► Photos
midtskogen wrote:Source of the post The best display here that I've seen was this:
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post Nice capture, Wat! Are these clouds the result of meteoric dust
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post and what kind of camera settings do you need to capture them? Were they as visible in person as they appear to be in the image?
A-L-E-X wrote:Source of the post Wow was this a 4K timelapse?
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post Interestingly though, there aren't much historical records of observations of these clouds before 1885, after the Krakatau eruption.
Watsisname wrote:Source of the post when the Sun is above -12 degrees you begin losing them to the brightening sky.
midtskogen wrote:Watsisname wrote:Source of the post Interestingly though, there aren't much historical records of observations of these clouds before 1885, after the Krakatau eruption.
I don't think this is very conclusive. There are hardly any clear descriptions of the aurora borealis either going back more than a few centuries. Greek and Roman writers describe the long winter nights of the north, surely if they saw the aurora, they would have described it? Well, no records exist which clearly describe the aurora. Yet we can be pretty sure that the aurora was there.Watsisname wrote:Source of the post when the Sun is above -12 degrees you begin losing them to the brightening sky.
I think it depends on your latitude. At your latitude, the clouds are likely only seen low over the northern horizon, so it needs to be fairly dark. At higher latitudes, however, these clouds can cover the entire sky, and then you need the sun closer to the horizon to touch the clouds towards the south. The northern horizon might then be too bright, but who cares if the rest of the sky is filled with these clouds?
Nacreous clouds are interesting. They can be insanely bright, so if you try to photograph them, either the clouds will be overexposed or the landscape underexposed.