What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
55 Comments
- emo1313, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you can call fake on that photo , I live in north Texas, when you see em, they all look fake... good pic.
- mousky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The title should read "First photograph of a tornado". The way it reads now, this is the photograph of the first tornado.
- crapiolio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2OLD photograph! Way old news.
- nmoline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It is official. This is a real photograph. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/html/oldtorn.shtml I doubt the National Weather Service would not do their research. Check it out this is just simply amazing.
- Rythan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If nothing else, that is a wild picure.
- chaosbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my aunt lives in howard, thats pretty cool.
- gamemaster357, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0cool
- jacko7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0awesome cool!... pretty crazy formation :O
- killerwombat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that is a awesome photo
- bluekangaroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0By 1884, Cameras and film capable of 1/1000 sec. were around. This photo is well within the realm of possibility as real. I'm sure any photographer would also be able to center his camera on the object he's shooting as well....
http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/text-hs-history.html - jla1987, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's also on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tornado1884.jpg - Lax32, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think its pretty cool. One of the things that I always thought was kind of weird was that back in that time period, lots of people had no idea what tornadoes were. Im not exactly sure how that happened, but they say that back in the day people would just kind of sit on their porches and watch tornadoes because they had no idea what they were.
- Mongoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Cool. +digg
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Extremely cool.
- chriskelley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the clouds probably look trippy *because* of the lengthy exposure. Cool pic.
- MostlyHarmless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Awesome picture.
- link470, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*thinks of Kevin and Alex on diggnation when they reviewed first photo ever taken story and Alex says theres a teradactile on the background*...good times
- NiLeS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"you can call fake on that photo , I live in north Texas, when you see em, they all look fake... good pic."
Hmmm...true. Most pix I've seen *do* look fake.
High res pic:
http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/big/wea00206.jpg - matsiescruff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i dunno about the validity of this one. i agree with zonkzor.
- webguy2k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yeah, that's a good picture...
- BugMeNot2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1OLD!
It's from 1884! =P - rcomegys, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0can't argue with that, can you?>
- Brutal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0that looks totally fake.
- umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0teradactile?? You mean pterodactyl, right?
Anyway, neat photo. It does look like it is a photograph of an oil/water cyclone in a tank. But, that's probably just the paper it's printed on. - packy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is an awesome photo, but it somehow looks like someone just got unlucky the night before and tossed up all the leftovers from the pizza, still, if it validates, then great kudoz and good drinks to everyone involved in the photo, like, the dude risking his life with an poor camera just to catch the first _EVER_ photo.
- donny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0bluekangaroo, have you ever tried to take a picture with a 4x5 camera. I have, 1000's. this is probably the camera or maybe an 8x10 that they used in this photo. You don't get to see what you are taking a picture of especially if it is moving.If this guy took this picture when lightning struck at the same time maybe, but then his shutter speed had to be calibrated to lightning. What a bad ass. Have you seen the Hindenburg disaster pics, I think this guy got off like three shots. You have to change film backs. These guys didn't have digital rebels. REMEMBER BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE. THE TORNADO ZAPRUDER PHOTO!!!
- psbp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oww.....
- chaosbuddha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"People in my area still do that apparently. One dude was killed on his porch awhile back when the pressure blew out his window and the shards went through him. >__>"
we all do - donny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/Aviation%20history/coming%20of%20age/Hindenburg.htm
this was taken on may 6, 1937. Hindenburg disaster pics. Taken 53 years later - Aljavar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0real?
- donny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow to photograph a moving thing at that time was next to impossible and to have it centered so well, that is truly unbelievable. Try taking a look at the equipment the emulsion and the shutter speeds in those days. I'm sure it was dark that day. this brother must of had one large aperture. in photos from this era you have to be standing real still to not have ghosting.I call this "photograph" a fake.
- 4tygames, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nope, its real, genuine, and authentic. this is the first photograph of a tornado. i
- WarpiG, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Wasn't the exposure times really, really long back then? I don't think you could take a picture of natural phenomenon with those cameras. Wasn't it like minutes or at least many seconds exposure. They used to have to prop people up with sticks for portaits, so they wouldn't move. I'm no expert though...
- shiftlock, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0looks fake
- koolwheelz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Really Cool picture. Way to go! Great Digg.
- clumsyninja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0People in my area still do that apparently. One dude was killed on his porch awhile back when the pressure blew out his window and the shards went through him. >__>
- gwjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Anyone who thinks it's a fake should google around a bit first. It's obviously not, cool pic.. don't know if it's diggworthy though
- donny, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you can purchase a print here. http://www.1americanatrail.com/tornado.html for only $85. same site.
- bluekangaroo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Thanks for the Hindenburg link.
Yes I have taken photos with a 4x5, as well as a Kodak brownie, Mamiya 120 roll film camera, Leica 35mm with manual exposure settings with no exposure meter.....
We don't know he used a 4x5 camera, but i still don't see the problem if it was. With an assistant, set up would be even easier. We also don't know how many attempts he made before catching this shot.
I mentioned the 1/1000 shutter speed as a point of reference for people thinking that all exposures were on the order of minutes or seconds.
You need to adjust your aperture and shutter, "not calibrate your shutter", when setting exposure for your camera.
Even if he underexposed the original negative, It could have been corrected while printing.
Since you're experienced with large format cameras, you should also know this story about how Ansel Adams made one of his more famous photos... with a rapid setup of a 8x10 camera.. and lots of post exposure manipulation
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Wam - glitchbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I live in texas, while I have never seen tornados quite like that I have seen footage very similar and tornados can move slowly surely enough time for any old cam to take a pic and I see no reason why it had to be dark outside during this. From the looks of it he was a good bit away.
- mockstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a fake.
- kagayaki1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0national archive is pretty good, but now that it's on digg, we can rest assured it's preserved forever.
- Joe091, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've seen lots of tornadoes firsthand, and that does not look real at all.
- unclejesse0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It looks like death. In cyclone shape.
- ifyoucanread, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Y'know, it just doesn't make sense that this "first-ever" picture was such an absolutely amazing picture!! How many tornado pictures have you seen that are so amazing? Don't you think that someone would have taken a "first-ever" picture of a not-so-amazing tornado first (but perhaps those pictures didn't survive?)??
All I can say about this is that I am sure I've seen this picture in a book long ago (when the Xenia, Ohio tornado hit) and that the clouds in the top weren't in the picture, but I have no way of verifying something I saw over 30 years ago. - Rythan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Should have checked the spelling ... hah!
- donny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0yes cameras had the capability of 1/1000 sec but a second but what kind of light and film would you need to take a picture in subdued light. Maybe lightning happened at the same time.this looks like it was taken at about at least 1/30 sec and it defiantly wasn't a nice bright day out.(remember the sunny16 rule) go out on a rainy day and take a picture at 1/1000 of a second with f2.8 lets see what the ***** happens. Wait a minute.Everyone on digg believe everything you see.always!
- DoorFrame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0looks fake, the clouds above the tornado are weird looking.
- donny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Alright you've used a couple of cameras. So Ansel made full use of the latitude of his films. He corrected while developing , not printing, well maybe his assistants did. When there is nothing on the negative you cannot print anything but black there is no info on the film. Ansel Adams did use "Post exposure manipulation", he did use multiple exposures, dodging, burning, and the zone system which is what I think you are talking about when you say post exposure manipulation. This is where shadow density is controlled predominately by exposure. Highlight density is controlled predominately by developing time (for anyone who cares).The whole thing is that Ansel and Fred Archer invented the zone system in the late 1930's, a few years after this photo was taken. During the time this tornado was photographed glass plates were being used instead of roll film, that wasn't even invented for another 4 years. Brownies were invented in 1900 and the leica was invented in something like 1920's. Last but not least, Fredrick Scott Archer invented the Collodion process in 1851 which brought down exposure times to like 2 to 3 seconds the only thing that changed until about 1887 was that you didn't have to develop your plates on the spot, the film roll camera came out in about 1888. oh yes, calibrating my shutter means, adjusting it to my aperture to let in the correct amount of light. I just like calibrating better than adjusting. I Like to get my ***** right and I use a light meter. This photo did not happen unless he was tight with Eadweard Muybridge and had a big ***** truck, have you seen his camera setup?!? even then the image would have no middle value. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=calibrating
- digger247, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I think ist BS cause of the clouds.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
