If you were in New York City during Hurricane Sandy, in the lower half, at least, you got a taste of this first hand.<p>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:<p><a href="http://tumblr.eyeheartnewyork.com/post/37636219209/i-finally-got-around-to-organizing-some-of-the" rel="nofollow">http://tumblr.eyeheartnewyork.com/post/37636219209/i-finally...</a>
They would look nothing like those photos.<p>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.<p>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 doubt I'm the only one who read the article with the hope of finding
some new technique to remove light pollution from images to show off the
stars... and was mildly disappointed to find out the beautiful images
were just cut-n-paste jobs (albeit outstanding ones).<p>I'm wondering what kinds of techniques exist for removing light
pollution?<p>Spectrum sensitivity? Spectrum filtering on exposure? Post processing?
After living in Alaska for several years, I don't really think that is how cities would look at all. With just stars and even the aurora borealis, it is incredible how pure <i>darknesss</i> looks. I really didn't know how much light pollution effected the sky until living there, but even in small towns and other less populated areas the light from various sources changes the skyline.
I find it rather an epiphany to realise that our distant ancestors must have seen the sky like this <i>all the time</i>, rather than the vague haze most of us experience. No wonder then that the movement of the stars and planets played such a cultural and religious impact on their lives.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the International Dark Sky association [1]:<p><pre><code> > 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.
</code></pre>
You may want to check out their Practical Guide [2] for homeowners who want to reduce their light pollution.<p>[1] <a href="http://darksky.org/" rel="nofollow">http://darksky.org/</a>
[2] (PDF) <a href="http://www.darksky.org/assets/documents/PG3-residential-lighting.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.darksky.org/assets/documents/PG3-residential-ligh...</a>
This is somewhat of a repost: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205058" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5205058</a><p>Kinda surprised nobody else said that yet...
While the US is relatively good at keeping the air and water clean (relative to some places I've been), both light and noise pollution are a big problem - almost unregulated.
I've seen the night sky (moonless) from out in the Arizona desert and watched the Aurora Borealis from a stone outcropping on Sarah Lake in Quetico National Park.<p>It is a wonder to behold. I wish it looked like these photos. It doesn't.<p>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.<p>Cool photos tho'. I'd buy one for my workspace.
"<i>“It is impossible not to read these pictures the way the artist wants them read: cold, cold cities below, cut off from the seemingly infinite energies above.</i>”<p>I see unity: humanity's improbable citadels cradled by the beckoning infinity of the universe. Not everything has to be framed in conflict.
I've always wondered what it would be like if there is a total black out in a big city. Now I can see it in these pictures. If the blackout isn't exactly simultaneous, would the stars slowly emerge one by one? How cool would that be!
What surprises me is the difference in nature between brazilian cities and the others. I would like to see one of those pictures of Porto Alegre, where there's almost one tree per person.
Even though they look a bit fake, I like these photos. The atmosphere reminds me of Alan Weisman's book "the world without us". The cities appear as ghost cities, everything dark, allowing natural light to be visible again. It's like the early stages after humans deserted it, before the forces of nature (combined with lack of maintenance) break through and crumble the buildings.
Reminds me of the dialogue in Kurosawa's Dreams movie in the part where there is a conversation with an old man in a treadmill village (I wouldn't like night so bright you could not see the stars) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FIps--PGg" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FIps--PGg</a>
from the article: “It is impossible not to read these pictures the way the artist wants them read: cold, cold cities below, cut off from the seemingly infinite energies above. It’s a powerful reversal, and one very much in tune with a wave of environmental thinking of the moment.”<p>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!!!