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

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

Are you daft? (Okay, no need to answer that; just
reading the above, or almost anything else you ever
post, tells all.)

Suffice to say you can't even give an accurate
description of Aurora. "Unrealistic" my ass. The
"intricate detail" comment says you've been watching too
much television and not enough Aurora! Many many times,
more often than not, there is almost no detail at all,
much less "intricate detail".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)