos]

What changes did you do to clouds I couldn’t replicate that in PL7 but I’m a learner

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

Let me start by saying well done for catching such dramatic clouds.

@mikemyers

Color temperature was still set to 5600K

Which is just where it should be for the majority of the time.

@mikemyers

I suspect I made the better choice, but it doesn’t look “real”

At the “blue hour” you colour vision can be fooled but, don’t worry too much about accurate rendering because, with this kind of shots, you need to up the drama and push a bit (but not too much)

Here are my versions…

The framing is tight to take away some of the distractions around the edges. Don’t forget, the principal actor in these shots is the sky and dramatic clouds.

Notice with the second one how I framed it to let the edges of the clouds on top create leading lines to draw the viewer deeper into the image

[mikemyers]

As per your suggestion long ago, the D780 are now set to 5600K for the default setting.

I prefer what you did for 780-6304 as a large part of my image was still “black”, but your version brought out more detail in the clouds.

I liked the top of mine more, as while watching live, that area just plain lit up! In your version, the very top has lost that blast of light from the lightning.

I didn’t like the idea before, but the way you brought out the details and colors at the bottom is much nicer than what I did - to my eyes, all of that was just “black”. But you show that it’s the city, details, colors, shading…

I’ll try to do this on my own - if I can’t, I’d like to check out your .dop file.

As to the lower photo, I can’t decide. To be honest, neither looks “real”, but that’s what I saw - although in PhotoLab I boosted the contrast - maybe too much? You cropped off most of the bottom, the “Miami Beach” part. As a photo of clouds, your version is stronger. But there is no longer anything that “says” where the photo was taken. I like both, but cutting out the bottom kills what I wanted to show - even though the clouds then become much more - the focus of the image.

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@mikemyers

I liked the top of mine more, as while watching live, that area just plain lit up! In your version, the very top has lost that blast of light from the lightning

In fact, there is very little difference in the brightness. What I felt was important was to show the texture in the highlights, which yours has started to lose.

Not forgetting that the sky further away from the lightning strike will, in reality, not be as bright.

I noticed you used Micro-contrast, which is a lot less subtle than Fine Contrast, especially because Fine Contrast can be more targeted to Highlights, Mid-tones and Shadows, thus reducing “over-sharpening” in smoother areas.

@mikemyers

As to the lower photo, I can’t decide. To be honest, neither looks “real”

But nature is often more “unreal” than we dare to remember and yet the camera catches that moment in time that your eyes and brain can’t register.

A few weeks ago, we had the chance to see the Northern Lights, even as far south as the top of France. I waited and waited for the lights to get more intense, only to end up taking some shots that were very disappointing. In the end, I found out that I should have taken shots, even when the lights weren’t so obvious because the camera could actually see more than the human eye. Ah well, maybe the sun will “misbehave” again sometime soon.

@mikemyers

I like both, but cutting out the bottom kills what I wanted to show - even though the clouds then become much more - the focus of the image.

But, both shots still show the skyline and buildings, which make their location obvious. You really don’t need an expanse of water in the foreground, which then starts splitting the attention away from the true star of the shot - the magnificent clouds and lightning, both of which Helen is seriously envious that she hadn’t taken herself.

Most folks, glancing at your images really don’t care about the exact location - they are going to be blown away with the sky - the rest is just everyday postcard stuff.

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

In fact, there is very little difference in the brightness. What I felt was important was to show the texture in the highlights, which yours has started to lose.

I agree with you that was the key thing in this image.

@Joanna

I noticed you used Micro-contrast, which is a lot less subtle than Fine Contrast, especially because Fine Contrast can be more targeted to Highlights, Mid-tones and Shadows, thus reducing “over-sharpening” in smoother areas.

We need a PhotoLab discussion on this. You suggest I avoid Micro-contrast, and you even more strongly want me to avoid Clear-View.

For me, when not used in excess, they create the effect I want much more quickly and nicely than “Fine-Contrast” with those fine-tuning adjustments. I keep meaning to create new thread about this, but I never get around to doing so.

Northern Lights - I wish I could see them, but without flying back to Alaska, I don’t think that will ever happen. Hmm, I could always use AI to put them over Miami…??? No!

Perhaps “Fine Contrast” is more subtle, but it never seems to give me what I want, and I can instantly achieve with Clear-View or Micro-Contrast.

If they really are bad, “destructive” tools, why are they included in PhotoLab? Not here, but in a separate thread, it would be useful to have a discussion about this. Maybe I’ll just start one now, and read what people have to say.

@Joanna

You really don’t need an expanse of water in the foreground, which then starts splitting the attention away from the true star of the shot - the magnificent clouds and lightning

To me, Biscayne Bay is a big part of this image, but I can see your point.

@Joanna

the magnificent clouds and lightning, both of which Helen is seriously envious that she hadn’t taken herself.

Ha! Tell Helen that I am envious of her photos with clouds that are usually FAR more beautiful and exciting than anything I get to see here, other than rare exceptions.

There is that saying “the grass is always greener…” and you know the rest. “…on the other side of the fence…”

@Joanna

Most folks, glancing at your images really don’t care about the exact location - they are going to be blown away with the sky - the rest is just everyday postcard stuff.

Maybe my problem is that I live here. Perhaps I should have been more focused on the clouds, as you showed. Perhaps the location is completely irrelevant, and I need to “re-tune” my brain to realize this…

[mikemyers]

@Joanna

But, both shots still show the skyline and buildings, which make their location obvious. You really don’t need an expanse of water in the foreground, which then starts splitting the attention away from the true star of the shot - the magnificent clouds and lightning, both of which Helen is seriously envious that she hadn’t taken herself.

Coming back to this thread, ignore what I wrote about wanting to keep Biscayne Bay. I prefer BOTH of your images over what I did, and removing Biscayne Bay might have hurt me, the overall result is better without it.

Now, why didn’t I realize this much earlier? Probably because my mind already had an idea for the photo, before I started editing. Coming back to it later, I “see” things I wasn’t aware of earlier.

Before I picked up the Nikon, I took two shots with my M10. No tripod, I was just testing, which makes the image look blurry, but look what it did to the clouds? Fuji Neon Acros 100, probably my favorite… Please show to Helen…

Not much editing, nothing for clouds.

[herman (Leica M9 | iPhone 16 Pro | iMac M1 | PL6, FP, VP | Photo Supreme)]

@Joanna

A few weeks ago, we had the chance to see the Northern Lights, even as far south as the top of France.
[…]
Ah well, maybe the sun will “misbehave” again sometime soon.

@Joanna Maybe you will get a second chance too?
https://petapixel.com/2024/07/23/auroras-are-possible-tonight-as-far-south-as-new-york/

[Joanna (Joanna Carter)]

@herman

@Joanna Maybe you will get a second chance too?

Now he tells me. When we have 100% cloud cover forecast

[mikemyers]

I finally got a first attempt to test my ‘Lightning Bug’ this evening. There was a short, and not very exciting lightning storm over Biscayne Bay. By the time I got my camera and Lightning Bug and tripod set up, the visible lightning was over, so I never got a decent photo, but every time the sky lit up from lightning, the camera fired. I guess that’s a good start.

Only one photo showed anything useful, but neither I, nor my camera, got to see the actual flash - just the clouds lighting up.

I doubted whether or not the gizmo would actually work, but it did fine. Then a strong breeze came up, and I felt water droplets, so I moved everything including myself indoors.

It’s a start.

[mikemyers]

An hour or so ago, I started getting weather warnings about an oncoming storm - nasty rain, lightning, and so on. So, I positioned my D3 with the Lightning Bug attached just outside my balcony door. It immediately started going crazy - taking photos every few seconds. While I couldn’t see the lightning, I did see the sky light up, meaning the infrared light that triggers the flash wasn’t capturing anything useful, it went off for every burst of thunder. Eventually, after re-positioning my camera so it was aimed at the now invisible city of Miami, I caught three bursts of lightning, after which the rain hit me, so I hustled the camera indoors. The D3 is supposed to be weather resistant, but I didn’t enjoy both the camera and I getting wet.

I’m happy that the technology worked, and I got a reasonable photo, but it just doesn’t look all that exciting. Lens was a standard Nikon 50mm, which I hoped would be OK.

Regardless of anything/everything else, I’m pleased. Things worked and all three strikes that I could see were captured by the camera kit.

D3M_4296 | 2024-08-15.nef (9.9 MB)
D3M_4296 | 2024-08-15.nef.dop (13.6 KB)

[mikemyers]

D3M_4361 | 2024-08-28.nef (10.8 MB)
D3M_4361 | 2024-08-28.nef.dop (13.5 KB)

Went to bed last night, and was awakened by a lightning storm, no rain, but lots of flashes and noise. My Lightning Bug got me 10 images that I was satisfied with, including this one with the lightning fully within the clouds. No tripod - just held the camera in the general vicinity of where the lightning was, and let nature do the rest.

Only one flash hit the ground, but I was aimed at where I expected the clouds to be: