so i went to track down the source of this image to see if there might be a before/after, and instead what i found was... a similar but different image???
this is the original, as reported in the june 29th 2022 edition of the moorefield examiner, linked here and also here. supposedly this still was taken from an iphone video, which makes sense. notice the motion blur on the lightning strike, and how the red/orange tones in the tree are blown out. the version shared by OP is comparatively much more evenly exposed. at first i thought it might be a separate still from the same video, but the closer you look the more conspicuous differences you notice.
for instance, this is NOT the same bush:
note as well that OP's version has the tree utterly unaffected by wind, where the original is clearly experiencing a strong gust:
there's also the fact that OP's version has more space on the bottom of the frame, which creates a more visually pleasing and balanced composition. but then, what about all that other stuff in the foreground at the bottom right? it's nowhere to be seen:
so, clearly OP's version has been shopped, probably with AI ("set extension" tools were some of the earliest functional implementations of generative image tech to hit the adobe suite iirc). stare at the doctored version long enough and you start noticing all sorts of weirdnesses. like what's going on here exactly?
why are these some of the only tree branches that occlude the path of the lightning bolt? it kind of looks like the tree only has branches on one side, the side facing away from the camera, in order to maximize the photographer's visibility.
but here's what gets me. OP's post still credits the original photographer, which is how i was able to track down the source image in the first place. if not for that credit, i'd have just assumed this was a real photo and moved on like everyone else. to be clear, i don't think OP is responsible for the modification. virtually all popular nature photography is already heavily doctored within acceptable limits, and anyway it's such an innocuous picture, so it's easy to imagine how something like this might slip under the radar. but it is a shocking example to stumble upon of how easy it can be for a real thing to have its sharpest edges sanded off without anyone noticing. i don't know what if any conclusions to draw from it (this is hardly a new phenomenon, the picture itself isn't particularly important, and again they still credited the original photographer) besides, i guess, to do a little digging on sources when the image in question DOES matter.
