This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you.

 Moderated by: chrisbet, Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next Page Last Page  
Aurora Photography   -   Page   8
North West England, at the limits?  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost



Posted: Sun Jan 3rd, 2016 16:07
 
71st Post
Judith



Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 325
Status: 
Offline
Yep, that ones better. :thumbsup:

 




Posted: Sun Jan 3rd, 2016 18:36
 
72nd Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Judith wrote:
I have 147 for you once you've done Roberts! :lol:

Didn't realise you weren't seeing it with the naked eye Robert. I do actually see it up here but it is not bright green or anything like it. Most of the time it is a greyish streak in the sky. On Hogmanay it was the brightest I've seen it and actually looked green but it was only a pale minty green. People hike up the saturation on their pics to ridiculous levels and unsuspecting onlookers think the aurora actually looks like that. It may be much greener to the naked eye when an exceptionally strong burst hits the earth or maybe it's much the greener the closer to the pole you get but I have only ever seen a pale streak. The camera exaggerates the green quite significantly. I try to edit my pics so they are reasonably realistic but to bring out the detail in the sea etc in the pic above for example, made the aurora a lot greener than it actually was.


Thanks for the comments Judith, the only way we knew the Aurora was active was a pale green glow in the sky and very occasional faint flares into the sky.

I wasn't even sure which way to point the camera, except in a general sense of course! The right hand edge of the frame is about due North. If I get another chance I will use the 20mm lens to gain better spread, I can of course crop as appropriate at home.

I took several test exposures, established 10 seconds seemed OK and set it off recording time-lapse exposures at 20 second intervals to allow for processing and saving of image to the card. The D300s seemed to take about 7 seconds to process the image before saving it and having a couple of seconds before the next exposure. I don't know if it can make exposures while it is processing and saving images... I suppose it's easy enough to try at home...

As with all these processes there is a trade off between speed and quality. I could have opened up the lens to f1.4and greatly reduced the exposure time at the expense of clarity. This time my emphasis was on good quality images and less on speed.

A shorter exposure would have been good so I could reduce the interval between exposures. As it was I had 90 exposures but 400 over the same period would have been better. I created the moving part of the video at 25% of normal frame rate, so it's a bit rough, jumpy.

Are the 147 made with the intervalometer? If so a movie is pretty easy to make. If you have Lightroom, export them as JPEG's into a new folder, named with sequential numbers. Then open Ps, select workspace 'Motion' and then 'File'>Open, select the first image of the sequence and open it, that will put all your images into the time-line. You can then export as an MPEG4 or QuickTime.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2016 02:57
 
73rd Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Judith wrote: I have 147 for you once you've done Roberts! :lol:

Didn't realise you weren't seeing it with the naked eye Robert. I do actually see it up here but it is not bright green or anything like it. Most of the time it is a greyish streak in the sky. On Hogmanay it was the brightest I've seen it and actually looked green but it was only a pale minty green. People hike up the saturation on their pics to ridiculous levels and unsuspecting onlookers think the aurora actually looks like that. It may be much greener to the naked eye when an exceptionally strong burst hits the earth or maybe it's much the greener the closer to the pole you get but I have only ever seen a pale streak. The camera exaggerates the green quite significantly. I try to edit my pics so they are reasonably realistic but to bring out the detail in the sea etc in the pic above for example, made the aurora a lot greener than it actually was.


Very interesting.  Since I have never seen the AB except in photos it is difficult to comment.  
My friend Alan Billyeald (another Nikon user) in Norway took this tremendous shot about two weeks ago.



Attachment: 12402119_675591949244216_8824766801792703786_o.jpg (Downloaded 29 times)



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2016 05:34
 
74th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Spectacular image JK, do you know what the taking details were? Camera, lens, and settings... Would be interesting to know, it seems to be a pretty wide lens, I just feel it's a tad over exposed, esp. around the church. Was there a moon, the shadows of the tree trunks seem quite distinct? Remarkable that the flare is apparently emanating from the church!

I eagerly await the next opportunity when the weather provides clear skies, the solar activity is high and the moon is minimal. We were very lucky on New Years Eve.

Currently my first check each morning is the cloud cover expected that night.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2016 05:56
 
75th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Yes it is a D3 that Alan uses.
I dont know the taking details but I can ask him.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2016 09:02
 
76th Post
jk



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: Carthew, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Posts: 6987
Status: 
Offline
Information from Alan.

ISO 1600, exposure between 4 to 8 seconds depending on strength of aurora.
Manual white balance 3000-3500K, RAW.



____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none
 




Posted: Mon Jan 4th, 2016 13:50
 
77th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
Thanks, D3... Perhaps that explains it, lovely BIG pixels to gather up the light. :-)



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Thu Jan 7th, 2016 17:30
 
78th Post
Robert



Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2012
Location: South Lakeland, UK
Posts: 4066
Status: 
Offline
This evening I went back up to my vantage point where I made the Aurora time lapse. I now have the landowners permission to get to a better but private location to make my stargazing pix better and save me walking so far carrying heavy tripod etc.

After I abandoned my attempts to make a star trails photograph, I took my iPad to the owners to show them the time-lapse video I posted on Vimeo. They were pleased to see the Aurora, as taken from their place on New Years Eve, I just wish it were a bit longer than 90 frames.



____________________
Robert.

 




Posted: Wed Jan 20th, 2016 21:42
 
79th Post
amazing50

 

Joined: Thu Apr 12th, 2012
Location: Kitchener, Ontario Canada
Posts: 571
Status: 
Offline
This is a photo taken recently by my cousin Jake Paleczny at a nature preserve in Yellowknife, which is considered in the far north by most Canadians.

The moose is not photoshopped in. Jake works on the preserve and is very knowledgeable about the wilderness.

Otherwise it would be foolhearty to get this close to the moose, which can be tempermental at times and weighs about a tonne.

Attachment: moose JakePaleczny.jpg (Downloaded 13 times)



____________________
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept ;~) Mike Grace
 




Posted: Thu Jan 21st, 2016 03:23
 
80th Post
Judith



Joined: Fri Apr 13th, 2012
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 325
Status: 
Offline
Pfft!!! Now that's just showing off, Amazing50! How are Robert and I going to beat a moose wandering into the shot?!
:rtfm:o.O:thumbs:

There was an aurora here last night. Had quite heavy cloud cover and a full moon to contend with but still managed to see it a bit through a gap in the clouds. Shame it was so cloudy as what I could see was bright. Got some shots though so will post one later.

 

Reply
1st new
This is topic ID = 1244     Current time is 13:16 Page:  First Page Previous Page  ...  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next Page Last Page    
Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography Projects > Aurora Photography Top

Users viewing this topic

Post quick reply

Go to top
Go to end
Messages
Home
Recent topics
Unread posts
Last posts
Splash

Current theme is Modern editor



A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you.


Hosted by Octarine Services

UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0735 seconds (71% database + 29% PHP). 83 queries executed.