9 ms·
Starry, Starry, Starry Night
- vishaldpatel 14y agoIdea for business.. or umm.. money: - A campaign by low pollution lighting using a similar set of images, except this time, with low emissions lights on. There'd be a before and after to show the difference between bright lights and less bright lights.
- kosei 14y agoAbsolutely gorgeous. Though it's still a major city, this is one of the reasons I'm grateful to have moved to the suburbs of Seattle from downtown New York City.
- yareally 14y agoFrom what my friends that live in the Seattle area say, you can rarely see such stars. I'm always like "Hey the moon looks really great tonight" or "I can see the ISS really well" or "Venus/Jupiter are huge tonight." The usual response from them is "It's too cloudy here :(" I'm sure things are more visible there overall than say NYC though.
- moubarak 14y agoI think those photographs reveal how frail human creation really is.
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoDon't forget that these photographs are a human creation.
- aaron695 14y agoFake. And ridiculously so. You can only see around 2000 stars in total with no light pollution across the entire sky Perhaps the photographer is not saying they are realistic, it might be nytimes being misleading.
- ScottBurson 14y ago> Fake. Yes. If you scroll down you'll see the explanation :-)
- jmspring 14y agoGet out into the wilderness sometime where there is no light pollution and take the time to look up. While 2000 may be the make without optical assistance, there is something humbling and awe inspiring about how vast things are. Simply stating "Fake", at least for me, downplays the point the photographer/artist is trying to make.
- aaron695 14y agoYES "there is something humbling and awe inspiring about how vast things are." So why fake it. Why show pretend scenes with orders of magnitude more stars then there should be. Why not just show real life and how the stars would look if Paris etc had the lights turned off. Why show a universe where somehow stars at hundreds of times more than they are. Isn't ours good enough? Anyone scientific/technical knows how stupid those pictures look, and anyone artistic has been away from city lights and knows what stars really look like. Why break from a great idea and create something so fake looking. Why not make them realistic and make a point on light pollution and the beauty we are missing out on. Why can't we appreciate the real universe and how great it is. Have we become that sad we need to make everything look like a scifi movie? At least have a couple of moons if you're going to go down that road.
- rplnt 14y agoSome of those can be seen with naked eye. Others are taken with longer exposure times (and using tracers (or multiple shots) to avoid this http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photos/3003666.jpg http://www.twanight.org/newTWAN/photos/3003666.jpg ). While we can call them fake, they are not fake in a sense that they don't capture the real thing.
- aaron695 14y ago
- 16s 14y ago"WHEN I heard the learn’d astronomer; When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me; When I was shown the charts and the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them; When I, sitting, heard the astronomer, where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room, How soon, unaccountable, I became tired and sick; Till rising and gliding out, I wander’d off by myself, In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time, Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars." - Walt Whitman
- CapitalistCartr 14y agoI never related to that poem until I read the Zen Pencils version: http://zenpencils.com/comic/88-walt-whitman-when-i-heard-the-learnd-astronomer/ http://zenpencils.com/comic/88-walt-whitman-when-i-heard-the...
- bfwi 14y agoThere probably exists some real photographs from power outages, that shows the night sky over a big city without much light pollution.
- Sharlin 14y agoUnfortunately, the regular particulate pollution and heat haze over megacities are going to wreak havoc with your seeing pretty badly even in the absence of light pollution.
- dustinlakin 14y agoI would love some high resolution images of these.
- ra 14y agoIt's about time we started to recognise light pollution as just that, pollution.
- andrewcooke 14y agothis is a bit misleading. i've worked at major observatories - the best places to see stars in the world - and the sky doesn't look like that to the naked eye. the star images are over-exposed compared to what you would actually experience. yes, cities have light (and other) pollution, but this is over-stating the case.
- demetrius 14y agoIs the gallery specially designed in such a way to avoid allowing "Save as" link? Well, I've managed to get direct links by looking at data-original property in Firebug, so it doesn't look hiding it was a real reason... But why then? Why such a non-accessible script?
- CapitalistCartr 14y agoI was an avid reader of astronomy books as a child growing up in a major city. I thought the pictures in those books were always taken with a telescope or otherwise enhanced. Then we went to visit my grandmother, who lived back in a "holler" in the Blue Ridge mountains. I walked outside after dark one evening, looked up, and was shocked to see the Milky Way with my naked eyes. I hadn't realized that was possible until then.