Jorn Olsen mammatus photos

[Tim Vasquez]

I am really astounded that this has not been discussed on Stormtrack, but this thread is about the Jorn Olsen mammatus photos from Hastings in 2004 (link, backup link here if UNL is down, which it seems it is). I did some searches for Jorn Olsen, Hastings, etc on Stormtrack, searching left, right, and crosswise and cannot find any prior threads.

Anyhow the Jorn Olsen pictures are on the front page of the megasite Digg this morning, with "Believe it or not, these are not photoshopped!"

http://www.digg.com/environment/Very_rare_weird_clouds_over_Nebraska_PICS

It does look to me like there is a little manipulation going on though. Picture #5 looks suspiciously 3-dimensional and saturated. Also it seems that other chasers would have gotten photos just as good from the same location and date. Jorn Olsen can't be the only one. What say ye?

Tim

 

[Skip Talbot]

I have seen these pictures discussed somewhere already. If it wasn't here it must have been WX-CHASE. The closeup pictures are definitely enhanced. Even the original shot is very dramatic, but the latter closeup shots have been so enhanced they look unnatural and computer generated (although thats part of the surreal appearance of natural mammatus). I enhanced a portion of the unzoomed photo and you can see how clearly it resembles the closeups.

 

[Gerrit Gulden]

Ive seen this discussed elsewhere as well. Not many people know how to truly find out (without the authors consent) if an image has been "photoshopped". The exif data is quite amazing these days, It contains data about what has been done to the image, what camera shot the image, date, time, etc. Im still uncertain whether or not Exif data can be manipulated to prevent modifications from showing.

There are many out there that have "photoshopped" there images and leave the mark of "this photo has not been photosppped" which for myself is obvious. I do play around with photoshop alot and when I do add hue or what not to dramatically enchance the photo I usally indicate on the description that I did. True appearance and ART appearance are truly two different images. All it takes is for one to question a picture for true authenticity and for myself once that is questioned theres a good 70% chance the image was photoshopped.

Im sure there will be plenty of debate. =)

-gerrit

 

[John Diel]

What exactly is "Photoshopped"? That's a good question. Many, many scenic photographers will use PS (or other editors) to enhance a digital photo much in the way we used to dodge and burn areas of the old paper photographs. There is a certain amount of manipulation that goes into most digital photos. I routinely adjust curves, contrast, color balance, sharpness, etc. This serves to enhance the photo to a likeness that I remember "seeing" as to what was captured on the CCD.

If you really want to get technical, simply converting from RAW to JPEG is an "enhancement" as you changed the original photo for display.

Was this photo PS'd to the point that it no longer reflects the original scene? Probably not. I haven't seen a photo with enough resolution to zoom in and tell if there was some cloning added or not. Were contrasts enhanced a bit, maybe a little unsharp mask? Probably. However, looking at the photos and reading the caption, they were probably referring to the Mammatus Clouds themselves rather than the small, relatively minor enhancements most Landscape Photograhers use routinely.

John Diel

 

[Glen Romine]

Tim - I think this is the old thread (note the search feature won't go into the old archive)

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=1344

Note that you even participated in the thread....

 

[Brett Roberts]

What exactly is "Photoshopped"? That's a good question. Many, many scenic photographers will use PS (or other editors) to enhance a digital photo much in the way we used to dodge and burn areas of the old paper photographs. There is a certain amount of manipulation that goes into most digital photos. I routinely adjust curves, contrast, color balance, sharpness, etc. This serves to enhance the photo to a likeness that I remember "seeing" as to what was captured on the CCD.

If you really want to get technical, simply converting from RAW to JPEG is an "enhancement" as you changed the original photo for display.

Was this photo PS'd to the point that it no longer reflects the original scene? Probably not. I haven't seen a photo with enough resolution to zoom in and tell if there was some cloning added or not. Were contrasts enhanced a bit, maybe a little unsharp mask? Probably. However, looking at the photos and reading the caption, they were probably referring to the Mammatus Clouds themselves rather than the small, relatively minor enhancements most Landscape Photograhers use routinely.

John Diel

I was thinking the same thing. When I convert RAW images from my chases, I typically use the sliders within Photoshop to adjust contrast, saturation, and (sometimes) exposure, followed by USM for resized web files. I don't believe this is truly "manipulating" an image, at least in the same sense that bringing in a lightning bolt from a completely separate photo is. In fact, it's standard procedure for most digital photographers, as you mentioned. The limitations of current DSLR's are such that adjustments are needed to make images look as close to real-life as possible - without any processing, and especially after being resized and compressed as web-size JPG files, they're flat and soft. Basic contrast, saturation, and sharpness enhancements should be accepted as the norm by viewers of digital photos.

Of course, problems arise when these "basic" enhancements are taken to such an extreme that the image is no longer even close to representative of the original scene. At what point that becomes the case is a tough call, and ultimately has to be decided by the photographer. FWIW, I do agree that some of those mammatus photos seem to cross the line between "normal" digital enhancements and more of a surreal feel (due to extreme contrast in the sky), but then again I wasn't there to see it with my own eyes, so I'm not going to make any definitive claims.

 

[T. Mosley]

In the spring of 1982, I saw mammatus clouds of this impressive appearance in Midland, Texas. I have some photos somewhere that I will try to locate. Being new to chasing then, those scared the daylights out of me, as they also looked to be pulsing somewhat, and we were under a tornado watch every day for a week or so.

 

[Zack Borst]

Filters both physical on the camera lens and filters that can be downloaded for photoshop can have a significant impact on how dramatic an image looks. Either way, those are some crazy pics.