Aurora Borealis Picture Taking

[Edward Ballou]

If there's a better place for this, feel free to move (I don't have nor want access to the general forums).

A solar flare should hit Aug 3. - any recommendations for how to take pictures to capture such an event's effect on the upper atmosphere? (we're assuming DSLR photography)

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Activity is expected to be at active to minor storm
levels with a slight chance for major storm on days 2 - 3 (04 - 05
August) due to the arrival of the second slower CME observed on 01
August (associated with a large filament disappearance).

Their latest outlook, issued at 22z each day gives best odds Wednesday night.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/forecast.html

Tips, just open a preferably fast lens wide open and iso up as needed while checking what happens on the lcd. The one good thing about full frame will be a wider view with a 50 1.8 on. Can't wait to have at auroras again. Too bad it will probably be 2012 before I do lol. I guess check the histogram more the lcd for things too. Both the two big events I've seen I failed to do that. LCD at night especially will make an underexposed shot look better.

And always remember their outlooks/text and therefor days start at 22z. Cool they have us mid-lat'rs at 50% active for day 3. Which to me means Wednedsay night. But I'd for sure watch every night if one can. Damn the clouds perhaps.

I wonder what distance north a cirrus cloud won't matter...as in it would be either below the horizon or low enough. That might be of help looping IR next few nights given any hope.

http://www.spacew.com/plots.php

I always just use that site/page for monitoring. Screw the oval stuff for the most part. See the speed ramp up well you know it hit. If it's a mild increase you can tell it was a glancing or weak blow. Bz for here seems to need to be less than -10 south. If it is not it's pretty pointless to go out. The big events I've seen were both pegging that at -50. But been able to see or at least shoot auroras between -10 and -20 before.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/warnings_timeline.html

That can be of use as well. They'll stick up a sudden impulse deal once a space craft pics up the cme. Notice the only watch issued is out there aways for day 3.

 

[John Vandehei]

How you take pictures of the Aurora will depend on the intensity of the lights. Given that the current CME was from a C Class solar flare, I would guess that the aurora display at your location will be faint, if even visible at all. If you can get out in the country, well away from city lights, the better your chances. If the display is bright and vivid, you should get good results with approximately 100-200 ISO and exposures somewhere between 5-15 seconds. If the display is faint, you'll likely have to crank up the ISO to 800 or 1600, with shutter speeds of 30 seconds or more. I even remember seeing something on the net about a photographer in Arizona. He would use exposures of an hour or more. Although he couldn't see the auroras with his own eyes, he would capture a dim red glow on the horizon, which is about the best you can expect in Arizona.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

I'm so glad there is a thread about the Aurora because I was going to start one anyway...

I'm having trouble determining how far south the Lights will be visible. I can't seem to find any type of coordinates. The Boston Globe mentions that you should be able to see them from Cape Cod. I'm on Long Island, which is fairly close. Do you think I'm too far south? Ideas, anyone?

 

[John Vandehei]

I'm having trouble determining how far south the Lights will be visible. I can't seem to find any type of coordinates. The Boston Globe mentions that you should be able to see them from Cape Cod. I'm on Long Island, which is fairly close. Do you think I'm too far south? Ideas, anyone?

I don't think you're in an ideal location for the northern lights. A big factor working against you is light pollution. I'm not familiar enough with Long Island to know if there is anywhere you can go on the island to escape the urban lights. Finding a spot on the north shore might be helpful, although I don't know if Connecticut is close enough to cause problems with its lights. If you wan't to know if the aurora may be viewable from your location, go to www.spacew.com. Just a short distance from the top of the site are three indicator lights, which show the chances of northern lights at high, middle and low latitudes.

 

[Adam Adkins]

I'm in Livingston, MT right now. I've been trying some night shots the last couple days and an Aurora would be great! What do you all think the odds are of seeing it up round these parts?

 

[Tyler Burg]

I'm in Livingston, MT right now. I've been trying some night shots the last couple days and an Aurora would be great! What do you all think the odds are of seeing it up round these parts?

Probably about the same as South Dakota or Nebraska seeing them

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Starting to think the C-flare cme his missing us. They originally predicted "late day 1" which then ended at 7pm yesterday. They miss a whole lot of the time, or just brush by. They seem more interested in whatever came off the filament explosion part, which apparently is moving slower and focusing on late tonight or moreso tomorrow night. No sign of the first deal hitting. Probably why they stuck out 20% active for it compared to 40% then 50% active for mid-lats tonight/tomorrow night.

 

[Rebekah LaBar]

I love www.spaceweather.com and www.spacew.com; another site that has yet to be mentioned is that of the auroral oval: http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/pmap/pmapN.html

The map of the auroral oval can be very helpful in determining your chances of seeing an aurora at your location (right before the event, check out how far south the oval is).

Without going into specifics on just how this thing works, a basic rule of thumb is the higher the number, the higher the auroral activity is likely to be (provided that the normalization value, n, is less than 2--larger the number, the less confidence there is in the accuracy of the oval). If you're in the yellow band, you might see something but it will probably be rather faint. Once you get into the oranges or reds, you have a great shot at seeing a good aurora. Back in 2003, when I was in Washington, we were in the red quite a bit and saw a few spectacular auroras.

If you're in the blue, your chances of seeing an aurora are slim at best. As has been said above, this solar activity is pretty minor, so even the high latitudes may not see much of an aurora. I can't wait until the sun really kicks it into high gear!

Note the best time to see the aurora is usually around local midnight.

Back on topic, I can't add much more to the discussion on photography...I've never had the chance to photograph the aurora. In 2003, my sister took some photos with her point and shoot digital camera (this was before I had a digital camera), just on the fireworks/night setting, and they turned out brilliant. However, this was also October 29th, when we saw an amazing, very bright display of green and red curtains that filled over half the sky for nearly an hour.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

http://www.spacew.com/plots.php

At least the first one just hit.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

Mike, we're basically on the same latitudinal parallel (?). Are you watching from your hometown or are you heading north? I can get a clear dark view from Ocean Parkway, which basically runs the length of the south shore of Long Island (think Jones Beach). It's basically all beachfront out there with very little ambient lighting. I can also head up to the north shore of the Island but I'm not as familiar with the area.

Rebekah, you mentioned midnight; Is that the same for everyone? Also, would it be low on the horizon?

Sorry for all of the questions, but I know nothing about this subject. You guys, on the other hand...WOW. You're smart.

EDIT:

I just got a response from an email I sent to SWPC this morning. Among a lot of other very helpful info:

"...As for location, these storms can produce aurora down into the New York
area very easily. Points to remember for viewing are; the observing
site should be somewhere with no light pollution (city lights) or full
moon, best time is after midnight or early morning hours, look toward
the north...."

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

I'm not going anywhere cause the cloud situation looks quite troublesome all over the central/northern plains overnight. North seems worse but stuff could fire west of here or here pretty easy and make a mess of things. I hope for a few storms that aren't completely covering the sky with anvil debris which I think is possible.

As for midnight/etc I wouldn't wait for midnight personally. The big one in 2004 I was seeing big pillars before it was even dark. It was seriously like 40 minutes after sunset probably, maybe less. But yeah bigger deal too though. Safest bet with this and any night sky stuff, just watch all night lol. Best way to be there for a the good stuff is to be there for a whole lot of nothing.

It's pretty annoying the Bz is less than -10 already and we're 5 hours from sunset and probably 6 hours from massive anvil creation. One would think that filament "oomph" coming behind this will just help it some at some point fairly soon.

*doing the no rain dance*

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/alerts/warnings_timeline.html

Interesting they added another watch bar for now/tonight and they increased/added a higher bar now for tomorrow night.

 

[Melanie Kern-Favilla]

Sorry, Mike, but would you mind a quick explanation of Bz -10 ?

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

http://www.spacew.com/plots.php

It's the Bz plot on the top rihgt of that page. Need the magnetic field to shift south to see auroras more to the south. If that is 0 or +/north save your trouble and stay indoors lol. I start getting hopes of seeing or at least being able to photograph something if it can get to -10 or less.

The other thing is, many a weak displays will be nothing more than a faint white arc on the horizon that most people either won't even notice or they'll just think it is city lights. The camera will pick the stuff up way better than your eyes can and show that as green and you'll then know it is indeed auroras.

Also intensity of the auroras doesn't seem too terribly dependent on how far or not far south it is. I've watched the field move south visually but not be very bright at all, then see it shift back north and fluctuate in brightness. The thing to realize and stress on these, is the length of time they'll shift further south is very often short short in duration. Unless you get some big time event and the show just mostly stays south. Otherwise I've seen them shift south to overhead, then within 3 minutes later be WAY back north on the horizon. So using ovals and values online for lesser events can largely be a waste of time. Like -10 may not work here, but it is close enough I'll go out and watch for any short shifts south...which happen. People will later say, oh those weren't out or those weren't bright and you're like....how long did you stay out and watch? "An hour."

In 2004 I swore the show was over shortly after seeing them at sunset as they faded to nothing. Then 11pm or so I loko out of my apt and the damn greens looked like you could seriously jump up and grab them. Very strange and never seen them look like that. Then it looked bleak again like nothing. Was certain it was over then. I stayed out all night anyway, deciding I'll just keep it honest now and make an all nighter. Then this happened: http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/04-11-7-2317.jpg

Straight above me that was going into a coronal hole. I thought, I'll get some shots due north first and then get the coronal hole craziness above. But no, bam it was flying back north and no more coronal hole overhead. It was such a short amount of time it surged south into that wall then went back to next to nothing. 3-5 minutes maybe.