Icy Show

There was an aurora alert on space weather. I went to a nearby frozen lake to see it and hopefully capture it. The show was not anything crazy (when i was there, after i left it exploded based on other photos i saw that night :frowning: )
so i tried to use the interest in the foreground as well as the big dipper as extra elements in the photo. The stars were glowing because of a faint cloud layer, i just gave it a very slight nudge in PS

Specific Feedback Requested

What would you say about the visual balance of this image

Technical Details:

This is a focus stacked image. Used three exposures two for the land with different focus points and longer shutter speed, one for the sky with a shorter shutter speed.

Sony A7ii / Sony 20mm G f1.8
Sky: f1.8, SS: 5 sec, ISO: 3200
Land: f5.6, SS: 30 sec, ISO: 3200

All shot at the same time from the same tripod position

1 Like

Excellent, I am envious, Where were you ?

This is in Alberta near the city of Calgary
It is called Ghost Lake

This is a nice aurora image, the processing looks good. The solar cycle is shifting back to increasing activity this year. So you may well get other chances this winter even if you missed the big display this time. I assume this is a composite image. If so, for the sake of others learning about techniques, NPN guidelines recommend that you indicate if it is a composite when you post the image. Nothing wrong with composites, but it helps with others to learn how such images are created.

In terms of composition and visual balance, it works fairly well. I like how all the mid-ground elements (rocks, ice, water) point to the aurora. But the foreground feels a bit right heavy due to the area of dark ice in the LRC. I think the image works as presented, but it would be stronger if there was something of interest in the LRC. Maybe play with some bottom crops to reduce that dark area in the LRC.

Thanks @Ed_McGuirk I appreciate the feedback.

Based on the definition in thebpost page
“ Is this image a composite?

Did you use multiple images taken at different times/locations to create this image? Please explain your process below to help others learn. (i.e. did you swap out the sky from another day or replace the background)“

This image is not a composite. It was shot in the same place and same time (unless the exposure time of 30 seconds is long enough to consider this a different time) i interpret different time to mean foreground was shot at blue hour and the sky later on but all of this was done in a matter of a minute same position.
Please let me know if i am misunderstanding

My comment was intended to ask if this was a bracket of two exposures taken to expand dynamic range (ie two separate exposures, one for the sky, another for the land). There is nothing wrong with using this technique. I think the emphasis from the guidelines should be on “Please explain your process below to help others learn”, not necessarily just focusing on the examples of composites given in the guidelines. For example, less experienced photographers might wonder if there is enough ambient light from the aurora to get this scene with one exposure, or do they need to take more than one exposure to get this look? My only point is that the guidelines suggest there is value to others from sharing information about techniques used. Others might be encouraged to try your technique if they better understand how it was done.

I got you i am sorry initially i had put all that in the upload form the number of exposures and the difference in shutter speed and focus points.

I just went up to the post and realized it is not there i had some issues with form yesterday.
Will edit the post to reflect that

Thanks @Ed_McGuirk

No problem. I myself frequently use exposure brackets and blend them for dynamic range using luminosity masks, and I mention this in the technical section. Remember, other folks also get learning out of the comments on the images that you post. So when I bracket and blend exposures I mention it because it helps others to understand how those results are possible, and what can be achieved that way. We have photographers at NPN with a wide range of experience, and the disclosure/discussion of technique is one way the less experienced folks learn more.

You do not need to list exposure data for all the brackets, most folks generally just say something like, “reflects blend of exposure brackets for dynamic range”.

This is nice! I like how you got lots of landscape in there along with the aurora.
I do agree a bit with Ed on the FG being maybe a bit strong. I wonder what would happen if you just cropped off part of that bottom? I like the trees and far shoreline being in there, and the shiny areas. Maybe, for me, the aurora and sky ought to be a bigger part of the image.
Living in Alaska, I really like seeing the Big Dipper in there! Cool!