View Full Version : Northern Lights pics????
wolf man
10-02-2010, 12:01
Guys,
whats the best way to take pics of the Northern Lights?
What sort of exposure times should I be looking at?
Any advice would be helpful
cheers
badgeringtim
10-02-2010, 12:21
This is a spankingly good question - i was up in north norway last year and while did get some snaps to remind me they dont do it justace.
Something i didnt know is that the cycle of lights goes in an 8 year fluctuation. I think now is near the 'bottom' of the curve in relation to the amount and frequency of their occurance. There are some really good websites run from a canadian university but that cover all northern activity and forecast very accurately the time locations and the intensity.
This is a spankingly good question - i was up in north norway last year and while did get some snaps to remind me they dont do it justace.
Something i didnt know is that the cycle of lights goes in an 8 year fluctuation. I think now is near the 'bottom' of the curve in relation to the amount and frequency of their occurance. There are some really good websites run from a canadian university but that cover all northern activity and forecast very accurately the time locations and the intensity.
Its actually 11 years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
Yes activities near the minimum now. I saw an article saying that its actually slightly delayed in climbing back up but can't find the link now.
hedgepig
10-02-2010, 18:20
The northern lights are a notoriously difficult subject to photograph. Google is your friend - and photography related forums.
Ohhh don't get me started.... wasted half an SD card and the pics were all poo !!
Gailainne
10-02-2010, 21:04
COOOOOOBWEB, WAAAAALAND where are you ?
A refresher on exposures would be much appreciated :D
Cheers
Stephen
Can you shoot loads of vid and then take some stills from the footage. Probably not the best quality though.
I tried on loads of exposures, closest I got was a green tinge... I was in the middle of a frozen lake, zero light pollution tripod, remote shutter release and still no joy meh :(
This is one of the circumstances where film should out perform digital. Very long exposure on a normal digital camera often leads to excessive digital noise, which looks like heavy film grain, and will reduce detail and colour rendition in the image.
Film doesn't suffer from this effect, however unlike digital you will be battling with reciprocity. Which in a nutshell means longer and longer shutter times give disproportionately less and less actual exposure.
Time to dig that old 35mm out of the cupboard?
I tried on loads of exposures, closest I got was a green tinge... I was in the middle of a frozen lake, zero light pollution tripod, remote shutter release and still no joy meh :(
Did you try cranking up the ISO to shoot shorter exposures as randomly moving lights would I expect turn to one big blur like moving water.
Depending on your camera noise can be dealt with though it doubles to exposure time.
http://www.waylandscape.co.uk/assets/images/Aurora-LH.jpg
First of all, do not rely on the screen of your camera to tell you if the exposure is correct. You will be standing in the dark, with dark adapted eyes, and the image will appear lighter than it really is.
Use the histogram function on your camera, shoot in raw and make sure the exposure is right up towards the right hand end of the histogram. The image will look too bright but can be adjusted in the raw converter.
If your images are underexposed you will get results rendered unusable by noise so better to make sure the sensor receives as much light as possible. Open your aperture right up for the lights and if necessary take a separate shot to render the foreground detail.
Exposures will vary considerably but will be several seconds in most cases. A tripod is essential, if you don't have one, put your camera away and just enjoy looking at them.
Good luck, it's a magical experience if you see them.
wolf man
12-02-2010, 10:45
Many thanks folks, all the advise will be put into use.
I hope the Canon G9 and gorilla pod combo does the trick, although will have to rest it on the rucsac to get a stable platform on which to rest the pod.
Wayland: very useful advise, many thanks; didn't think of using the histogram and overexposing the exposure. Should i dial in an exposure time, or leave it to the camera?
Its actually 11 years...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
Yes activities near the minimum now. I saw an article saying that its actually slightly delayed in climbing back up but can't find the link now.
It's actually a combination of a seven year cycle and an eleven year cycle which depend on the earth's wobble and movement around the sun.
Check out the thread on needing a real map rather than GPS.
Also, do you always take a tripod out with you or do you fudge it when you need a long exposure at dusk/dawn?
It's actually a combination of a seven year cycle and an eleven year cycle which depend on the earth's wobble and movement around the sun.
Check out the thread on needing a real map rather than GPS.
Also, do you always take a tripod out with you or do you fudge it when you need a long exposure at dusk/dawn?
Thanks for the clarification. I was just referring to the 11 cycle of sunspot activity, rather than the other factors at work, but good point.
Tripod carrying or not really depends on how important a part of your trip the photography is I suppose.
Good point! I don't get chance to go out specifically to take photos, just with my small children, and then you see something and think what a great photo it would make.
Many thanks folks, all the advise will be put into use.
I hope the Canon G9 and gorilla pod combo does the trick, although will have to rest it on the rucsac to get a stable platform on which to rest the pod.
Wayland: very useful advise, many thanks; didn't think of using the histogram and overexposing the exposure. Should i dial in an exposure time, or leave it to the camera?
If your G9 is anything like my G10 you will probably have to go manual or Shutter priority "Tv" to get long enough exposures as the Program and Aperture priority settings cop out of setting shutter speeds that cannot be hand held.
Support these fellows: http://www.dcs.lancs.ac.uk/iono/aurorawatch/
(they'll send you warnings)
Hi
Try this guys website http://foto.kskogli.no/ went on one of his trips with wife and kids and it was superb, our camera did not work, so he allowed us to use his with my memory card, kids took loads, camers setting was 10s F2 iso400 or 6s F1.8 if that means anything.
Would post one but do not know how to.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/ocean1_20100217120320.jpg
Found that one on the royal navy website today!
Whilst conducting Cold Weather Amphibious Warfare Training within the beautiful Fjords of Northern Norway, 150 miles north of the Arctic Circle, HMS Ocean's photographer was able to capture this stunning image of the Northern Lights shimmering above the Helicopter Carrier's Flight Deck.
Im currently in the process of applying to the RFA and so if successful, may hopefully find myself shipping troops and gear up to norway and get to experience a scene like that myself!
Alec
catweasel
18-02-2010, 21:47
Im currently in the process of applying to the RFA
best of luck with it if I'm successful I might see you there!
That HMS Ocean shot is amazing. Great find Alex, and good luck goodjob
Alex
jimjolli
27-02-2010, 09:33
I just returned from the Woodlore arctic course and got some lovely pics of the northern lights. Just really wish I had taken a tripod! I found I was getting good results at around 10sec exposure, f2.8 and 400asa. Just remember to try and keep your asa low, max 400asa as the noise really shows up in the blacks if you have it any higher. Obviouy try at different exposures too, but keep that asa low.
Hi all,
Just joined. Woo Hoo. Great site and nice of everyone to share all the info.
Bout 5 years ago me and my bro kipped in bivvy bags on a fell next to scafell n scafell pike in lake district n we got a cracking view of the northern lights 2 nights on the trot! :) If you get the timing of the years right you dont have to go to norway, canada etc if it's just the lights you want to see. They truely are magical.
Dave
I've never had the pleasure of seeing the Northern Lights (one day :) ) however, I have taken moon landscapes where long exposures on a high iso are an option.
The amount of noise is entirely down to the quality of the sensor, the amplification, and the processing. You will not achieve anything like as good results on a compact with a very small sensor (no matter what the pixel count) as you will with a DSLR with high spec noise reduction processing where iso 800 and 1600 (and beyond in some cases) are achievable.
BTW this quarter's EOS magazine has a good article on moonscape photography.
Cheers,
Broch
jimjolli
27-02-2010, 17:08
Broch,
I have to slightly disagree with you. Yes, having a larger sensor helps, but even if you were shooting on a digital backed Hasselblad, 800ASA upwards is not good, you WILL see noise. At these higher ASAs you also loose a lot of crispness in the blacks, and latitude. Yes, of course you can shoot at 800, 1600 or even 3200 but the quality of your photos will be far less then at anything up to 400ASA, especially with something as fine as the northern lights.
I agree if you are shooting c/ups of the moon, then you obviously can't have such a long exposures as the moon will be moving through your shot and be blurry, and therefore the only way too get the exposure needed is with a very fast lens or a fast ASA. Also within the surface of the moon the noise won't be so visible as it would be if shooting the northern lights in a night sky, but it is most definitely still there.
As I said, never tried. I wasn't proposing to use the higher ISO settings for NL photos (sorry if it sounded like that) I was just pointing out there is a huge difference in noise reduction quality between different cameras and noise reduction processing. Whether it's good enough is another matter.
By moon landscapes I mean landscapes shot in moonlight (sorry, probably should be called moonlit landscapes) not shots of the moon :)
Cheers,
Broch
jimjolli
27-02-2010, 17:42
Moonlit landscapes, sounds interesting. Would love to see the kind of results you get. I guess it should really look like daylight, as all the moon is doing is bouncing the sunlight? None of this mythical blue moonlight you see in badly lit films and tv?
Moonlit landscapes, sounds interesting. Would love to see the kind of results you get. I guess it should really look like daylight, as all the moon is doing is bouncing the sunlight? None of this mythical blue moonlight you see in badly lit films and tv?
Exactly; it's only the human eye that can't see the colour - it's still there. I'll pull a couple together and put them up on another thread over the next couple of days.
Cheers,
Broch
Broch,
I have to slightly disagree with you. Yes, having a larger sensor helps, but even if you were shooting on a digital backed Hasselblad, 800ASA upwards is not good, you WILL see noise. At these higher ASAs you also loose a lot of crispness in the blacks, and latitude. Yes, of course you can shoot at 800, 1600 or even 3200 but the quality of your photos will be far less then at anything up to 400ASA, especially with something as fine as the northern lights.
I agree if you are shooting c/ups of the moon, then you obviously can't have such a long exposures as the moon will be moving through your shot and be blurry, and therefore the only way too get the exposure needed is with a very fast lens or a fast ASA. Also within the surface of the moon the noise won't be so visible as it would be if shooting the northern lights in a night sky, but it is most definitely still there.
things are getting much better though, i regularly shoot at iso 1000+ with my nikon d90 and the results are actually pretty damn good and most of the noise is effectivley removed by the in-camera processing and on photoshop (if you can be bothered with that)
I would rather a noisy image than no image at all
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/upload/img/ocean1_20100217120320.jpg
Found that one on the royal navy website today!
Im currently in the process of applying to the RFA and so if successful, may hopefully find myself shipping troops and gear up to norway and get to experience a scene like that myself!
Alec
I have had a similar picture to this as my screen saver for years I took it when was a marine Engineer Mechanic serving on H.M.S Ocean in feb 2006 it was the ships first trip to arctic conditions.
This is when I was in norway I tried to take a photo of the northen lights but this is one is from my mate camera thats why it's small.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4394867759_e50c1fbf7d_o.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4048/4395635150_c4e51dbdc7_b.jpg
Oooh yeah thats a good'n! The second one makes ocean look more the size of an albion class! :P
Camera some thing you have controll over/ A tripod, because you wont get much in the dark hand holding the camera,,, Start with the camera on the tripod,,, my daughter uses an inexpensive fujifilm 1500, about £100,, As a rough guide 100 asa, film speed on your camera , try 1 second then 2seconds then 3 so on,, if theres nothing on the screen up the film speed to 200 asa,, and up to 400,,,,, you should by now have an image,, it would be easier , if you told us what camera you have available to use,,,,
Kilrymont
30-04-2010, 10:14
Not an encouragement to use this as a crutch for crappy photo technique, but if anyone has noisy shots they'd like to put to some use there's a freebie utility I've used to rescue a couple of elderly shots from a PAS camera that got pretty gravelly when the ISO topped out at 400.
It's a presumably cut-down free version of a commercial product. Noiseware Community Edition. Right now I can't remember where I got it from but no doubt everybody's pal Google will reveal something if you're interested. It provides a wide set of levels of noise filtration, and is fast. Being free helps...
Filters like this can be a bit OTT and I'm sure NCE won't suit all noisy pix. But if it helps a bit with some, that's (no!) money well spent?