When looking at photographs of the aurora borealis, you may wonder, "Is that really what it looked like?" You might ask:
Does it always look like that?
Does the camera capture the sky differently than the human eye?
Has the photographer enhanced the image in an exaggerated or unrealistic way?
There have been times—such as during peak solar activity in 2024 in Iceland—when I witnessed an aurora display so vivid and bright that I stood in awe, gazing at breathtaking ribbons and curtains of shimmering, undulating light in nearly every direction. The experience was unforgettable.
Other times, the aurora appears as faint green or pink hues in the sky, or even as a peculiar, monochromatic cloud-like formation. Then, the viewer glances at their camera or phone screen and see colors imperceptible with the naked eye. Why does this happen?
The reason lies in how our eyes work. The retina contains two types of receptors: rods and cones. Rods are highly sensitive to light but do not detect color, while cones perceive color but require more light to function effectively. This is why, in low-light conditions, things often appear grayish to humans. The aurora may seem unimpressive or even invisible to the naked eye because:
It’s not bright enough. You may be at a lower latitude, or the solar wind causing the aurora is weak that night.
Your eyes haven’t fully adapted to the dark. If your pupils haven’t dilated enough, the cones won’t register color well. This can be due to insufficient time in darkness or too much ambient light (from city lights, the moon, or other sources of light pollution).
Unlike our eyes, a camera sensor doesn’t have these limitations. Not only can it be adjusted for higher sensitivity at night, but it can also take long exposures, which collect faint light over time and produce a brighter image.
Finally, post-processing is essential for night sky photography. Adjustments help bring out the full range of colors and details, making the image more representative of what was visible on-site. The key is to enhance the image judiciously, avoiding an artificial or overprocessed appearance.
Enjoy these images, and feel free to reach out with any questions via the contact form.
As a special treat, there’s a 30-second video at the end showcasing a time-lapse sequence that highlights how dynamic the aurora is over time.
Vestrahorn: In 2019, my first aurora emerged suddenly behind the clouds of this impressive mountain. range. Just a faint greenish glow but it was so exciting!
Westfjords: In 2024, the auroras were much more active and brighter, and the weather was amazingly clear. This image is ok but you can see how much ambient light from the city is present, making the aurora look more like an odd cloud to the naked eye..
Later that night, and outside the town of Patreksfjordur, the aurora was easier to see.
Patreksfjordur: A good aurora always looks lovely over the water. These purples and greens were most common...reds showed when the aurora was most intense.
Just a puff of aurora.
Another subtle but beautiful display over the water
One of the brightest of my week in the Westfjords of iceland, this one was stunning. You can see the ground looking green in this and other images here....that's not fake! The sky is green and it lights up the ground in green.
Aurora in an old fishing village over the abandoned herring processing plant. The skies were filled with color 360 degrees around me.
This road seems to lead to a magic land. The road glows green from the sky. The fjord is slightly vvisible on the right.
Back home, I rushed to Weston Ma on October 10, 2024 when I heard reports of aurora activity nearby. Lots of other suburbanites rushed there too. It was hard to see without a camera or smartphone.
