Did I photograph the Aurora or was it something else? (2016) (opens in new tab)

I think I have an observation that defies the info on that page. That page was written around the time that STEVE (an aurora related phenomenon) was first named. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEVE

I mention this because in the 1990s, while at uni in St Andrews, Scotland, I remember a trip to the astronomy observatory one evening. There was a peculiar cloud overhead - whitish purple, tube shaped and shimmering. I asked the astro professor what it was. He said, "Its a cloud" and showed no further interest. I took a photo. When I got the film developed and photos printed, you could see bright colours either side of the tube. I've always wondered a) what it was and b) why that astronomy professor was an astronomy professor when he had no interest in what the universe had to reveal to him.

I now believe it to have been a STEVE. I've still got no insight into the mind of the astro professor.

Noctilucent clouds are another stunning sky phenomenon that I've only got to see a few times. Not sure if they're typically visible from the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud

https://www.space.com/noctilucent-clouds

To go along with these, aurora light consists of emissions at specific wavelengths, and this can potentially interact with the optical system of the camera you use to produce interference patterns. If you see these patterns (which can appear as rings of light and dark around the middle of the photo) then that indicates that a good portion of the light is at least monochromatic, which very strongly indicates aurora. If you don't see them, it means nothing - your camera might just not have an arrangement that does that.