Northern lights: UV or IR?

[Crash N Burn]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

 

[kiwi2]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

You'd be lucky to see/photograph one even in visible light as we are heading right into solar minimum at the moment.

Good displays that would be visible from even the bottom of the South Island are few and far between right at the moment. Not to say that you won't get lucky and see one though.

 

[Oly Canikon]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

That would be the southern lights or auora australis.

I don't think there would be any benefit to IR or UV. The point of aurora photography is to capture the colours.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

Even if they exist at those frequencies, what do you expect the filters to do? Filters cut out the frequencies they are named for so if the aurora does indeed include UV frequencies the last thing you'd want to do is remove those frequencies by using a UV filter.

But it's irrelevant anyway - digital sensors already have UV and IR filters attached to make sure they record only the frequencies within the visible spectrum. So using additional filters has little, if any, effect.

Note, too, that glass is itself quite an effective UV filter so lenses also have quite a powerful UV filtering effect.

 

[BG454]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

Since they are a visual phenomenon surely they are best captured using natural light?

 

[David Pavlich]

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

 

[Crash N Burn]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

You'd be lucky to see/photograph one even in visible light as we are heading right into solar minimum at the moment.

What's a solar minimum? i didn't know auroras were seasonable.

Good displays that would be visible from even the bottom of the South Island are few and far between right at the moment. Not to say that you won't get lucky and see one though.

I was hoping to "see" one that wasn't with visible light but other parts of the spectrum.

 

[Crash N Burn]

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

You sure about that?

Check out what this guy got in IR: http://photocamel.com/forum/infrared/226340-aurora-borealis-infrared.html

 

[Crash N Burn]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

Since they are a visual phenomenon surely they are best captured using natural light?

NASA captured these auroras in ultraviolet, hence my intrigue: https://www.space.com/41695-saturn-auroras-amazing-hubble-photos-video.html

 

[Selene]

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

You sure about that?

Check out what this guy got in IR: http://photocamel.com/forum/infrared/226340-aurora-borealis-infrared.html

If you have actually ever seen an aurora, you would not be satisfied with the bluish/white one. In any case, it doesn't really matter given what Kiwi said. Auroras are subject to cycles related to sunspots. They are more frequent and more visible in places farther from the earth's poles in solar maximum. We are now in a solar minimum and the last time I checked there have not been any sunspots in over a month, hence the opportunity to view auroras has been relatively low. They can sometimes still occur and be visible, but Kiwi, who is obviously from New Zealand, is telling you that they are not showing up there much at this time.

And, I agree with everyone here, you really don't want to have a filter on your lens if you actually do see one.

 

[Chris R-UK]

H

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

You sure about that?

Check out what this guy got in IR: http://photocamel.com/forum/infrared/226340-aurora-borealis-infrared.html

I think that you are getting mixed up between filters that only allow IR or UV to reach the sensor and filters that stop any IR or UV from reaching the sensor.

As somebody else has pointed out, digital sensors already have filters on the front of the sensor that stop about 98% of UV or IR from reaching the sensor. That is why the UV filters that some people use for lens protection have no optical effect.

If you want to take an image using IR or UV only, you first of all have to pay somebody to remove the relevant IR or UV filter from the front of the sensor. That ruins the camera for normal visible light photography and will invalidate your warranty. You then need to find a filter that allows only UV or IR through. This is what infrared photographers do. Normally they adapt an old body to use for IR only.

Google “infrared photography” to learn more. I haven’t heard of anybody doing UV photography.

 

[Pocket Lint]

Hi, I shoot the northern lights a lot. I recommend capturing them in the visible light spectrum. Cheers























--
I just got in to photography and I love the artistic and technical aspect of it.

 

[Bill Ferris]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

You'd be lucky to see/photograph one even in visible light as we are heading right into solar minimum at the moment.

What's a solar minimum? i didn't know auroras were seasonable.

Auroras are produced when charged particles emitted by the Sun interact with Earth's magnetic field. While the Sun is always emitting charged particles, it is coronal mass ejection (CME) events (solar flares) that produce particles in substantially high abundance to generate bright, colorful auroras. As such, the frequency and intensity of auroras varies according to the approximate 11-year cycle of sunspot and flare activity on the Sun. As kiwi2 stated, the Sun is entering solar minimum and, as a result, both sunspot and flare activity is very low, as are the auroras produced by such events.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora

Good displays that would be visible from even the bottom of the South Island are few and far between right at the moment. Not to say that you won't get lucky and see one though.

I was hoping to "see" one that wasn't with visible light but other parts of the spectrum.

Auroras can and have been photographed, terrestrially, in the infrared using modified digital cameras. I may be wrong about this but the only way to make a digital camera sensitive to the UV portion of the spectrum is to modify the sensor so it's visible to the full spectrum, including IR wavelengths. If an aurora (as seen through Earth's atmosphere) is substantially brighter in the IR portion of the spectrum, that light may overwhelm the UV light from an auroral display.

 

[David Pavlich]

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

You sure about that?

Check out what this guy got in IR: http://photocamel.com/forum/infrared/226340-aurora-borealis-infrared.html

Thanks for confirming my answer. A fun experiment, but it pales compared to the real thing.

David

 

[kiwi2]

Be heading to New Zealand soon and been studying a lot of great landscapes. Yes, many have those coveted auroras.

Has anybody tried shooting them with IR or UV. Since they're some kind of charged particles, the wavelengths should be there in those frequencies, right?

You'd be lucky to see/photograph one even in visible light as we are heading right into solar minimum at the moment.

What's a solar minimum? i didn't know auroras were seasonable.

Good displays that would be visible from even the bottom of the South Island are few and far between right at the moment. Not to say that you won't get lucky and see one though.

I was hoping to "see" one that wasn't with visible light but other parts of the spectrum.

How long are you going to be in the country for? A week? Two weeks? A month?

And more importantly, how long will you be as far south as at least Dunedin or Queenstown?

 

[Crash N Burn]

Hi, I shoot the northern lights a lot. I recommend capturing them in the visible light spectrum. Cheers

Awesome shots!

You are very lucky to be living in a place like that. Is it Norway?

 

[Crash N Burn]

H

Neither filter would be of benefit. The only thing I can think that might give you an 'artsy' look would be to use an ND filter which would really blur aurora.

But, they are gorgeous on their own merit.

David

You sure about that?

Check out what this guy got in IR: http://photocamel.com/forum/infrared/226340-aurora-borealis-infrared.html

I think that you are getting mixed up between filters that only allow IR or UV to reach the sensor and filters that stop any IR or UV from reaching the sensor.

As somebody else has pointed out, digital sensors already have filters on the front of the sensor that stop about 98% of UV or IR from reaching the sensor. That is why the UV filters that some people use for lens protection have no optical effect.

If you want to take an image using IR or UV only, you first of all have to pay somebody to remove the relevant IR or UV filter from the front of the sensor. That ruins the camera for normal visible light photography and will invalidate your warranty. You then need to find a filter that allows only UV or IR through. This is what infrared photographers do. Normally they adapt an old body to use for IR only.

Google “infrared photography” to learn more. I haven’t heard of anybody doing UV photography.

Bummer. I wasn't aware of IR/UV blocks on sensors (appreciate your and Gerry posts). Perhaps I was stuck in the film cameras mindset.

Thanks...and also to everyone else who gave helpful advice

 

[Pocket Lint]

Hi, I shoot the northern lights a lot. I recommend capturing them in the visible light spectrum. Cheers

Awesome shots!

You are very lucky to be living in a place like that. Is it Norway?

Canada

--
I just got in to photography and I love the artistic and technical aspect of it.

 

[Leswick II]

IR filter like the R72 (Hoya) is v. dark and ND also darkens the view. If you have your camera changed to IR ($$$), you'll likely get the desired effect. I settle for the natural look......(less wild than some other stuff I have) & taken near Fairbanks.

 

[khunpapa]

H
If you want to take an image using IR or UV only, you first of all have to pay somebody to remove the relevant IR or UV filter from the front of the sensor. That ruins the camera for normal visible light photography and will invalidate your warranty. You then need to find a filter that allows only UV or IR through. This is what infrared photographers do. Normally they adapt an old body to use for IR only.

Google “infrared photography” to learn more. I haven’t heard of anybody doing UV photography.

Sensor is very sensitive to IR. That's why it does require IR block filter in front of it.

But it does not response well to the UV. Plus, most lens's glasses absorb lot of UV, leave only tiny amout reaching it. UV photography does exist. It also exists in the very serious form : forensic photography.

Problems of UV photo are 1) the UV-pass lens is darn expensive & 2) there's no UV light irradiation in most place. You need UV lamp/flash which is very harmful to health/eyes.