Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix
McAfee Secure sites help keep you safe from identity theft, credit card fraud, spyware, spam, viruses and online scams
Ransom Riggs
Best Eclipse Photo Ever!
by Ransom Riggs - February 5, 2010 - 12:20 PM

eclipse

Actually, this isn’t just one photograph — it’s a composite of 31 different images, taken in the shadow of the solar eclipse that passed over Asia and parts of the Pacific back in July for 6 minutes and 39 seconds. That’s the longest solar eclipse anyone on Earth will witness this century; a longer one isn’t coming until 2132. Mathematician and eclipse photographer Miloslav Druckmüller didn’t waste a second of it, positioned with a team of colleagues on Enewetak Atoll in the South Pacific, which just happens to be where the first hydrogen bomb was tested by the United States back in 1952. (Sounds like the setup to an un-aired episode of Lost, but anyway.)

The photo shows the solar corona that make up the sun’s “atmosphere” in glorious detail. Its whorls and loops extend millions of miles into space, are nearly 200 times hotter than the visible surface of the sun, and yet aren’t nearly as bright (by a factor of something like a million), hence, we can only see them during eclipses. I love the delicate beauty of this photo, and how it makes various features of the corona so plainly visible, like the difference in activity around its polar regions, as well as the dim, cratered surface of the moon. Ain’t the universe purdy?

[Photo via Scientific American.]

More from mental_floss…

Vacation to Mars: Antarctica’s Dry Valleys
*
Extreme Weirdness: Antarctica’s “Blood Falls”
*
The Mojave Desert’s Airplane Graveyard: A Photo Tour
*
Strange Geographies: Salvation Mountain
*
The Origins of 10 Winter Olympic Sports
*
13 Incredibly Focused Graduate Programs
*
8 U.S. Presidents With Statues Abroad
*
Why Is Snow White?

twitterbanner.jpg

shirts-555.jpg

tshirtsubad_static-11.jpg

« Previous Post   -   Next Post »
Comments (45)

  1. It sure is, Paw!

    posted by Gilbert on 2-5-2010 at 1:26 pm

  2. ‘Ain’t the universe purdy?’

    Took the words right out of my mouth!

    posted by R Clark on 2-5-2010 at 1:27 pm

  3. when is a picture not a picture? when it is made up of 31 pictures. I call BS.

    posted by IFB on 2-5-2010 at 2:27 pm

  4. @ IFB —

    Photographers use multiple exposures all the time, this is just an extreme example. There’s no other way to bring out all the fine gradient detail in what would otherwise be a total silhouette of the moon. The many exposures are really just a compensation for the dynamic range limitations of cameras — especially digital ones.

    posted by Ransom Riggs on 2-5-2010 at 2:45 pm

  5. Don’t let them bug you, Ransom. You were clear up front that this is a composite… and a beautiful one at that! Thanks for sharing!

    posted by Hyacinth on 2-5-2010 at 3:49 pm

  6. What a beautiful picture. Awesome post!

    posted by Christina on 2-5-2010 at 4:06 pm

  7. It was made very clear from the outset that this was a composite and it is indeed very beautiful. However, I will admit to be disappointed at seeing a composite under the heading “Best Eclipse Photo Ever!” While there is nothing underhanded about it, it just isn’t the same as actually capturing that moment in time with a click of the shutter.

    posted by Kate on 2-5-2010 at 4:08 pm

  8. Trolling is a art.

    posted by Larry on 2-5-2010 at 5:12 pm

  9. When people like Kate and IFB can produce an image like this from one click of the shutter, then they might have an argument against the use of composite images. Until then, I believe the title of this blog entry stands as sufficiently accurate.

    posted by kaonashi on 2-5-2010 at 5:33 pm

  10. Composite or not composite. Is that the question? You are seeing millions of pictures right now in your monitor or your eyes. Awsome. Just that.

    posted by Manuel on 2-5-2010 at 6:35 pm

  11. Had you actually read what I wrote, you would realize that I never argued against composite images, nor did I imply that a similar image could be achieved through one click of the shutter. What I DID say is that I was expecting something different when I read the title, simple as that.

    I think it is a lovely image.

    posted by Kate on 2-5-2010 at 6:53 pm

  12. looks like proof of the electric sun/universe theory; the poles are clearly radiating plasma..

    being a troll on the net starts with being a troll in your heart.

    you trolls are pathetic; from the greek “PATHOS” ;to feel sympathy/pity towards/for..

    we all pity you.

    posted by bjackson on 2-5-2010 at 7:30 pm

  13. I fell in love with that composite. It’s my new desktop. Makes me remember things I miss doing of my youth.

    posted by jiminut on 2-5-2010 at 8:19 pm

  14. composite or not…one must admit it is a very cool picture!!! Looks like a heavy disk on a pure white, soft bedsheet! Only better! JMHO

    posted by Sandie on 2-5-2010 at 10:36 pm

  15. Does the Sun revolve around an axis? Any one know?

    posted by The Baldchemist on 2-6-2010 at 4:04 am

  16. Very cool indeed!

    posted by Marc on 2-6-2010 at 10:13 am

  17. Stumbled here.
    Too beautiful :)

    posted by hEMANT on 2-6-2010 at 2:21 pm

  18. I’ve seen two solar eclipses – a composite is the only way to do it with current technology. It really captures the moment; it only lacks the fascinating constant motion of the coronal rays.

    posted by Sheldon Norbdye on 2-6-2010 at 3:53 pm

  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_rotation

    posted by solarboy on 2-6-2010 at 7:20 pm

  20. I love it.

    posted by Karl on 2-6-2010 at 9:43 pm

  21. I would love to find that image in large enough format for my desktop display. No luck, so far…

    posted by BuriedCaesar on 2-6-2010 at 11:04 pm

  22. sorry if im bursting anyone’s bubble here but it looks like something i made in photoshop a few weeks ago. if you follow this link and scroll down to the final image…the flares coming out of the center look suspiciously like the one coming out of the side of the earth in this “eclipse”.

    posted by dx on 2-7-2010 at 12:36 pm

  23. http://www.tutorialguide.net/vortex_spin_tutorial.html

    posted by dx on 2-7-2010 at 12:37 pm

  24. Lost? More like heroes..! (Eclipse, Mutants…)

    posted by George on 2-8-2010 at 6:38 pm

  25. Everyone has had their dose of Hater-aid today. Excellent photo!

    posted by Justine on 2-8-2010 at 6:41 pm

  26. Here’s one that’s big enough to fit on your desktop:

    http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/Eclipse/Ecl2008m/Tse2008_200_mo1/Hr/Tse2008_200_mo1.png

    posted by Ohng on 2-8-2010 at 11:11 pm

  27. Can people just enjoy a photo or link and move on without some snarky comment? Why is there even a comments section? Why am I writing this?

    posted by Scott on 2-9-2010 at 2:46 am

  28. PS: No “dx” it does not really look like your PhotoShop tutorial.

    posted by Scott on 2-9-2010 at 2:49 am

  29. Personally I find comments issued on things such as these helpful and educational, not denying people are sometimes abit snide. But for example, at first glimpse my initial reaction was ‘blatent photoshop’ then I read the info posted with it (which I believe some people have not) about composite images which makes sense (unlike kaonashi’s comment) and then found a link to a higher res image for use as my BG.
    This image quite obviously has had slight photoshop alterations, which isn’t a bad thing, but so has probably about 97% of all the other images our world today..
    All in all this have been beneficial to most of our individual time spent here, otherwise we wouldn’t have posted on it would we :)

    posted by Coloninator on 2-10-2010 at 11:48 pm

  30. Haha it looks like something out of Star Trek!

    posted by Marco on 2-11-2010 at 9:16 am

  31. Wow its really nice to see that amazing picture good work….

    posted by Ram on 2-12-2010 at 8:42 am

  32. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXg2XgNsXQw

    posted by selfass on 2-13-2010 at 9:04 am

  33. Is a composite photo something like HDR photography? Awsome photo, by the way. Screw the naysayers, they are just jealous because they have no creativity or brains for that matter. They would rather be negative instead of seeing the beauty in anything.

    posted by Scooter Magoo on 2-13-2010 at 9:48 pm

  34. There’s nothing wrong with asking questions about how the picture was put together! My big question is this — a whole group of photographers taking a picture of the same object at the same moment will STILL not hold their cameras all at the same angle, even if they are all TRYING to do so. It’s also surprising to see the moon’s surface during an eclipse, but not completely — because this would be like a multiple exposure. However, that would then mean the solar flares would have overexposed. So were the images of the flares and of the moon’s surface treated differently in this composite (underexpose the flares, overexpose the moon)? And were they all rotated at the time of composition so that the images of the moon’s craters lined up perfectly, as we see them here? (and, yes, I already checked — this is the side of the moon that always faces us). Wait — I just found Miloslav Druckmüller’s page
    http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/eclipse/Ecl2009e/0-info.htm
    – and it looks like they were using computers to control the cameras: “he Linux software Multican, used for control of cameras…”

    posted by Albert on 2-13-2010 at 11:25 pm

  35. More from his website —
    “80 eclipse images were taken during totality by means of a Canon EOS 5D digital camera equipped with approx. 1 m focal length lens. Unfortunately a lot of images were influenced by clouds and that is why the composition of all images in one resulting image was impossible. Finally 31 images were chosen. About 550 other images (dark frames and flat-fields) were used for eclipse images calibration. The resulting image shows not only the inner corona in the delicate details but also the lunar surface is recorded in a quality not very far from an image taken during the full moon. The position of the Moon represents the situation 139 seconds after the second contact, i. e. 03:30:58 UT (15:30:58 local time).”

    posted by Albert on 2-13-2010 at 11:33 pm

  36. This “photo” looks like a composite to me.

    posted by Oscar on 2-17-2010 at 10:13 pm

  37. just for the record I agree about the whole not-an-actual-photograph thing. the fact that it’s not a real photograph doesn’t take away from the scientific or aesthetic value of the portrayal, but it certainly DOES render the title “best eclipse PHOTO ever” both inaccurate and misleading. just plain bad journalism.

    posted by cassie on 2-17-2010 at 11:03 pm

  38. It’s not journalism.
    It’s a blog.

    posted by Ransom Riggs on 2-18-2010 at 1:49 am

  39. looks inverse-triangular enough to me

    posted by cassie on 2-18-2010 at 9:24 am

  40. Composite or not, it does not merit the title.

    posted by kroltan on 2-24-2010 at 1:42 am

  41. i feel its real . because this is how eclipse are formed by the race of the sun and the earth come in front of it .

    posted by neha45 on 2-24-2010 at 5:12 am

  42. Outstanding.

    Ben Koshkin

    posted by Ben Koshkin on 4-25-2010 at 5:46 pm

  43. that’s right, the best eclipse photo ever

    posted by sir jorge on 5-31-2010 at 11:17 pm

  44. I was hoping this wasn’t going to be a Twilight-related post.

    posted by Andrew on 6-18-2010 at 10:44 pm

  45. this is an incredible photograph

    posted by sir jorge on 6-20-2010 at 10:50 pm

Comment

commenting policy