I had to walk home into the unpowered section of Manhattan every night from work. I took some photos during that time. Unfortunately, as it was still overcast, we never did get a chance to see the stars from downtown Manhattan:
Makes me want to go out to the middle of nowhere for a while, just to experience the Real World (TM) again; it's been a long time.
Perhaps there's some combination of moon-lit conditions that would produce that effect, but it sure doesn't look right to me.
That's pretty much what the entire article was about. :)
Being in the lower side of Manhatten, there would still be sufficient light pollution from all the areas nearby that still had power, that I'd doubt you'd see more than a few stars. You can see the sky glow in your pictures; compare the sky, with its visible clouds with the full-black buildings.
It's basically impossible to get a proper sky anywhere east of the Missisippi.
The Michigan Panhandle is also not too bad. It helps that two sides are surrounded by water, which leads to little light pollution.
The city would look much, much darker. You can really tell that those are day shots of the cities with the brightness and saturation reduced.
The sky would look much, much less impressive. Photographers like to perpetuate a fantastic idea of the night sky by taking overexposed pictures, and this one is no exception. I have been in the middle of the savannah in Africa, with no light around for miles, and I don't remember the sky looking anything like that.
I remember that it was different enough that I was blown away by the contrast.
Not unless it was a moonless night. Even a quarter moon can be surprisingly bright once your eyes have adjusted to the night.
My parents live in a small village on the south coast of England, the nearest town is 15 miles away, so I saw it regularly when I was younger.
I'm wondering what kinds of techniques exist for removing light
Spectrum sensitivity? Spectrum filtering on exposure? Post processing?
I highly recommend it. The astronomy is fairly basic, but the experience is incredible: You're up on a big mountain, surrounded by gigantic telescopes, in the middle of a vast desert wilderness. It's freezing cold outside after dark. When the program is over, you have to drive down the upper half of the mountain without headlights to protect the observations that are happening.
I wonder if you could get it done with some kind of manual HDR: tracing out the skyline to explicitly say "stuff below the line should be from the low exposure photo, stuff above from the high exposure photo."
Disclaimer: I know nothing about photography.
However, deconvolution is one of those things that's great in theory, but almost impossible to pull off in practice, except under extremely controlled circumstances. And in this case, considering just how much dust/smog/etc. is in the atmosphere, and how it is non-uniform, I expect it would be simply impossible.
Nowadays, with phones and ipod, it's nearly impossible to let your eyes adjust that long without light. But it's worth it.
(it's also a little freaky being above a thunderstorm at night)
I've never seen the milky way with that much color, but the amount of stars and the star clouds of the milky way are not that far off.
The title is not just removing light pollution, it is removing most of the atmospheric interference. On clear cold nights you can get something close to this if you're truly in the middle of nowhere. Emphasis on clear and no towns within a few hundred kilometers.
The reason it doesn't really look like the photos is that we don't have CCDs in our eyes. When things get dim enough, we lose a lot of color perception. (That's why night scenes look practically monochrome.)
> Once a source of wonder--and one half of the entire
> planet's natural environment—the star-filled nights of
> just a few years ago are vanishing in a yellow haze.
> Human-produced light pollution not only mars our view of
> the stars; poor lighting threatens astronomy, disrupts
> ecosystems, affects human circadian rhythms, and wastes
> energy to the tune of $2.2 billion per year
> in the U.S. alone.
 (PDF) http://www.darksky.org/assets/documents/PG3-residential-ligh...
Kinda surprised nobody else said that yet...
It is a wonder to behold. I wish it looked like these photos. It doesn't.
You can clearly see the band of the Milky Way in both places. At first you think it's cloudy. But as your eyes adjust it becomes apparent the sky is clear and that's when the wonder of it all occurs to you.
Cool photos tho'. I'd buy one for my workspace.
I see unity: humanity's improbable citadels cradled by the beckoning infinity of the universe. Not everything has to be framed in conflict.
NOOOOO! What a load of bollocks. This is the _opposite_ of what I felt about these photos, until this bonehead art critic stepped in and told me what to feel. To hell with all commentators of art. Art does not tell you what to feel, and I resent anyone saying that any reaction is "impossible". Bah!!!