Odd colored sun.

I was out scouting for a decent location for a full moon shot in a few days. During the drive I noticed, due to the haze in the atmosphere the sun wasn't as bright getting close to sundown and was a solid orange/yellow so I took a couple shots. This looks nothing like what I saw when taking the photo. I'm pretty sure somebody can explain to me what the issue is.

The sun in the Bay Area has looked dull all day because smoke from large wildfires has blown into our atmosphere. Fires hundreds of miles away will have this effect if the wind is right. Your local weather report may tell what the source is.

I know the reason for the sun looking dull but I'd like to know why it turned out like a 2 tone in the photo, which is nothing like it looked to the naked eye. It was a solid color when I took the photo.

What might account for it:
Smoke particles suspended in a layer at a certain elevation above the ground, squeezed between a high pressure area in the atmosphere which pushes down on the smoke, and maybe a later of denser water laden air below the layer of smoke, holding it up above the ground in the sandwish with the high pressure layer

Wilt wrote in post #19273493
What might account for it:
Smoke particles suspended in a layer at a certain elevation above the ground, squeezed between a high pressure area in the atmosphere which pushes down on the smoke, and maybe a [layer] of denser water laden air below the layer of smoke, holding it up above the ground in the sandwish with the high pressure layer

The sky beside the sun has some very subtle markings, like banding, that support your description. Gray stripes extend the pink stripe on the sun at both sides. Why this layer of smoke shows up well against the sun and hardly at all against the sky, I don't know. But mn shutterbug asks why the naked eye saw a uniform sun and the camera didn't. I suspect (just speculating here) that the reason is a difference in sensitivity between the retina and a camera sensor. Even a dull sun is bright enough to exceed an eye's capacity for making distinctions.

We're getting the same haze down in So Cal...

Photo from goalerjones's gallery.
Image hosted by forum (1117049)

This makes sense. One of the first times i attempted night photography I was disappointed in the low number of stars I saw while taking the photos. I was quite surprised when I viewed the image on my PC and saw there were many more stars than what the eye could see.

OhLook wrote in post #19273498
.
I suspect (just speculating here) that the reason is a difference in sensitivity between the retina and a camera sensor. Even a dull sun is bright enough to exceed an eye's capacity for making distinctions.
.

.
I think this is definitely the case.

Most of us severely underexpose sunset images intentionally, in order to capture all of the color that the sky has in it and to not blow out those colors by overexposing. . So sunset images are often taken at several stops darker than the meter says they should be taken at. . And the meter more or less is trying to give us an exposure that is similar to what our eyes see. . So it is perfectly normal to intentionally try to NOT get a photo that is anything at all like what the eyes see when photographing sunsets.

The question I would be asking myself if I were photographing this sunset is not,

"Does the photo look like what I saw with my eyes?"

Rather, the question I would ask is,

"Does the photo look like the jPeg playback that I saw on the camera's rear screen when I was chimping during and after the shoot?"


.