Any Northern Lights Pics from a Cruise? (May 10-11, 2024)

[CCAubs]

Hearing the Northern Lights were spectacular last night in Alaska (and might be again tonight!). Would love to see pics if anyone was able to snap some from last night (or tonight) from a cruise!! 🤩

Edited May 11 by CCAubs
Posted too soon

[mahdnc]

We drove up to Madison, Wisconsin to escape the bright city lights of Chicago where we live.  The aurora was quite visible on Friday night--it basically covered the whole sky including overhead.  There was nothing to see on Saturday night despite clear skies.  We drove home today but I will take a peek tonight to see if there is anything out there.

 

Here are some photos that I took on Friday night and very early Saturday morning.  They were all taken with a 16 mm wide angle lens with a full frame DSLR camera.  These were taken from the same spot on the south shore of Lake Mendota.  The constellation Leo was shining through the aurora in each of he photos (the stars are more conspicuous when you click/tap on them to see a larger photo).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This photo was taken from the parking lot and it is looking at the sky opposite from where the above photos were taken.  If you tap/click on the photo, the Big Dipper is easily seen above the trees:

 

 

These two photos were taken from looking straight up.  The view was surreal. 

 

 

 

I can only imagine how awesome the view must have been from Alaska!

Edited May 13 by mahdnc

[CCAubs]

13 hours ago, mahdnc said:

We drove up to Madison, Wisconsin to escape the bright city lights of Chicago where we live.  The aurora was quite visible on Friday night--it basically covered the whole sky including overhead.  There was nothing to see on Saturday night despite clear skies.  We drove home today but I will take a peek tonight to see if there is anything out there.

 

Here are some photos that I took on Friday night and very early Saturday morning.  They were all taken with a 16 mm wide angle lens with a full frame DSLR camera.  These were taken from the same spot on the south shore of Lake Mendota.  The constellation Leo was shining through the aurora in each of he photos (the stars are more conspicuous when you click/tap on them to see a larger photo).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This photo was taken from the parking lot and it is looking at the sky opposite from where the above photos were taken.  If you tap/click on the photo, the Big Dipper is easily seen above the trees:

 

 

These two photos were taken from looking straight up.  The view was surreal. 

 

 

 

I can only imagine how awesome the view must have been from Alaska!

 

These photos are INCREDIBLE! Thank you so much for sharing!

 

 

[Hezu]

On 5/13/2024 at 4:34 AM, mahdnc said:

I can only imagine how awesome the view must have been from Alaska!

Actually, in more northern latitudes like Alaska (and Finland, where I live), the short nights (or lack of night in the northern most areas where midnight sun season has already begun) make it quite hard to photograph northern lights this time of year. I did still managed to snap few decent aurora shots on Saturday-Sunday night, although Friday-Saturday night was a miss for me as my chosen location at Lake Saimaa was cloud covered (and strong cold northernly winds would have made it miserable to stand on a lake shore doing photography), although it is quite good location for astrophotography as there isn't much light pollution. Aurora photography is definately much easier other times of year when there is longer and darker nights.

 

[mahdnc]

8 minutes ago, Hezu said:

Actually, in more northern latitudes like Alaska (and Finland, where I live), the short nights (or lack of night in the northern most areas where midnight sun season has already begun) make it quite hard to photograph northern lights this time of year. I did still managed to snap few decent aurora shots on Saturday-Sunday night, although Friday-Saturday night was a miss for me as my chosen location at Lake Saimaa was cloud covered (and strong cold northernly winds would have made it miserable to stand on a lake shore doing photography), although it is quite good location for astrophotography as there isn't much light pollution. Aurora photography is definately much easier other times of year when there is longer and darker nights.

 

 

Thank you for that--you make very good points.  Sorry to hear Fri/Sat was a washout though.

[mahdnc]

I had to research what the bottom (last) two photos were that I posted because although it was an aurora, I had never seen it shaped like that and it was over my head.

 

Evidently what I saw is called an aurora corona and according to this website, it is "widely considered to be the most impressive type of aurora".  I guess I would agree.

[CCAubs]

20 hours ago, Hezu said:

Actually, in more northern latitudes like Alaska (and Finland, where I live), the short nights (or lack of night in the northern most areas where midnight sun season has already begun) make it quite hard to photograph northern lights this time of year. I did still managed to snap few decent aurora shots on Saturday-Sunday night, although Friday-Saturday night was a miss for me as my chosen location at Lake Saimaa was cloud covered (and strong cold northernly winds would have made it miserable to stand on a lake shore doing photography), although it is quite good location for astrophotography as there isn't much light pollution. Aurora photography is definately much easier other times of year when there is longer and darker nights.

 

 

Ah, that's a great point. I didn't even think of that!

[Firehunter]

On 5/12/2024 at 8:34 PM, mahdnc said:

We drove up to Madison, Wisconsin to escape the bright city lights of Chicago where we live.  The aurora was quite visible on Friday night--it basically covered the whole sky including overhead.  There was nothing to see on Saturday night despite clear skies.  We drove home today but I will take a peek tonight to see if there is anything out there.

 

Here are some photos that I took on Friday night and very early Saturday morning.  They were all taken with a 16 mm wide angle lens with a full frame DSLR camera.  These were taken from the same spot on the south shore of Lake Mendota.  The constellation Leo was shining through the aurora in each of he photos (the stars are more conspicuous when you click/tap on them to see a larger photo).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This photo was taken from the parking lot and it is looking at the sky opposite from where the above photos were taken.  If you tap/click on the photo, the Big Dipper is easily seen above the trees:

 

 

These two photos were taken from looking straight up.  The view was surreal. 

 

 

 

I can only imagine how awesome the view must have been from Alaska!

WOW! Beautiful! Thank you for sharing. How did seeing them with the naked eye compare with your photos? I'd love to see them sometime, but I also want to know what to expect. 

[mahdnc]

4 hours ago, Firehunter said:

WOW! Beautiful! Thank you for sharing. How did seeing them with the naked eye compare with your photos? I'd love to see them sometime, but I also want to know what to expect. 

 

When you are photographing the aurora, you alternately marvel at what you see in the sky and then you admire what you captured on your camera's LCD screen.  Here is my naked eye vs photo comparison and explanation.

 

1. Brightness.  The aurora was definitely much dimmer to the naked eye.  Looked like a moon lit cloud at best.

 

2. Colors.  The aurora colors were dull and muted to the naked eye.  You could make out the colors with your eye, but the colors in the photos are a lot more vibrant.  To me the aurora looked gray-ish with light shades of red and green.  My wife and I are in our 60's and there were 6-10 students from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) campus with us at any one time.  When I was listening to them, it seemed like they could pick out the colors more readily than my wife and I could thereby proving that not only is youth wasted on the young, but so is eyesight.

 

3. Shape.  The aurora definitely looked more diffuse to my eyes however I could make out the general shapes but I could not see the immediate changing of shape (noticed it over time) or any shimmering.  When I rolled down my car window in a neighborhood street to get my first look (my eyes were not very dark adapted), you could see the aurora hanging down from the sky like a curtain.  However the photos show the overall shape much better as well as the shapes of the colors within the aurora.  One memorable view was looking directly up above me in a brightly lit parking lot at what I later learned to be an aurora corona (my last two photos in my post).  While the camera definitely shows it better, with your eyes you could easily make out something--gray--that was unworldly, ghastly, and surreal.  It looked like some kind of gigantic mythical bird was forming out of the sky above and it was about to come for me (in a bad way).

 

4. Size/Expanse.  Although the light gathering ability of the camera sensor reveals "more" aurora, what was unmistakable to the naked eye that night was the sheer expanse, wide coverage, large scale, and humongous size of the entire aurora display--it covered much of the whole sky in all directions.  It was as memorable as it was amazing--something your eye could take in but the camera failed to adequately capture.

 

5. Stars.  It is much more evident in the photos, but it was impressive for me to see with my own eyes how the stars shine through the aurora undimmed--something that makes it unmistakably different than a cloud.

 

David

Edited May 21 by mahdnc

[seeonlydaylight]

Wow, these are great shots! 

[Firehunter]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:13 PM, mahdnc said:

 

When you are photographing the aurora, you alternately marvel at what you see in the sky and then you admire what you captured on your camera's LCD screen.  Here is my naked eye vs photo comparison and explanation.

 

1. Brightness.  The aurora was definitely much dimmer to the naked eye.  Looked like a moon lit cloud at best.

 

2. Colors.  The aurora colors were dull and muted to the naked eye.  You could make out the colors with your eye, but the colors in the photos are a lot more vibrant.  To me the aurora looked gray-ish with light shades of red and green.  My wife and I are in our 60's and there were 6-10 students from the University of Wisconsin (Madison) campus with us at any one time.  When I was listening to them, it seemed like they could pick out the colors more readily than my wife and I could thereby proving that not only is youth wasted on the young, but so is eyesight.

 

3. Shape.  The aurora definitely looked more diffuse to my eyes however I could make out the general shapes but I could not see the immediate changing of shape (noticed it over time) or any shimmering.  When I rolled down my car window in a neighborhood street to get my first look (my eyes were not very dark adapted), you could see the aurora hanging down from the sky like a curtain.  However the photos show the overall shape much better as well as the shapes of the colors within the aurora.  One memorable view was looking directly up above me in a brightly lit parking lot at what I later learned to be an aurora corona (my last two photos in my post).  While the camera definitely shows it better, with your eyes you could easily make out something--gray--that was unworldly, ghastly, and surreal.  It looked like some kind of gigantic mythical bird was forming out of the sky above and it was about to come for me (in a bad way).

 

4. Size/Expanse.  Although the light gathering ability of the camera sensor reveals "more" aurora, what was unmistakable to the naked eye that night was the sheer expanse, wide coverage, large scale, and humongous size of the entire aurora display--it covered much of the whole sky in all directions.  It was as memorable as it was amazing--something your eye could take in but the camera failed to adequately capture.

 

5. Stars.  It is much more evident in the photos, but it was impressive for me to see with my own eyes how the stars shine through the aurora undimmed--something that makes it unmistakably different than a cloud.

 

David

Wow David, thank you so much for the thorough fantastic explanation about naked eye viewing vs photo!

 

I will definitely try to catch them sometime. We may get lucky this weekend in Seattle before our cruise. Though we won't have a car to get out of the city light pollution we'll still try from our hotel if they occur.

 

I'll have a Sony a6400 and Samyang 12mm f/2.0 manual focus. Any recommendations on settings?

 

And the reason why my question, a few years ago in the dark mountain skies of Wyoming we tried to catch the milky way. We were disappointed in the clouds that came in and later after reading more about photographing the milky way, we realized that those clouds were the milky way. 

[mahdnc]

1 hour ago, Firehunter said:

Wow David, thank you so much for the thorough fantastic explanation about naked eye viewing vs photo!

 

I will definitely try to catch them sometime. We may get lucky this weekend in Seattle before our cruise. Though we won't have a car to get out of the city light pollution we'll still try from our hotel if they occur.

 

I'll have a Sony a6400 and Samyang 12mm f/2.0 manual focus. Any recommendations on settings?

 

And the reason why my question, a few years ago in the dark mountain skies of Wyoming we tried to catch the milky way. We were disappointed in the clouds that came in and later after reading more about photographing the milky way, we realized that those clouds were the milky way. 

 

Thank you.  

 

Your a6400 and 12 mm lens will work great.  So you want to make sure to set your manual lens to infinity, f/4, and at 12 mm.  Just make sure you use a tripod as well as a remote shutter release (or the shutter self timer) to eliminate vibrations from touching the shutter button.  Make sure camera is set to manual with any in-body stabilization turned off.  If your lens has vibration reduction, turn that off, too.

 

I used a 16-35 mm wide angle zoom lens for all of the aurora photos I posed.  The lens was set to 16 mm (on a full frame camera) and an f/ ratio of 4 (f/4) which was the widest possible opening.  My ISO was set between 400-2000 but most of my shots were done at 1600 ISO.  Shutter speed was usually 1.6 seconds.  I tried to keep the shutter speed relatively short because the aurora was "moving" or changing shape fairly quickly.

 

16 mm, 1600 ISO, f/4, 1.6 sec 

 

With your f/2 lens this means for the above photo you could have dropped the ISO to 800 or halved the shutter speed to 0.8 sec.  Of course the settings I gave you were based on my situation.  Yours could be different.  Either way you will want to vary your settings after you have found your sweet spot (sort of like bracketing). Your bracketing should include changes in ISO setting.  Photo editing software will help improve your photos (e.g. brighten, noise reduction, etc).

 

Stay out as long as you can tolerate when you take your photos because--as you can see from my photos--the aurora shape, brightness, and color keeps changing.  You just won't know which are your photos will look the best until you get home and look at them on a large screen.

 

The large sunspot system responsible for creating the fantastic aurora display earlier this month is now rotating back into view of the earth.  There is hope that there will be enough activity to generate a repeat show.  We will see.  

Edited May 30 by mahdnc