Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gudelaune OP t1_iu5vr5g wrote

Reply to comment by Time-to-go-home in Image of northern lights I shot in Senja, Norway 2 weeks ago [1000 x 1500] [OC] by gudelaune

That night was a bit nuts, the sky was suuuuper bright. I think I shot at 1.3-1.6s max with very low iso, 1000 or less and f1.4 with my Sigma 16mm.

50

Time-to-go-home t1_iu5zyug wrote

Thanks. I’ll keep that all in mind next time I go out to see the lights (hopefully this weekend). Unfortunately, my lens only goes down to 2.8, but I’ll make it work somehow. Did the lights actually look bluish in person? Or is that just what the camera was able to pick up?

10

gudelaune OP t1_iu60ks6 wrote

they were all sorts of colours! greens, blues, purples, pinks, white...

18

Jazzy_Bee t1_iu731wq wrote

A few years back my daughter managed to get a short video from southeastern Ontario, but they are low on the horizon from here.

1

jumbonionga t1_iu7lhrx wrote

You can still pull this out, regardless of the f number. As long as you have the proper lens (even the kit lens works) you could get something like this. The only caveat is that you'll need a slower shutter time.

1

sweetplantveal t1_iu7d1hs wrote

Ok let’s call it 2 seconds at iso 800. We need to compensate for the aperture. F/1.4 and f/2.8 are 2 stops apart. So with the settings mentioned (4 seconds is one stop and 1600 is the other), you’re shooting almost identical exposures. The difference is the brightness of the scene.

Also shouldn’t a T6 be able to do 15 seconds at 3200 with a pretty clean image?

1

gudelaune OP t1_iu7way7 wrote

no it's not the same at all because the aurora looks way better at a faster shutter speed imo. The longer it is, the more faded / blurry it looks, I find even 1 vs 4 sec made a difference so personally I never shoot auroras at more than 5-6s.

4