Posted by Howard Cihak on November 16, 2013 at 6:46 PM
Well, photographically, my trip to Norway to shoot the aurora was pretty much a bust. There were only two clear nights the entire trip and the aurora made its appearance on just one of them. This shot is less than what I'd hoped for, but I did the best I could with what was available.
This shot was taken with a Canon 6D, 16-35mm L, 1600 ISO, f/2.8 @ 6 sec. I had to enhance in PS because a longer exposure wasn't desirable. The shot was made from the top deck (helo pad) of a ship moving at least 15 knots in slightly rolling seas.
Frankly, if I'd known these were going to be my only conditions, I'd have rented a 24/1.4 lens instead to get a shorter exposure time.
Posted by Monika Chace on November 16, 2013 at 11:29 PM
Howard,
How was the non-photographic part of the trip? Were you around the Lofoten area? Those fjords are supposed to be pretty spectacular.
And don't feel so bad about only 1 clear night with auroral activity: I spent 11 days in Iceland last Feb and got zero. But at least we had good, dry weather during the day that made up for it since I'd had 2 good auroral nights the year before and it pretty much rained the rest of the time in the day.
Posted by Glenn Randall on November 17, 2013 at 10:20 AM
Sounds like you made this shot under near-impossible conditions for shooting the aurora (a moving boat). As I'm sure you realize, it's too dark. A better compromise might have been boosting the ISO to keep the shutter speed relatively manageable. There's nothing sharp about the aurora, so you can be pretty aggressive about noise reduction. As for the weather: I was in Yellowknife this September working on photos of the aurora and got two clear nights out of eleven. I hear Fairbanks in March is much clearer. -20 F anyone?
Posted by Darren Huski on November 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM
That's gotta be a disappointment. Given those conditions, I wonder if the 1.4 would have even made a difference. Hope the rest of your trip was great.
Posted by Stan Rose on November 18, 2013 at 9:09 PM
bummer--well at least you got to go to Norway and see an aurora!
Posted by Doug Koepsel on November 18, 2013 at 9:45 PM
I can imagine that the moving ship certainly was not optimal. Did you try some exposures with a higher ISO? I hope the rest of your trip and fjords were splendid.
Posted by Howard Cihak on November 19, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Sorry to take so long to reply, everyone.
Monika, my trip didn't include Lofoten. Even if it had, the weather was so bad, I doubt there would've been much to see. As it was, we spent three days and nights in very heavy weather, including one night in a Force 8 gale.
Glenn, I don't understand "too dark." The sky, except for the aurora, was pitch black, just like the image I posted. I tried 3200 ISO, but that created more noise than I could remove to my satisfaction.
Darren, I'm convinced a 1.4 would've allowed me to cut my exposure time to a fourth of what I used. By the way, the exposure on the posted image was 15 sec., not 6 sec. In any case, I did enjoy the trip overall, and wished I could've spent a couple of days each in Hammerfest and Bergen.
Yeah, Stan, it wasn't a total loss. It's just one of those things where you've got to make up your mind to find the good, even if it wasn't something you were looking for.
Doug, the higher ISO (3200) was too noisy for my taste.
Anyway, a word of warning to anyone thinking of a visit to Norway themselves ... it is a VERY EXPENSIVE COUNTRY. I spent more than $110 for a dinner consisting of a small serving of vegetarian lasagna, a boneless chicken breast with mashed potatoes and green beans, and a gold ball sized scoop of ice cream.
Discussion
6 repliesThis shot was taken with a Canon 6D, 16-35mm L, 1600 ISO, f/2.8 @ 6 sec. I had to enhance in PS because a longer exposure wasn't desirable. The shot was made from the top deck (helo pad) of a ship moving at least 15 knots in slightly rolling seas.
Frankly, if I'd known these were going to be my only conditions, I'd have rented a 24/1.4 lens instead to get a shorter exposure time.
How was the non-photographic part of the trip? Were you around the Lofoten area? Those fjords are supposed to be pretty spectacular.
And don't feel so bad about only 1 clear night with auroral activity: I spent 11 days in Iceland last Feb and got zero. But at least we had good, dry weather during the day that made up for it since I'd had 2 good auroral nights the year before and it pretty much rained the rest of the time in the day.
Monika, my trip didn't include Lofoten. Even if it had, the weather was so bad, I doubt there would've been much to see. As it was, we spent three days and nights in very heavy weather, including one night in a Force 8 gale.
Glenn, I don't understand "too dark." The sky, except for the aurora, was pitch black, just like the image I posted. I tried 3200 ISO, but that created more noise than I could remove to my satisfaction.
Darren, I'm convinced a 1.4 would've allowed me to cut my exposure time to a fourth of what I used. By the way, the exposure on the posted image was 15 sec., not 6 sec. In any case, I did enjoy the trip overall, and wished I could've spent a couple of days each in Hammerfest and Bergen.
Yeah, Stan, it wasn't a total loss. It's just one of those things where you've got to make up your mind to find the good, even if it wasn't something you were looking for.
Doug, the higher ISO (3200) was too noisy for my taste.
Anyway, a word of warning to anyone thinking of a visit to Norway themselves ... it is a VERY EXPENSIVE COUNTRY. I spent more than $110 for a dinner consisting of a small serving of vegetarian lasagna, a boneless chicken breast with mashed potatoes and green beans, and a gold ball sized scoop of ice cream.