Positioning for best view of tornadoes

[John Farley]

I have a question which relates mostly to my experiences (and those of others) with the Minneola/Dodge City storm last week, but a broader application in chasing. It seems pretty clear that the people who got the best pictures of most of the tornadoes, but especially the latter part of the first large one and of the second large one, along with the cluster of smaller ones nearby, were those who were basically following behind the storm as it moved northward. I was southeast of the storm, and did not have a very good view of about the latter half of the first large tornado and of the second tornado due to low contrast and precipitation between me and the tornadoes. I know I made my situation more difficult by staying too long where I was getting tripod video of the first 10-15 minutes of the first large tornado, but I also have the definite impression that I would have been better off in this time period had I been something more like due south of the generally northward-moving storm. Generally it has my experience that behind the storm is often not a good place to be, because wrapping/hook precipitation can easily block your view of the area of interest. But that did not happen with this storm, and I am wondering 1) what insight anyone can provide on why not, and whether that was predictable, and 2) how to judge early in the life of a storm whether behind it or (what is more usual, at least for me) at about 90 degree angle from it relative to its direction of movement is the better place to be. Eventually I figured out from radar that I would likely have better view if I moved west and positioned myself more south of the storm, which I did and had a much better view of the third and fourth large tornadoes. But I do wonder what I missed that might have told me to do this earlier on in the process. Is the fact that it was a left-mover relative to the other storms part of the answer, perhaps?

 

[Jeremy Perez]

I think about this a lot too, especially when I see spectacular front-lit/side-lit views from the trailing position on a storm. It's lead me to try really looking at forecast venting on the storm...other options being equal, I'd want to go for an environment where the storm has better storm-relative anvil flow in hopes of a clearer RFD and hope it's not getting seeded by another trailing storm. In practice though, I take what I can get. I was trailing the Dodge City storm for the 2nd through 4th main tornadoes too, and feel like I got a lot better than I deserved for views on that one. For the Solomon-Abilene-Chapman storm the next day, I was behind it for the first part of its life, and once again had way better views through the RFD than I should have gotten. Past Abilene, the RFD seemed like it filled in more...I think it was starting to get seeded at that point. Definitely an area of practice and improvement for me...not all storms would be as trailing-view friendly as those.

 

[Dan Robinson]

For me, the key is just to keep moving. Unless it's a Bennington, stopping to tripod lets the storm get away pretty quickly. It's a matter of preference, though. A long tripod shot can be nice, especially for timelapsing. In recent years, my preference is to stay relatively close (within a mile) for good contrast for stills. My video suffers as a result, because any stops are short and there is no time to tripod. As for frontlit/backlit, so far those are more fortuitous than planned. It really depends on the road options available. Whatever paved (or sufficiently graveled) road is available is the one I'll take. I'm a fan of the frontlit shot, but they are harder to come by as usually you need to be in the RFD (strong winds and rain).

 

[Robert Forry]

I know it doesn't all usually depend on precip, but in this case we were about two miles behind and slightly east of the Minneola tornado when it first touched down, and we were getting baked by the sun. Seemed like the further we fell behind and as the first big stovepipe occluded and became rain wrapped, our view got ruined by the rays of the sun. It wasn't until we got on some of the wetter dirt roads that our view got pretty good again, but that was short-lived because by that time the supercell was coming into DDC, and we had to follow the masses on pavement. I think in most situations I'd follow along the lines Dan mentions above. Agree that most of the time whenever I get a tripod out I lose ground, and the closer the better for lighting and contrast.

 

[Brett Roberts]

After a decade of chasing, this is still a huge struggle of mine. I'm a still photographer first and video comes second, which probably makes it harder, but maybe not. I imagine if I cared solely about video that simply getting and staying close all the time would be an easy decision, even if actually executing that well is another challenge. As it is, though, I'm constantly having to weigh the value of high-quality tripoded shots against moving to stay in optimal position. To date, I don't think there's a single good tornado intercept where I haven't regretted certain aspects of my execution in hindsight. That goes for the DDC storm last week, too, even though it was my best chase and best photography day of all time.

I also typically chase solo, or at least drive when I'm not chasing solo, which is a critical consideration. If I were a passenger free to shoot my stills out the window and jump in/out of the vehicle quickly, it might measurably change my strategy. Not being able to do that most of the time just makes it all the more tempting to stay in one spot with the tripod out, since there's extra "latency" associated with getting yourself and your gear into/out of the car at each stop when you're the driver.

The classic mistake that I've always made, and probably always will, is being conservative and wanting to ensure I at least get a few decent stills when a tornado touches down. I've seen plenty of high-quality, long-lived tornadoes, but I've almost never been confident that they'll be long-lived when they first touched down. Rozel, Bennington 2013, Wynnewood, Minneola... in each case, what I should've done was to spend the 1-5 minutes after tornadogenesis getting close and living with just dashcam video during that process, then get the money shot once I'm there. Instead, to varying degrees, I've stopped and whipped out the tripod relatively quickly in case they didn't last long - laughable, in hindsight. I don't have a solution to offer, because I know I'll still do it next time, and it's rarely easy to tell when a tornado will last for 15+ minutes vs. just 3-5 minutes. Maybe the only cure is to build up such an extensive catalog that you don't mind the risk of completely missing stills if a photogenic tornado you see touch down ropes out too quickly!

With regard to directional positioning: I think the frontlit shot is a no-brainer for relatively rain-free tornadoes, if you're fortunate enough to have a clear choice. Absolutely nothing can beat the coloration and detail you get from the SSW to WSW, in cases without extensive rain wrapping from that view (rare as they may be). Backlit from the SE to NE is only preferable for storms with considerable precipitation wrapping, IMO. In some ways, I think a moderate storm motion magnitude of 15-30 mph is ideal for allowing you to "choose" your perspective. It seems like almost every quality tornado I've seen in recent years, except Wynnewood, occurred on days with weak deep-layer winds that led to unpredictable storm motion (and, even moreso, tornado motion). It certainly took my chase partner and I some time on the DDC storm to recognize and process that storm motion was due northerly, while storm-relative tornado motion was westerly. Neither of those things were patently obvious that day just from viewing a forecast sounding. If there's any lesson to be learned from my experiences here, it's that when you're on a cyclic storm or one with a long-lived tornado, take a few seconds to forget everything else and specifically plot out the storm+tornado motion you've observed in your head - then think about what you need to do next to get the perspective you want. Sounds easy enough, but in the frenzy of the moment, I've failed to do it time and again.

 

[Ethan Schisler]

Being someone that doesn't see very many high quality tornadoes, I just take whatever view I get and be damn thankful for it.

In all seriousness though, I prefer being on the southeast side of the storm with most classical supercells. I've found with HP supercells it can pay to be just WNW of the tornado looking just east (coming in behind it essentially). I had good luck using this strategy and getting pretty good shots of otherwise "hard to view" tornadoes. It all depends though on how the RFD is wrapping around the tornado and if you are looking at a ton of large hail in the RFD of the storm (IE Elmer 2015). Every storm is different and that is what makes storm chasing so exciting....at least for me.

I should note that sometimes this maneuver can be pretty dangerous, especially if the tornado starts to occlude and turn northwest. So I'd say unless you know what you are doing (IE a seasoned chaser), you probably shouldn't attempt it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

... To date, I don't think there's a single good tornado intercept where I haven't regretted certain aspects of my execution in hindsight. That goes for the DDC storm last week, too, even though it was my best chase and best photography day of all time.

...

The classic mistake that I've always made, and probably always will, is being conservative and wanting to ensure I at least get a few decent stills when a tornado touches down. I've seen plenty of high-quality, long-lived tornadoes, but I've almost never been confident that they'll be long-lived when they first touched down. Rozel, Bennington 2013, Wynnewood, Minneola... in each case, what I should've done was to spend the 1-5 minutes after tornadogenesis getting close and living with just dashcam video during that process, then get the money shot once I'm there. Instead, to varying degrees, I've stopped and whipped out the tripod relatively quickly in case they didn't last long - laughable, in hindsight. I don't have a solution to offer, because I know I'll still do it next time, and it's rarely easy to tell when a tornado will last for 15+ minutes vs. just 3-5 minutes. ...

Brett, I am glad your brought this up; it's slightly different but definitely related to John's original question. Like you, I always assume that the tornado isn't going to last long, so I want to be outside experiencing the moment and capturing it in stills and video, not missing that opportunity to get closer or in better position. But then afterwards I will often regret not getting closer, especially if it would have been relatively easy based on the tornado's position relative to the road - e.g., Campo. I sort of feel that way with DDC 5/24/16 too, but the northbound dirt roads to the west of 283 were pretty muddy so that was a more practical decision (also didn't want to get trapped behind all the other chasers if we all needed to backtrack from that grid onto 283).

In general, except for the rare event, tornados are an ephemeral phenomenon and once one touches down I basically accept the view I am given at that point and try not to worry too much about ideal positioning or proximity. There are just so many variables, such as initial position relative to the target storm, where the storm lies on the continuum between classic and HP (character of the RFD / extent of rain-wrapping), storm motion, skies behind the tornado (for example, we viewed Campo from the north, and the sky to the south was a clear blue; but in another situation there could have been other storms and gray skies to the south), and of course the road network. So for example with the DDC storm, initiation was due west of us, at almost the exact latitude we had been sitting. To get a view that was WSW of it would have been pretty difficult from that starting position. Yet I would never feel comfortable starting west of where I thought initiation would occur. But if I was coming up from the south and had an opportunity to choose to come in ahead of the storm or behind it, then I might have more flexibility to make the choice; on 5/23/16 we approached the tornado-warned Clarendon storm on I-40 from behind (although it later vaporized). Another consideration is that staying ahead of the storm as opposed to coming in behind it would help to avoid the risk of LEO roadblocks.

Having said all of that, I do hope to have the opportunity to *safely* get closer one day, assuming a slow-moving tornado that is not rain-wrapped and is crossing a paved road or a *dry* dirt one. But I will not worry too much about positioning for photographic purposes. Of course, that could change one day.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Warren Faidley]

Since the stock photography / video market died, I'm no longer concerned about getting real close / positioning. Those shots use to be worth thousands over their lifetime, but now, even with a good representative, you might get a little money during the initial news cycle. There are also going to be multiple high ended images / footage of really good tornadoes (like Campo) so the value of risking limb, life and property is greatly diminished today in a business model. I totally understand the thrill of getting close, but that is also getting old.

For those who want to get close and take tripod-steady footage, the best way I've found is to mount a dedicated video camera on a light and non-conductive carbon fiber tripod with a good ball-head mount that incorporates a bubble level so you are not wasting time leveling the horizon. It's important to have tripod legs that adjust with claw type clamps, allowing rapid height adjustments. I keep the legs extended just high enough to top the frame over most barbed wire fences. With this set-up, secured in the vehicle so it's not flying around in the event of a roll over, I can simply set it up and start shooting immediately.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Classic storm chasing theory suggests you should sit south and east of the tornado to stay parallel to its path (assuming a northeasterly moving tornado). It's the best combination of adequate lighting and ability to see the tornado. There are pros and cons to choosing any particular angle, however. I'll list some here:

Being in or near the path of the tornado (high-risk/high-reward position)
-Pros: crowd not typically an issue, but can be depending on road options; most likely spot for tornado to be visible; never blocked by debris
-Cons: most dangerous position, especially if escape routes terminate or fall apart; contrast could be questionable (but usually isn't)

Right flank of the tornado (i.e., to the south/southeast of a northeastward or eastward moving tornado; low-moderate-risk/low-high reward position)
-Pros: typically no danger from main tornado; generally good visibility on classic storms (not as good as being in the path, though)
-Cons: crowd can be worse here, cyclic or anticyclonic tornadoes developing on top of you (should be avoidable if you keep situational awareness)

Behind the tornado (high-risk/high-reward position)
-Pros: when precip doesn't fill hook, typically a better view (front lit) of the tornado; danger from storm minimal; crowd may not be too bad (depending on road network)
-Cons: even a small amount of precip in the hook can ruin shots and/or fully obscure tornado; getting blocked by debris or simply falling behind the storm; being forced to call off chase and become a first responder (depends on how you look at it)

Left flank of the tornado (high-risk/low-high reward position)
-Pros: chaser crowd typically very light or absent; unique view of a tornado
-Cons: very dangerous not only from occluding tornado but from RFD wind and hail, too; escape route(s) can become cut off by tornado or debris; view may not be worth it

There's really no single position that is clearly better or worse than any other position (except perhaps the left flank position - many would probably argue the reward just isn't worth the danger, but again, it varies on a case-to-case basis). I've been in each of these positions with various results. I think my best shots ever have come from the "right flank" and "in-the-path locations", but I also choose that position more often. I typically have bad luck when I get behind the storm. Typically I choose the wrong storm to get behind and it ends up accelerating away or precip becomes an issue.

The situation associated with each tornado can vary widely enough to make the best position difficult to predict ahead of time. As an example from that DDC storm, the environmental flow would not have suggested the tornadic region would be so free of precip early on. That should've been more of an HP type storm from that perspective. However, it turned out that being behind the path was the best place to be, which is not a typical result.

 

[Todd Lemery]

I agree with Warren. Even close tornado shots have really shrunk in value. When you film a tornado it's imperative that you get inside the tornado when filming. Furthermore, unless you have livestock or parts of buildings flying through your viewfinder as you film, the film itself will be next to useless. You don't want to waste time and energy filming unless you are right inside the vortex.

 

[Bill Hark]

Very good and important discussion. I have often been in the take what I can get mode rather than positioning for better lighting. In the Minneola tornado, my initial position was more a south east view which gave a silhouetted view. Only later did I have time to take a more southerly approach and get that pretty gray-white tornado. Although usually the road network, position, speed and storm structure dictates one's view, there are times when it is possible to adjust according to preference. I prefer a southerly view if the tornado is properly illuminated from the west. Every storm is different. I think it also takes some experience to know when a tornado is likely to persist. I have royally screwed up and lost everything while trying to get just a bit better view or a perceived "money shot."

 

[James Wilson]

I always want the tornado to come to me if possible … not in its perceived path but like shown in one of my Wray videos below. This allows for tripod use when taking photo as you have plenty of time. Now DDC did not go NE it went N and NW meaning I would not have been able to stay on Wray if it did like DDC did.

DDC I was just East of the start of the tornado but I stayed too long because people I took along wanted photos which caused me to have to drive after it like shown below in one of my videos. Now this is usually ok for my tastes and goes along with the next point.

If I cannot get it to come to me I stay SE or East of it like here on Wayne. Now in this case I thought we were going to lose a window which Lucio ended up doing that day.

So basically all the planning and wanting goes out the window when a tornado or features involved in it does things unusual or things you did not expect. So I am always flexible and open to any location in relation to the tornado depending on what it presents.

 

[John Farley]

Thanks for all the comments, everyone. Certainly part of the reason I was not ideally-positioned for the latter part of the first main tornado and the second one was that I expected the storm to move NE but as James points out the tornadoes moved N and sometimes even NW. My biggest mistakes were probably staying put too long while videoing the first half or so of the first main tornado and not keeping track of storm motion as well as I should have. Still an awesome day, though, even with the mistakes I made. Hindsight is always easier!

 

[Jeff Duda]

Thanks for all the comments, everyone. Certainly part of the reason I was not ideally-positioned for the latter part of the first main tornado and the second one was that I expected the storm to move NE but as James points out the tornadoes moved N and sometimes even NW. My biggest mistakes were probably staying put too long while videoing the first half or so of the first main tornado and not keeping track of storm motion as well as I should have. Still an awesome day, though, even with the mistakes I made. Hindsight is always easier!

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. The storm's motion was highly deviant, even from the predicted storm motion using the Bunkers technique. Also, it seems that on days when storms are highly cyclical, the leftward turn during occlusion seems to be even more pronounced than on days with less cyclical storms. The Chickasha-Norman storm of 6 May 2015 comes to mind as another recent example of a similar event.

 

[Bill Giles]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. The storm's motion was highly deviant, even from the predicted storm motion using the Bunkers technique. Also, it seems that on days when storms are highly cyclical, the leftward turn during occlusion seems to be even more pronounced than on days with less cyclical storms. The Chickasha-Norman storm of 6 May 2015 comes to mind as another recent example of a similar event.

I agree totally with this. I was northeast of the initial touchdown and was so convinced that it was going to turn that I wouldn't get closer until it had moved well northwest of my location. I don't have the meteorology chops to back my decision, but common sense and the sheer number of tornadoes being produced led me to believe that a turn to the northeast was inevitable.