AMAZING. I actually found this photograph and commented on it last summer, but here it goes again.... This is one of the most amazing scenes ever captured on film, no doubt about it. In this version however, the sign pokes up in the bottom, bit distracting, might want to crop it like you had in your original submission.

Cheers, it makes me smile (or stare in wide eyed terror) when I see such fantastic photography. I wonder what Bresson would say to this "decisive moment"??

Amazing! I would do some more touch up work in Photoshop or pay good money to have some one else do it if you didnt have the the right tools yourself. A once in a lifetime photo.

I could not resist. I hope you dont mind that I cleaned it up a little.

Really outstanding. An amazing sight, to be sure, and very well photographed to boot. One of the best tornado shots I've ever seen.

This is really a wonderful photograph

here's another cleaned up version

This photo is unreal--I would like to extend my hearty congratulations and offer another cleaned up version. An amazing spectacle to behold... I would love to see a hi res scan of it.

Great shot! One envies the time, place and position of the photographer after seeing a lovely shot like this. Tho im beginning to wonder why is it that photo.net elves are selecting landscape photographs only? It seems to be the case for the past 4 weeks or so.

It's literally a master stroke, well done

The image is of course beautiful, but countless others have no doubt pointed that out in the ten years since it was taken.

What really heartens me about this image is that is was taken with a decades old, manual camera. With all due respect to Philip Greenspun et al, it's better than 95% of the images I've seen on this site, almost all of which were taken with expensive Canon or Nikon computerized systems.

Perhaps I'm just consoling myself because I just passed up a very good deal on an Elan II setup in favor of a 30-year old Minolta SRT :)

Ditto on the great shot! As far as the "You coulda, shoulda" comments--It's a tornado; everything else is minor. I'm from the east, don't even know if i would have wanted to get out of my car and snap one.

I must take issue with the "...let me clean that up for you..." respondents; they're the reason I would never allow any of my images to be posted to this gallery. I find unsolicited editing such as this quite disrespectful of one's work.

I think I disagree with some of the posters above regarding the sign in the bottom of the frame...I think it adds an important sense of scale and perspective that the image would otherwise lack. But it's a great picture in any case!

I just looked through your other photos on the site -- this is a very fine and impressive set of photos. Bravo. You have a really keen eye for weather.

But just out of curiousity: how is it that you end up near so many tornadoes?

I prefer this one: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=45780

Just post under your images "please dont edit or change this picture". I did not deface the photograph. I just cleaned it up. Nothing more than a color lab would do.

Great shot. The light makes it. That's quite a hobby you have.

In 1990, when this photo was taken, the Canon A-1 was precisely an auto-everything computerized camera--aperture preferred, shutter preferred, and program mode options, lots of plastic and electronics. Just center-weighted metering and no autofocus in general yet, though Canon did make a 35-70mm zoom with primitive IR autofocus.

PLEASE DO NOT "clean up"..it is idiotic to mess with such an amzing picture.

First of all a great, awe-inspiring photo. And no I am not going to post a 'cleaned-up' version. But whats the problem with that anyway? I mean, its not as if the cleaner-uperer is destroying the original, their just creating slightly different versions for others to see how the photo looks without their percieved distractions! I personally don't see a problem with it, but anyway, its a great photo and the 'other' versions look good as well.

I don't see why this photograph needs to be "cleaned up" at all. OK, maybe if you're thinking strictly of an art piece to hang on the wall, but I think it is much more powerful just as it is. When you look at it, you know you're seeing the real thing, and the sign helps to put the size, power, and majesty of the tornado in perspective. The added touches make it look phony in my opinion. But, being a midwesterner, I've seen my share of tornados; perhaps someone who has never experienced one wouldn't notice that the touched up photographs just don't look real. I want to commend the photographer on his courage or his insanity, whichever it was, that allowed him to pause long enough to take this photograph.

There is one school of thought which warns that the tornado could "pull up the rope" and drop it right where the photographer is standing. I'm not suggesting that we all crawl in a hole for the rest of our lives... just maybe when there are tornados out?

But the image is spectacular.

Need more be said?

Robert, your clean up changes a record shot into a half decent photo. Wether or not you leave the post on is optional but getting rid of the ?scratches was much needed. However they may be some feature of a tornado that I'm not aware of.

Fred It is a delight of technology that when discussing an image it is possible to demonstrate what one is talking about by posting ones suggested crop/edits.

Yep its a gripping picture. Only because its some scary huge thing that is stretched across the sky.

Is it a great photo. I'm not sure. Its blurred, maybe camera shake. The uploaded scan is covered in muck. It is probably scratched too. One wonders about the colours of the scene. During storms the light can change rapidly and give fabulous lighting of landscapes. To my mind though this image may have been poorly stored and the colours have probably been affected over the 10 years since it was taken.

In summary I feel this is a lousy photo of a stunning subject. But often famous photos depend more on the subject than on the skill of the photographer. Its a pity because so much could have been made of the situation.

Next time (!) Use a tripod or support the camera on your car. Take a record shot or two. Then try to make the picture interesting with some foreground object for comparison. Could I do better? No. I would not have stopped to get out my camera. I mean look at the thing!!!!!!

The comments to POW are rather tame. We should be looking VERY critically at the pictures posted. It goes without saying that they should be good, but have you ever seen a perfect picture.

Everyone has their opinions and are equally valid. Until you look critically at other photographs your own photography will not improve. Right Sam now its your turn!!

Tut-tut. Yes this is a dreadful photo. It really should have had a young smiling caucasion couple dressed in red flannel sitting on the hood of a bright blue DeSoto in the foreground to give a sense of scale and provide that cheery human touch. To all you armchair hoot-owls, this is not a "landscape". (Apparently you had to be told.) This is a PHOTOGRAPH of a rather rare natural phenomenon. As such, it is just about the best example I've seen. I doubt if mawkish pathos was in the mind of the photographer at this moment. It is not a "record" shot in the sense that a crime scene photo is. It is a "record" of the photographer's skill and tenacity in orchestrating his own confrontation with the forces of nature. I find it ever so much more visually stimulating than photos of flags stuck in the snow on some terrestrial peak or even the dust of a lunar sea. Could it have been a better photograph? It's already as good as it gets. Could it have been "artier?" Maybe, but why ruin it?

The "improved" versions of this photo disturbed me greatly. This was not your work, and to alter it was inappropriate. I am sure the photographer would have removed the foreground object if he had WANTED TO.

One thing I failed to mention in my original post was what an awesome (in the truest sense of the word) image I thought this was. Nice shot, Ian.

I fully expected my comments regarding editing to be something of a lightning rod; I wasn't disappointed. Maybe it would be appropriate for the "powers that be" to include a checkbox designating "Okay to edit this image". This subject obviously has strong supporters in both camps; my PERSONAL feeling is that it's overstepping the bounds of critique when you essentially alter an image for the sake of making a point (regardless how insignificant one feels the alteration to be). Digital technology aside, there exist better ways to engage in discourse reagarding the asthetic and technical merits of creative endeavors.

This is an excellent record of a natural event. To be in the right place at the right time is worthy of one set of accolades. I should add to this my impression that the picture is well composed, balanced and exposed. Just as it is with no changes, please! But again, it is more the subject than the photograph of the subject that makes this a very interesting, compelling shot. Have camera, have film and. . . . be there!

Awesome on a number of levels...both photographic and as a document of nature. As to John Marsden's demands for a tripod, record shots.... multiple angles, small children in the foreground, chickens flying through the air.... to demonstrate the "skill of the photographer"; I say grow up! By the way, no model release.... shame, shame, shame.

This is an awsome picture, congratulations!

However, the electronic version is flawed. It is easy to see a line in the upper center part of the picture as well as some ``dust'', that were not intended to be there. My guess, Ian had a wonderful photo and wanted to post it but he didn't wanted to pay a professional scan, so he did it on a cheap scanner (with little dust control). So, what is the problem if Robert Cartright cleans it a little bit with Photoshop, its not like he retouched the negative or something like that.

The photograph is splendid and the editing improved the electronic file (without loosing the original by the way).

To fred, et al.

What is it that you have against the edited versions of this image? You say that you are in favor of critical discourse on photo.net but are quick to condemn the new images that are, in effect, visual critiques that demonstrate their arguments. Pretty ironic, since this is a website dedicated to a visual medium.

Perhaps you think that a photograph is an untainted reflection of reality and should stand on its own? Anyone who uses more than one lens, a filter, or develops their own photos will tell you that it isn't. This however, is another argument all together. I thought the photo was great and could be stronger were it not for a few very minor kinks. I think the edited pictures demonstrated similar issues like distracting foreground objects, color balance, scratces on the image, etc. If you disagree, I encourage you to criticise the message and not the medium.

Ps, re: "include a checkbox designating 'Okay to edit this image.'" I think people know what they're getting into when they post their photos to a public forum. It isn't up to you or anyone else to squash forms of constructive criticism that you personally have deemed to be inappropriate.

-Ralph Nader

I couldnt have said it better myself.

Oh dear. For a couple of weeks POW was looking up (Oct 29, Nov 12). We now seem to be losing momentum again. I suppose I was hoping for too much from a free site...

Anyway, even though photonet may be free, it wouldn’t cost any more to select PsOW that are worthy of the reasons for POW’s existence. The "About" section of POW states that the photograph should be an "example of a good composition", and implies that it should be both "inspirational" and "educational" to other photonetters. Furthermore, the self stated definition for photonet itself is, "photo.net is an online learning community of people improving their photography expertise." Now, I don’t think either of these descriptions do any justice to either photonet or the POW section, but they have been written by whoever is in charge, so I would assume and expect the site to follow those general guidelines, whether access is free or not. I don’t like people’s suggestions that the site’s quality can be anything at all, just because it is free. It’s free for us, but big money is being spent on it nevertheless. That money is being wrongly spent if the site is spiralling downward in quality.

About the actual quality of the image: it is atrocious, and not only the electronic version. Those of you who said otherwise should please open your eyes. There are the following obvious shortcomings, and many smaller ones: *major* scratches, a lot of dust on the image, three electricity lines running across the frame (just above the horizon), a white-tipped post, a distracting line of grass stumps (at the very bottom of the frame), 23KB JPEG size (no photograph can look good at this size), obviously fake colours, poor range of tonal values throughout the scene (i.e. too low contrast), what looks like a lackadaisical attempt at the rule of one-thirds, and poor scanner settings. It looks like the scan has been made with a print rather than the negative, although I can’t readily believe that someone would post a scanned print to photonet.

Now, the digitalisation problems I could accept, grudgingly. Not the compositional and technical errors though. How are we, as mostly amateurs, going to learn from this image? Are we meant to be inspired by this? It is a sorry combination of errors culminating in a pathetic image of what is a very overwhelming subject. Karsten Moran asked, "I wonder what Bresson would say to this "decisive moment"?" Well, I don’t think he would be too impressed. Tornados of this nature happen every day somewhere in the world, and they are all basically the same. They have no individual characteristics or personality traits which can be immortalized on film. On the other hand, an expression of a certain emotion, registered on a person’s face, will never be the same again, anywhere on earth, at any time in the future. It can only be precisely recorded if photographed at that moment. This is what Bresson was after in his photography. To compare a photograph captured at a truly "decisive moment" with a photograph of a tornado is rather detrimental to the former. Even within Ian Whitmeyer’s other posted work, there are other images of tornadoes, some of which are distinctly better technically and artistically. And really, photographing tornadoes in their dying moments is positively SAFE compared to photographing, say, lions in the wild, or underwater photography, or street photography, or...

Robert Cartright - if you had left out the phrase, "I could not resist. I hope you don’t mind that I cleaned it up a little", nobody would have paid any attention to your "fix", or anyone else’s touch-ups. This has been going on regularly now in POW and other image critique threads. There definitely should be some sort of box to check to give permission for others to edit images. Some people are offended by others messing with their work, and this would give them the option to upload their work while guaranteeing that no changes would be made visible to the public. Not having this option just gives people like me one more excuse for not posting work. I think that Ken Carriker’s comment that the touched-up photos "just don't look real" is going a bit far. The camera didn’t see the dirt on this image, neither did it record the scratches. If anything, the touched-up ones are more "real". Removing the post (which may have been deliberately placed below the origin of the tornado, to help the composition) or deleting the wires is in a different category from removing dust, though.

I agree whole-heartedly with John Marsden’s statement that "We should be looking VERY critically at the pictures posted." It is of no benefit to anyone to make declarations such as "...and very well photographed to boot", or to say it is "awesome!" (there must be at least five different spellings of the word "awesome" on this page). That basically implies that the photograph is a wholly acceptable image of a terrific sight. Which I don’t think it is.

I wish we would get more actual photographers (as opposed to casual photonet surfers) commenting on POW. The majority of the people currently commentating would say "awesome" to a particularly poor beach snapshot taken by someone’s aunt.

Scott Blair’s comments are so far fetched that I won’t bother to sustain an argument against them.

Wyoming should pass a law that all grazing lands be well mowed and free of posts and electrical wires just in case someone may want to take a picture of a tornado passing through. Sometimes Samuel's pompous dissertations are amusing, but I find the one above just pompous. As a former resident of the southern tip of tornado alley (and current resident of the freak southern tornado belt) I am intrigued by the shot and captivated by the disarming beauty of the calmer end of what could be a destructive force (complete with the freakish colors and cloud formations that accompany them). To say that a picture of a tornado (in any stage) is inherently unemotional totally disregards the experiences of the potential viewers - it's been a long time since I had to hunker in a church storm cellar, but I know people who's lives have been destroyed by tornadoes, and I'm sure images such as this would bring back plenty of emotions. Isn't that what photography is supposed to be about?

The image presented in this picture is something that most of us will never see. However the poor technical production has robbed me of a greater experience. It is precisely because this is unusual that I would like to see clearly what is going on.

A great photographer is able to combine technical skill with thoughtful image capture. Nothing irritates me more than a great photo opportunity reduced in quality by poor photographic skill.

I strongly doubt that the photographer wanted to portray an image of a tornado complete with irritating scratches and dust marks.

Putting this picture on photo.net was very generous of Ian. However it is not an excellently crafted example of this sort of photography. If the criticisms made can be appreciated, the future pictures if Ian or anyone else is taking them, should be a lot better.

Sam does us all a great service by sparking debate about photographs. I may not always agree with him but I respect his attention to detail and passion for a photograph.

The quality of POW may be deliberately variable otherwise there would be just a list of 1 or 2 word praising comments. However also I'm sure that the variability of the chosen image has lots to do with the state of deep thought entered into by the selection panel. ‘Barley water' I'm sure has a lot to answer for.

Way to be on site for this one. Access is one of the keys to great pics.

And WHEN are you photo.net guys going to pick something other than LANDSCAPES?

Samuel Dilworth wrote that this picture has "obviously fake colours." Well, obviously Mr. Dilworth has never been anywhere near a tornado. The sky turns an eerie grayish green, Samuel. This lack of knowledge puts his other criticisms in perspective.

I lived in Tornado Alley for 25 years and saw several tornadoes up close and personal in that time. This is a pretty wimpy tornado, but the photo is a good representation of what they look like. These colors are not fake.

This is not a landscape photo, folks. It is a photo of a tornado. When these things happen you don't get time to scout the location, choose the best perspective, or set up a tripod.

Yes, it is a technically flawed photograph. So what? Who says every photo has to be technically excellent? To all of you criticising this photo: I challenge you to post a better tornado photograph.

I didn't say anything about photos being a reflection of reality; they are a reflection of a photographers vision. So keep your damned hands off other people's vision. We can all use Photoshop, so there is no need to prove your skill.

Hi, I'm just a newbie here,but thought I'd enter the discussion. Great shot -- no doubt. Could it be cleaned up -- yeah. (Fight amongst yourselves as to whether it should be done here, for all to view.)

Here's what I see with this shot. It's journalism, pure and simple. Is that allowed here? No, it's not a landscape. If you want it to be an artistic image of the vengeance of God, then edit that poor sign out. And it is no longer journalism then.

When you shoot a tornado, you can spend very little time selecting a spot to shoot from. I would imagine mostly you're just praying it doesn't turn your way. Last summer I took off into an approaching storm (after the tornado sirens went off) with my photography equipment. As soon as the wind really picked up and the sky turned green immediately to my right, I just got out of there as fast as I could (expletives deleted).

So... yes, those colors could definitely be real. I say take it into Photoshop, clean it up and be done with it. Great shot.

I had a dream about a tornado last night. It was after viewing this photo. I wonder if this says anything about this image? Awesome...

As an admitted amateur, I concur with John Marsden when he states that, "We should be looking VERY critically at the pictures posted." I for one hope to learn from such critical posts, especially if those posts are constructive. Having seen some of John's work and the work of others on Photo.net that I admire, including this pic, I appreciate the effort that goes into sincere critical analysis.

As to those who protest "Not having this option just gives people like me one more excuse for not posting work;" I have to ask, why do you need an excuse. I dare say its always easier to criticize than hold oneself out to criticism. Sorry, John, absence evidence, me thinks you have mistaken Mr. Dilworth's hubris for passion.

Now to the pic at hand. No doubt the surface of the photograph is poor; scratched and dusty. As to composition, I doubt given the proximity of the funnel, time was sufficient to do little more that frame and shoot. Still manipulation in lab/computer might well produce a more pleasing version. As to the colors, Mr. Dilworth shows more of his ignorance of mid-western/western storm skies than he does of his own photography. Having lived on the eastern edge of tornado alley for 40+ years I assure you the colors are an excellent representation of an approaching storm. There may indeed be some fade, but a photograph is not the real thing, is it. It is captivating because of the subject matter. As to the lack of tonal quality I would appreciate a bit more discussion on the topic. Finally, how dare anyone post a scanned print to Photo.net. Scandalous.

Better to not post at all. Right Samuel?

I wonder.

People say the picture is not a good one, but could not have done better.

If they didn't do it. Why are they complaining.

The picture has been taken and is nice. Why compare it to any other.

If you can see better inspiration. Take one yourself.

If you are not. Why waste your time with critisism.

My first thought was that the "dust and scratches" were actually partial reflections off a car window, suggesting that the photographer had to make a quick shot through through his car window. But hey, I'm looking at it on a crummy old laptop. I know I've sure had to rush some shots when photographing natural occurences. I've got lots of poorly composed, unlevel, blurry Aurora shots, but when your're rushing around in the freezing darkness, the main goal is to try and try again. Either way, thanks to Ian for posting his pictures.

Perhaps a "perfect" picture is not what's needed on POW, this one has generated lot's of discussion - although I think I learned more from the photograph than from the critisism. Personally I like the composition as is, I don't think anything in the foreground would add to the picture. Just one opinion.

I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like.

What grass are you guys smoking?

I've seen about three critical comments worth reading on this forum. Some long monologue about the composition, colours, etc. Some others recommending removing the scratches, or scanning the negative instead of the print, etc.

Good criticism. But I had to wade through 200 "Great picture!" comments, and 150 "But the sky really is that colour!" comments, and 50 "This is journalism, not photography" comments. I'd say a moderation system is in dire need here. Can anyone say "Browse at 3 when reading Slashdot?"

Finally, we've had to suffer about 20 moderation-style comments, like the useless one I'm now typing, just because this forum almost completely lacks any sort of critical comment that would help photo newbies like myself learn.

Ah, well. It's free. Post what you like. But please, please, please, someone put a moderation system in place, so that comments like mine can be moderated down to "0: Offtopic" and comments like: "Awesome! This really inspires me!" can be moderated down to "0: Redundant."

Duh. It's a photo of the week. Of course it's awesome in some fashion.

Thanks. Browse at 3.

<i>I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like. </i><br><br> I have a slide at home (unfortunately no slide scanner) that I took outside of my apartment of a storm rolling into south Louisiana (I forget if it had tornadic activity) and the entire sky was a freakish shade of yellow, like someone put a mustard dome over the earth. I know I wasn't smoking anything and I'm pretty sure my camera wasn't either.

"I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like. "

Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it can't exist. I've never seen a thermonuclear explosion, but I'm quite certain they exist. If you don't believe me, check out my photo folder. I've a shot of clouds near the core of storm that are the sickliest shade of yellow; the color hasn't been altered one bit.

Before anyone rants about how I dared post photos that were scanned with a flatbed, consider this. Not all of us have deep pockets; I can't afford a 'Blad, so I use a RolleiCord, I can't afford a film scanner (or the fee to have it done correctly) so I use my admittedly crappy scanner. The cash I spend to further my photography hobby comes from the same pool that that pays the mortgage and clothes my son. I'll be more than happy to purchase a slide scanner; send me an email and I'll give you the address you can send your check to. That being said, I think PhotoNet is a great place for beginners to have their work evaluated (as long as one ignores pompus comments about daring to use a flatbed scanner or having a power line in a photo).

I think the tornado photo is amazing; one should consider that when photographing a beast as violent as a tornado, one does not have much time to set up the tripod and obsess about lighting values for 20 minutes. Such behavior tends to get one killed. Technical merit aside, I think many of you fail to understand how difficult it is to be in the right place to capture a photo of ANY tornado. I like this photo, if for no other reason, because I know how rare such a shot is.

D.E.

Budding Amateur Photographer (keep the pompous comments to yourself)

P.S. The following photo was shot around 3 p.m., it was really that nasty.

I believe it is better to have very few really good pictures compared to poor ones on POW. I learn a great deal more from the socalled “Embarrassingly bad POW’s” that some of the members find offending to even look at ;-).

Initially I am of the opinion that one of these POW’s is a work of art. When all the utterly pointless exclamations like “I wish I’d been there” and “Magically wonderful” are over, John, Sam and some others start to point out all the flaws, This is when I actually begin to improve my photographic skills. As they comment on for them elementary stuff, and wonders how such mistakes even could be shown on photo.net I start to re-evaluate the picture and learn from these mistakes and realize that I’ve done some(or all) of them myself, without knowing. You are dead on when you say that every picture should be regarded with the most critical eye and have its flaws pointed out, but don’t rave about how low the standard is (yep! that’s you Sam). Endure these POW’s in favor for us less experienced members, let alone the photographer him/herself, who learn from your postings.

I'm new in photography and was expecting to read a lot of good comments on the art of photography that could help me become a better photographer but I can see that this place should be called Battle.net. Too bad this forum could be a really good thing for all of us who want to learn more and even to those who already know a lot. Too bad for the creator of this site, I’m sure that is not exactly what he had in mind.

"Great picture!" Like it or not, that is a valid criticism as well as a helpful one. Nothing inspires passionate disdain so much as banal approval.(or so it seems) The disdainful are far more garrulous than the "easily impressed". If the photograph is bad, it will be ignored. If it is good, the accolades will be terse. If it is truly great, it will spark a debate. Maybe that is how they choose the POW.

After a good night's sleep, I figure I should add something useful to the conversation besides: "Moderate, please."

1. Critics of the photomanipulators: Why do you have a problem with one artist's rendition of another artist's work? Throughout history, artists have built on others' work. The famous quote that applies here has to do with seeing further because of the shoulders of giants.

Mozart did it, so why can't we? Only recently, with this horrible Intellectual Property craze the corporations have forced on us has art become something that only the original creator and the companies that stole it from him are allowed to manipulate.

What happened to collaberation between artists? Shame on you that lambasted the photomanipulation artists in this forum.

2. JPEG quality. Someone mentioned the filesize of the JPEG. Without talking about the complexity of the image, the filesize doesn't correspond to the compression quality. JPEG compresses the image of a wall with few colour variations quite well. It won't compress a garden scene with hundreds of colours and complex shapes as well. I don't think this image is sufficiently complex to make the resultant filesize very large. If you don't believe me, go to my fractals page: http://faemalia.net/Fractal -- every image was compressed with 90% JPEG quality, but filesize can vary dramatically. Notice the correlation between image complexity (contrast/colour/shape complexity) and filesize.

3. "Those colours are real, and Philo's comment about not seeing them notwithstanding, I've seen them." Fine. I haven't. And you can't tell me it's because I'm in Taiwan right now or that I lived in California for a couple of years. For me, the image looks unnaturally coloured. I'm not criticising the photo, but defending others who said the colours look unnatural. Personally, I think it's a point that's reached the end of its useful discussion.

4. "Tornadoes are dangerous! Wow, this guy coulda died." Hmmm. Maybe it's that Kansas City upbringing again, but I seriously doubt it. This picture scared me about as much as Bambi. It looks cool, yeh, but that tornado is about as dangerous as a sign in the wind. Sure, maybe the bolts on the sign will come loose, and the sign will decapitate you, but probably not.

That funnel is in its dying stages. The famous footage of the guy under the overpass as a tornado goes by was at a far more dangerous stage of the tornado than this. The photographer may not have had much time to frame or setup for the photo, but not because of any personal danger, unless there's some other funnel I'm not seeing (maybe behind?). Remember, Twister (the movie) was just bad cinema, not indicative of reality.

5. "'Awesome' is valid criticism." No, it isn't. It's a valid opinion. Opinions are useless without some backing. If someone said: "Awesome! Those unreal colours add a sense of otherworldness that is enhanced further by the strange white tip on the signpost..." etc, then I'd say great! Someone said why it's awesome. Just saying "Wow, that's cool. It makes me feel good! And scared! Wow!" is not useful except to tally one more person that liked it. But, duh, it's a PHOTO OF THE WEEK. It got that way because people liked it.

"I think having a monthly photography project would not only allow us to post up pictures that we otherwise wouldn't but would also give us an excuse to take more photos."

What a great idea! This is the best idea I've seen on PhotoNet for quite some time.

To Matthew,

Maybe you'd be better off moving to Africa and joining a pack of gorillas, so you wouldn't have to deal with another annoying human. I found your post very disturbing. As a portrait photographer, I take your remarks very personally. I take my profession personally. I love what I do and it comes from having a genuine appreciation of people. Photography is my art... the camera, my paintbrush, evoking emotion better than any medium I can think of. Pictures are meaningful if they make you feel something, despite any technical flaws. I will take any advice given to me in the manner of criticism, if by through that knowledge, I am better equipped to make a better image of what I find interesting. The content of my photographs are of my own discern. As a photographer, I find relationship to subject more interesting than any technical flaw. I appreciate the content of any picture. The whole point of a picture is to see it through someone else's eyes. Furthermore, you were drawn to the tornado picture due to the mountains you've climbed, and the deserts you've hiked. I find people fascinating. I look at a picture of my father that I took, or a precocious little toddler with ringlets in her hair, and I remember that exact moment in my life and that moment I saved in somebody else's life. I look for a person in an image, not what they look like.

Living among mountains and trees doesn't teach you anything but how to wipe your butt with an oak leaf. You learn only by interaction with other human beings. You form your own opinion only on the basis of others. I wouldn't combine people photography with advertising photography, that would be unfair. I'm not selling anything with my photographs, I'm only telling the truth. I'm disgusted on how critical and condescending some of my fellow photographers can be. It's a shame all these people share the same passion and yet they can't see beyond anyone else's view but their own.

Matthew, you are really freaking out on this manipulation thing... what's the big deal? LIGHTEN UP or get some prozac for your anti-social a**.

The most commented on photo of POW to date!

Why?

John--Because it doesn't look like a camera ad.

John, I think this one is the most commented on because of the technical flaws. You did an excellent job of being fair while pointing out those flaws. Other people seem unable to look beyond the flaws to see the destructive beauty this photograph captured. This resulted in a bunch of passionate people arguing their beliefs, with the photo as the catalyst.

At least this photo has made people think.

To quote Samuel Dilworth... "Tornados of this nature happen every day somewhere in the world, and they are all basically the same. They have no individual characteristics or personality traits which can be immortalized on film."

One thing is for sure, Samuel hasn't spent very much time observing nature.

I had great fun reading all this. Well most of it anyway. I liked the picture, I really did, but would have altered it (cleaned it up) myself prior to posting I guess. Criticism I am not afraid of but quite a few people got out of context in the post-ups.

I do have to disagree with Rikki. You CAN actually learn a LOT up in the mountains or in the woods, alone. I am not wiping my butt with an oak leaf but I learn more about myself and nature when I am out and about. I am a people person too but can be sick of people sometimes living in a major city. You shouldn't be personally offended by the previous poster who didn't like people pics - it just wasn't his bag. I personally like people pics but rarely see one that touches me. And I work at a pro lab dealing with pro's on a daily basis. Your dissing him was as embarrassing as his posting but even more so your dissing the fact that you learn a lot from being alone as well as constantly in touch with other people. I would rather be alone than be in uninspiring company. Thankfully I have a lot of inspiring friends...

Whoops - now I got out of line here!

When is the next picture up for scrutiny? I look forward to the picture and the subsequent inundation of it in following post-ups.

Henrik Rundgren (part time pro and 3/4 amateur) ;-)

I'm going to comment on the comments. Somebody criticized people who just said Wow and nothing else. I think that it is good to encourage photographers by saying something nice. Somebody could say Wow and then ramble on telling people what they already know. A single word is better than rambling.

Some people have criticized technical aspects about this picture. The comments are useful, but it is still a great picture despite its defects. Bob Dylan had a lousy singing voice, but he was a great song writer. It is possible to mess up in one area and still, overall, be talented. Ideally, you want to fix your defects to become better.

I would like it if the general public liked my pictures. There are some judges or art who are not experts on art, they're not articulate, but their taste matches the general public's taste. Their input is useful.

WOW! I am terrified of tornadoes and this picture really seemed to put me right in the midddle of it! The lighting and position are wonderful! Amazing shot! you have talent! Wonderful!

I always feel lucky when I come across an image that arrests my thought and provokes me to think about the forces of nature on a purely survival level. This image has all the makings of a great amateur photo: the timing, the imperfections, the simplicity of equipment, the impact. The fact that the photographer became excited enough to shoot this image in the face of such a threatening situation earns my respect. Many would have simply split for cover, afraid of hurting themselves of their precious gear. Let's just take it for the amazing image that it is, and stop trying to fix it.

Well everyone else has thrown in their two cents. What does this have to do with Bresson? It's a tornado. And as for the guy who says you can't learn anything but how to wipe your butt by being up in the mountains? I'm in shock! Where do you come from? You'd better learn a lot more than that before you try to test your theory. Let's see . . . how to ford a stream, how to cook a meal, catch and clean fish, use an ice axe, self arrest, identify avalanche dangers, avoid hypothermia, build a shelter, tie 30 different kinds of knots, learn which plants are edible/poisonous, how to navigate with a compass, without a compass, read a map, find a source of water, filter water, store food away from bears, behave around bears, identify different birds and other beasts, should I go on? Let me guess, you are not a Sierra Club member? You should read some Thoreau or SOMETHING!

Wow! Risking life and limb for his art! ; )

Congrats & that's one weird tornado!

This picture is onthe January page of the 2001 Weather Guide Calendar. It is not cropped or digitally manipulated as in the comments, above. There are also no scratches, dust specks. Actually, more of the road is visible on the calendar than on the picture shown here. The picture is cropped on the right side probably because of the aspect ratio of the calendar. It would be great if there were more detail and the image were sharper, but the image is great as is.

Congratulations on being selected for this great calendar. I've been buying it for a few years now.

By the way, last year there was a funnel cloud here that looked just like that tornado, except mirrored (the turn was in the opposite direction from my vantage point). It missed becoming a tornado by about 15 feet (it didn't quite touch the ground).

Do caralho essa foto, parece que o lance é de mentira tah ligado!!! O lance é ver ela chapado tah ligado.Eh bem mais afu, fuma um beck e olha o lance curtindo uma viagem e tal...

Best photo i have seen for a long time, Wish i had seen this myself. Maurice Crookall

the best image here. manages to be both ordinary and extraordinary. keep chasing tornados...

I am amaze by both photo and the comment. There actually some one withness mother nature power at work and this person happen to be a photographer that capture this amazing once alifetime photo that brought foreward to share this amazing momment. Which we are lucky to view. To anyone who comment on so much neg. comments, I challage them to put up more amazing photo of mother nature destrucing power on photo.net.

If I have learned nothing else here, it is that I should have never uploaded those flatbed scans of prints to my own portfolio the other day.

Fabulous job! Perhaps you're one of those danger seekers who actually hunt down tornados? If so, I beg you not only to be careful, but to take more amazing photos such as this one! Being from North Carolina, I remember looking out my window, up into the dark clouds and actually observing the twisting of the funnel (the funnel that would never form *thank God). At that age however, I was more interested in StarWars and, uh, StarWars and never considered snapping a pic of death knocking, or nature calling (however one wishes to think of it)? And what's with Ralph Nader editing the pic!? The ol' bloke already ruined our chances of having Gore in office!

If I'd've been out there by myself I'd've been feel'n might lonely!

"I lived in Kansas City for 25 years. I don't remember seeing these colours in any thunderstorms or the like."

You must have ducked and covered as soon as the wind picked up, eh? I've been standing in the middle of open fields when the clouds start to churn in on themselves and they DO turn green. Talk to almost any farmer about storms and you'll hear of green skys.

How could you do any better than this?

An unbelievable glimpse of natures spectacular fury. I agree that the sign adds perspective and should not be edited out of the photo. As for cleaning out the scratches on the negative, I don't think it could be done without losing important detail.

Wonderful photograph. Did you feel a sense of danger because of the proximity of the twister? What were you thinking when you took the picture?

Awesome!

I can't see arguing about colors in a web based photograph. You would be extremely lucky to post a photo that displays with accurate color across all users computers. Heck, all I have to do is change the brightness on my monitor a tiny bit to change the colors in this photo - never mind whether you scan prints or negatives, or if you know how to manipulate scanner settings. The Web is just not a great medium for displaying accuarate colors across wide swaths of users' computers. Yes, you can get accurate color matching with the appropriate software and hardware, but c'mon can you really expect that everyone will see exactly the same thing on the web - I don't think so.

Insisting that colors are fake is useless to photo.net visitors. One might suggest they look fake and then question the photographer - the fact is you simply don't know (it could be the picture, the scanner, file compression, photoshop, your own monitor, or your graphics card settings). Making accusations doesn't help at all.

On to the photo. Rather than cutting the fence out, I think it might have been interesting to have the whole thing included (beyond what is already there) - it would give the appearance that the tornado is hemmed in by the fence.

What I do like is the way the tip of the tornado, the fence post, and the bright orange sky all seem to converge at the same point. My eye is drawn to the bright area in the lower right - it is then led up the body of the tornado to the dark, brooding, clouds. It is this aligment of elements that I believe makes this picture insteresting and a bit different, or even better than the typical tornado profile picture.

I would be quite proud if I had captured this shot with my camera.

It's so fabulous that has been chosen photo of the week. You've got many comments. Why do you want more critique? Reckon all have been said. Could it be prized more? Oh, I have almost forgotten there is a stick on the right bottom which disturb a lot, please remove it in PhotoShop - just kidding! Lovely picture.

WOW!!!!!!!!

Okay, I don't know what I can say that hasn't already been said, except that I hope you made a ton of money off this one. And it is a once in a lifetime shot to be exactly in the right place at the right time. Although part of it was luck, a lot more of it was skill as well. Congrats.

I take pictures for a living, and from my experience I can say, well done Ian.

This is a good Documentary Photograph of Weather, in this case a Tornado in action.

I would expect to see a picture of this standard in Time Magazine, standing on its own merits somewhere in the first few pages.

Yes this is a critique site, but we could put up some of Cartier Bresson's pictures and find fault in them. If you want to learn how to see, and how to take rewarding pictures...then look at Ian's picture.

Lesson one: Be there.

Sounds obvious, but Ian was there and we obviously were not...or those of us who have 'been there' well, maybe we came away with something less satisfying ?

Lesson Two: Know your equipment.

It's easy to fudge the moment. Ever had the light change whilst your cursing yourself for forgeting to switch off your exposure compensation, or even forgotten to load the film ?

Lesson Three: Use a suitable film.

Looks like Ian chose Colour Neg. A good choice ? Well, there's a good range of tones there to work with.

Lesson four: Choose your moment.

Whoever said that the decisive moment is not relevant here, well, I disagree. Good Picture taking is always about the decisive moment, no matter what you are shooting. If it doesn't feel right, then 9/10 it probably won't look right either. And I don't care if you're on a copy stand or shooting fish in a Barrel, if it's not the right moment, hey! It's not the right moment.

To those of you editing. Stop. I find it pretty inconsiderate that you're messing with other peoples work, and then posting your efforts on the Net. We know you all mean well, but where does it stop? Remember where you are, and set the right example to the new folks. Without permission from the Author you may be in breach of the law.

It's called 'Copyright' not Copymaybe. And it's only curtious to ask.

To those of you considering scanning your prints. I say get scanning, the more of us the merrier. Half of my folder is made up of print scans, can you tell which half ?

For a 'Picture of the week' on a Popular Amateur Site, that makes me for once look twice. I say congratulations, Mr.Wittmeyer.

To my eye, the sign adds drama to the site. It is a balance point to the tornado tip. Also, I hate any crop to this picture, which ruined the feeling of vastness.One of the best photo in this world!!

I love any and all tornado pictures, but this one is by far the most interesting. We always see the straight up and down tornado pictures, but rare is it to see a twister that twists like this one does. This is in my opinion one of the best pictures I've seen here!

Lovely light and a new view of tornadoes. Well done.

In regards to capturing a tornado on film, I don't think you have time to sit and wonder where your tripod is or if the picture is going to come out scratchy or any other technicalities that at that particular moment, is completely insignificant. I think just the fact that he caught the thing on film is amazing. I lived in the mid-west for four years, and was in oklahoma in '99 when the huge F5 demolished midwest city...trust me, you really don't think of pulling out your camera under those circumstances..unless your at a safe distance or are at least well out of its path. Most people never see one and live in tornado prone places all their life. I say again, amazing work and you are one of the fortunate ones to capture these scary but beautiful things.

Wow. Well, I'm new to this site and since I'm having a problem with my scanner I haven't been able to upload any of my photos yet. Now, i'm not sure I will. I think that it's great to be able to post pictures here for constructive criticism, But I don't think ripping the photographer a new one counts as "constructive criticism".

As far as people editing the photo, I think that's great too. (As long as they don't try to pass it off as their own or something) I mean, if you have the ability to not only tell me how my shot could've been better, but to actually show me... Then hey, go for it. Just remember who actually took the picture.

As far as the picture itself goes I think it's great. It looks like... a storm. And what's a storm without a little dust? I like the milepost in the foreground, it makes it look real. Instead of like a painting.. (and isn't that the point of photographs?)

The only thing I noticed is that the shot does seem a little shaky. Easily correctable with a tripod. This is a great photograph.

I REALLY COULD NOT GIVE A D*** ABOUT THE SCRATCHES OR WHATEVER. AS YOU NOTICED NO ONE ELSE HAS PUT UP A PHOTO OF THIS MAGNITUDE ON THIS SITE. IF I AM WRONG I'M SURE I WILL FINALLY FIND IT CONSIDERING I AM RELATIVELY NEW TO PHOTO.NET. THIS IS A FINE EXAMPLE OF PHOTOJOURNALISM. I HOPE YOU ARE ABLE TO LIVE THROUGH ANOTHER TRAGIC TORNADO OF THIS NATURE TO PROVIDE US PHOTO BUFFS ANOTHER PHOTO OF JUST WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

All I can say is WOW!!! an amazing shot.

I still consider this among the top five most incredible scenes ever captured on film by far. It truely hits home after I had a tornado hit my subdivison last Thanksgiving. Congrats on recording a masterpiece that remains in the very top of all photos in history in many people's minds!

Now I want to see that in a meteorology textbook someday. They always tell you that tornadoes start out horizontal between two wind layers before breaking down. I'm not sure if that's what's happening here but it sure looks like it! One of those events that I never thought was possible to photograph. Dang that looks sweet.

Try this on for size........

Your shot was great although a bit more cropping and noise reduction it would be even greater.

At first glance looks like a painting. Very nice.