Morning Steam Devils

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Hollingshead
  • Start date Start date

Mike Hollingshead

These little suckers can actually be quite fun to "chase".

20080829_6265.jpg



Rest at the link below.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/08-8-29b.htm

I must say, I don't think any of the tornadoes I've seen can compete with the detail in the motion of these things. It's not even a slow peaceful motion. Some have almost absurd up and down motions.

Something to "chase" in the off season, that's for sure.

If you have any, feel free to post them.
 
Those photos on both pages are cool. I am also apprehensive about taking my camera gear out on my canoe. I never wear anything that I wouldn't care to fall in the lake wearing and I feel the same way about my camera gear. I wish there was a Nikonos digital.

I live on the lake and have never noticed those steam devils, but I will be looking from now on.
 
if you dont mind me asking mike, where do you find these steam devils and what causes them to form?

are they fairly common or rare? do you find them on lakes, or just anywhere there is fog?
 
From what I can tell, they like cooler and drier air masses over warmer waters. This time of year, around here, all it takes is a below normal night temp(to some level) and the lakes or rivers will produce some steam/fog. That happens pretty often. If it we get a long period of cold rain, that can cool the lake water, and just make you need even cooler nights for this steam to form. So it's nice when it doesn't do to much of that too early. Nice now it's around 90 here again, so it'll stay primed for the next cold front and high pressure.

The trick seems to be being cold enough AND dry enough. I've seen days where they just don't seem to want to form, with plenty of steam and light winds. Others, like the other morning, they form like crazy. The difference at least appears to be tied into the relative humidity by morning. Often the cold mornings the temp will drop near the dew point, and those don't seem to be so prolific. This time though, the temp dropped a long way(mid-40s...not far off records) yet stayed 3-5 above the dew point. Maybe it's something else, but it has seemed to like it more dry while cold.

They aren't really rare I wouldn't think. It is a little surprising to me to see so few videos of them on youtube though.

Here is another day with them, earlier this year.

08-1-24-1493.jpg


The water this time though was a touch cold, lol. That is the Missouri River instead of a lake, and it's full of big ice chunks. The air temp to get that steam off there was around -20F. So they can form anytime the water isn't frozen solid, if the air temp is cold enough in relation to the water temp. The lake ones this last time were a lot more energetic than these icy river ones. They also seemed to like the tree shadow line as the sun rose. I noticed that once before on that lake when seeing them.

Light winds also are required, for the most part. No winds seem best. You aren't going to find them in general fog.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike, good stuff as usual. I especially liked your fav shot on the top of page 2. Out of curiousity, did the shot turn out like that from your exposure settings plus available light only, or did you tweak it during raw processing to achieve that look? If the former, pretty impressive work!

Where you using a custom white balance setting? I notice a lot of the trees almost look blue/violet?

Thanks for sharing.
Scott
 
Mike, those are really beautiful. Love the translucent quality. Like Scott, I am interested in the settings.

I didn't know one could have steam devils in more mild temperatures. I always thought one needed open water and air temps near zero.

Bill Hark
 
Mike, good stuff as usual. I especially liked your fav shot on the top of page 2. Out of curiousity, did the shot turn out like that from your exposure settings plus available light only, or did you tweak it during raw processing to achieve that look? If the former, pretty impressive work!

Where you using a custom white balance setting? I notice a lot of the trees almost look blue/violet?

Thanks for sharing.
Scott

Trees = auto white balance being on/off(too cool....which not only makes the trees cooler/bluer....but the warm sunlit steam cooler and closer to white....like can be seen on those with the cooler trees). I could fix them all in raw conversion, but I'm lazy(I don't believe them being bluer makes them better, so it wasn't done on purpose).

All RAW files require tweaking.

I'm tempted to just shoot in JPG anymore. Make life a lot simpler, not talking about the photo taking/processing either.
 
Trees = auto white balance being on/off(too cool....which not only makes the trees cooler/bluer....but the warm sunlit steam cooler and closer to white....like can be seen on those with the cooler trees). I could fix them all in raw conversion, but I'm lazy(I don't believe them being bluer makes them better, so it wasn't done on purpose).

All RAW files require tweaking.

I'm tempted to just shoot in JPG anymore. Make life a lot simpler, not talking about the photo taking/processing either.

LOL, I think you missed my point there. I've been shooting Canon digital for years and only shoot RAW myself, so I understand the "All RAW files require tweaking" statement... and 90% of the time, you're right. Anyway... the inquiry I made about the first pic on page two was more towards your exposure setup using available light versus large exposure/shadow adjustments in raw. Figured you would've picked up on that... sorry for the confusion.
 
LOL, I think you missed my point there. I've been shooting Canon digital for years and only shoot RAW myself, so I understand the "All RAW files require tweaking" statement... and 90% of the time, you're right. Anyway... the inquiry I made about the first pic on page two was more towards your exposure setup using available light versus large exposure/shadow adjustments in raw. Figured you would've picked up on that... sorry for the confusion.


Then you'll know how pointless it is to wonder about what other's settings are...lol. When I'm asked it only makes me wonder sometimes. I just didn't care to try and see if I fit into the acceptable raw image adjustments department for you. It's a pointless thing to me...especially considering raw is an un-developed format to start with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then you'll know how pointless it is to wonder about what other's settings are...lol. When I'm asked it only makes me wonder sometimes. I just didn't care to try and see if I fit into the acceptable raw image adjustments department for you. It's a pointless thing to me...especially considering raw is an un-developed format to start with.

Dude, wtf is with the 'tude? The question was oriented around 'was it done mostly via available light vs pp' - a simple yet worthy question in the world of photography. I mean seriously... I was complimentary of your work and asked a simple question.

Why post your work or link to your work in a forum if you can't handle a simple question without being rude in return?

(and btw, I didn't ask you what your settings were...)

Scott
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude, wtf is with the 'tude? The question was oriented around 'was it done mostly via available light vs pp' - a simple yet worthy question in the world of photography. I mean seriously... I was complimentary of your work and asked a simple question.

Why post your work or link to your work in a forum if you can't handle a simple question without being rude in return?

(and btw, I didn't ask you what your settings were...)

Scott

By settings I meant in RAW conversion, which you did ask. Those are pointless to answer, when not being asked from a learning angle. You wanted to know what someone elses image had done to it, not for learning how to do something, but for whatever. Sorry, but I honestly do think bothering in those cases is silly and pointless. If I was posting on a photo critiquing site I'd think differently. I just read the thing about the purple trees, along with the "did you tweak that" part, and thought....where the hell am I. Mainly because both of them did not seem all that crazy looking anyway.

You are right, no need for the tude. Not posting would be a lot simpler and nicer. It really is the best way to fly. I only post stuff/images when I think people will find them interesting. At this point in the game, I have zero interest with the whole "what was done" parts...*unless* it's coming from someone wanting to learn something. I'm sort of like, if you need to know what was done to not like, or like an image....just don't look at mine.

Sorry for the tude.
 
Back
Top