Re: Re: Northern Lights
- Original Message - From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Do you ever find that the LX overexposes by trying to lighten up all > that dark sky? > That's my experience. I have used a dialled-in -1,5 stop compensation. Jostein
RE: Re: Northern Lights
Hi, Maybe a little when and if the aurora is very faint or small. But I guess that usually the reciprocal failure of the film compensates for this, because I've gotten fantastic results. With faint aurora I usually shoot manual as well. Antti-Pekka --- Antti-Pekka Virjonen Computec Oy, Turku Finland Gsm: +358-500-789 753 www.computec.fi * www.estera.fi > -Original Message- > From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Northern Lights > > Do you ever find that the LX overexposes by trying to lighten up > all > that dark sky? > > Chris > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:19:42 +0200, Antti-Pekka Virjonen > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > You're not going to get any reading with a normal > > spotmeter... unless the Aurora is extremely bright > > (but then you'll be able to measure with your camera meter as > well). > > This may happen only about once in 25 years or so... ;-) > > > > The only camera which I know to work on automatic with Aurora > > is the LX (which btw is the best camera on the planet for > > photographing astronomical phenomenon). I just attach a suitable > > lens (usually SMC 15/3.5) to my LX with a winder and then lock > the > > cable release on auto. The camera will shoot continuously on > itself > > and I can just watch the play. My standard film is the Kodak > > Ektachrome P1600 shot at 1600. Brighter ones expose well with > > the E200 (which you can push as well to 400 or 800). It also > > helps to have more than one LX.
Re: Re: Northern Lights
Do you ever find that the LX overexposes by trying to lighten up all that dark sky? Chris On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:19:42 +0200, Antti-Pekka Virjonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > You're not going to get any reading with a normal > spotmeter... unless the Aurora is extremely bright > (but then you'll be able to measure with your camera meter as well). > This may happen only about once in 25 years or so... ;-) > > The only camera which I know to work on automatic with Aurora > is the LX (which btw is the best camera on the planet for > photographing astronomical phenomenon). I just attach a suitable > lens (usually SMC 15/3.5) to my LX with a winder and then lock the > cable release on auto. The camera will shoot continuously on itself > and I can just watch the play. My standard film is the Kodak > Ektachrome P1600 shot at 1600. Brighter ones expose well with > the E200 (which you can push as well to 400 or 800). It also > helps to have more than one LX.
RE: Re: Northern Lights
Hi, You're not going to get any reading with a normal spotmeter... unless the Aurora is extremely bright (but then you'll be able to measure with your camera meter as well). This may happen only about once in 25 years or so... ;-) The only camera which I know to work on automatic with Aurora is the LX (which btw is the best camera on the planet for photographing astronomical phenomenon). I just attach a suitable lens (usually SMC 15/3.5) to my LX with a winder and then lock the cable release on auto. The camera will shoot continuously on itself and I can just watch the play. My standard film is the Kodak Ektachrome P1600 shot at 1600. Brighter ones expose well with the E200 (which you can push as well to 400 or 800). It also helps to have more than one LX. With no LX, just shoot continuously, bracket a lot, try to "guess" the correct exposure time by looking at the aurora with your naked eye. Make notes... and compare them to your results. Eventually you'll have a human exposure meter :-). It's not that hard to estimate the brightness of the aurora display after you've seen and photographed a couple. It helps too if you pre-choose your shooting point and go there on a starry night and take pictures with different exposure times. This way you'll have a clue how long you can expose without overexposure in the selected shooting spot. This helps prevent overexposure when shooting faint aurora... Don't take all the time photographing them. The aurora is best enjoyed right on the spot with your own eyes while almost freezing to death ;-). Antti-Pekka --- Antti-Pekka Virjonen Computec Oy, Turku Finland Gsm: +358-500-789 753 www.computec.fi * www.estera.fi > -Original Message- > From: michal mesko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:31 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re: Northern Lights > > Thanks for the tips guys! Looks like I will have to borrow a > spotmeter to get a starting point and bracket a lot from there. > > Jostein, those are absolutely awesome pictures of aurora. The rest > of the site is very nice, too. Especially the MF photography. > > Holding my breath for the next aurora, > > Mike > > > --- Forwarded message --- > > Forwarded by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Forwarded date: 2004-11-10 19:28:31 > > > > Michal, > > > > The aurora is very variable. > > I've only had two good shoots with it, and on > > both occations, the LX > > metering saved my day, or night if you like. > > I've got the best from both shoots on my > > website, and as you'll see, > > the exposure times varied a lot. One night, > > the exposures were down to > > 40 seconds at f/2.8 on ISO 100. The other > > night I used 4 minutes at > > f/4 on ISO 400. > > > > If you're interested in my pics, you can find > > them at http://oksne.net > > > > Cheers, > > Jostein > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "michal mesko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:55 PM > > Subject: Northern Lights > > > > > > > Hello List, > > > > > > just saw the first aurora in my life. It was > > very pretty, but at > > least as much educative. Here are the lessons > > learned: > > > > > > I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm > > since I came to Finland, > > checking the monitoring site > > (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) > > almost daily. As the > > gray-steel skies started to break up at the > > sunset today, I rushed to > > the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of > > the films generally > > recommended for aurora photography. > > > > > > Being young and naive, I set out to > > photograph the lights right > > after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora > > would dance over the > > sky for the whole night, only to disappear > > with the first rays of the > > dawn. :) After more than two hours of > > stumbling through the scary dark > > forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed > > up and went home. Of > > course an hour later, the lights did appear. > > Rushing to the lake > > again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play > > with and went looking for > > The Perfect Composition. By the time I found > > it, the sky turned dark > > again. > > > > > > Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it > > seemed) aurora > > photographer on the scene. He explained that > > aurora usually passes our > > latitude from 10pm to
Re: Re: Northern Lights
Thanks for the tips guys! Looks like I will have to borrow a spotmeter to get a starting point and bracket a lot from there. Jostein, those are absolutely awesome pictures of aurora. The rest of the site is very nice, too. Especially the MF photography. Holding my breath for the next aurora, Mike > --- Forwarded message --- > Forwarded by: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Forwarded date: 2004-11-10 19:28:31 > > Michal, > > The aurora is very variable. > I've only had two good shoots with it, and on > both occations, the LX > metering saved my day, or night if you like. > I've got the best from both shoots on my > website, and as you'll see, > the exposure times varied a lot. One night, > the exposures were down to > 40 seconds at f/2.8 on ISO 100. The other > night I used 4 minutes at > f/4 on ISO 400. > > If you're interested in my pics, you can find > them at http://oksne.net > > Cheers, > Jostein > > - Original Message - > From: "michal mesko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:55 PM > Subject: Northern Lights > > > > Hello List, > > > > just saw the first aurora in my life. It was > very pretty, but at > least as much educative. Here are the lessons > learned: > > > > I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm > since I came to Finland, > checking the monitoring site > (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) > almost daily. As the > gray-steel skies started to break up at the > sunset today, I rushed to > the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of > the films generally > recommended for aurora photography. > > > > Being young and naive, I set out to > photograph the lights right > after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora > would dance over the > sky for the whole night, only to disappear > with the first rays of the > dawn. :) After more than two hours of > stumbling through the scary dark > forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed > up and went home. Of > course an hour later, the lights did appear. > Rushing to the lake > again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play > with and went looking for > The Perfect Composition. By the time I found > it, the sky turned dark > again. > > > > Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it > seemed) aurora > photographer on the scene. He explained that > aurora usually passes our > latitude from 10pm to 11pm going down from > north to south. It returns > after midnight at 1am, going back north again. > Apparently, it is one > of those things everyone but me knows. ;-) It > has something to do with > the position of sun, he even carried a PDA to > check the angle at which > the solar winds hit the atmosphere. > > > > I then inquired about the exposure times. > What he used is very > inconsistent with the resources on the > internet > (http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html, > http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87717747/english/bild > rkiv_4.htm and more), > where they talk about 400 speed, fast lens and > about 30 second > exposures. He was using f2.0 lens, ISO 50 and > about four seconds! My > friends digital camera had the right exposures > at ISO 100, f2.8 and > 8-15 seconds. Anything longer and the photo > was blown out. And the > aurora was supposedly on the faint side. > > > > Sorry for the long post. :] I would like to > hear comments of > experienced aurora photographers, anyone? > > > > Mike > > (http://skwid.wz.cz) > > > > > > > > Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. > storocia - > http://knihy.sme.sk > > > Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
Re: Northern Lights
Michal, The aurora is very variable. I've only had two good shoots with it, and on both occations, the LX metering saved my day, or night if you like. I've got the best from both shoots on my website, and as you'll see, the exposure times varied a lot. One night, the exposures were down to 40 seconds at f/2.8 on ISO 100. The other night I used 4 minutes at f/4 on ISO 400. If you're interested in my pics, you can find them at http://oksne.net Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: "michal mesko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:55 PM Subject: Northern Lights > Hello List, > > just saw the first aurora in my life. It was very pretty, but at least as much educative. Here are the lessons learned: > > I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm since I came to Finland, checking the monitoring site (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) almost daily. As the gray-steel skies started to break up at the sunset today, I rushed to the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of the films generally recommended for aurora photography. > > Being young and naive, I set out to photograph the lights right after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora would dance over the sky for the whole night, only to disappear with the first rays of the dawn. :) After more than two hours of stumbling through the scary dark forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed up and went home. Of course an hour later, the lights did appear. Rushing to the lake again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play with and went looking for The Perfect Composition. By the time I found it, the sky turned dark again. > > Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it seemed) aurora photographer on the scene. He explained that aurora usually passes our latitude from 10pm to 11pm going down from north to south. It returns after midnight at 1am, going back north again. Apparently, it is one of those things everyone but me knows. ;-) It has something to do with the position of sun, he even carried a PDA to check the angle at which the solar winds hit the atmosphere. > > I then inquired about the exposure times. What he used is very inconsistent with the resources on the internet (http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html, http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87717747/english/bildarkiv_4.htm and more), where they talk about 400 speed, fast lens and about 30 second exposures. He was using f2.0 lens, ISO 50 and about four seconds! My friends digital camera had the right exposures at ISO 100, f2.8 and 8-15 seconds. Anything longer and the photo was blown out. And the aurora was supposedly on the faint side. > > Sorry for the long post. :] I would like to hear comments of experienced aurora photographers, anyone? > > Mike > (http://skwid.wz.cz) > > > > Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk >
RE: Northern Lights
One other caveat... if from your location, the aurora were to appear twice as intense as compared to my location, then likely your exposure time would be half of mine, or your aperture stopped down. Tom C. From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Northern Lights Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:05:51 -0700 Hi Mike, I've found auroras, at least at my latitude, to be even more variable and inconsistent as to timing of appearances. Electricity, it's kin magnetism, and the solar wind appear to be very fickle lovers. However, I've found, in general, the following exposures to work: f2, ISO 400, between 20 & 30 seconds. f2, ISO 800, around 15 seconds. The variable we cannot control is the intensity of the aurora or the pulse like surges in brightness that occur during the exposure. I count off the seconds at a fairly inconsistent rate, so I'm sure my exposures, usually at ISO 400 last for variable lengths between 20 and 30 seconds. Many of the pictures I just posted were taken at an attempted exposure time of 27 seconds. I also tend to expose at ISO 400 when shooting towards the north, and at ISO 800 when I get further away from the pole. This means I can have shorter exposures, lessening the star trailing effect when shooting away from the pole. Tom C. From: michal mesko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Northern Lights Date: 09 Nov 2004 23:55:13 +0100 (CET) Hello List, just saw the first aurora in my life. It was very pretty, but at least as much educative. Here are the lessons learned: I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm since I came to Finland, checking the monitoring site (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) almost daily. As the gray-steel skies started to break up at the sunset today, I rushed to the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of the films generally recommended for aurora photography. Being young and naive, I set out to photograph the lights right after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora would dance over the sky for the whole night, only to disappear with the first rays of the dawn. :) After more than two hours of stumbling through the scary dark forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed up and went home. Of course an hour later, the lights did appear. Rushing to the lake again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play with and went looking for The Perfect Composition. By the time I found it, the sky turned dark again. Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it seemed) aurora photographer on the scene. He explained that aurora usually passes our latitude from 10pm to 11pm going down from north to south. It returns after midnight at 1am, going back north again. Apparently, it is one of those things everyone but me knows. ;-) It has something to do with the position of sun, he even carried a PDA to check the angle at which the solar winds hit the atmosphere. I then inquired about the exposure times. What he used is very inconsistent with the resources on the internet (http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html, http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87717747/english/bildarkiv_4.htm and more), where they talk about 400 speed, fast lens and about 30 second exposures. He was using f2.0 lens, ISO 50 and about four seconds! My friends digital camera had the right exposures at ISO 100, f2.8 and 8-15 seconds. Anything longer and the photo was blown out. And the aurora was supposedly on the faint side. Sorry for the long post. :] I would like to hear comments of experienced aurora photographers, anyone? Mike (http://skwid.wz.cz) Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
RE: Northern Lights
Hi, Welcome to the tricky world of Aurora photography. I beleive you are facing several obstacles - to overcome of course. 1. Are you doing film or digital? For film there is the reciprocity factor which means that exposure must be increased at long exposre times - not so severe with some modern films. I don't know if digital faces this problem - maybe not - if so shorter exposure time for digital. 2. Aurora varies a lot in intensity - if possible meter it and use that exposure and again double the time - you need varied exposures tpo really get it right. Its tricky with the dark sky and the bright Aurora 3. Dress warmly - as Aurora in the the north is usually seen on cold nights. Might be a problem for digital cameras with lcd screens. 4. I prefer slower films as the faster films might not give you a dark blue sky but a black one. However - experiment with this. Good luck, Chilly photos, Ronald
RE: Northern Lights
Hi Mike, I've found auroras, at least at my latitude, to be even more variable and inconsistent as to timing of appearances. Electricity, it's kin magnetism, and the solar wind appear to be very fickle lovers. However, I've found, in general, the following exposures to work: f2, ISO 400, between 20 & 30 seconds. f2, ISO 800, around 15 seconds. The variable we cannot control is the intensity of the aurora or the pulse like surges in brightness that occur during the exposure. I count off the seconds at a fairly inconsistent rate, so I'm sure my exposures, usually at ISO 400 last for variable lengths between 20 and 30 seconds. Many of the pictures I just posted were taken at an attempted exposure time of 27 seconds. I also tend to expose at ISO 400 when shooting towards the north, and at ISO 800 when I get further away from the pole. This means I can have shorter exposures, lessening the star trailing effect when shooting away from the pole. Tom C. From: michal mesko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Northern Lights Date: 09 Nov 2004 23:55:13 +0100 (CET) Hello List, just saw the first aurora in my life. It was very pretty, but at least as much educative. Here are the lessons learned: I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm since I came to Finland, checking the monitoring site (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) almost daily. As the gray-steel skies started to break up at the sunset today, I rushed to the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of the films generally recommended for aurora photography. Being young and naive, I set out to photograph the lights right after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora would dance over the sky for the whole night, only to disappear with the first rays of the dawn. :) After more than two hours of stumbling through the scary dark forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed up and went home. Of course an hour later, the lights did appear. Rushing to the lake again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play with and went looking for The Perfect Composition. By the time I found it, the sky turned dark again. Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it seemed) aurora photographer on the scene. He explained that aurora usually passes our latitude from 10pm to 11pm going down from north to south. It returns after midnight at 1am, going back north again. Apparently, it is one of those things everyone but me knows. ;-) It has something to do with the position of sun, he even carried a PDA to check the angle at which the solar winds hit the atmosphere. I then inquired about the exposure times. What he used is very inconsistent with the resources on the internet (http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html, http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87717747/english/bildarkiv_4.htm and more), where they talk about 400 speed, fast lens and about 30 second exposures. He was using f2.0 lens, ISO 50 and about four seconds! My friends digital camera had the right exposures at ISO 100, f2.8 and 8-15 seconds. Anything longer and the photo was blown out. And the aurora was supposedly on the faint side. Sorry for the long post. :] I would like to hear comments of experienced aurora photographers, anyone? Mike (http://skwid.wz.cz) Svetova kniznica SME - literarne klenoty 20. storocia - http://knihy.sme.sk
