[BruceBanner]

They are little more intense from what I remember seeing growing up.
But yes, on a good night, very much possible IMO. To plan a trip to capture something like that, forget it,
you have to live there and spend countless nights in the cold and hope for the best.

Thanks for that.

[mtngal]

I've been using the KP and the 16-85 lens recently, almost exclusively. I've been happy with the results - the combo works well as a travel camera. I went camping for a couple of weeks and came home having made friends with the 16-85 (I bought it around Thanksgiving, so it's new to me).

A slot canyon.



There were some really awesome sunrises.



Second week, different location.



Christmas morning. Fresh snow high up on the mountains.



Footprints in the sand.



And watching the wind wipe them out.



I was glad I had the KP, loved its light-weight while hiking. The 16-85 lens also was excellent for hiking, it became my main lens on the trip. Thanks to all of the people here for both suggesting the KP when my K-S1 died, and also for recommending the 16-85 when I was looking for a nice travel zoom. It works out very well.

[MiguelATF]

An available light impromptu portrait of a friend and fellow Pentaxian, at a local coffee shop, taken with the DA 21 which I have been discovering is a truly wonderful jack-of-all-trades lens. And, obviously, the KP's RAW files lend themselves really nicely to monochrome processing.

[skierd]

Can I ask, as someone who has never seen the Aurora's, how accurate are these shots (anyone's shots really) to how they actually look to the eye? I mean.. I know photography, I know in PP we can turn 'meh' into 'wow!' from some vibrancy and saturation boosts, stronger contrast, stronger whites and exposure and all that stuff.
I wonder if the pictures portray something quite close to what the eye saw at the time time, or stray into 'what looks great on a photo but doesn't really represent what was seen with the eye' territory?

Yes and no and maybe, at the same time.

A digital sensor is able to see more of the aurora (and other objects in the night sky) than the naked eye. So on digital, and to an extent on film, you get a bit more of the background radiation and bands that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

I’ve attached a SOOC jpeg from that night to show what a lot of my aurora shots start out as. This was taken before and slightly to the right of the shot with the Milky Way.

What I saw was between the two, but still very different. Still photos really can’t do even a moderate aurora event justice as so much of it is the motion and fast color shifts. Most of these shots are honestly from milder parts from the night because during the biggest part of the show the lights were moving so fast and changing colors so fast that they didn’t show up on the sensor or blew out. What you see is very rarely what you capture when photographing auroras, which I find odd and interesting since they’re so relatively easy to photograph.

My post processing is what I would consider mild typically, and I generally stick to what I would try to do in a traditional darkroom. I adjusted the white balance from daylight (as set in the camera) to 4500-4700k to get the greens closer to life and allow the purples and reds room to breath, bring up the exposure usually 0.5-1.5 stops, move contrast around till the stars look right, bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows to accentuate the details in the aurora and the landscape respectively, add a +5 or +10 on clarify, vibrancy and saturation, add a little sharpening, bring down the green saturation a little most of the time, and apply the default lens corrections. I’ve just learned about using the transform tool to fix some of the UWA smearing on the frame edges so that will probably become a thing I do regularly too.

The biggest part of the display from that night was absolutely brighter and vibrant and more amazing than I posted, brief as it was. The lights were out for the better part of the night, at least 5 or 6 hours, as simple plain green bands in the sky. We were prepared for the weather (-35F/-37C) and had the time and a warm place to wait fortunately. The truly exciting portion was roughly 5 minutes long. Most of my shots are from the hour or two on either side of the main event.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[BruceBanner]

Yes and no and maybe, at the same time.

A digital sensor is able to see more of the aurora (and other objects in the night sky) than the naked eye. So on digital, and to an extent on film, you get a bit more of the background radiation and bands that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

I’ve attached a SOOC jpeg from that night to show what a lot of my aurora shots start out as. This was taken before and slightly to the right of the shot with the Milky Way.

What I saw was between the two, but still very different. Still photos really can’t do even a moderate aurora event justice as so much of it is the motion and fast color shifts. Most of these shots are honestly from milder parts from the night because during the biggest part of the show the lights were moving so fast and changing colors so fast that they didn’t show up on the sensor or blew out. What you see is very rarely what you capture when photographing auroras, which I find odd and interesting since they’re so relatively easy to photograph.

My post processing is what I would consider mild typically, and I generally stick to what I would try to do in a traditional darkroom. I adjusted the white balance from daylight (as set in the camera) to 4500-4700k to get the greens closer to life and allow the purples and reds room to breath, bring up the exposure usually 0.5-1.5 stops, move contrast around till the stars look right, bring down the highlights and bring up the shadows to accentuate the details in the aurora and the landscape respectively, add a +5 or +10 on clarify, vibrancy and saturation, add a little sharpening, bring down the green saturation a little most of the time, and apply the default lens corrections. I’ve just learned about using the transform tool to fix some of the UWA smearing on the frame edges so that will probably become a thing I do regularly too.

The biggest part of the display from that night was absolutely brighter and vibrant and more amazing than I posted, brief as it was. The lights were out for the better part of the night, at least 5 or 6 hours, as simple plain green bands in the sky. We were prepared for the weather (-35F/-37C) and had the time and a warm place to wait fortunately. The truly exciting portion was roughly 5 minutes long. Most of my shots are from the hour or two on either side of the main event.

Excellent explanation, thank you for that.

[northcoastgreg]

Crescent City jetty with the DA 55-300 PLM:

[SSGGeezer]

Excellent explanation, thank you for that.

I have never had a chance to photograph the Aurora, but when I was about 200 km North of the Arctic Circle, I saw it covering over 2/3s of the visible sky and moving and dancing and would say that most of the images you see here are about as close as you can get since when they move so much, I suspect it is hard to get "the shot." @Skierd has done amazing work with his shots. If you can tolerate cold, it is worth trying.

---------- Post added 01-11-19 at 10:42 ----------

Crescent City jetty with the DA 55-300 PLM:

Wow Greg! Is the cable along the right side to try to grab when the waves try to take you away?

[acoufap]

We not often have this kind of weather here - much snow. The KP called - hey that's a weather for a Pentax like me!

ok, ok I said. Let's have a walk ...


KP • DA55-300PLM@98 • ISO160 • f/4.5 • 1/200s


KP • DA55-300PLM@300 • ISO500 • f/9 • 1/200s


KP • DA55-300PLM@300 • ISO800 • f/9 • 1/200s • pp crop


KP • DA55-300PLM@300 • ISO800 • f/8 • 1/200s • pp crop


It wasn't a weather to change lenses. So the DA55-300PLM stayed attached although I would have liked to use the DA15 and DA18-135 too. Maybe next time I in addition also take the K-1 / DFA28-105 combo with me.

[ZombieArmy]

Went out today to take shots with my Spotmatic and Tak 50/1.4 but when I ran out of film I swapped over to take some shots with the KP and 40xs.

[northcoastgreg]

Wow Greg! Is the cable along the right side to try to grab when the waves try to take you away?

You could try to grab the cable, but good luck with that!

From the same jetty—the Battery Point Lighthouse, also shot with the DA 55-300 PLM:

[ZombieArmy]

You could try to grab the cable, but good luck with that!

From the same jetty—the Battery Point Lighthouse, also shot with the DA 55-300 PLM:

You are the absolute main reason the 55-300 PLM has jumped super high on my "must have" list. I was planning on looking for a 60-250 with SDM problems I could repair myself, but I don't think that's even necessary.

Once I get my financials worked out I'm going to definitely pick up that lens.

[acoufap]

KP • DA55-300PLM@55 • ISO100 • f/4.5 • 1/200s • pp square crop

[th1952]

You could try to grab the cable, but good luck with that!

From the same jetty—the Battery Point Lighthouse, also shot with the DA 55-300 PLM:

Wow, I really like that shot.

---------- Post added 01-12-19 at 09:36 AM ----------

KP • DA55-300PLM@55 • ISO100 • f/4.5 • 1/200s • pp square crop

Very nice wintery scene.

[acoufap]

Wow, I really like that shot.

---------- Post added 01-12-19 at 09:36 AM ----------



Very nice wintery scene.

Thank you very much!

[acoufap]

Broken Reflections


KP • DA55-300PLM@88 • ISO160 • f/6.3 • 1/100s