• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Northern Lights

Steve Fines

New member
Hello,

Here are two recent ones. Thanks for looking - constructive comments appreciated.

#1. On this one I liked the appearance of the lights as a flame above the tree. Also I thought the big dipper added a recognizable touch to the sky.

Fines_20061102_0050.jpg



#2. This one was the exposure challenge - northern lights with a full moon in the shot. I did an hdr series thinking that I would include the moon looking like the moon and not a blown out spot, but when I processed them it just stuck out like a sore thumb.

I''d appreciate criticisms about a) the appearance of the moon and b) if the right side of the image is too dark - I could put a slight gradient on it to even things out.

Fines_20061102_0047-Edit_vv15_web.jpg
 

Tim Smith

New member
I think these are both wonderful. If I had to choose between them I would say the first would be my favorite by a slim margin. The moon in the second one is hard not to look at and so steals a tiny bit from the lights. As they say in here in Maine... Wicked Nice!

How did you manage to avoid having the stars show the rotational movement and appear as dots instead of lines?
 

Aaron Strasburg

New member
While they're both great, my vote is for the first. The aurora is so much more vivid and I really like the blue-black gradient from bottom to top in the sky.

I do like the second as well. I don't think a horizontal gradient is needed. The gradient that's there seems natural given the thin clouds. It might look unnatural without it, assuming that's your goal.

I've had similar problems with PSCS2 Merge to HDR. I had a series of Grand Coulee Dam (one of the generator stations actually) with lights that shine up on the face of the dam. If I included the longer exposures to allow the hill behind to become visible then the lights blew out. I thought the whole purpose was to prevent that, so I was disappointed. I'd love to hear if we're doing something wrong here or if that's just the nature of the beast.

Aaron
 

Steve Fines

New member
Tim Smith said:
How did you manage to avoid having the stars show the rotational movement and appear as dots instead of lines?

Bump the iso to lower the exposure time. These were about 25 seconds, which makes the stars pretty much as dots. The camera was the 1dsm2 which has very low noise at iso 400 and essentially none after a run through neat image.

Aaron Strasburg said:
I've had similar problems with PSCS2 Merge to HDR. I had a series of Grand Coulee Dam (one of the generator stations actually) with lights that shine up on the face of the dam. If I included the longer exposures to allow the hill behind to become visible then the lights blew out. I thought the whole purpose was to prevent that, so I was disappointed. I'd love to hear if we're doing something wrong here or if that's just the nature of the beast.

Aaron - I think you'd like the Tone Mapping feature of Photomatrix. I've found it much easier to use than the HDR and subsequent (and necessary) manual curves adjustment in PSCS2's HDR.

With this image I could get the moon so it wasn't blown out, but it just looked fake - like it was cut and pasted in, as I think our minds know that a photo or a scene just isn't supposed to look like that.

The more I look at them I, as well, prefer the first. I wanted the second to work as I think having the full moon with the lights is a more unique shot, but my efforts this time just didn't quite pull it off.
 

Don Ferguson Jr.

Well-known member
Steve ,very nice work I bet it was awesome to see in real life and you nicely captured the moment .I like the flame and the big dipper in the first but I like the blurred moon too.
You said you use Photomatix .Do you use it standalone or with PSCS2 ?
If I bought Photomatix it would work good without PSC2 right ? I have PSE3 so I know it would not work with it.
Regards
Don
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Steve,

Wonderful shots and creative too!

Could you describe a little on where and how you came to take the pictures and what are the parameters in predictability, timing, duration, intensity, change in shape. Are these in the USA even?

Asher
 

Joe Russo

New member
Steve,

Excellent photographs. I have to give my favorite vote to #1 for a couple of reasons. First I like the repetition of shapes between the tree and the aurora. Second I like the saturation of colors in the first image better than those in the second.

Although the moon makes for an interesting object in the second image, I find it too distracting as it tends to command more of my attention and doesn't let me enjoy the rest of the photograph.

Like Asher I'd like to know a little more of the background on these images. Please share with us.

Thanks
 

Steve Fines

New member
Asher Kelman said:
Steve,
Could you describe a little on where and how you came to take the pictures and what are the parameters in predictability, timing, duration, intensity, change in shape. Are these in the USA even?

Asher


Hello,

Some thoughts. First of all, while I like to see Northern Lights and have photographed them quite a few times, I'm just your average joe photographer, so if others here are more knowledgable or I state something incorrectly please feel free to post corrections.

I like to watch spaceweather.com for solar flare activity. No guarantee of good auroras, but it will surely help your odds. In general they are at the highest levels around the spring and autumn equinox, but again this is highly variable.

Aperture can be wide open, focused at infinity unless you have a very well lit foregound which will need to be clearly in focus. In general all the issues of sharpness and resolution incurred with landscape photography are much less important as the focus of the image is a fast moving blob of light and won't be sharp whatever one does. That being said, just as with any good landscape photography there must be attention to all elements of the picture, and so some type of interesting foreground is needed. With this picture I was in the middle of nowhere and didn't have much to choose from, but "saw" a flame coming from the tree and so tried to make something of that. But a picture of just the lights won't fly. My best images are on a still lake where there is some reflection of the lights on the water, although silhouettes work well too.

When they are really going I like have an exposure in the 10-30 sec range. If there is some form or shape that you want to capture it likely will be gone or very different in 30 sec, hence the "hurry". With today's low noise digital sensors, this makes going to iso 400 or 800 very reasonable if needed.

The lights might last 5 minutes or all night. It might stay clear or a cloud bank might roll in - so no telling as far as duration.

The ions interacting with CO2 give more of a greenish light, and I think it is NO2 which gives the bluer lights, but I'm not positive about this.

Tripod, MLU, cable release of course.

It is often very cold when shooting these - bring along extra batteries and keep them close to your body. Also remember that a cold camera will fog up when brought back into a warm place. If you are using a car to change locations during a light show keep the windows open. Put the camera / lens, etc. in a zip lock bag when you come back in and let it warm up for a while (I just wait until it feels room temp through the bag.) Ziplock makes huge zip lock bags - enough to hold a 1 series body with a 500/4 IS - I use these.

While I usually auroras in northern Minnesota, this picture was taken in northern Manitoba, as a camp in the middle of nowhere.

Hope that's useful - feel free to ask other details if I've left something out.
 
Steve Fines said:
I like to watch spaceweather.com for solar flare activity. No guarantee of good auroras, but it will surely help your odds. In general they are at the highest levels around the spring and autumn equinox, but again this is highly variable.

"HKlthpPp!!! Bugger THAT!"
- Foul 'ol Ron
(If you do not read Terry Pratchett, then please just ignore this unquote as it was meant to be funny to those who know. And if you have not read Terry Pratchett, do you lack a funny bone or are you stuck in the century of the fruitbat. <silly smile>).
Forget spaceweather.com and go for the real thing. I have no idea if they do outside North America, but those semiserious (I have yet to see one) like me can got to:

http://www.aurorachasers.com/Adec/Subscribe/index_html

and sign up and get emails sent when solar conditions are ripe for auroras (I tend to see the emails, look outside at the clouds, and then move on). For the serious shooter you can have them send the emails to your cell phone.

After all, why look it up when you can be notified?

Steve Fines said:
That being said, just as with any good landscape photography there must be attention to all elements of the picture, and so some type of interesting foreground is needed. With this picture I was in the middle of nowhere and didn't have much to choose from, but "saw" a flame coming from the tree and so tried to make something of that. But a picture of just the lights won't fly.

Hi Steve,

Outside jokes (jokes based on novels are not inside jokes) and simpler technical methods aside I really like the flames over the tree. I like the other composition better but the blown out moon detracts from the overall impression. But I like both regardless (praise from a constructive critic is double edged). <smile>

Steve Fines said:
It is often very cold when shooting these - bring along extra batteries and keep them close to your body.

As for this, the mountaineering solution may be best. External battery packs. The serious mountaineering headlamps take 4 C cell batteries. The battery pack is at the end os a 2' (0,6 m) cord so that you can have the battery pack in an inside pocket of your jacket keeping it close to body temperatue and prolonging battery life. A long cord on an external camera power pack would solve this too.

enjoy,

Sean (who has not been in below 0 deg. C temps in years and is more than okay with that.)
 

StuartRae

New member
If I bought Photomatix it would work good without PSC2 right ? I have PSE3 so I know it would not work with it.

Hi Don,

The Photomatix plugin works just fine with PSE3, as do all PS plugins - or at least all the ones I've tried. It's actions where PSE3 falls down.

For tone mapping you may also like to have a look at Shadow Illuminator from Intrigue Technologies. I tried Photomatix but didn't buy it because it sometimes really screws up colours, especially blue sky which it tends to turn grey.

Regards,

Stuart

--------------------------

Edit:

I've just had another look at these plugins, and although I still don't like the sky colour of Photomatix, it does do a better job of cloud detail. Have a look here and decide for yourself.
 
Last edited:

David Robertson

New member
What fantastic images Steve! I too like the first best. I think if I had been taking it I would have placed the tree in the right corner to balance the flame (I have difficulty thinking conceptually, so flame above a tree does not work for me). That said, this image is one that I wish I could have taken.

Thanks for all the extra info - hopefully, one day I'll be able to put it to good use. The Northern Lights do not seem to appear that often in Scotland and I have yet to see them.

Thanks for posting.

Dave

PS. Sean - thanks for the Aurorachasers link.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Fascinating! Our overhead Kpindex is 9.0 I'll try to scout a place nort without city lights,

Hard in S, California where there are some 11-13 million people living within 20 miles of the center of Los Angeles, light contamination is everywhere!

I'd love to know where is clear!

Asher
 

Jörgen Nyberg

New member
Here´s another link for keepin track of auroras: SEC
0-0.1 meens barely visible to the naked eye, could work with long exposure.
0.1-1.0 looks nice but not overwhelming, medium long exposure.
1.0-10 the sky is burnin ;-) bright enough for shorter exposures.
Here´s one example when SEC showed around 0.8, 25 sec exposure (almost full moon):

displayimage.php


I would really like to get the chance to try this more often, it´s hard capturing the "ahhhww" of auroras on pictures.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Great pic Jörgen! I clicked through to get it.

Image doesn't load in your post for me. If you can end the url with .jpg then I think the link might work.

Asher
 

Jörgen Nyberg

New member
I know it won´t load, am using coppermine on my site, and it´s all database driven. But I think I know how to insert, so lets try :

CRW_4899-01.jpg


BTW taken with the 50/1.8
 
Top