Yeah, nature bitch!. . minimii_ !_ Lung exposure picture of Ft" Lightning Bolt hitting an Tree! holy metal as. >long exposure >lightning
x
Click to expand

Comments(109):

[ 109 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #58 to #4 - kingofthetrolls (10/16/2013) [-]
I am lightning and I can confirm this picture is 100 percent accurate.
#6 - themedianoche **User deleted account** (10/15/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #109 to #8 - bouazizforever (10/16/2013) [-]
He's eating a big Mac
#45 - asasqw (10/16/2013) [-]
Why would someone just come onto the internet and spread lies?
Why would someone just come onto the internet and spread lies?
User avatar #47 to #45 - whichever ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
What is that from I need it.
User avatar #83 to #45 - paranoidmuffin (10/16/2013) [-]
Which madness episode is this from?
#50 to #45 - evilruck (10/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
User avatar #54 to #50 - lilRican ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
its from a series called Madness

You can find them all over new grounds
#5 - franger (10/15/2013) [-]
>long exposure   
>lightning
>long exposure
>lightning
User avatar #90 to #5 - kingxddd (10/16/2013) [-]
Long exposure is about 1/30 a second anything below that.
User avatar #48 to #5 - rocstarsix (10/16/2013) [-]
**** your dumb ******* face
#12 to #5 - dolmandabean (10/16/2013) [-]
you use long exposures for lightning photography because you never know when they're going to strike, so leaving the shutter open for a longer time increases your chances of capturing a bolt
#67 to #12 - darshian (10/16/2013) [-]
You wouldn't catch a bolt though, you would end up with a white pho Long exposure captures light the whole time the shutter is open, so anything moving in the background is captured, so a BRIGHT bolt of lightning would just leave a giant white smear on the pho
User avatar #68 to #67 - zaach (10/16/2013) [-]
Not if you use a small enough aperture.
#69 to #68 - darshian (10/16/2013) [-]
But would it still capture the image of the tree behind it if that was the case? I'm calling on my extremely limited knowledge of photography here
User avatar #72 to #69 - zaach (10/16/2013) [-]
Yes it would be possible. Since the shutter can be open for as long as you want. This image is most likely faked though. The light on and around the tree is not what it looks like when you photograph at night, and I cant beleive that the lightning would actually form that shape.
#96 to #72 - dolmandabean (10/16/2013) [-]
well, just to settle this, heres a photo i took a few years ago - settings - f/22 10s, ISO100
#51 - kaboomz (10/16/2013) [-]
This image has expired
legit as ****
User avatar #38 - guffspeak ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
So, if i sit under a tree in a storm i might get hit by photoshopped lightning?

#74 to #60 - sikokot (10/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#14 - Afterlife (10/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#3 - Sampsy (10/15/2013) [-]
Personally I like how it isn't an obvious Photoshop.
#80 - bjornkrage ONLINE (10/16/2013) [-]
#26 - Zeigh (10/16/2013) [-]
Tungsten / 10 would use for metal album cover.
User avatar #55 to #26 - wizardfist (10/16/2013) [-]
wintersun - time
User avatar #27 to #26 - trystanvierra (10/16/2013) [-]
Just have the leaves in flames and its PERFECT!
User avatar #99 - doktorpaj (10/16/2013) [-]
__███_
   ( ͡° ʖ ͡°)       (x)   Doubt
#15 - kwizzy (10/16/2013) [-]
This tree was struck by lightning at work. That **** is crazy. There was a hole in the ground at the center of the tree, and we were finding branches and pieces of wood all over the part of the golf course it was in.
User avatar #79 to #75 - saltyfries (10/16/2013) [-]
you and koojot, I love you both
power rangers intro
#81 to #79 - lordxdanswich (10/16/2013) [-]
I love you too ;)

I didn't actually see Koojot's reply until after I'd posted mine.
#20 - antzell (10/16/2013) [-]
Looks shopped.
User avatar #23 to #20 - ccccmoney (10/16/2013) [-]
I'm sorry but what are you showing us? You PASS it through a photoshop live filter and turned the contrast up or something like that?
#24 to #23 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
The bright spots are the shopped area.
User avatar #25 to #24 - ccccmoney (10/16/2013) [-]
But the bright spots line up with the brighter areas of the image, leading me to believe just cranking the contrast up. Explain how you got this result so I can understand how you figure that from this. (though I agree this is shopped just from the appearance of the lightning, no contrast with the rest of the image, and the circumstances).
#31 to #25 - Fgner (10/16/2013) [-]
Seriously, don't try to call out someone on something you know nothing about. Jesus.

It's ******* IELA (Image Error Level Analysis). When you photoshop, you cause a lot of compression on manipulated layers/points of the image. By looking at the image, finding the highest points of compression and error, you can create this second image which highlights these points. It tends to stand that any place with a large compression/rate of error that is not located in a natural JPEG compression zone (almost identical repeating pixels) is photoshopped.

What kind of contrast tools are you using though? That looks nothing like turning up the contrast, it looks like a desaturation, noise filter, constrast boost, then a light edge ink filter (for color). Why go through all that trouble to pretend to say it's shopped to a bunch of guys saying it's shopped?
User avatar #71 to #31 - ccccmoney (10/16/2013) [-]
Ah forgot about that thing. My bad, the edges of the image made me think it was some photoshop live effects layered on top of each other.

I'm going to go back to using Fireworks now
User avatar #73 to #31 - ccccmoney (10/16/2013) [-]
As for contrast, this is somewhat similar to the result I get with heavilly compressed images if I crank the contrast all the way up, then turn the saturation down a bit. Except the edges of the image...
#42 to #31 - anon (10/16/2013) [-]
this guy knows his ****
#33 to #25 - salsawin (10/16/2013) [-]
Just wanna chime in, Fgner has it right.
#57 - dorklordrises (10/16/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #64 to #57 - skeptical (10/16/2013) [-]
Even I don't doubt its legitimacy
[ 109 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)