a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by wasoxygen
wasoxygen  ·  3563 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: I chased the solar eclipse, got these pics

    with 93% coverage it seems like it should be only 7% bright, but it felt more like 50%

Don't forget that hours pass between the first contact of the lunar disk with the edge of the sun and the arrival of maximum eclipse. That is plenty of time for eyes to adjust, and eyes are incredibly adaptive. A normal sunlit day is ten times brighter than an overcast day, and maximum direct sunlight is ten times brighter than that. And even an overcast day is ten times brighter than a well-lit office space.

Imgur scrubs the EXIF data from your photos, so I can't check, but if you have very similar photos from times close to and far from totality, you might be able to get some information about the brightness level from the exposure settings.

I am perplexed as to why flagamuffin got a no-show. The sun does not appear at all crescent-shaped in his photo. The timestamp is "2015-03-20 09:39:39," ruining my theory that he had one too many and slept through the eclipse.





user-inactivated  ·  3563 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Yes, your first query was akin to "is it plugged in," but I gamely answered it. I was sober. And had the right time. I did not get the wrong partial eclipse. (And to think you gave me a pass on the astronaut/pencil test.)

The crescent shape was nonexistent. I did get a sort of circular ring effect that was very cool and far more what you would expect from a solar eclipse ... but still underwhelming. It was present when I took the picture; my phone fuzzed it.

My eyes definitely adjusted -- I had been sitting in the car because it was 28 degrees out, writing postcards, and when I got out and joined my friends at :35, I said "wow look how dark it is" like a dope but it turned out they hadn't even noticed. Seriously. Too gradual.

Also there was a most-beautiful-on-the-continent waterfall 200 feet away.

wasoxygen  ·  3563 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  

I guess there's no mystery then, the moon was in front of the sun, but the exposed solar edge was bright enough to dazzle your camera and provide apparent daylight. The lesson is that we should not compare 100% sun to 2% sun, we should compare 2% sun to 0% sun.

I took a test photo directly at the sun just now using the front camera of my iPhone 5s and compared the exposure settings to your image.

  flagamuffin
  iPhone 6
  Software 8.2
  ISO 32
  Exposure Mode Auto
  Exposure Program Program Normal
  Metering Mode Multi-segment
  Exposure Time 33333/1000000 (0.0333)
  FNumber F2.2
  Focal Length 2.65 mm

  wasoxygen
  iPhone 5s
  Software 8.1.3
  ISO 50
  Exposure Mode Auto
  Exposure Program Program Normal
  Metering Mode Multi-segment
  Exposure Time 187/1000000 (0.000187)
  FNumber F2.4
  Focal Length 2.15 mm
Despite shooting through a dirty office window, my exposure was over a hundred times shorter than yours, suggesting a much brighter sun.
user-inactivated  ·  3563 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Wow!

My immediate thought was simply that the 2% was so much light still that it overrode eclipse. And it did. Nonetheless surprising when you're standing there.