In my first glance at that picture, I thought it was an artist’s conception of a volcano on some other planet. But no, it’s real! And apparently the photographer took some chances in getting close.
Comment by rakkity — September 26, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Nonsense. Too impressive to be real — Bryce and CS3 wizardry, not photography, surely. Wowza.
Like a fading Hollywood celebrity, I think some work was done on that widely circulated photo which appears on his website. Here’s what I think the original looks like.
I’m not bitching, I make levels adjustments all the time to eliminate haze, it’s just that BirdBrain sent me that photo asking me if I thought it had been tampered with. I assumed Adam would jump on it as soon as it was posted, but he didn’t until prompted at breakfast on Wednesday.
I’m just joshing … Taschler tells us he made a 20 second exposure with a Canon D20 on the image to which Mike links us (I think he means a 20d, an 8MP DSLR circa late 2004). That’d give cloud flow, whereas lava’s pokey. The exploding ash is harder to gauge, and there is preternatural clarity and contrast for conditions described as “ash falling liberally”, but he WAS way out in the hinterlands … Heck if I know, and cynicism’s too easy these days, I’ll grant, but it is one impressive image.
You like volcanoes? Have a look at Volcan Arenal, the most active volcano in Costa Rica. The video shows all the facets of the Tungurhua photo–lenticular cloud, bright ejection cloud, dark dust cloud, and flowing bright lava–but not in one frame.
The rakkity family was less than 100 mi away from this beast, but we failed to go see it (for which I’ve been kicking myself ever since).
In my first glance at that picture, I thought it was an artist’s conception of a volcano on some other planet. But no, it’s real! And apparently the photographer took some chances in getting close.
Comment by rakkity — September 26, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Nonsense. Too impressive to be real — Bryce and CS3 wizardry, not photography, surely. Wowza.
Comment by el Kib — September 27, 2007 @ 10:29 am
If this guy faked the one picture, then he also faked a time sequence in which the lava moves and the dark cloud drifts downwind.
Comment by rakkity — September 27, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Like a fading Hollywood celebrity, I think some work was done on that widely circulated photo which appears on his website. Here’s what I think the original looks like.
I’m not bitching, I make levels adjustments all the time to eliminate haze, it’s just that BirdBrain sent me that photo asking me if I thought it had been tampered with. I assumed Adam would jump on it as soon as it was posted, but he didn’t until prompted at breakfast on Wednesday.
Comment by michael — September 28, 2007 @ 7:54 am
I’m just joshing … Taschler tells us he made a 20 second exposure with a Canon D20 on the image to which Mike links us (I think he means a 20d, an 8MP DSLR circa late 2004). That’d give cloud flow, whereas lava’s pokey. The exploding ash is harder to gauge, and there is preternatural clarity and contrast for conditions described as “ash falling liberally”, but he WAS way out in the hinterlands … Heck if I know, and cynicism’s too easy these days, I’ll grant, but it is one impressive image.
Comment by el Kib — September 28, 2007 @ 9:47 am
You like volcanoes? Have a look at Volcan Arenal, the most active volcano in Costa Rica. The video shows all the facets of the Tungurhua photo–lenticular cloud, bright ejection cloud, dark dust cloud, and flowing bright lava–but not in one frame.
The rakkity family was less than 100 mi away from this beast, but we failed to go see it (for which I’ve been kicking myself ever since).
Comment by rakkity — September 28, 2007 @ 9:42 pm