I'm perfectly well aware that for parts of the year there is little or no light in Antarctica. Again, this is subject to where you are in Antarctica (perhaps read up on what the Antarctic circle is, and how it affects daylight).
I'm well aware of that fact, assuming otherwise in the manner you do is simply patronising. I have a background Astonomy and Geology BTW.
Also perhaps you should read the site where he notes that he went to Antarctica in February 2006 (when there are most certainly NOT days with "little or no light"). He notes also that he returned to the ice in 2007, without specifying the dates... but I doubt it was July 2007 when it's dark, or he wouldn't have had time to publish the book.
Not sure what your point is really as this July in the UK it rained constantly. Normally the hottest and [I think]nearly the driest time of year. Weather like mileage varies. Every quite locally. In Whitby today the weather was mostly bright and sunny, in nearby Middlesborough it was anything but.
I didn't travel on the guy's itinerary. So I can't say first-hand whether he encountered 6 weeks of purely gloomy weather. We didn't have perfect weather on our trip, either, but I can present one exhibit from a shot I took the first day we landed on the Antarctic Peninusula, on Brown Bluff:
Now this is the eastern side of the peninsula so it tends to have weather that's nicer in general, as I understand.
You took a picture in sunshine, when you were in one small part of the very large Antartic Continent. So what, it not like it proves anything of significance anyway? "Hey look I took a picture in Thailand and this proves the pictures taken in China are rubbish."
You know what else is interesting... the picture of Mr. Copeland "photographing" has him against a sunny, blue sky:
Not really, as there are pictures taken by Sebastian shown in the TV presentation, where it looked pretty sunny to me. Which seems to be completely overlooked in the pointless ranting. And even if he did take a picture when the sun was shining, he may not have used that image in the book. It may even have been a posed picture. Quite common with portraiture, you know.
But even if the weather was fine and he was there in summer, the sun does set and the weather varies and quite possibly, the more dramatic pictures were done nearer to sunrise/set than noon. Midday usually makes for uninteresting landscape images, hence a lot of stuff is shot where the sun is lower.
None of any of this really matters anyway as it's simply a book of one person's personal
interpretation of a place. Just as your and Michael's images are simply your interpretation.