5 ms·

Small personal bugbear about images used to illustrate these articles: in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moo

by muglug 4y ago

Small personal bugbear about images used to illustrate these articles: in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moon and you're hundreds of miles from any town. Even in perfect conditions the milky way will never look like the hyper-saturated versions that a camera can capture, because our experience of the night sky is mostly monochromatic.

CalRobert 4y ago
That's a bit of a stretch, I can barely see the milky way on a new moon, but I'm 60 miles from Dublin and near a town of 20,000. It'll be gone soon, though. All these blue LED street lights are a scourge.
- tayo42 4y ago
  I thought these led lights are good for light pollution because they're more directed straight down and don't leak as much up? I think there are there other issues like sleeping cycle stuff. Maybe I'm misrembering?
  - CalRobert 4y ago
    Seems to be quite a bit worse - https://www.savingourstars.org/darkskylighting https://www.savingourstars.org/darkskylighting - more glare for one thing https://spectrum.ieee.org/led-streetlights-are-giving-neighborhoods-the-blues https://spectrum.ieee.org/led-streetlights-are-giving-neighb...
    - tayo42 4y ago
      hmm wonder what i was thinking about then
      - dylan604 4y ago
        You're forgetting that the color of the light doesn't care about how it was made. If the LEDs being installed were in the warmer color temp direction, then they would be better for the foggy/moist air; nevermind the bluer color's affect on circadian rythms.
  - sparker72678 4y ago
    A lot of the companies selling LED streetlights to municipalities will claim improvements in light pollution, because you can, in fact, get many more photons per watt with LEDs than with high pressure sodium (or whatever your local incandescent street light is using). But it turns out in most cases the town/city just decide to keep spending nearly the same amount on electricity, and put in brighter LED lights. So now they have a little less electricity being used, and much more light. Some cities will do trial runs, and ask for feedback from the community. And, people being people, in nearly all cases they will say they prefer the brighter streetlights. So again, we end up with brighter lights.
throwawaylinux 4y ago
> Small personal bugbear about images used to illustrate these articles: in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moon and you're hundreds of miles from any town. Hundreds of miles from the closest megacity maybe. You could go a couple miles out of a small rural town and see a brilliant milky way. They don't look anything like those photos with their strange bright blue and yellow skies though of course, or any terrestrial features lit up like daylight like this! It's all pretty black.
Nursie 4y ago
The hyper-saturated long-exposure shots? Sure, you won't see that with the naked eye. But you can absolutely appreciate seeing the plane of our galaxy from, say, the Australian countryside, outside of the big cities.
- pmontra 4y ago
  The largest stars I saw in my life (they really feel closer and larger) were above an empty campsite half a day west of Uluru on the Great Central Road, August 2003. The dust clouds in front of the Milky Way had a 3D feeling, a presence on their own and not a lack of whiteness. I had to take off my glasses to find the brightest stars and constellations because all of them seemed to have the same brightness (was I overexposed?) and there were too many stars anyway. And the shadows cast by Venus and Jupiter on a boat and their lines of light on the water. That was close to the Withsundays.
TacticalCoder 4y ago
> in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moon and you're hundreds of miles from any town That's a bit of an exaggeration. I often go to some place in a rural area in mainland France, very close to the sea. Night skies are beautiful and I can clearly see the milky way at times. The two closest big city are 46 miles (75 km) south or 70 miles north (115 km). But there's very little pollution: one of the reason is that it's a very sparsely populated sea side (there are vineyards and that's about it) and the other reason is the closest highway is a 45 minutes drive. > Even in perfect conditions the milky way will never look like the hyper-saturated versions that a camera can capture I agree with that!
fooker 4y ago
> monochromatic Sadly this is based on age. Younger people can usually see the red and purple colors in the Milky Way. Once you are close to thirty, this ability seems to go away.
- Qem 4y ago
  Interesting. Is there a source for that? Never heard before about this age-related effect.
  - mncharity 4y ago
    Lens transmission of blue (say <450 or <500 nm) declines with age - looks vaguely like 2% per year ages 20 to 60.[1] Thus reduced blue-yellow contrast perception in elderly. I don't know of any age-related change in red perception... perhaps those colors were off? [1] "Fundamental Chromaticity Diagram with Physiological Axes - Part 1" (I'm unclear on CIE copyright, so no link, sorry), section 5.6.
  - fooker 4y ago
    Let me try to find some sources, this is so widely known and accepted in the photography (specifically astrophotography I guess) community that I have never bothered to look for sources. It matches my (and a bunch of others’) experience though, for what it’s worth.
dkarl 4y ago
> hundreds of miles from any town Not at all. Maybe hundreds of miles from a large city? I'm not even sure about that, but I know you can see the Milky Way fifty miles from a city of tens of thousands.
- harrydehal 4y ago
  For the data-visualization curious, here's a fun map: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info https://www.lightpollutionmap.info Clicking on your location/vicinity shows a tooltip with your "Bortle Dark Sky Scale" number, which can be referenced here: https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bortle.html https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bortle.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale Apparently I've lived in a class 6 or 7 my whole life, and only recall seeing shooting stars camping out in the Sierras, e.g. Yosemite, which is still only a class 2!
saiya-jin 4y ago
Those milky way pictures are not so much about long camera exposure but rather tons and tons of after-processing mostly in Photoshop (did quite a bit of night sky photography with full-frame camera). Literally painting some areas with black and massively highlighting colors which are barely there. You know all those comparisons pre-and-post-photoshop for models? Its same for those over-processed night shots (or generally any way over-processed shots, which most milky way shots are) I turn away in disgust. I understand folks who don't know much about this like it, but once you know what actually comes out of full frame sensor in 25s exposure (even if stacked) there is no way back. Most pros do this too simply because it sells well to those who don't know better.
- jankor 4y ago
  My experience is different. Sensitive camera with a fast lens feels sort of like a night vision. In my case sony a7iii + 1.4 24mm lens can see so much more stars in Berlin. And that's on relatively fast shutter speed (hand handled) with no processing. Yes longer shutter speeds, contrast boosting, stacking etc then multiple this effect to another level.
  - saiya-jin 4y ago
    Oh you can see many more starts, milky way is more clear etc that was not the point. I don't have much different setup (Nikon D750 + 20mm 1.8 which is actually a bit bigger glass than yours), but when you take picture from camera, its completely different from what you typically find presented from amateurs and pros alike. The difference is that ridiculous amount over-processing, literally re-painting parts of picture ie to add more contrast to milky way. Once you know what goes inside making of such a picture, as a photographer you can't have much respect there, I know I can't. Its same as celebrities with unnaturally smooth plasticky skin - when you know how they look like in real life even with tons of makeup, those shots over-processed on top of that look just cheap and bad taste.
    - rimliu 4y ago
      You do not understand neither photography, nor astrophotography. Next you will have a disdain for JWST, becuase we do not see IR.
nullc 4y ago
I mean yea, sure, it doesn't look identical to a super long exposure photograph, but in a really dark sky with dark adapted eyes the milky way casts a visible shadow! It is absolutely and utterly striking and not monochromatic. There is nothing ambiguous or barely about it. If you haven't had that experience it may be that you've never been to a truly dark site (there is essentially none in the US east of the mississippi) and there is a big difference between kinda dark and really dark, or perhaps because you haven't at the time of year where the MW was extremely high in the sky at the middle of astronomical night or you had pollution from a non-new moon in the sky. Being able to barely see the MW is what I would describe as the condition under optimal conditions in northern Marin County CA. Which is is urban area and not especially dark but Marian County prohibits outdoor advertising, so it's much better than most places of similar density. Unfortunately even in the last two years the sky brightness has become worse for me.
bigjimmyk3 4y ago
I was in a DSP over the weekend that is ~20 miles from the closest town of 1,000 or more, and after about 15 minutes I was able to see the Milky Way pretty clearly. I could also see the faint glow of 2 cities maybe 40 and 60 miles away on the horizon, so I knew that they were there.

by muglug 4y ago

CalRobert 4y ago

That's a bit of a stretch, I can barely see the milky way on a new moon, but I'm 60 miles from Dublin and near a town of 20,000. It'll be gone soon, though. All these blue LED street lights are a scourge.

tayo42 4y ago
I thought these led lights are good for light pollution because they're more directed straight down and don't leak as much up? I think there are there other issues like sleeping cycle stuff. Maybe I'm misrembering?
- CalRobert 4y ago
  Seems to be quite a bit worse - https://www.savingourstars.org/darkskylighting https://www.savingourstars.org/darkskylighting - more glare for one thing https://spectrum.ieee.org/led-streetlights-are-giving-neighborhoods-the-blues https://spectrum.ieee.org/led-streetlights-are-giving-neighb...
  - tayo42 4y ago
    hmm wonder what i was thinking about then
    - dylan604 4y ago
      You're forgetting that the color of the light doesn't care about how it was made. If the LEDs being installed were in the warmer color temp direction, then they would be better for the foggy/moist air; nevermind the bluer color's affect on circadian rythms.
- sparker72678 4y ago
  A lot of the companies selling LED streetlights to municipalities will claim improvements in light pollution, because you can, in fact, get many more photons per watt with LEDs than with high pressure sodium (or whatever your local incandescent street light is using). But it turns out in most cases the town/city just decide to keep spending nearly the same amount on electricity, and put in brighter LED lights. So now they have a little less electricity being used, and much more light. Some cities will do trial runs, and ask for feedback from the community. And, people being people, in nearly all cases they will say they prefer the brighter streetlights. So again, we end up with brighter lights.

throwawaylinux 4y ago

> Small personal bugbear about images used to illustrate these articles: in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moon and you're hundreds of miles from any town. Hundreds of miles from the closest megacity maybe. You could go a couple miles out of a small rural town and see a brilliant milky way. They don't look anything like those photos with their strange bright blue and yellow skies though of course, or any terrestrial features lit up like daylight like this! It's all pretty black.

Nursie 4y ago

The hyper-saturated long-exposure shots? Sure, you won't see that with the naked eye. But you can absolutely appreciate seeing the plane of our galaxy from, say, the Australian countryside, outside of the big cities.

pmontra 4y ago
The largest stars I saw in my life (they really feel closer and larger) were above an empty campsite half a day west of Uluru on the Great Central Road, August 2003. The dust clouds in front of the Milky Way had a 3D feeling, a presence on their own and not a lack of whiteness. I had to take off my glasses to find the brightest stars and constellations because all of them seemed to have the same brightness (was I overexposed?) and there were too many stars anyway. And the shadows cast by Venus and Jupiter on a boat and their lines of light on the water. That was close to the Withsundays.

TacticalCoder 4y ago

> in the clearest of skies the naked eye can barely see the milky way unless it's a new moon and you're hundreds of miles from any town That's a bit of an exaggeration. I often go to some place in a rural area in mainland France, very close to the sea. Night skies are beautiful and I can clearly see the milky way at times. The two closest big city are 46 miles (75 km) south or 70 miles north (115 km). But there's very little pollution: one of the reason is that it's a very sparsely populated sea side (there are vineyards and that's about it) and the other reason is the closest highway is a 45 minutes drive. > Even in perfect conditions the milky way will never look like the hyper-saturated versions that a camera can capture I agree with that!

fooker 4y ago

> monochromatic Sadly this is based on age. Younger people can usually see the red and purple colors in the Milky Way. Once you are close to thirty, this ability seems to go away.

Qem 4y ago
Interesting. Is there a source for that? Never heard before about this age-related effect.
- mncharity 4y ago
  Lens transmission of blue (say <450 or <500 nm) declines with age - looks vaguely like 2% per year ages 20 to 60.[1] Thus reduced blue-yellow contrast perception in elderly. I don't know of any age-related change in red perception... perhaps those colors were off? [1] "Fundamental Chromaticity Diagram with Physiological Axes - Part 1" (I'm unclear on CIE copyright, so no link, sorry), section 5.6.
- fooker 4y ago
  Let me try to find some sources, this is so widely known and accepted in the photography (specifically astrophotography I guess) community that I have never bothered to look for sources. It matches my (and a bunch of others’) experience though, for what it’s worth.

dkarl 4y ago

> hundreds of miles from any town Not at all. Maybe hundreds of miles from a large city? I'm not even sure about that, but I know you can see the Milky Way fifty miles from a city of tens of thousands.

harrydehal 4y ago
For the data-visualization curious, here's a fun map: https://www.lightpollutionmap.info https://www.lightpollutionmap.info Clicking on your location/vicinity shows a tooltip with your "Bortle Dark Sky Scale" number, which can be referenced here: https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bortle.html https://www.handprint.com/ASTRO/bortle.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bortle_scale Apparently I've lived in a class 6 or 7 my whole life, and only recall seeing shooting stars camping out in the Sierras, e.g. Yosemite, which is still only a class 2!

saiya-jin 4y ago

Those milky way pictures are not so much about long camera exposure but rather tons and tons of after-processing mostly in Photoshop (did quite a bit of night sky photography with full-frame camera). Literally painting some areas with black and massively highlighting colors which are barely there. You know all those comparisons pre-and-post-photoshop for models? Its same for those over-processed night shots (or generally any way over-processed shots, which most milky way shots are) I turn away in disgust. I understand folks who don't know much about this like it, but once you know what actually comes out of full frame sensor in 25s exposure (even if stacked) there is no way back. Most pros do this too simply because it sells well to those who don't know better.

jankor 4y ago
My experience is different. Sensitive camera with a fast lens feels sort of like a night vision. In my case sony a7iii + 1.4 24mm lens can see so much more stars in Berlin. And that's on relatively fast shutter speed (hand handled) with no processing. Yes longer shutter speeds, contrast boosting, stacking etc then multiple this effect to another level.
- saiya-jin 4y ago
  Oh you can see many more starts, milky way is more clear etc that was not the point. I don't have much different setup (Nikon D750 + 20mm 1.8 which is actually a bit bigger glass than yours), but when you take picture from camera, its completely different from what you typically find presented from amateurs and pros alike. The difference is that ridiculous amount over-processing, literally re-painting parts of picture ie to add more contrast to milky way. Once you know what goes inside making of such a picture, as a photographer you can't have much respect there, I know I can't. Its same as celebrities with unnaturally smooth plasticky skin - when you know how they look like in real life even with tons of makeup, those shots over-processed on top of that look just cheap and bad taste.
  - rimliu 4y ago
    You do not understand neither photography, nor astrophotography. Next you will have a disdain for JWST, becuase we do not see IR.

nullc 4y ago

I mean yea, sure, it doesn't look identical to a super long exposure photograph, but in a really dark sky with dark adapted eyes the milky way casts a visible shadow! It is absolutely and utterly striking and not monochromatic. There is nothing ambiguous or barely about it. If you haven't had that experience it may be that you've never been to a truly dark site (there is essentially none in the US east of the mississippi) and there is a big difference between kinda dark and really dark, or perhaps because you haven't at the time of year where the MW was extremely high in the sky at the middle of astronomical night or you had pollution from a non-new moon in the sky. Being able to barely see the MW is what I would describe as the condition under optimal conditions in northern Marin County CA. Which is is urban area and not especially dark but Marian County prohibits outdoor advertising, so it's much better than most places of similar density. Unfortunately even in the last two years the sky brightness has become worse for me.

bigjimmyk3 4y ago

I was in a DSP over the weekend that is ~20 miles from the closest town of 1,000 or more, and after about 15 minutes I was able to see the Milky Way pretty clearly. I could also see the faint glow of 2 cities maybe 40 and 60 miles away on the horizon, so I knew that they were there.