[marcpberry]

This is not a how to, but rather a "how do I?"

I have always been impressed, and yes even awed, by photos of lightning. So spectacular, beautiful and inspiring that it boggles my simple mind. A few years ago I decided that I would like to catch the lightning myself. So, when a suitable storm presented itself, out I went with my camera, happily snapping away at the sky. All I will say about that is that I got about 200 unremarkable shots of an overcast, grey sky. Hmmm... time to rethink this, I thought to myself.

Fast forward to the next storm, and my (arguably) brilliant idea: video camera. So there I was for the second time, standing in an open field trying to catch lightning on film. (side note about the field: I never claimed to be a rocket scientist. I get an idea, and off I go. I have the scars to prove it too). The results were slightly better, save that I seem to have moderately bad luck. Filming the sky, I did manage to get several strikes in frame. Excited, I ran home and tore the video apart frame by frame, looking for my lightning. The best result that I had was spread across two frames. The first was a thin, weak little thread of light stretching from ground to sky, and the second frame was a purplish after image. I seems that of three strikes caught on video, all three managed to occur *between* frames.

So here I am today, with a question: How on earth do you catch lightning on film? Is it luck? Timing? A precision calibrated time machine/camera combo that will allow you to go back to that exact 1/100th of a second? Or some ultra secret Ninja technique that is only whispered about in the darkest corners of the darkest back alleys of Phototown?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, comments and/or suggestions. Or your derisive laughter, if appropriate. Either way, thanks for your input.

Cheers, MPB

[HSV]

Pre-focus and take several long exposures (M mode) on a tripod and cable release.

[mattt]

My take:
- exposures of about 5-8 seconds work well.
- having a foreground reference helps to position the camera.
- taking many shots is the ticket.

The storms are typically rythmic in their discharge, so being +/- a couple seconds will be caught in 5-8 sec open time. Also, do not set exposure with any auto feature because the lightning is a bright light - it will blow out your shot.

[Just1MoreDave]

The newer Pentax DSLRs have interval timers, making it easy to take lots of shots. I have had some luck using interval timing and long exposures. It works better at night because the exposure is more predictable. I set up the camera so that I can get a 15 to 30 second exposure at f11 for reasonable depth of field and good sharpness. The lens depends on where the storm is, but usually I use something in the 70-200mm range for storms passing nearby but not raining on me. I prefocus a little short of infinity. I set the timer to take up to 99 shots (the upper limit for the K-7) with 1 second between them. The camera is on a tripod. I can just leave it alone or pan occasionally to follow the storm. This one was close to midnight with a full moon and a distant storm. It was 30 seconds and ISO 200.

[marcpberry]

Long exposure... now that would have been smart... thanks for your input all, and especial thanks for the lack of derisive laughter. Next chance I get I will try that, though storm season is over for the year. Next year it is, then.

MPB

[vonBaloney]

There are also lightning triggers that will detect the lightning for you and activate the shutter. One of those third-party firmwares for Canon actually adds the feature to my canon s90 powershot...

[Sagitta]

The exposure largely depends upon how dark the skies are while you're shooting.

This was done with a 30 second exposure, shot in RAW then tweaked afterwards for levels and curves (and fixing the horizon so it was level).

If it had been anything other than 1 in the morning, I probably would have killed the shot with an exposure that long, but in my case it worked. My camera support was a bag of beans (literally - dried kidneys, I think) propped on the car window with the window down shooting out across the valley.

30 seconds, 18mm, DA 18-55mm, ISO 200

[marcpberry]

Thank you all for your input, and might I just add, I am looking forward to the next storm like never before. Sagitta: that is the kind of photo that inspires me. If I may ask, how much tweaking was involved here? Matt and Just1MoreDave: very nice. I especially like the ship masts Matt. Turns a photo into a story.

vonBaloney: that would be very handy, I will look into those.

MPB

[Sagitta]

Thank you all for your input, and might I just add, I am looking forward to the next storm like never before. Sagitta: that is the kind of photo that inspires me. If I may ask, how much tweaking was involved here?

Not much, considering.

Step one was straightening the horizon (it was skewed) and the rest was pretty much fudging the level sliders in photoshop and fiddling with curves and vibrancy a bit.

If you DO go lightning hunting and you get something less than stellar, post can save the day. Don't be upset if what you see doesn't pop like my shot did - a lot of colors hide in the murk around the bolts and you may not even see them until you go in and start fiddling a bit with sliders and contrast. Above all, shooting RAW is key. Its not a matter of whether you may need to do post, odds are you WILL need to do post. I use Photoshop and Lightroom, but you can probably achieve similar results with GIMP or any other program of your choice.

Probably the next best bit of advice I can give is to scope out your local area. Find those places where you can safely park yourself and take shots when a storm rolls in. Hilltops work well, as do bridges, buildings... anything to give you a good horizon line, really. It increases the odds of getting something dramatic while safely distancing yourself from the storm itself. Take your shots before the storm, after it, or from a vantage as the storm safely passes by without actually hitting you. The last thing you need to become is a casualty because f a bad choice of location for the shot.

This is how the RAW shot looked straight out of the camera. You can see I blew some of the highlights in post - I'd probably do a better job if I had the ability to redo the work, but I've lost my RAW of the storm so am kind of stuck.




One more bit of advice I can give: practice ahead of time. Go out in the dark of night and shoot something well lit - a bridge, a cityscape, a highway with passing lights, whatever. It'll help get you comfortable with night/twilight shooting, which is what you'll be faced with when you go hunting lightning. Day shots will be a whole different kettle of fish, and probably wouldn't give you near the bang as a night shot will for this kind of thing.

The post work on the lightning shot wasn't much different than the post I did for shots like these:

[marcpberry]

Thanks Sagitta. I will do just that.

Cheers, MPB

[Na Horuk]

500px / Photo "Lightning is purple" by Stolpulus II
Here is one of my shots with some info. At this point I was observing the storm for a while, so I knew where lightning is most likely to strike. I think I was using f8, pre-focused (manual focus, hyperfocal focusing), 4second exposure. The lines across the cloud you can see is actually rain. And low ISO. The lightning will be bright anyway. You can use an external flash to light up the nearby surroundings dramatically. Be sure to have a tripod you can maneuver easily, but one that won't shake in the wind. You should probably use a prime lens and it shouldn't be too wide, because that will make the lightning look smaller (unless it is VERY near)
The other one was 15 second exposure:
http://500px.com/photo/10990257
Probably f16 or something. Oh, and use interval shooting, but be sure to give your camera some time to cool off as well. If you are constantly doing long exposures for minutes on end, the sensor can get hot, so just turn your camera off for a while. Hope you get some great captures

[Ex Finn.]

So here I am today, with a question: How on earth do you catch lightning on film?

You might try asking this at the film shooters section. My answer would be to switch to digital. Then shoot ISO 200, f 5.6 and 10-20 seconds in continuous, depending on ambient light. YMMW.

[Sagitta]

I'd guess film would be low ISO, slow shutter, small aperture and sheer luck.

Seconding the digital being far, far easier with better results due to being able to post process it. I think I shot about 30 or 40 shots to get the one I posted up there.

[Ex Finn.]

I think I shot about 30 or 40 shots to get the one I posted up there.

That is pretty good, I remember shooting 300 or so, to get 3 OK shots.