Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by weltweit, Jun 24, 2017.
If you’re already layering....
You could do the star shot away from the bridge.
I wonder, is there a time with long exposures where you have collected all the light that you are going to collect? So if I look at a 5 minutes in, will there be more light at 10 minutes for a given set of settings?
I haven't said that very clearly.
I do want to be as genuine as possible
I haven't had a go at star trails with a digital camera yet, but I'd look at it like this...
As the stars are trailing, increasing the exposure time won't make them any brighter. But it will make the sky lighter. So to get the maximum number of stars I'd pick the shortest exposure that would give some trailing, maybe 2 or 3 times the exposure I'd use if I didn't want trailing (which would be about 500 divided by the effective focal length). Then set the aperture as wide as possible without losing sharpness. Then set the ISO as high as possible without washing out the background or getting too much noise.
I'd expect it to be something like 30-60 seconds and a pretty low ISO.
Hi Signal 11 I see what you are getting at with the shortest exposure with some movement and I agree that might be a solution. I have to weigh it against if it was 60s, having 60 images to blend afterwards, apart from the amount of megabytes, I want to blend in elements and 60 would be a lot of work. For ultimate image quality I see where you are coming from and I think you might be right it is just that there is a tradeoff involved.
weltweit I had a look to see what people have used for the same subject and it looks like you can get good results with either approach: this one used 3 minutes and this one used 30 seconds.
Also tried starstax using some I took at meteor watch that were not meant to be trailed. I just picked 10 that were pointed in the same direction, clicked the button and it gave me trails! I'll have to have a go at taking some proper ones.
Fascinating, and they are two vantage points that I haven't yet found.
My plan is to be much closer to the bridge which may be my undoing but I will give it a go.
I have heard of starstax might have to have a closer look.
What I need is a cloudless night on a Friday or Saturday with hopefully no moon in shot. It does seem trails do seem more of a pain than straight milky way shots
Actually there could be another issue.
Those two shots you linked to were taken looking into the SW and W.
At my planned vantage point I will be looking SE.
Signal 11 I am all geared up to have a go this Friday night when there will be no clouds, but there will be a blooming moon, and it seems I will be pointed right at it .. GRRRR
Does anyone know how the moon moves during the night?
If you're still interested in shots of the Milky Way too, have a read of this page. It has a calculator to give the best settings for your kit.
Milky Way Exposure Calculator – Lonely Speck
Yup still interested in that, thanks for the link, all info absorbed gratefully
I may have to have a play with that Friday night as the star trails seems likely not to be on because of the moon.
About 12 degrees per day, so you won't see it move much relative to the stars over an hour or two. Friday it will be rising just before 11pm.
You really want no Moon for the Milky Way. May be worth having a trial run for either though so you'll be ready when you get the right conditions.
When you say "rising" do you mean getting lit?
And my understanding is that it will be in the east Friday?
It is frustrating, I don't know when we will next have a cloudless night.
weltweit rising above the horizon. screenshot atteched from Stellarium
i had a go. its not very good.
Hi pesh well you got quite a few stars in that what were your settings?
I was quite drunk. I think it was 8 seconds and wide open, not sure of the ISO
It was Panasonic DMC-LX100, 11mm lens, 10secs @ f2, 400iso - just look in the EXIF data.
Make sure you are in, or at least very close to the Milky Way to start with.
Still haven't done a milky way, but might have a go tonight.
I did do a star trails though. What do you think?
That's really good weltweit.
Had a disappointing night. I wanted to photograph the milky way, how hard can it be I thought? There was an almost full moon which didn't help, then there was also a little ambient light.
I tried f2.8 ISO3200 and 20 seconds, which was recommended, very blown out and no sign of the milky way. Adjusting settings improved things. I was in the main pointing about south, in the end I started to get cold so I went home - but the milky way, it was just not there!
I learnt that my tripod will only point up so far, about 45 degrees max. And I can understand people using ultrawide lenses for this kind of photography. My 20mm on FF all of a sudden didn't feel so wide.
Yes, you need very good conditions for the Milky Way. Unless you've got at least a fairly good view of it visually it's not going to be worth shooting. You definitely want no Moon and shoot from the darkest site you can (light pollution map), ideally later in the year when we start getting proper dark nights again (this site is useful for that).
Hi Signal 11, thanks for the links, they look useful. So perhaps because of the moon and the ambient light it was there, I just couldn't see it?
It's always there, whether you can see it or not
Going to have another go this weekend at the milky way, there seems to be no moon Friday night and I am going to drive to a dark area. Not having been there before there is no guarantee I will be able to find any ground interest.
Not 100% certain I will get proper darkness though. Weather will apparently be light clouds which is ok because I only need 20 seconds.
At this time of year you will never get ‘proper’ darkness in the UK. You never leave astronomical twilight all night. True darkness won’t return until 14 July at the earliest, or later (the further north you are).
Separate names with a comma.