“The camera invents aurora colours”: how much of it is actually true?
A camera sensor does not invent nonexistent emissions; it records real photons. Long exposure, white balance, processing and greater colour sensitivity can nevertheless make colours much more obvious than to the eye.
What it really means
The most useful question is which measurable quantity should change if the claim were true. This avoids relying on isolated photographs, personal anecdotes or apps that oversimplify a dynamic phenomenon. There is usually a kernel of truth, but the problem begins when context is removed. That context is what separates useful practical advice from a false universal rule.
Why it matters
Auroras invite simple rules, but the physics rarely fits a slogan. The myth about “The camera invents aurora colours” usually starts when a useful correlation is turned into an absolute law. The right approach is to turn the absolute statement into a probabilistic question: does it increase or decrease the odds, under which conditions, and what other factor might explain what we are seeing?
How to interpret it without oversimplifying
To test a claim, separate what genuinely changes auroral physics from what only changes our ability to see it. The Sun, magnetosphere, atmosphere, clouds, ambient light and camera sensitivity belong to different parts of the problem.