pics

19787 readers

295 users here now

Rules:

1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer

2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.

3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.

4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.

5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.

Photo of the Week Rule(s):

1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.

2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.

Weeks 2023

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

112

Aurora borealis (northern lights) self portrait (lemmy.world)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/15289745

As seen from Colorado, USA close to midnight (May 11th, 2024).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

You'd have to use a long exposure, right?

If it were film, I'd say a fully open aperture, long exposure, and a high ISO film? I'm not sure on the ISO part, just guessing a finer-grain film will look better with wide aperture and long exposure, and also more sensitive to light (as you can tell, I'm no photographer).

It does look a little bright, intense and saturated compared to what night looks like to the human eye. We lose the yellow spectrum, so browns in the ground are "right out".

I guess the thing to do in processing is temper the yellows and saturation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Yes, fully open aperture, long exposure (6"), and high ISO. I tried to recover the yellows that were (much) more apparent to the naked eye, and this made it look more saturated