It's an interesting article, I teach aurora photography but luckily in one of the best places to see aurora in the world, strong displays can be incredibly vivid and can produce amazing results but weak aurora are always going to look a little dismal. If you are asking your camera to collect light for an extended period of time, say 30 seconds, then obviously it is going to pick up far more than our eyes will register, how that is processed is down to the individual but I agree with others here, the notion of photographs only having value if they show exactly what your eyes saw is a little strange. Up here we have nights where you can drive your car without lights on the aurora can be that bright, I've had overexposed shots on a 1 second exposure, the eye can very clearly pick up whats happening in those situations but restraint is often lacking in aurora photography.
My biggest issue with aurora photography is less about processing and much more about the fact that as soon as there are lights in the sky, people seem to forget about all basic rules of composition. Camera straight up, tilted horizons, bits of trees or buildings, very wide angle lenses which show people and trees at 45 degree angles etc. etc. I really hate all of that stuff, it's a very personal thing but I always tell clients not to photograph the aurora, instead take photographs that have aurora in them, there's a big difference. Proper framing and composition to me is far more important and is missing from the vast majority of aurora photographs. Green in the sky does not trump just plain bad photography in my view.
Anyway, season is under way here in the North so hopefully there will be lots of good photographs!
Mat