Digg

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Rare Photo: Rainbow, Sunset, and Lightning all in the same Shot

flickr.com — Photographed by Duncan Davidson. "The juxtaposition of rainbow, sunset, and lightning was outrageous"

Bury

CLIFFosakaJAPAN 1 year 260 days ago, made popular 1 year 259 days ago

2703 diggs
digg it

madskjaer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Wow... Truly amazing. I wish I was there.
- imcompa, on 10/12/2007, -30/+13You wish you WERE there. Not was.
- Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4i dont see how its a sunset, the photo is taken facing east toward the steel bridge and Mt Tabor. Still i love it that its portland
- affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I dont know if its fake or not but the picture EXIF says Photoshop. But camera Canon EOS 20D
  
  http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=20404124
- dmoney06, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Just because hes facing east doesn't mean the colours dont get reflected in the clouds on the East....its normal.
- JoWiGo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9I don't think any of us could have been there, there are several things in this picture that just don't add up. The biggest on is that the sunset looks like it is off to the left, as the sky darkens to the right. However in order to see a rainbow the sun needs to be at your back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#History_of_the_science_of_rainbows).
  
  Edit in response to dmoney06: Agreed, however if you look from the left to the right the sky darkens, something that shouldn't happen if he was facing directly away from the sun.
- brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I once saw the same phenomena visiting Cheyenne, Wyoming, but the locals seemed to find it common - the sky is so freaking big there.
- Neatchee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The shot darkens from left to right most likely because there are thick rainclouds off to the right, hence the lightning being on the right side of the shot and not the left. The location of the sun isn't the only thing that can cause lighting levels to change. Think outside the box.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Just because hes facing east doesn't mean the colours dont get reflected in the clouds on the East....its normal."
  
  Exactly. I'm usually at work before sunrise, and my office window faces west, yet that doesn't stop me from seeing many colorful skies in the morning.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@JoWiGo:
  
  It is real. I was there, Portland Oregon. I have pictures of lightning in that same storm from my back window, facing east just like this pictiure. My house is across the river and to the south of that location. The reason it looks darker to the south is the more intense storms hit south of downtown. What makes this more rare than seeing the rainbow and the lightning with the sunset colored clouds - is the fact that it is in Portland. We almost never get lightning here.
  
  My pictures are not as cool because they just show the lightning above my neighbors house. This picture shows lots of the Pearl District. You can see the convention center, Union Station, the Steel Bridge, and One Pacific Plaza. Mt. Tabor is off in the background there. Way more intersting than my neighbors house. I don't have it here on my work computer or I would post it somewhere...
WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hmm.... rare photo maybe but the situation shouldn't be all that unusual. I'm sure it happens around here several times a year. All factors... rain, sunlight, lightning and cloud cover... are kind of interdependent. No, interdependent is the wrong word... let's just say they are non-exclusive.
- Buddhist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Yes, but how often is it that someone is in an area that can correctly photograph the entire spectrum? You have to have a good view and range in order to capture a pic like that.
- Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2actually lightning is extremely rare in portland, i've felt more earthquakes in portland than seen lighting
chardos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1dugg. im assuming this was in portland since the photographer is from there?
- WombatRising, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2yep - definitely Portland.
  Cool lightning - very rare in PDX.
quacker912, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3Photoshop? Otherwise, amazing.
dominasian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+44ill bet the leprechauns were pissed about the lightning
- shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It was probably just a crackhead got into the wrong stuff.
Dolomite, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4looks photoshopped, some of the shadows don't match up
- Petrarch1603, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2i think its photoshopped too...lightning is extremely rare in portland
newdna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7A rainbow can only be seen when the sun is low and behind the viewer.
- WhiteRaven, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What is it you're saying? It looks to me like that is where the sun is in this picture. The colorful clouds in the pic are probably on the opposite horizon from the setting sun which means that yes, the sun is at the back of the photographer.
  
  Many sunsets/sunrises produce a lot of color across the entire sky. If you're assuming that the sun must be there behind the clouds in the picture (or just off to the side of the frame) then you are probably wrong.
Overseer10, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Agree with Dolomite, looks photoshopped.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why?
Kyderdog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3WHAT no godzilla?
- EarthernJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, being as it's the Pacific NW, I would expect sasquatch (sweet pic tho!)
CaptShmo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5i wish i was there too... so i could learn some more photoshop tricks =/
halosniper7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1thats weird. i looked up rainbow in wikipedia an hour before i saw this *shrugs*
DownloadThis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10affanjam, the EXIF data says Photoshop because the photographer most likely imported the image into PS directly from his camera where he did post production work (darkness levels, colors, hue, etc..). This is especially so if the original was a RAW image file and needed to be converted to jpg.
Nearly ALL digital photographers use Photoshop to touch up their photos. With 35mm film and a lab, you had a certain aspect of control even after the photo was taken. Photoshop gives digital photographers that same control (plus lots more freedom).
- FlapJaw, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Must be a ***** photographer.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"Must be a ***** photographer."
  
  Nope, you must just be ignorant of photography. There are a lot of reasons to work up your photos in photoshop afterword
  
  1) Many serious photographs capture in raw, because it captures the most detail. This is especially important if you want to print huge enlargements. However, RAW files are too big to be show on a website, and also aren't natively supported by web browsers, so you need to do SOMETHING in a photo editor just to post them on the web
  
  2) Cameras are VERY limited in what they can capture. Your eye can easily adjust to bright sunlight and dark shadows in the same scene. A camera can't. As a photographer, you are usually left with a few choices.
  a) try to use fill flash, but that won't always work (depending on scale of the scene) and can also give unnatural effects
  b) Leave it as a crappy picture
  c) Try to do a bit of work on the photo to make it more approximate what you really saw with your eyes. This is the same thing that the pros were doing in the darkroom 100 years ago.
  
  3) Well...theres more, but no need to go on, because if there first 2 aren't convincing enough reason for you, then there really isn't much point in continuing further.
- FlapJaw, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I was joking, but you had to be a loser and type that crappy response up.
papaudub, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0man I dig that word juxtaposition!!!
itsHef, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Niced and epic.
grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1*cough* fake *cough*

The lighting and shadows look wrong.
Snoz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2That is more fake than Pamela Anderson.
Qumahlin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You do realize if any of you actually look at his flickr account and comments he talks about the shot, how he took it and even the date he took it on....I doubt its fake
hwelsh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16thus god created skittles
- shinynew, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think that sour skittles makes a bit more sense
- ibedoh32, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1mmmm... skittles...
Magunwarrior, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Photoshop or not, it's still a cool picture.
tseif0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its like a battle of epic proportions between good and evil!
jaredac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This one shows tornado, rainbow and hail all in the same shot and it is definitely not shopped.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060702.html
cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've seen it happen. I've seen all sorts of weird stuff when I use to go fishing every day. That was before digital cameras. I had to walk uphill both ways just to get my film developed.
- jeromey11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you forgot barefoot and in the snow Mr. Cosby
  
  i killed a bear once with a loose leaf notebook!
Pdxbound, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know this looks like it was done in photoshop... but I can assure you it wasn't. I was there, and it was one of the most incredible days I was in Portland. The entire city was in awe.
- valkraider, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Yeah ( I commented above too ).
  
  It was the most impressive storm I have seen in Portland. Lightning and violent storms almost never happen here.
recordstoregeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The photo might have been enhanced a small bit, but not much. The picture is legit.

My wife took the following picture off our porch that same night. In about 10 minutes time the sky went from normal, to a double-rainbow and then that strange purple color. It was pretty amazing looking.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=365573673&size=l
duncandavidson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As the photographer of the image, thanks all for the diggs! It's awesome.

To those who think that it's Photoshop, I can see how you might think that. Photoshop has become such a pervasive part of the landscape that it's easy to jump to that conclusion. However, what you see in the image is exactly what happened. You can move back and forth in my flickr photostream and see several frames from that night and see some similar images. Here's a link to one that was taken just a bit before the dugg image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/x180/20404111/

My workflow at the time was to take the photos, download the images from CF to my computer, open up in Photoshop, tuck in the white and black points, sharpen a bit, and then resize for flickr. That's it. No magic. Just really freaking good luck to have been there for an amazing show by nature. And lots of people all over Portland were talking about the amazing show for days afterwards.

My fav comment from above: "That is more fake than Pamela Anderson." This made me laugh for a while. :)
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As a photographer myself (website linked in my profile), I wanted to say congrats on making such a great shot.
  
  I'm reasonably convinced that its a real shot. While some people are quick to cast the "photoshopped" accusation, I'm always very careful to do so (not that theres anything wrong with that...I do it from time to time). There are a lot of things that non photographers don't understand that can give odd effects. Heck, there are even things that I don't always realize are caused by something, even though I'm fully aware of how to create the effect. All kinds of things like polarization filters, graduated neutral density filters, long exposures, long exposures with flash freeze, fill flash bounced from odd angles...the list goes on.
  
  I understand how easy it is to assume everyone photoshops any incredible shot...these days, many of them aren't real. However, we need to be careful about dismissing a shots authenticity so easily.
- ldkronos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"not that theres anything wrong with that...I do it from time to time"
  
  In case it wasn't clear, I was referring to photoshopping an image....not accusing people. Theres not necessarily anything wrong with photoshopping. Accusing people of doing it, on the other hand, is ground that should be tread very carefully. Asking questions like "how did you do that....that doesn't seem to be consistent with the rest of the scene" is cool, but "I don't know how that could happen...must be fake" isn't
jabberwock1977, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice photo.
rbusta, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm from Portland and looking at the image, the bridge is the steel bridge and behind it you can see the Portland Convention Center, and just to the right, the Rose Garden. That means that the picture was taken from SW Portland, looking NE towards those landmarks. So I dont know about needing the sun to be at your back to see a rainbow, but there you have.
- duncandavidson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The photo was not taken from SW Portland. It's from the Pearl District. Specifically the REI Building (aka, the Edge) on NW 14th street between Kearny and Johnson. The picture was taken while facing just south of east--the two roads you see on the picture run directly east-west.
  
  So why is the rainbow centered a bit to the SW? Because the photo was taken in June and the sun goes down to the NW that time of year.
spreggels, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What, no unicorn fighting a dragon? Lame.
battleroyalex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First time ive seen anything like that
Couchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Woohoo new desktop background image! Thanks for sharing
johnburk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its not that uncommon in countries like Belgium and The Netherlands
rulitonga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Awesome !
Here, another shot of a rainbow, you can download it. It's in large size:
http://world-destinations.blogspot.com/2007/03/traful-argentina.html
I took this picture in Traful, near Bariloche city in Argentina.
I hope you like it !
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Rare Photo: Rainbow, Sunset, and Lightning all in the same Shot

Login or register to add a comment