Doesn’t look like that in reality. If I take a photo on my phone here in the UK midlands I get pink and green in all directions with a 3 second exposure.
However with just the naked eye it’s like super high level clouds
However with just the naked eye it’s like super high level clouds
Is there some kind of running joke I’m missing? I saw some northern lights in Iceland but they were very dim and underwhelming, I didn’t even know what I was looking at until I photographed them and saw the vivid green streaks in the photo, which definitely weren’t super visible in real life. The tour guide even said they aren’t actually like the photos at all!
Are northern lights bullshit or what? What is possible to see with just a bare naked eye?
One experience you can get in person when they're really strong is how fast they can dance around above you as well. I've found the dancing lights to the naked eye are much more astounding than in timelapses or videos, 1) because that's when they're most vibrant in person, and 2) because you can see just how fast and jittery and energetic they are, unlike in a video which is usually captured at much less than 30fps for low light and denoised and frames mashed together to create those soupy smooth videos and timelapses. Nice in their own way, but nowhere near the same experience.
And when they're very low energy they will just look like green grey clouds to the naked eye.
Source: live in the arctic
Few-seconds exposures on a digital camera bring the colors out that you may or may not see by eye if the aurora is weak.
Also, especially mid-latitudes, sometimes an Aurora display has moments of higher brightness with color, and then again "grey curtains".
The most impressive thing about stronger Aurora, to me, is the "fine structure", the fact you may have it well overhead (not just on the northern horizon) and the fast movements. It can look like "beads" running up and down the curtains, or "lances" being thrown from the sky, and line/streak structures are very sharply outlined, not like the soft blur in multi-second pictures. And the curtains can "wave" across the entire sky in a second then.
But I haven't seen enough Aurora to dare predict anything ... I cross my fingers.
In my experience when the lights are strong (and your eyes have adjusted), they look a lot like the photos - not as saturated color-wise, but very bright.
This morning, though, my feeds are chock-a-block with dramatic, colorful, detailed photos, complete with rapturous commentary about the drama of the spectacle, posted by people in the same area who were apparently watching the same sky! Well... that's a different experience than I had. I'd been told that the colors showed up more clearly through a camera, but I hadn't realized there would be little to see without one.
I am very fortunate to have excellent visual acuity, low light sensitivity and am extremely sensitive to colour/different shades or tones. There are test you can do online for this if you have a well calibrated screen. I also used to be a photographer and worked for years in low light settings documenting events. So I have put that good fortune in the genetic lottery to good use!
So for me, I absolutely saw the full colour display very strongly. I could see variations in colour throughout the height of the column and i could easily make out the striations between the different filaments. I could also easily see the curve of the bands across the northern sky. The colours to me were as obvious as the orange of light pollution you might see from a nearby town. I could see the low level patches of cloud silhouetted against the green and the huge bands of red/pinky red towering up into space.
What I will say though is that even looking at my phone was enough to dull the experience. And minimally strong light in the eye instantly desaturated the colours of the aurora and took a minute or two to recover. So you really do need dark places, dark skies and to really let your eyes full adjust to their maximum possible sensitivity.
You can find some online, but they range from 'just like the picture' to 'random fog', so one is left not knowing what to believe.
These two photos taken with my camera, are approximately how it looked to my eyes after they'd adjusted to the dark:
https://i.imgur.com/8OOiCgX.png https://i.imgur.com/GCpyumd.png
As a comparison, this is how my phone captured the same scene with default settings:
There is a lot of variability in people’s night vision. I viewed this past aurora with a friend, we went to a relatively dark sky location and let our eyes adjust for 30 minutes. In that setting, I could make out the green and red coloration while she mostly saw it as a while glow.
I had a similar thought about the sun’s corona during a solar eclipse, for some reason I thought people were using special photo processes to extract something that was hard to see without equipment. Then caught an eclipse and the corona blooms like a huge flower in the sky and it’s better than almost all the photos. I’m guessing the dynamic range of the corona makes it very hard to photograph anywhere near as good as what it looks like when you’re there.
Last night from London the most I could see with my naked eye was diffuse patches of faint pink and green - sometimes highlighted by marginally brighter white-pink streaks that cut across the patches. The camera however picked them up as dramatic bright pink/green columns of light with rarely any trace of the blackness of the sky.
When I was in Iceland a few years ago though - I distinctly remember being easily able to make out super bright and well define dancing wavy bands of bright green, pink, purple and orange (with high contrast compared to the surrounding dark sky) with my naked eye. The camera again picked up the same thing but with the blackness of the sky covered by a green /pink coloured background - something definitely brighter but less well defined that what I could see with my naked eye (and the camera images were not necessarily superior than what I could see in this case).
TL:DR; I’ve seen both versions of what you describe with my naked eye and it’s definitely not bullshit! When people say they can’t see anything like the pictures - I would have to guess that they either have never been in an area with significant activity or maybe didn’t have dark enough skies without light pollution.
Alas, in the northern hemisphere, we've been pretty good eradicating nighttime darkness (and a lot else besides ...).
It really does look like a river of starlight across the sky, once you are a few hundred miles away from shore.
The auroras won't be super vivid near larger cities in Central Europe, with a lot of light around you. It's just not north enough and not dark enough. Up north, rural Lapland or so, it can get very vivid during a winter.
Cameras tend to add their extra though.
A surprising thing to me was how the aurora can sometimes be still and sometimes move so fast. It is a strange experience. One would expect something that covers such a large part of the visible sky-dome to move slowly, but instead it can swipe around quite quickly ("like a fox's tail").
What the camera caught was really impressive! Even with just a couple seconds exposure on a phone. But what the human eye saw was.... effectively a portion of the sky that was unusually bright and seemed to have some sort of movement. Like you stared at it and knew something was amiss, but nothing "impressive" to look at.
We were outside at like 2AM in the night that day trying to spot it but could see any hint of it for the life of us.
Finally we used his phone and long exposure to see what it would pick up and on the captured photo we saw shades of green like aurora borealis.
Quite fascinating, it was.
They were always strong enough to be easily seen, often quite dramatic. It really does look like that if you're far enough north.
Well, actually the proper term for where we were at is East Norway. And I guess by official standards the middle of Norway is further north than where I consider the middle of Norway to be.
To be very specific, we were in Gjøvik.
https://www.flickr.com/search/?sort=date-taken-desc&safe_sea...