Quote:
Originally Posted by calf
So, I always jokingly said that Northern Lights were a myth because despite everyone seeing them, sharing pictures, etc, I never could.
But last night my wife gave me the 'a-ha moment' - what you see in the pictures with the greens and purples, etc, aren't necessarily what you see with the naked eye. The Northern Lights looked more like slightly brighter spots in the sky - almost like whispy clouds at first glance.
When you take a photo with your phone, especially on night mode, that's when all the colours pop.
This was when looking outside in my well-lit neighborhood.
Is that what everyone else experiences? Or do I need to get to a different spot to see the colours without using a camera, eyes checked, etc?
Thinking that sometimes what you're looking for isn't necessarily what one should be looking for, which is why they can be missed by people so often.
|
Part of that is being in the city as others mentioned. Another is that I think the index has to be higher for it to be truly seen by the naked eye.
I remember driving down Beddington Trail decades ago and I saw a green ribbon sorta flowing back and forth in the sky. Literally like an old school screen saver. It wasn't very bright, but it was distinct from the rest of the sky. It was my first time seeing northern lights and I saw it without a camera. I remember arguing with my passengers that it was northern lights but they kept disregarding it as some other type of phenomenon.
Last night was not as bright as what I saw those many years ago and it wasn't really actively moving all that much from when and where I was watching. You can go out to areas with less light pollution for a better experience for nights like last night. There will probably be nights in the future that will be brighter than last night.