10/12/2024
Thursday night was a very special thing. You could actually SEE the Northern Lights with the naked eye. It was a strong enough display to see green, pink, and purple directly overhead at about 7:15, just after sunset.
I didn't have my camera ready to go yet, so I just stood there and enjoyed it. It would have taken me longer to get things ready than the display was likely to last anyway, so it wasn't worth trying. I knocked on a neighbor's door and said, "Shut your lights off and get out here!" She thought I was crazy until she shut off her lights and looked up. It was mind-blowing to see.
Reggie and I spent the next 5 hours chasing color with our cameras. We ended up at the Sandwich Boardwalk with 900 other people but didn't really see much other than clouds. We got some images, but nothing was really visible to the naked eye. From there we ended up at Chappy just in time to see an INSANE display at about 10:30 or so. The colors of green and pink were so vibrant you could almost hear them. We got sick of people and headlights really quickly, but then I remembered that this tree exists....
By the time we had the tree at Crane surrounded, I had probably taken 150 pictures, so I had my settings fairly dialed in. The images posted are a 3 shot panoramic that was stitched together in the land of unicorns and candy canes, also known as Lightroom. The images were processed identically, then the saturation was removed from one of them. Why would I remove all saturation from an image? Well, I guess so I can talk about science and reality. I have seen an endless number of threads where people are saying all these images are "fake" and don't represent the reality of what you can or cannot see. Here's the thing.... The image with the crazy colors is the realistic image. It shows the truest reality of what the Northern Lights actually look like. The image without the saturation is ALSO the truest reality of what your eyes can see while looking at the Northern Lights at 2 in the morning. Wait, what? Yes, BOTH of these images represent a 100% realistic view of the Northern Lights.
How can these both be 100% accurate? It boils down to biology really. Our eyes simply can't see colors in the dark, but cameras can. We have rods and cones in our eyes that receive light in different ways. Cones basically control how we see color, but don't really absorb much light. The rods are the light grabbers, but don't see colors at all. Our brain (this is a very basic description of a complicated thing) forms an image with the light picked up by our rods. Once it has a black and white image, it overlays the light absorbed by the cones to render a full color image. Your brain does this about 26 times a second and turns it into the movie you're watching in your brain. In low light situations, your brain basically ignores the cones because it is working so hard to get information from the rods. Does this mean you're an idiot? Well, not really... Does this mean your brain is inferior? Well, yes.... I've said this before about night photography, but your brain is like a caveman when compared to a camera. It gets so confused that you can either see, or not see the reality in front of you. It doesn't know which is which most of the time.
The first image is the REALITY of how a camera sees the Northern Lights.
The second image is the REALITY of how your human eyes and easily confused brain see them.
Now if we could all stop telling photographers that their images don't represent reality, that would be great. You just have a different view of reality because you're a pea-brained human who can't even see what he's looking at.
Aurora Borealis
Crane Wildlife, Falmouth, Ma
3 shot panoramic stitched in Lightroom
14mm
ISO 800
f/2/8
13sec