Edit

To provide some context given the messages below. I was a professional photographer, and understand that getting a good photo is a skill. Exposure time, timing, location, and many other factors come into play when capturing a great image.

Seeing the aurora was a fantastic experience. The purpose of this post is to help reduce FOMO of those who could not see it. Many people who don’t know these things will imagine dancing lights in the sky of brilliance, and will be saddened by what they missed. While they did miss something, it’s important for them to know exactly what they missed.

Edit2 I should also note this is why I enjoy when photographers post gear, conditions, and settings alongside results. It tells viewers what was real.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1277 months ago

    It’s not an Instagram filter, it’s exposure time. I set my camera on night mode and it took pictures during 4-10 seconds and the results were incredible

    But even with the naked eye the lights were incredible last night

    We arrived to the park before sunset and the biggest display was right when it became dark enough and a lot of people started arriving 2-3 hours later after watching pictures of other people and they were complaining that it didn’t look as magical as the pictures. Lots of those people who arrived late were also using flashlights and just taking pictures of using their phones, not letting their eyes get used to the dark conditions or even really looking at the sky

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      317 months ago

      This. Thank you for explaining it correctly, I’ve seen sooo many people saying it’s just filters. Of course, there will almost always be some colour correction but the way a camera a camera can capture the light is different to the naked eye.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        87 months ago

        Camera almost never can reproduce the image as our eyes see it. The dynamic range for example is vastly superior on eyes compared to a camera meaning that in some cases an HDR photo may infact more closely resemble the reality despite looking unnatural compared to a non-HDR photo.

        • fmstratOP
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          While true, this is a bit misleading. While rhe eye does have a higher dynamic range than a standard camera lens and sensor, that is only true when there is enough light. In the dark, the situation is reversed, as the human eye has difficulty taking advantage of that range.

      • fmstratOP
        link
        fedilink
        57 months ago

        See edit and response above, thank you for the feedback.

    • fmstratOP
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I provided an edit above, as you make a good point. I was frustrated with those uninformed with flashes, too, and realized that the inverse could be true, which is why I made this post. Here is the edit for expediency:

      Edit

      To provide some context given the messages below. I was a professional photographer, and understand that getting a good photo is a skill. Exposure time, timing, location, and many other factors come into play when capturing a great image.

      Seeing the aurora was a fantastic experience. The purpose of this post is to help reduce FOMO of those who could not see it. Many people who don’t know these things will imagine dancing lights in the sky of brilliance, and will be saddened by what they missed. While they did miss something, it’s important for them to know exactly what they missed.

      Edit2 I should also note this is why I enjoy when photographers post gear, conditions, and settings alongside results. It tells viewers what was real.