| Author |
Message Text |
|
Banksiana
|
tonecoughlin: "Banksiana: "My point is that these glorious aurora photos are artifacts of camera sensor technology- these images don't exist for the naked eye."
We can't post pictures with our eyes so we have to use cameras. They've been around since the 1800's.
Just like you used the Internet and a computer to make a comment."
No doubt. Not objecting to the use of cameras but its important to point out that you can't sit on a rock and see these glorious aurora colors. Someone said "You were lucky to see this"- you didn't.
|
|
Samsquatch
|
It looks like last night (Sept. 25) the northern lights activity was high. Did anyone see them?
|
|
Banksiana
|
On the night you took the photo I was up until almost 1:00 am, on my deck, watching the aurora, dark sky, 12 miles NW of Ely. The lights were great! They weren't purple and green until they landed on your computer monitor.
I've lived outside of Ely since the mid-eighties. For ten years I spent half my nights well north of the Arctic circle. I've witnessed many great displays of northern lights. What the sensor "sees" and what the eye witnesses are radically different. Many people believe that they can witness what your sensor captures with their eyes if they were just in the right place at the right time- simply not the case; ridiculously obtuse to pretend that it is.
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
I caught this one at 12:30 am this morning.
|
|
Samsquatch
|
The Aurora forecast is promising this week. I think Kp of 6 is likely for 9/18-9/19. Has anyone seen nice displays lately? Seeing the northern lights is a bucket list item for me. The lights are visible here in northern Missouri occasionally but I haven't seen them yet.
|
|
AlmostCanadian
|
Aurora
I caught this aurora a few weeks ago with my GoPro
|
|
Banksiana
|
Great northern lights last night outside of Ely. I didn't manage to see colors but I got to watch the curtains ripple in the sky.
|
|
schweady
|
Are we going to argue that we can't absolutely love THIS Aurora simply because it's only a camera-captured image? I think not. She is adorable, Frenchy!
|
|
Frenchy19
|
schweady: "Are we going to argue that we can't absolutely love THIS Aurora simply because it's only a camera-captured image? I think not. She is adorable, Frenchy!"
Thanks, Schweady!
|
|
Banksiana
|
deerfoot: "tonecoughlin: "I caught this one at 12:30 am this morning.
"
Very nice, you were lucky to see this."
Well the camera "saw" this. What shows up in long digital exposure is not gifted to the human eye.
|
|
schweady
|
We base camped Sun-Wed 9/17-9/20 on Canoe Lake - between Alder and Pine. Fortunately, we had the 4-star westernmost site. Unfortunately, the site faces ESE. And, it always seemed to be a bit overcast in the north and west. And, it was so flippin' cold on Monday night, with the wind coming directly in at us, we retired to the tent around 9:00. Before doing that, however, we did manage to see quite a bright glow in the north behind us, but no colors or pillars.
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
Banksiana: "tonecoughlin: "Banksiana: "My point is that these glorious aurora photos are artifacts of camera sensor technology- these images don't exist for the naked eye."
We can't post pictures with our eyes so we have to use cameras. They've been around since the 1800's.
Just like you used the Internet and a computer to make a comment."
No doubt. Not objecting to the use of cameras but its important to point out that you can't sit on a rock and see these glorious aurora colors. Someone said "You were lucky to see this"- you didn't."
Of course you can, and I did! Didn't see you there.
|
|
Jackfish
|
Hey Tuscarora Borealis, have you had any Aurora sightings? :)
|
|
deerfoot
|
SaganagaJoe: "Banksiana: "deerfoot: "tonecoughlin: "I caught this one at 12:30 am this morning.
"
Very nice, you were lucky to see this."
Well the camera "saw" this. What shows up in long digital exposure is not gifted to the human eye."
Great pic no matter what way you slice it, and great lights too man!
Joe"
Agreed!
|
|
Banksiana
|
My point is that these glorious aurora photos are artifacts of camera sensor technology- these images don't exist for the naked eye.
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
Banksiana: "My point is that these glorious aurora photos are artifacts of camera sensor technology- these images don't exist for the naked eye."
We can't post pictures with our eyes so we have to use cameras. They've been around since the 1800's.
Just like you used the Internet and a computer to make a comment.
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
Not for me. I see it several times a year and sleep through another several. I'm more of an early morning person staying up till 2:30 am throws me off for a few days lol
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
Samsquatch: "I'm envious of you all.
Apparently the Aurora was visible in a limtited area of my state but was not obvious, more like a tint to clouds. Recent Aurora activity is fueling my desire to see BWCA in the winter."
I'm also a professional photographer and musher. In my experience capturing the aurora is the same in summer as it is in winter although science says winter in the Northern Hemisphere is more likely because of the tilt of the planet. Winter is also significantly cloudier in MN at 50% of the days under cloud cover.
|
|
tumblehome
|
Banksiana,
What gives?
The NL really are what the camera sees. If you use film you are getting an anlog picture of what is really there. I used to shoot on film and captured amazing full color-spectrum aurora on it.
Same with all of the other colors of the spectrum. Just because you can’t see it with your eye doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Tom
|
|
Someday
|
Thanks for clarifying because we have seen “auroras” but nothing like the pictures!! Now I get it.
|
|
deerfoot
|
tonecoughlin: "I caught this one at 12:30 am this morning.
"
Very nice, you were lucky to see this.
|
|
JohnGalt
|
Monday night had a pretty glorious display. The lights were not very colorful though they were very active. It was almost as if the cosmic breeze could be seen blowing across the sky in quivering clouds.
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
tumblehome: "Banksiana,
What gives?
The NL really are what the camera sees. If you use film you are getting an anlog picture of what is really there. I used to shoot on film and captured amazing full color-spectrum aurora on it.
Same with all of the other colors of the spectrum. Just because you can’t see it with your eye doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Tom"
No kidding, crabby granny ??
Capturing the Aurora is pretty simple. Much easier than distant galaxies, nebula, etc. Even on the microscopc level, germs, viruses, cells, etc.
|
|
Samsquatch
|
I'm envious of you all.
Apparently the Aurora was visible in a limtited area of my state but was not obvious, more like a tint to clouds. Recent Aurora activity is fueling my desire to see BWCA in the winter.
|
|
JD
|
This really went off the deep end quickly.
Your eyes cannot perceive colors with the same saturation as a camera sensor, especially in the case of long exposures. You will never, ever see green and purple like in Tone's photo, with your own eyes. Not even close. That is what is being said here. No one is debating that the camera can't see it... it clearly can, based on Tone's photo.
You might see some green during strong aurora, but our eyes are very insensitive to short wavelengths like purple, and those wavelengths are also the most scattered which is why sunlight appears more red as the sun gets low on the horizon - because the white light is scattered and the only wavelengths left for us to see are the long ones like red and orange. Cameras get an advantage here as well, but when viewing/photographing aurora at 10-30 degrees of altitude, there is a fair amount of scatter involved, and you'd be very lucky to see any purple with your own eyes.
Sure, Tone didn't actually _see_ what his camera captured, but it was just an expression - "you were lucky to see that!" - what should they have said instead? "Your camera was lucky to see that"? Even if what is seen with the eye is less impressive, surely it's more impressive than clouds or light pollution completely masking any aurora at all, no? Consider that many didn't get to witness any aurora at all, so the "lucky to see that" statement was in good faith. I don't know why an argument needed to start over it.
|
|
SaganagaJoe
|
Banksiana: "deerfoot: "tonecoughlin: "I caught this one at 12:30 am this morning.
"
Very nice, you were lucky to see this."
Well the camera "saw" this. What shows up in long digital exposure is not gifted to the human eye."
Great pic no matter what way you slice it, and great lights too man!
Joe
|
|
ducks
|
Jackfish: "Hey Tuscarora Borealis, have you had any Aurora sightings? :)"
LOL. I love it.
|
|
SaganagaJoe
|
Long exposure shot over the lake at our family cabin in Webster, Wisconsin. Not much color to the naked eye, but very active and incredible.
|
|
Frenchy19
|
My first grandchild, Aurora, arrived on June 14, and I have been blessed to observe her on a pretty regular basis since then!
|
|
tonecoughlin
|
Frenchy19: "My first grandchild, Aurora, arrived on June 14, and I have been blessed to observe her on a pretty regular basis since then! "
Lucky guy!
|
|
tumblehome
|
Frenchy19: "My first grandchild, Aurora, arrived on June 14, and I have been blessed to observe her on a pretty regular basis since then! "
Now there is something I can really see! Great name. Cute little baby.
Tom
|