Do you always have to get close?

[Scott Bell]

When I think of great storm photographs, the images that come to mind are always structure shots. Sure, many of them include a tornado, but the stacked updraft and flanking line, inflow bands, etc really make the shot and tell the whole story of the storm.

In contrast, with video, if you are in closer (or zoomed in), you can see the motion in the clouds better as well as the dust/debris moving, which brings the tornado to life.

I prefer staying back and enjoying watching the storm rather than going in for the close quarter combat. It allows you to have more road options (shift a bit closer or a bit further away from the storm as needed) and also keeps Mr Murphy and his dreaded law at bay. Things like a flat tire, getting stuck in the mud, loosing data, etc don't seem so painful then.

This year, the storms we've caught have been embedded in gunky messes so we haven't been able to get much in the way of structure shots.

 

[Glenn Dixon]

On May 3, 1999 I wished I was closer. I could have been had I been more experienced. But that satellite funnel that came spinning around could easily have caught a chaser trying to get close. 6/12/05 I was *very* close which made for some very nice video, but the structure and context is missing.
The recent incident in Tulia should also give us all pause to consider how close is too close.....

 

[Terry Tyler]

im still defining my methodology of how i shoot...of course i shoot structure, but in the event of a tornado...i would want to get as close as possible to make a better video...

most SVR chases im on, i try to get into the strongest core and get the best winds or hail a storm can offer...im not really that scared of risking my life for that really good shot...

so i guess you could say i have to be close...you can get nice tripoded video from a long way away, but i like that raw-intense close quarter kind of video that has alot of action going on in it...high-quality and clear...

 

[Chris Hayes]

im still defining my methodology of how i shoot...of course i shoot structure, but in the event of a tornado...i would want to get as close as possible to make a better video...

most SVR chases im on, i try to get into the strongest core and get the best winds or hail a storm can offer...im not really that scared of risking my life for that really good shot...

so i guess you could say i have to be close...you can get nice tripoded video from a long way away, but i like that raw-intense close quarter kind of video that has alot of action going on in it...high-quality and clear...

Off topic, but since you're not a very experienced chaser, I wouldn't core puch. I've been chasing for 6 years now, and I dont core punch if I dont need to, or cannot avoid it. I try and get to near the updraft of the storm and get pictures, as well as good structure shots.

 

[Dave Kaplow]

Interesting question. I am firmly on the side of... Both! I absolutely love structure, and it's simply impossible most of the time to get any real sense of the structure of the storm when you're right under the wall cloud. But I also love the rush you get from being right next to the tornado, there's nothing like it. Ideally I would stay back initially to get the structure, then move in when the storm begins to produce tornadoes - but in reality you don't often get a chance at both. Given the opportunity to get really close to a photogenic tube safely, I would probably go for it. On the other hand, if I was observing fantastic structure from a distance, I might not want to move. I guess I'm an opportunist: given the chance I will go for either one, structure or a close encounter with a tornado.

I have to agree that the very best storm photography almost always seems to include at least some of the storm's structure, if not all of it. I often find closeup shots of the vortex itself to be not very interesting, but photos of fabulous structure will get my attention every time.

 

[Wesley Luginbyhl]

It depends where I feel comfortable. Some days I am happy with staying back, but usually at some point i break down and move in. Anyone can see the storm from far away, if I am spending the gas money, I want my money's worth. I want to be able to see it moving and far away normally doesnt cut it for me. The Nickerson storm for example I moved in as close as possible. After the first touchdown, had it been strong I would have proly backed off. It went through numerous trees and powerlines along the road and didnt seem to cause any damage that i could see. All it did was kick up dirt. We crossed behind its path prolly 5 times and saw nothing in or around the road. The storm didnt seem too dangerous, so I got close. On the other hand, I have watch some of the video of May 3 and there is no way I would have got as close as some did. If your gonna play with the "bear", just make sure its just a small one. The bigger they get, I tend to keep my distance. I dont want a great chase turning into my last chase.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Structure is normally more rewarding, but I really want a very close shot(still) of a violent tornado. It's something you don't really see that often(Rhoden's Manchester still would be a good example), but I bet it could be amazing, especially if done with a wide angle lense in a vertical perspective. The one thing that keeps me from trying too hard to get really close stuff is, it makes it a whole lot harder to do stills and video both while doing so(while being solo too).

I think people really miss out on a lot of storms by not getting a view of the structure. As mentioned already, May 29, 2001 is a good example.....errrrr GREAT example. What makes it seem silly is on most storms it's at least fairly obvious it doesn't have much of a chance at tornadoing, yet people are still in there right under the base...."missing out". May 10, 2005 near Grand Island NE is another great example. The thing that makes it the most sad to me is, it's sooooooooo easy and fast to jump out ahead of it a bit and see what it looks like. I do it all the time, just put the hammer down(don't have to speed, but it can help) and drive ahead of it for 3-5 minutes(miles). It usually only takes that quick jump, more if it's moving quickly obviously. Instead of going for one or two miles and stopping, go for a couple more or three and stop. I guess that's obviously though, but I usually just don't get it on some storms, when everyone seems to want to be right under the thing, and for no good apparent reason. The other part of this is, it's just as easy(easier) to make that same jump back closer to the storm if it does decide to put a tube down and you want close.

 

[Chris Sokol]

I guess it depends on both the situation and my mood. Some days, I really want that up close and personal experience, while on others I like to sit back out of the circus and enjoy the whole picture. I will say the larger/stronger the tornado, the further back I tend to stay...nothing like having a refrigerator chucked at you at a high velocity.

 

[Shane Adams]

I've been reading this thread and it's become obvious there are few true tornado chasers out there. I keep seeing the argument being made for being back because of structure....I guess I just don't get it. There was a storm that went up about 80 miles north of here tonight; my boss came in from looking at it (before I'd seen it) and said "you gotta check this out". I went outside, glanced north, and saw a nuclear bomb mushrooming up into the stratosphere, complete with backshear. It looked awesome....and then I was over it. Anyone can see a storm from a distance.....it's not a task. Getting TO a storm and seeing what secrets it holds inside, there's a challenge. Most people say they chase STORMS and not just TORNADOES because they don't want to embrace a hobby/activity/whatever that allows a 85-90% failure rate, right outta the box. For me, the high failure rate is the draw; seeing a tornado (and from relatively close range to boot) is a feat you just can't (consistently) "dumb" into, barring one coming through your neighborhood. I guess IMO structure is beautiful, but it's no challenge. Same thing with lightning...and the stars for that matter....all fascinating phenomena....but so common I'm just de-sensitized to it all.

Back on April 23, chasers were drooling over the anorexic LP in the TX panhandle, while I was just shaking my head with disgust. Yeah, it was amazing, but it was just "there"......really no big feat to get to it. While others were shooting photos and smiling ear to ear, I was just standing there, wishing it had low level rotation. I guess I'm just a nader dude.

 

[Rocky Rascovich]

Shane wrote:
Back on April 23, chasers were drooling over the anorexic LP in the TX panhandle, while I was just shaking my head with disgust. Yeah, it was amazing, but it was just "there"......really no big feat to get to it. While others were shooting photos and smiling ear to ear, I was just standing there, wishing it had low level rotation. I guess I'm just a nader dude.[/quote]


There is really nothing wrong with that, as the old line goes: "different strokes for different folks" Its just that one needs to truly weigh the hazards of getting up close to the action. Some people say they do but in the heat of the moment, they don't think about it. My concerns are strictly from a safety point of view. But maybe thats why in my 25 years of chasing, I've seen maybe 2 dozen tornadoes or so... (10 this year alone so far), which is way less than most others who have chased that long. But if I'm out chasing and I have data, I may be more inclined to get more daring. As like anyone else, the pinnacle of my chasing experience is to see a tornado, but I'm very happy seeing a good storm with structure out over a serene prairie landscape... that to me is the true essence of enjoying weather at its best.

Rocky&family

 

[Paul Knightley]

...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.....

Charles - that day will always haunt me - we got overtaken by that storm, having made a bad decision to try and get north to the other supercell, and then changing our minds after 10 mins. When I saw your pics, I was SO annoyed with myself!!

As for getting close or not, I think it just depends on the situation for me. I think I would be happy to be within a mile of a tornado, but I love storm structure too, and so will often hold back to see if I can see all the features/dynamics of the storm.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

This question in my mind always comes back more to circumstances at the time than true intention. It's the rare storm that allows a chaser the luxury of time to reposition at the ideal distance they personally prefer. My preference is a couple miles back away from the cage, and I really do like to get a bigger picture of the entire storm than just the tornado. Even though the tornado is where the 'action' is, there's a lot happening ot create that action that is really interesting. I can't really say that I'm dead set against a closer view when possible, but this really is more about circumstances and roads and timing than anything else. That's why every chase is nice, because you're presented with a whole new set of circumstances and a whole new set of experiences to come away with when it's done.

 

[Brian Stertz]

I think there is the happy medium....I've grown to be a lover of storm structure vantage points. But then again there is that inner part of me wanting to be point blank and front row. The 4/23 event down by Protection KS was a classic example. I got the great wide angle structure shot, but when it came to my tornado photos, these ended up grainy and blurry due to the distance from the tornado and darkness of the base. I guess I probably am in Shane's camp that I am out there to chase tornadoes and get tornado images/video. Anything less and it's a bummer. Now we'll see how Saturday's chase pans out.