That's a long exposure picture, you won't ever see skies like that with an unaided eye.

>>8170851
I grew up in the country. Town about 10 miles west of the farm.

There was still some pollution but you could see the milkyway.

Op pic uses special low light filters and long exposures.

Another way to see the sky like that is to go out of town and use night vision goggles. Same effect

It's a lot more blue than that. Pretty sure that image is false color, or at least heavily filtered.
And you'll see maybe half the number of stars.

You don't have to go out to the middle of nowhere to see this though. I live in LA and a two hour drive north into the parks will provide a clear sky like that one.

Not quite that perfect, that picture benefits from long exposure, but pretty close.

>>8170851
On very clear nights (low humidity) with low light pollution, it's relatively easy to see dimmer stars and the mottling of the Milky Way if you let your eyes adjust to the darkness for a while. You won't see the detail of that picture, but you could see a decent suggestion of that. The color, however, is not like that. Rod cells (the ones that work in low light) are monochromatic, so only particularly bright light sources (things inside the Solar System and the brightest stars) have a clear color to the naked eye. As its name suggests, the Milky Way looks whitish.

I lived out in the countryside for many years. Still some light pollution but that was pretty far away. Once during the black of winter (I live in Norway so it really was fucking dark that night) and clear skies I saw the hint of a white belt in the sky. I'm guessing this was the milky way.

Now that I've got glasses I probably could see it even better, but I live in the city now.

>>8171140
I live in Norway as well.

I'm from a small village with around 1500 inhabitants. I've never seen anything that comes close to OP's picture or long exposure/filtered pictures in general, even when trekking tens of kilometers away from the closest artificial light sources.

I am forced to conclude that it might be possible to see a scene slightly resembling OP's pic if you are several hundred kilometers away from the closest earth-bound light sources, but that it's impossible otherwise.

>>8171167

It was no where as vivid as OP pic, though. Just a shape of a white belt that stood out from the black sky. Couldn't make out any details.

these photos flooded internet couple of years ago. They are photoshoped, sky image come from telescope.

Btw, long exposure on photo cameras would make stars blurry because earth rotation.

>>8172594
>Btw, long exposure on photo cameras would make stars blurry because earth rotation.

30 second exposures are enough to smear star trails. You need a barndoor mount or equatorial pro grade shit to get pristine night sky photos, but that smears the environment instead.

Pretty much everything that's "whoo" grade astrophotography is more about data gathering and extensive postprocessing than pure photography.

>tfw always wanted go to the country to see this
>tfw /sci/ crushed my dreams

>>8170851
Like everyone is saying: long exposure and filters. You can see where the milky way is but it merely appears as just a higher density of stars in the sky.

I live in forest in Sweden, not far away from a small town with around 5k inhabitants.

Sky is very clear and I see a lot of stars and shooting stars however what I see in the pic is something I have never seen in such beautiful detail.