Solar Photography, including Eclipse Photography and Safety

Gentlemen, I'm wondering. How do we manage to use our cameras in daylight? Surely the camera gets pointed in various directions, and surely the sun must wind up frequently in the field of view.

Same with the eye. I've seen the sun many times. In fact, on every sunny day it casts its image on my retina. Sometimes, although I hardly ever stare right at the sun, I even stare at other things, with the sun in view.
As it relates to the naked eye, this is discussed to some extent in the Chou article linked to Russ's (RustierOne's) second post above. He says "thermal injury of the retina is normally not possible unless the pupil is well dilated or unless the solar disk is viewed through binoculars or a telescope (White et al. 1971, Sliney and Wolbarsht 1980)."(Emphasis in original).

He goes on to state, though, that [naked eye] staring at the sun poses a photo-chemical hazard, rather than thermal. Fortunately we humans have an involuntary response that usually prevents us from being able to do that. We close our eyelids and/or look away, usually in less than a second, before an injury can occur. There is always the risk. I'd guess, that some one of us is a freak of nature, so testing your own response is a bad idea.

One way we can overcome the reflex reaction - but definitely should not - is to stare at the sun through a tiny pinhole, as I did when viewing a partial eclipse when I was about 8 years old. DON'T!! That morning in the schoolyard, I felt no pain whatsoever, nor any other symptom of the harm I was doing. My injury was the photo-chemical type, not a thermal burn. But it was ultimately life-altering, when it showed up a decade later during an academy entrance physical, and put an early end to my dream of becoming a naval aviator and astronaut.
 
Last edited:
One way we can overcome the reflex reaction - but definitely should not - is to stare at the sun through a tiny pinhole, as I did when viewing a partial eclipse when I was about 8 years old. DON'T!! That morning in the schoolyard, I felt no pain whatsoever, nor any other symptom of the harm I was doing. My injury was the photo-chemical type, not a thermal burn. But it was ultimately life-altering, when it showed up a decade later during an academy entrance physical, and put an early end to my dream of becoming a naval aviator and astronaut.
Hello Lyle,

So sorry to hear this. Would you mind giving a little more detail on the injury?

Assuming your pinhole was about a mm in diameter, the aperture area would have been about 0.008 square cm. With the sun high in the sky, at sea level with solar energy about 0.07 to 0.08 watts/sq. cm, that would mean about 0.008 * 0.08 ~ 0.6 milliwatt into your eye for a full solar disk, less for partial phases, showing not much energy is required for damage.

How was the damage diagnosed as due to the eclipse? This should help as a warning for others.

Roger
 
One way we can overcome the reflex reaction - but definitely should not - is to stare at the sun through a tiny pinhole, as I did when viewing a partial eclipse when I was about 8 years old. DON'T!! That morning in the schoolyard, I felt no pain whatsoever, nor any other symptom of the harm I was doing. My injury was the photo-chemical type, not a thermal burn. But it was ultimately life-altering, when it showed up a decade later during an academy entrance physical, and put an early end to my dream of becoming a naval aviator and astronaut.
Hello Lyle,

So sorry to hear this. Would you mind giving a little more detail on the injury?

Assuming your pinhole was about a mm in diameter, the aperture area would have been about 0.008 square cm. With the sun high in the sky, at sea level with solar energy about 0.07 to 0.08 watts/sq. cm, that would mean about 0.008 * 0.08 ~ 0.6 milliwatt into your eye for a full solar disk, less for partial phases, showing not much energy is required for damage.

How was the damage diagnosed as due to the eclipse? This should help as a warning for others.

Roger
This happened very long ago, so I'm certainly well over it. :-) I believe the eclipse was the annular on April 30, 1957. From where I was growing up in Washington State, there was only something like 20% occlusion. The pinhole I used was poked with a sharp pencil in a piece of construction paper.

It was pretty plain I'd made a mistake when I noticed the lingering image in my right eye hadn't faded away by the time I went to bed, and was still there in the morning. It slowly faded thereafter, but wouldn't completely go away. I didn't mention it to anyone else for probably a year - typical kid - and when I finally did, my mom took me to an ophthalmologist who told us he could see scar tissue. So I assumed diagnosis was just based on when I noticed it and what I'd done. He told how the injury would have happened, and never to do that again, but there was nothing to be done about it.

During an exam just a couple of years ago, an optometrist showed me an image of the scar on my retina. It's small, but it's the shape of the partially obstructed sun at which I was staring all those years ago.

This had little effect on visual acuity. I was able to see details or read eye charts just by scanning them instead of staring, and still do that today. So within a few years of the occurrence, all effects seemed inconsequential. The Navy just didn't see it that way.
 
Last edited:
One way we can overcome the reflex reaction - but definitely should not - is to stare at the sun through a tiny pinhole, as I did when viewing a partial eclipse when I was about 8 years old. DON'T!! That morning in the schoolyard, I felt no pain whatsoever, nor any other symptom of the harm I was doing. My injury was the photo-chemical type, not a thermal burn. But it was ultimately life-altering, when it showed up a decade later during an academy entrance physical, and put an early end to my dream of becoming a naval aviator and astronaut.
Hello Lyle,

So sorry to hear this. Would you mind giving a little more detail on the injury?

Assuming your pinhole was about a mm in diameter, the aperture area would have been about 0.008 square cm. With the sun high in the sky, at sea level with solar energy about 0.07 to 0.08 watts/sq. cm, that would mean about 0.008 * 0.08 ~ 0.6 milliwatt into your eye for a full solar disk, less for partial phases, showing not much energy is required for damage.

How was the damage diagnosed as due to the eclipse? This should help as a warning for others.

Roger
I'm an optometrist with interests in both astronomy and photography.

It is possible to quickly glance at the sun when it is just above horizon because under those conditions, the atmosphere is so thick. However, it should be said that we mustn't tempt fate. Simply put, looking with the naked eye at the sun when just above the horizon can be safely done if only for a second. One should not look at the sun overhead using the naked eye and one should not look at the sun through telescope nor binoculars.

I did find one paper suggesting that a duration of staring at the sun for 90 seconds and longer correlates with increasing damage.

http://www.djo.org.in/articles/23/4/acute-solar-retinopathy.html

90 seconds seems like a long time to me, i would never use my own eyes in that manner. Long story short, do not take chances with your sight. Any amount of looking at the sun long enough to allow dangerous levels of UV energy to the retina can result in a burn of the macula. A burned macula cannot heal. Such damage results in a scotoma (blind spot) that is most likely in the center of the sea of vision.
 
I finished my article on solar photography enough to release it. See:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/photograph-the-sun/

Comments welcome. I still have work to do, but need to complete some other things first.

Roger
As expected Roger you've provided a well done quantitate analysis of imaging the solar eclipse. You're responsible treatment of the safety issues & filter choice is also excellent.

I do have questions & hope you can clarify a few things. I'll pose each separately w/ unique title to help others find these.

I followed your derivation of the range of exposures needed but was surprised by how much briefer (2-3 EV) the shortest recommended exposures are than recommended either by Espernak in the 2010 citation you gave & especially by Druckmuller here: http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/Eclipse/TSE2009_Instructions.pdf Both these folks have excellently detailed captures using modern equipment. You seem to have assumed a modest 11-stop dynamic range but that would account for perhaps a 1-EV difference. And you state you've assumed excellent sky clarity. Does that account for the remainder of the difference?

You're long exposures are also more generous but seems that is the result of your goal of capturing far outer corona detail so I think I understand that difference.

Thanks again for the fine discussion!
 
You are clearly considering only totality in your discussion so far. I'm wondering your thoughts on capturing Bailey's. I've seen recommendations to remove the OD 5.0 filter up to 30 sec. before totality to be ready to capture the brief period of Bailey's. I've found no reports of damaged cameras from this practice but also have not found confirmation that its safe for the sensor. Clearly w/ a DSLR w/ mirror down, the bright partial image never makes it to the sensor but that's not the case if the mirror is locked up or for bare imagers.

I'll be using a mirrorless camera & am debating what to do - leave the filter on & use long exposure times or try to time filter removal precisely. Certainly I don't want to damage the camera at the start of totality!

You're thoughts would be helpful.
 
Lastly, Roger do you know the solar alignment of the LASCO images?

Thanks much.
 
I'll be using a mirrorless camera & am debating what to do - leave the filter on & use long exposure times or try to time filter removal precisely. Certainly I don't want to damage the camera at the start of totality!
Are you certain your camera has not already been exposed to this?
 
I finished my article on solar photography enough to release it. See:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/photograph-the-sun/

Comments welcome. I still have work to do, but need to complete some other things first.

Roger
As expected Roger you've provided a well done quantitate analysis of imaging the solar eclipse. You're responsible treatment of the safety issues & filter choice is also excellent.

I do have questions & hope you can clarify a few things. I'll pose each separately w/ unique title to help others find these.

I followed your derivation of the range of exposures needed but was surprised by how much briefer (2-3 EV) the shortest recommended exposures are than recommended either by Espernak in the 2010 citation you gave & especially by Druckmuller here: http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/Eclipse/TSE2009_Instructions.pdf Both these folks have excellently detailed captures using modern equipment. You seem to have assumed a modest 11-stop dynamic range but that would account for perhaps a 1-EV difference. And you state you've assumed excellent sky clarity. Does that account for the remainder of the difference?

You're long exposures are also more generous but seems that is the result of your goal of capturing far outer corona detail so I think I understand that difference.

Thanks again for the fine discussion!
Many images I see of total eclipses have overexposed the prominences. I went by the published scientific data on brightnesses.

I'll have an addition on how to estimate the sky brightness at a site once I get some more data. That should help with the long exposures.
 
You are clearly considering only totality in your discussion so far. I'm wondering your thoughts on capturing Bailey's. I've seen recommendations to remove the OD 5.0 filter up to 30 sec. before totality to be ready to capture the brief period of Bailey's. I've found no reports of damaged cameras from this practice but also have not found confirmation that its safe for the sensor. Clearly w/ a DSLR w/ mirror down, the bright partial image never makes it to the sensor but that's not the case if the mirror is locked up or for bare imagers.

I'll be using a mirrorless camera & am debating what to do - leave the filter on & use long exposure times or try to time filter removal precisely. Certainly I don't want to damage the camera at the start of totality!

You're thoughts would be helpful.
Good point. I have not researched Bailey's beads yet.
 
Lastly, Roger do you know the solar alignment of the LASCO images?

Thanks much.
The ecliptic runs horizontally through the sun, with ecliptic north up. You can verify by checking this image in stellarium:


Set the date to 2000-05-15 in stellarium, turn off atmosphere and turn on ecliptic.

The view will be similar (note the spacecraft is not orbiting the earth so the view is a little different).

Roger
 
Many images I see of total eclipses have overexposed the prominences. I went by the published scientific data on brightnesses.
Thanks for the reply.

Thought you might say that & I agree, I've actually been surprised particularly by Druckmuller's images since proms are such an interesting feature - why are they often washed out. They are not the brightest feature however so if they are over exposed, the chromosphere will certainly be.

Still, the derived briefest exposures are 3 EV dimmer than Espernak gives for the chromosphere plus his 2006 images show a bit of color in the proms with ISO 100, f9, 1/1000". For example: http://www.mreclipse.com/SEphoto/TSE2006/TSE2006galleryC.html Certainly cutting the exposure might be helpful but its not clear what role post processing plays in the loss of red.

Any thoughts about the limitations of the published brightness model? I've been thinking that post processing methods will play a big role in such things as prom color retention.
I'll have an addition on how to estimate the sky brightness at a site once I get some more data. That should help with the long exposures.
That will certainly be helpful!
 
I'll be using a mirrorless camera & am debating what to do - leave the filter on & use long exposure times or try to time filter removal precisely. Certainly I don't want to damage the camera at the start of totality!
Are you certain your camera has not already been exposed to this?
No it hasn't, especially with a long tele - the cam is too young. But I'm also certain eclipse chasers have captured Bailey's w/ no filter w/ DSLRs, cam corders, bare imagers, point & shoots & mirrorless. I just wish someone w/ this experience from an eclipse would copy up on one of these discussions w/ something definitive.
 
Lastly, Roger do you know the solar alignment of the LASCO images?

Thanks much.
The ecliptic runs horizontally through the sun, with ecliptic north up. You can verify by checking this image in stellarium:

https://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/

Set the date to 2000-05-15 in stellarium, turn off atmosphere and turn on ecliptic.

The view will be similar (note the spacecraft is not orbiting the earth so the view is a little different).

Roger
Thanks, that's what I thought but good to get confirmation. I'll check if my version of Stellarium will give this view.
 
Back in the day, when i used to regularly post white light solar images to the alt.binaries.pictures.astro newsgroup I started using the Baader solar filter material, and found it to be the best and safest objective filter around, as did most of my contemporaries.
You can get it inexpensively in reasonably-sized sheets here: http://agenaastro.com/solar-astrono...ar-film-sheets/shopby/baader_planetarium.html . Of course you have to roll your own. I don't know anything about this store, but I ordered one this afternoon and they've already shipped it.
Though none of you have questioned the safety of this widely used filter film, I thought I could lay any doubts to rest. I have an Orion filter cell made using Baader film & a full spectrum Olympus E-M5. I've shot white light solar images using this filter with both my stock camera & the full spectrum. Using the Info tool in LR, the image from the full spectrum camera was about 2 EV brighter than the unconverted camera image. So the Baader film appears to pass a bit more IR than the hot filter on a stock Olympus. With night images, the full spectrum camera yields images that are about 1/2 EV brighter than the stock camera.
 
The NASA article states, "A safe solar filter should transmit less than 0.003% (den-
sity ~4.5) of visible light and no more than 0.5% (density ~2.3)
of the near-infrared radiation from 780–1400 nm." Those filters all meet that criterion except for color negative film.
Thanks for gleaning that information from the NASA article. It helps give more confidence in the safety of these filters. I did notice that both the Plus-X film and the Thousand Oaks T2 filter fail to meet that standard in the visible band. That T2 is the one Roger has concerns with.

But maybe the Thousand Oaks T2 filter has been improved. The current T2 version claims:

1/1,000th of 1% (Optical Density 5)

This is an interesting subject. I'm glad Roger has brought it to the fore.
 
...I have an Orion filter cell made using Baader film & a full spectrum Olympus E-M5. ...the image from the full spectrum camera was about 2 EV brighter than the unconverted camera image.
In other words, no problem. :)
 
My Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter arrived this morning. I already tested it out around solar noon today. One thing that I noticed right away is that it doesn't look that much like the images I saw of it on Amazon.com or the Thousand Oaks website. I had seen a darker looking glass in those images much like the first image below. Almost like a welders helmet type of glass as far as color goes.

Advertised view of Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2 filter, notice how dark it looks
Advertised view of Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2 filter, notice how dark it looks

However the filter I received looks more like a highly polished mirror on both sides. It has quite a silver look to it as you can see by the next photo.

My Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter, polished like a mirror
My Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter, polished like a mirror

Mounted on my Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens
Mounted on my Canon 400mm f/5.6L lens

I'm thinking that the mirrored finish will allow it to reflect better. Hopefully that will improve those 20 year old tests results shown earlier.

Here is a test shot. Not much on the Sun's surface but a tiny sunspot according to Spacweather.com. I actually see two very faint spots of some sort in my image. It was a PITA to focus without any larger sunspots to see, so I basically had to focus on the edge of the Sun.

First light with Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter
First light with Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter

--
Best Regards,
Jack
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackswinden
 
Last edited:
My Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter arrived this morning. I already tested it out around solar noon today. One thing that I noticed right away is that it doesn't look that much like the images I saw of it on Amazon.com or the Thousand Oaks website. I had seen a darker looking glass in those images much like the first image below. Almost like a welders helmet type of glass as far as color goes.

However the filter I received looks more like a highly polished mirror on both sides. It has quite a silver look to it as you can see by the next photo.

I'm thinking that the mirrored finish will allow it to reflect better. Hopefully that will improve those 20 year old tests results shown earlier.

Here is a test shot. Not much on the Sun's surface but a tiny sunspot according to Spacweather.com. I actually see two very faint spots of some sort in my image. It was a PITA to focus without any larger sunspots to see, so I basically had to focus on the edge of the Sun.
Jack,

If you go to my solar photography article, you will see current optical density data for Thousand Oaks filters, also limited data for Orion solar filters that i have personally measured (Orion has not supplied data--Thousand oaks responded very quickly).

There are 3 types of Thousand Oaks filters: solarlite, G2+ aluminized glass, and black polymer.
 
My Thousand Oaks Glass Solar G2+ filter arrived this morning. I already tested it out around solar noon today. One thing that I noticed right away is that it doesn't look that much like the images I saw of it on Amazon.com or the Thousand Oaks website. I had seen a darker looking glass in those images much like the first image below. Almost like a welders helmet type of glass as far as color goes.

However the filter I received looks more like a highly polished mirror on both sides. It has quite a silver look to it as you can see by the next photo.

I'm thinking that the mirrored finish will allow it to reflect better. Hopefully that will improve those 20 year old tests results shown earlier.

Here is a test shot. Not much on the Sun's surface but a tiny sunspot according to Spacweather.com. I actually see two very faint spots of some sort in my image. It was a PITA to focus without any larger sunspots to see, so I basically had to focus on the edge of the Sun.
Jack,

If you go to my solar photography article, you will see current optical density data for Thousand Oaks filters, also limited data for Orion solar filters that i have personally measured (Orion has not supplied data--Thousand oaks responded very quickly).

There are 3 types of Thousand Oaks filters: solarlite, G2+ aluminized glass, and black polymer.
I saw that Roger. But then Russ posted some data which you said was old and also made you think the G2+ was dipping below the allowable curves at 900 to 2500. Your article was ripe with information but more at home in a scientific journal, but a bit more detail than I want to read. There seems to be information stating the G2+ is okay to use in your article, but then you questioned if that is really true after seeing the data Russ posted. Somewhat confusing, to say the least. I'm going to use mine as I have been using the BP film version for years without any issues. So I think they are indeed safe. I won't be looking through any optical viewfinder though, just at the LCD on my camera via liveview mode. I have never noticed either the G2+ or the BP film filters to allow my camera to heat up, nor have I noticed any issues with the cameras after using those filters. Granted I don't use them very often. I usually pull them out of the closet only when there is an eclipse or an unusually large sunspot or cluster of sunspots.

--
Best Regards,
Jack
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jackswinden
 
Last edited:

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top