[Mongoose]

My God, it's full of win...

[Mika]

Those last two are very impressive shots!

How is the moon rendered partially red?

Makes me wonder whether I should whip out my camera to try some star photography now that the stars are still visible. I reckon they might not be in May. I've never particularly tried to expose the Milky Way, that might be something onto it here.

How visible was the mountain to the naked eye in the aurora or Milky way shot?

[watsisname]

How is the moon rendered partially red?

That's actually how it looked to the eye (roughly; the photo is a little bit brighter and more vibrant).  It's an interesting thing.  The center of Earth's shadow is a dark coppery red, but the edge of it (still umbral, not penumbral) is brighter, as well as bluer because of the effect of stratospheric ozone.  So there's quite a brightness and color gradient across the Moon during the total phases of the eclipse, and especially when the Moon is hugging the shadow's edge.  Here's another wide-angle shot to give some perspective.  The Moon is still fully in the umbra, but the edge is bright and over-exposed.

How visible was the mountain to the naked eye in the aurora or Milky way shot?

Visible, but not nearly as clearly as in the photos.  Mostly it was the bright snow that stood out.  These were pretty dark skies (Bortle Class 3), and the surroundings seem virtually black for the few minutes until your eyes adjust.

Also, the aurora looked extremely vague to the eye, and I could not detect any color besides perhaps the faintest hint of green toward the horizon.  I didn't even realize it was the aurora (thought it was artificial light pollution, like a distant searchlight or something) until I took a long exposure and saw its full extent and color on the LCD screen.  The eye is very bad at picking out color in low light environments.  Their movement was also too gradual to notice without keeping track for a few minutes.

I'm guessing you live very far north if you're talking about the stars not being visible in May?   I'm at 48°N, which is just far north enough that the sky doesn't get fully dark for the week around summer solstice. 

High latitude is the enemy to Milky Way photographers.  For one, the bright central region doesn't rise as high above the horizon, and then when it is at its highest you have the least (or even no) darkness.  At 50N you have to aim for a month before or after solstice.  At 60N you need two months.  The position isn't ideal then, but you can still capture interesting parts of the galaxy.

[Mika]

How is the moon rendered partially red?

That's actually how it looked to the eye (roughly; the photo is a little bit brighter and more vibrant).  It's an interesting thing.  The center of Earth's shadow is a dark coppery red, but the edge of it (still umbral, not penumbral) is brighter, as well as bluer because of the effect of stratospheric ozone.  So there's quite a brightness and color gradient across the Moon during the total phases of the eclipse, and especially when the Moon is hugging the shadow's edge.  Here's another wide-angle shot to give some perspective.  The Moon is still fully in the umbra, but the edge is bright and over-exposed.

How visible was the mountain to the naked eye in the aurora or Milky way shot?

Visible, but not nearly as clearly as in the photos.  Mostly it was the bright snow that stood out.  These were pretty dark skies (Bortle Class 3), and the surroundings seem virtually black for the few minutes until your eyes adjust.

Also, the aurora looked extremely vague to the eye, and I could not detect any color besides perhaps the faintest hint of green toward the horizon.  I didn't even realize it was the aurora (thought it was artificial light pollution, like a distant searchlight or something) until I took a long exposure and saw its full extent and color on the LCD screen.  The eye is very bad at picking out color in low light environments.  Their movement was also too gradual to notice without keeping track for a few minutes.

I'm guessing you live very far north if you're talking about the stars not being visible in May?   I'm at 48°N, which is just far north enough that the sky doesn't get fully dark for the week around summer solstice. 

High latitude is the enemy to Milky Way photographers.  For one, the bright central region doesn't rise as high above the horizon, and then when it is at its highest you have the least (or even no) darkness.  At 50N you have to aim for a month before or after solstice.  At 60N you need two months.  The position isn't ideal then, but you can still capture interesting parts of the galaxy.

Now, that explains something. Since I didn't take the astronomy courses in the University, I had completely forgotten that the Milky Way isn't really visible from here. I live around 65 N. The stars are visible at night for a couple of hours at this point, but it wont take long until they aren't.

No wonder Finnish photographers never capture the brighter areas of the galaxy as those would be shielded by the curvature.

The auroras here are easily visible to the naked eye and can be photographed with a mobile phone, though not with a good quality. During the studies, we actually had some parties in January, and since that's in Finland, it means sauna is involved. Taking a break outside (-20 C) from the warmth, we had a row of people clothed by nothing but towels watching the particularly spectacular Aurora of that evening developing for something like 10 minutes while sipping beer at the top floor (8th). Obvious to say, we didn't need beer coolers

[Rodo]

wow, I'm keeping some of these as backgrounds for sure.

[watsisname]

Just had another auroral display following a strong CME-induced geomagnetic storm.  Apparently the lights could be seen as far south as Virginia and Colorado.  From here, the best part of the show lasted about 30 minutes and the rays reached past zenith.  And unlike last time, they were blatantly obvious to the human eye and shifted very rapidly.  By far the most impressive sight I've ever seen.