Do you always have to get close?

[Matthew Crowther]

The Nickerson storm got me thinking again about this question- given the choice on a particular cell, is your preference to usually stay back some distance for safety's sake and/or to get structure photos/time lapse of the storm, or are you one who usually or always strives to "get up close and personal"? Personally I prefer to keep at least some reasonable distance in most cases- first off I am not fond of having to replace the windshield a few times a season or even have the car trashed by hail. Secondly the closer you are the better chance is something that unexpected may happen (a road closed due to debris cutting off the escape route, the tornado moving in a different direction that you thought, satellite tornadoes or new tornadoes forming in a place that puts you in danger etc). Thirdly I do love me that structure! Many storms that produce tornadoes are very nice for viewing and photographing from a distance, a great majority of my good photos are of storm structure. In some cases where I was in closer to the tornado I actually regretted it later when seeing other folk's photos of the storm from farther away. Some examples of structure trumping the tornado- 2005 in the Badlands of SD- OK tornado, awesome structure. The Brady storm of May 17, 2000- yes Jeff P's close up video of the tornado was dramatic, but the storm itself....no contest IMHO. The Nickerson storm last Tuesday, I am really glad we stayed back, the tornadoes were somewhat garden variety, but my photos of the whole storm, priceless. The best scenario for me- get on a storm early, stay back just far enough to get the entire storm in the wide angle lens field of view, and zoom in for those tornado shots. Then maybe later you can let the storm get closer and have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Dan Robinson]

There are times when I wished I had been a mile or so closer to improve contrast (5/12/04 Sharon/Medicine Lodge, and 4/23/07 Protection for example). Not a death-defying hundred yards away inside the debris cloud, but just close enough to get better contrast. A mile or two can do wonders to improve the photogenic quality of a tornado. The drill-bit at Protection was a good example of this. We had a nice view and I'm not complaining at all, but those a mile closer had an incredible view. A mile closer would not have put us in any bad situation other than maybe being in a denser chaser convergence.

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

The Nickerson storm made me think the same thing. In general I would have to admit I'd like to get somewhat close, but this storm brings up an exception to that feeling. A lot of people got up close, which, for most of them is their ideal position. They got their up close video of the tornadoes, and went hope very happy. I feel the same way as you do though about that particular storm. As we approached, we kind of debated getting closer, but as you've seen from other peoples and our photos from the day, I think in our opinion we made the correct choice. It wasn't that we were late, or out of position, in fact we couldn't have been in better position to shoot what we wanted to. On certain days where structure is out of the question, and you get yourself a powerhouse tornado, yeah, go up close for the once in a lifetime video. However, a storm like last weeks with fairly weak and short lived tornado, I'd prefer being back shooting the storm and tornadoes as a whole.

 

[afischer]

To answer Matt's question... no, definitely not. June 7 2005 is a good example of a time I was glad that I stayed back to get a better view of the structure. If I could do April 24 over again, I would have backed off there too... for me the structure of the Nickerson storm outweighed the dirt-whirlies, for the most part. June 2 2005 is another example of a time I wish I would have backed up to get more structure. On the other hand, September 16 2006 is an example of a time I'm glad I did not back up to get more structure.

 

[Shane Adams]

The way you describe the question, it seems like what you're really asking is "Are you a storm chaser or a tornado chaser?" I'm the latter. I don't need to be three feet from a tornado, but if the opportunity presents itself, I will go in as close as possible. Normally, for me, the perfect distance is about 1-2 miles from the tornado, allowing for great zoomed-in shots for detail, and nice wide shots of the whole tornado/WC/RFD region. The main reason I don't get close as a rule is, getting close is incredible while you're experiencing it.....but the video suffers, and never captures the excitment of what it was like being there. Secondly, when you get really close, you're always having to move....I don't like shooting video while mobile. I like tripoded, relaxed, steady shots from a far enough distance that I can actually enjoy the moment with my eyes, as well as the vidcam. The real-time asthetics of chasing are great, but I'm far more into the video I come home with. Visual memories fade, and the emotions....those are gone the instant the tornado dissolves and can never be replicated. Video lasts forever.

Now how often do I get that perfect shot? Not as often as I'd like, but my avatar was one of them.

 

[Andrew Pritchard]

Shane illustrates another great point that I forgot to even mention. That being that I hate filming while moving. While that shot may work, and be ideal for others, I personally get more fun out of watching other chaser's video when they have a nice shot set up of the tornado where they can film a good duration of the tornado, rather than driving right next to it pointing up and down and everywhere, while stopping their car every once in a while to shoot for a couple seconds before hitting the gas again. Now again, everyone prefers something different than the next guy and sometimes this is not avoidable but as Shane said perfectly, I would rather enjoy the show, rather than spend it navigating, driving, and trying to point the camera at it while I rush around.

 

[Skip Talbot]

I think having the ability to not get close is a luxury. If you can frame the entire parent storm and the tornado in a single shot, that is priceless. Here in Illinois (and points east of the MS) it is often too hazy to attempt that, and in general, there are often low clouds and obstructions that prevent that. The monster supercells and HP's are often too big and low contrast to shoot from far away as well, while maintaining a visual on the tornado.

I think the ideal setup is to do both. We came pretty close to that on the Nickerson storm. We shot both the funnels and structure together in timelapse, and were positioned such that the base went right overhead, giving us an up close and personal look at the base's rotation. The perfect timing would probably be to setup for structure and timelapse while the storm is winding up and have the storm produce as it approaches you with the tornado roping out just before it reaches your location, and then letting the storm go for another round of structure and timelapse.

 

[Rocky Rascovich]

I side squarely with Matt Crowther on this. I choose giving the tornado a wide bearth, preferably no less than a couple of miles at most... this is where a good zoom lense comes into play. Let that lense get that up close action! I'm just as satisfied when I can see the storm structure as I am the tornado. The Nickerson day was some of the very best structure I've ever seen, and we were about 4-5mi. from where the tornado was touching down. Toward the end before we bailed back east, it was about 2 miles from us. I still wasn't too nervous but I knew it was time to leave.Still, after a day where I thought we were screwed in seeing anything of interest, it was one of my best intercepts ever... for storm structure and a tornado to boot!

I've been chasing storms 25 years now, and never have I intentionally put myself or others with me unreasonably close to a tornado. To me, there just is no need to when I have a good zoom lense to do that for me.

Something else I want to bring up... I watched tonight KFOR-TV's program "Oklahoma's fury" first I want to say that I have alot of respect for all of their weather team, they did a great job with the show and they are some of the best on camera mets around, and I'm proud to say that I enjoy doing freelance work for them... but, is it necessary that they get as close to these tornadoes so they can just to alert the public as to the exact location of the tornado?? Even though they had some incredible footage, as close as they were to the El Reno storm from last April and the May 3rd storm, to me was unreasonable and dangerous. I can see them using their helicopter to get a good idea of where the tornado is from a safe distance, and KFOR's Jim Gardener does a fabulous job at that. Also, with the advancement in doppler radar, they can detect right down to the street where the tornado is as well... so is all this up close and personal footage really that necessary?? Is it worth the risks?

I'm afraid that this will instigate some yahoo(s) to do the same which may have some disasterous results. I'm afraid that some chasers out there will do whatever it takes to get that most incredible video, getting as close as they can and escaping by the skin of their teeth, and one day... soon... someone won't be so lucky. That WILL be the day when our beloved hobby will be thrown into an unfavourable limelight and the results will affect us all.

So, summing up what Matt says... keep a safe distance, at least 3 or 4 miles, especially if its a large tornado where satellite vortices may develop, minding potential damage/debris that may cut off escape routes, sudden and severe inflow jets that can occur further away than expected... and enjoy the whole picture. Now I could make one exception and that would be in the last stage of the tornado as its roping out and the width of the circulation at ground level is only a few yards wide, or a smaller tornado that is moving in a consistent direction.. then I could get as close as a mile or even a half a mile... As I told another chaser awhile back... you can't enjoy a Picasso painting from an inch away, you have to step back and take in the whole beauty of the subject. And use that ZOOM lense for that up close dramatic action. Thats how I enjoy stormchasing. I don't relish wondering if I'm going to live another day to see my family and almost as bad being covered in my own crap getting within yards of one of those whirling beasts.

 

[John Farley]

In addition to things others have mentioned, there is another reason not to get too close to the meso. You could miss a tornado that happens in another nearby part of the storm that you would have seen if you stayed back farther. On June 13, 2005, I was watching a gorgeous wall cloud near Medora, IL. When I first took up my position, it was a couple miles to my NW, moving east or ESE, and as I watched it passed quite close to my north. However, what I did not see until it was nearly over was a brief tornado that formed BEHIND ME, to my south under the flanking line as I was looking north at the wall cloud. I did catch the very tail end of it, though I was not sure it was a tornado until that was later verified by a NWS damage survey and eyewitness interviews. There were several other chasers on the storm that did not see it at all. Now, had I shifted east and stayed a couple miles ahead of the wall cloud rather than letting it pass nearby to my north, I would have been in much better position to see the whole picture and probably would have seen the tornado much sooner. Of course, part of the message also is don't get so mesmerized by the wall cloud that you don't also watch what is going on in nearby parts of the storm. But it is harder to get that big picture if you are too close.

 

[Mikey Gribble]

I love to get in close. You do miss other tornadoes on occasion because you have to watch all directions (apparently we missed 4 of them on the Protection supercell) but you also get extremely good video of the ones you do see. It all depends on the storm though. I think I have a pretty good idea of how strong a tornado is going to be right when it touches down and if there is very strong rotation and vertical motion I will not put myself underneath it. I got pretty scared on the Protection storm when we had some intense rotation right above us. The winds at the surface picked up really quickly and I thought we were in big trouble. We threw it in reverse and backed up down the highway a couple hundred yards (there wasn't anybody around and if there was I wouldn't have cared anyways given the circumstances, so no wreckless driving comments please). I definitely don't have a death wish. If there is a strong tornado you won't catch me getting cute in that kind of a situation.
I do get really jealous of the beautiful structure shots I miss out on by being close. I almost called BS on people reporting good structure with the Nickerson storm until I saw pictures of it. From time to time when I feel like there isn't any tornado potential I will try to get out ahead of the storm to see the structure. If I could take pictures like Hollingshead I would probably spend more time out ahead of it, but I can't so I choose to go in close so hopefully I can get some good video. My dream is to get a house/structure getting picked up. I already botched that shot twice(5/12/04 and 4/21/05), but maybe the third times a charm. And just in case, no I don't want anything or anyone to get hit, but if it's going to happen then I want to be there to get it on video.

 

[cdcollura]

Good day,

Getting "close" compromises safety ... So only get as close as that can be DONE SAFELY.

Road networks, the nature of the storm, data availability, and time of day all play a role in this.

Somtimes "Distance is your friend" ;-)

 

[matt patterson]

I choose to get close for a couple of reasons: 1. I can provide more accurate information as to where the tornado is. This may not matter in rural areas, but when you get into a metro area it really can make a difference. 2. Like mentioned before, the video is more intense. Yes, you do lose out on some of the structure shots, but i think its worth it.

 

[John Diel]

I guess for me, it's a double edged sword. Since I do more "spotting" than "chasing" I need to be able to report what is happening. Distance will give me a better perspective as to what the storm is going to do. Getting in close, I lose that perspective. However, I also want to be able to contribute some video (Something other than my voice overs, though I will still do that if anyone wants me to) in one of the "Storms of 20XX" series too. So that desire to get the "good video" can be overpowering.

Good sense and knowing how to "read" the storm helps. Experience is certainly a very large factor. But, we all know that even all those factors doesn't always help, as illustrated quite graphically with one of our own members.

 

[cedwards]

I was with Matt and Rocky on the Nickerson storm. In that case, I think we were at the perfect distance. The storm structure on that one was far better than the tornado itself.
I am usually one of those who like to get close. I like the dramatic up close video that isn't shot through all that haze. I am torn though. May 29, 2001 was one of the best examples I have seen where staying back was MUCH better. I was under that storm but it failed to produce a tornado. sure we had a few dist swirls, but that was it.
The problem is, you won't know if it is best to get close or stay back until you have seen both angles. Usually, if there are a lot of low clouds around, it is better to be up close because the clouds will block the view of the structure. If you have Mexican smoke, like we did in 2003, you won't see anything unless you are up close.

I guess, every storm is different and I will have to make a choice every time and live with that choice.

Rocky, I don't enjoy Picasso's from up close or far away. Well maybe from VERY far away

 

[Chris Hayes]

There are times when being close would be nice, then there are times when its awesome to get a view of the tornado and the entire storm at the same time. I have yet to get a chance at something like that. Closest I've been to a tornado is maybe 1-2 miles from it. That was on the first of the two tornados near Fort Dodge Iowa on June 11, 2004. I would like to get fairly close to a tornado one day, but not within 3/4 of a mile.