5 ms·

I had the same thing happen with one of my photos of lightning in London. I actually thought my shot had been ripped off at first glance, then realised it was f

I had the same thing happen with one of my photos of lightning in London. I actually thought my shot had been ripped off at first glance, then realised it was from a different angle. Mine: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beechlights/2739042419/in/photolist-5b3iTi-5bn2YL-5b7BMC-5b3iCe-83tPjj https://www.flickr.com/photos/beechlights/2739042419/in/phot... Alternative, from the Telegraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/earth/2515652/Summer-lightning-over-southern-England.html?image=7 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/earth/2515...

ger_in_no 9y ago
Looks at first sight like much of a bigger coincidence, but given that you probably both used a long shutter speed (yours seems to have been 6s) and selected the nicest of a number of shots, it's not like there are crazy chances against getting two almost identical shots like this.
- yangyang 9y ago
  Oh yeah, I don't deny it isn't insanely improbable. Still, finding same strike in a newspaper, shot from a very similar angle, was quite surprising.
  - tabio 9y ago
    Nice quadruple-negative.
    - craigds 9y ago
      Surprisingly readable!
- herogreen 9y ago
  Actually that could be much more likely if both used automated triggering.
  - John_KZ 9y ago
    Yep, this is one situation where it's actually reasonable. The fact that they both used automatic triggering, and that took a lot of pictures over the period of the thunderstorm make it realistic. I personally don't believe the man in the article. It's easy to make a second account to pretend to be a different photographer (or have a friend pretend), and equally easy to set up 2 cameras to a trigger. There's a lot of competition in photography now days, so I would not be surprised to discover yet another publicity stunt.
excalibur 9y ago
The bolt of lightning is clearly identical, but I'm having a difficult time correlating buildings between the two shots. My guess is they were taken a mile or two apart.
- yangyang 9y ago
  IIRC the other shot is somewhere south of the river. I worked it out at the time. I was near Tower Bridge on the north side.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
fwiw, yours is nicer :)

ger_in_no 9y ago

Looks at first sight like much of a bigger coincidence, but given that you probably both used a long shutter speed (yours seems to have been 6s) and selected the nicest of a number of shots, it's not like there are crazy chances against getting two almost identical shots like this.

yangyang 9y ago
Oh yeah, I don't deny it isn't insanely improbable. Still, finding same strike in a newspaper, shot from a very similar angle, was quite surprising.
- tabio 9y ago
  Nice quadruple-negative.
  - craigds 9y ago
    Surprisingly readable!
herogreen 9y ago
Actually that could be much more likely if both used automated triggering.
- John_KZ 9y ago
  Yep, this is one situation where it's actually reasonable. The fact that they both used automatic triggering, and that took a lot of pictures over the period of the thunderstorm make it realistic. I personally don't believe the man in the article. It's easy to make a second account to pretend to be a different photographer (or have a friend pretend), and equally easy to set up 2 cameras to a trigger. There's a lot of competition in photography now days, so I would not be surprised to discover yet another publicity stunt.

excalibur 9y ago

The bolt of lightning is clearly identical, but I'm having a difficult time correlating buildings between the two shots. My guess is they were taken a mile or two apart.

yangyang 9y ago
IIRC the other shot is somewhere south of the river. I worked it out at the time. I was near Tower Bridge on the north side.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

fwiw, yours is nicer :)