See, this image I'd criticize, even though it was published

On 10/18/2015 12:06 AM, RichA wrote:
Why? Because the exposure was too long, given an completely unrealistic rendition of the lights. Also, northern lights have very intricate detail which was wiped out in this image because the lights move and 30 seconds produced a more or less amorphous blur. IMO, it's a post-card or tourism image and not a good image of the subject itself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-56640250




I've never gotten a good view of the Northern lights as one would get in
Iceland...but from all the photos I've seen being posted on Facebook, I
have a feeling that that image was not exaggerated and the Northern
lights very likely are really that spectacular.


Maybe someone who has actually been up to Iceland can comment?

On 18/10/2015 17:07, philo wrote:
On 10/18/2015 12:06 AM, RichA wrote:
Why? Because the exposure was too long, given an completely
unrealistic rendition of the lights. Also, northern lights have very
intricate detail which was wiped out in this image because the lights
move and 30 seconds produced a more or less amorphous blur. IMO, it's
a post-card or tourism image and not a good image of the subject itself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-56640250




I've never gotten a good view of the Northern lights as one would get in
Iceland...but from all the photos I've seen being posted on Facebook, I
have a feeling that that image was not exaggerated and the Northern
lights very likely are really that spectacular.


Maybe someone who has actually been up to Iceland can comment?
===============

Philo,

There are from Northern Norway and, yes, I could have dome better with a
tripod! This was an astronomy trip with the Hurtigruten company. Very
well organised.

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...way/index.html

There is a slide show:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...0435-05-a.html

and a couple of brief DivX videos:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...2210-50-a.divx


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...2211-26-a.divx

Stills and video taken with "long exposure" to reduce the noise fail to
convey the dynamic nature of the aurora, but that in itself is variable!

However, seeing the event is a thrill in itself, and can't really be
captured photographically.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

On 10/18/2015 11:43 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 18/10/2015 17:07, philo wrote:
On 10/18/2015 12:06 AM, RichA wrote:
Why? Because the exposure was too long, given an completely
unrealistic rendition of the lights. Also, northern lights have very
intricate detail which was wiped out in this image because the lights
move and 30 seconds produced a more or less amorphous blur. IMO, it's
a post-card or tourism image and not a good image of the subject itself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-56640250




I've never gotten a good view of the Northern lights as one would get in
Iceland...but from all the photos I've seen being posted on Facebook, I
have a feeling that that image was not exaggerated and the Northern
lights very likely are really that spectacular.


Maybe someone who has actually been up to Iceland can comment?
===============

Philo,

There are from Northern Norway and, yes, I could have dome better with a
tripod! This was an astronomy trip with the Hurtigruten company. Very
well organised.

http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...way/index.html

There is a slide show:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...0435-05-a.html


and a couple of brief DivX videos:


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...2210-50-a.divx


http://www.satsignal.eu/Hols/2010/No...2211-26-a.divx

Stills and video taken with "long exposure" to reduce the noise fail to
convey the dynamic nature of the aurora, but that in itself is variable!

However, seeing the event is a thrill in itself, and can't really be
captured photographically.



Thank you.


I live in a city and at best have only had a dim view of them if I've
gone out of town a bit.

philo wrote:

On 10/18/2015 12:06 AM, RichA wrote:
Why? Because the exposure was too long, given an completely unrealistic
rendition of the lights. Also, northern lights have very intricate
detail which was wiped out in this image because the lights move and 30
seconds produced a more or less amorphous blur. IMO, it's a post-card or
tourism image and not a good image of the subject itself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-56640250




I've never gotten a good view of the Northern lights as one would get in
Iceland...but from all the photos I've seen being posted on Facebook, I
have a feeling that that image was not exaggerated and the Northern
lights very likely are really that spectacular.


Maybe someone who has actually been up to Iceland can comment?

I would have thought that Floyds view on the matter would carry some weight
seeing he is the most northerly resident of this group and has probably seen
the aurora more than anyone else.
However, to a degree I would partly agree with RichA, I took this photo in
Norway https://flic.kr/p/pFUTbd and the 30 exposure did blur some of the
finer detail and I was a little disappointed because in reality it looked
better than that. But conversely this photo https://flic.kr/p/pFXW4J was
also a 30 sec exposure and this one shows more detail.
I think the short answer is "it depends".

--
sid

On 10/18/2015 02:08 PM, sid wrote:
philo wrote:

On 10/18/2015 12:06 AM, RichA wrote:
Why? Because the exposure was too long, given an completely unrealistic
rendition of the lights. Also, northern lights have very intricate
detail which was wiped out in this image because the lights move and 30
seconds produced a more or less amorphous blur. IMO, it's a post-card or
tourism image and not a good image of the subject itself.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/threa...-post-56640250




I've never gotten a good view of the Northern lights as one would get in
Iceland...but from all the photos I've seen being posted on Facebook, I
have a feeling that that image was not exaggerated and the Northern
lights very likely are really that spectacular.


Maybe someone who has actually been up to Iceland can comment?

I would have thought that Floyds view on the matter would carry some weight
seeing he is the most northerly resident of this group and has probably seen
the aurora more than anyone else.
However, to a degree I would partly agree with RichA, I took this photo in
Norway https://flic.kr/p/pFUTbd and the 30 exposure did blur some of the
finer detail and I was a little disappointed because in reality it looked
better than that. But conversely this photo https://flic.kr/p/pFXW4J was
also a 30 sec exposure and this one shows more detail.
I think the short answer is "it depends".





One thing for sure...
it has to be amazingly beautiful!