Night shot including milky way. Any tricks?

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by weltweit, Jun 24, 2017.

  1. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Second attempt was successful, I got my first milky way shot. DSC_6925w.jpg

    That was 1 am and much too dark to be finding proper ground interest which will have to wait until another day. As mentioned my tripod does not point up enough so I shortened one leg to get more lift and then twisted the tripod plate round on the camera so that I could point up more.

    After I had been out for about half an hour I could really see the stars and what a view, I feel I should know more about which star is which, but the night sky was very special tonight, I could have happily stayed an hour or two more just looking at it.

    Despite the time of year, it got quite cold, this time I had warm clothing - but there also seemed to be a dew which wetted both me and the camera.

    I was quite surprised how fast the milky way was moving, in shots taken about a minute apart it moved perhaps 4 mm on my LCD screen. I thought about taking a sort of time lapse but I couldn't remember the instructions for getting the camera to do it and for manual exposures my cable release was in my other bag. I could have just used the shutter release in hindsight anyhow that is something for next time, which just might be tonight!
     
    mauvais, Sweet FA, de_dog and 8 others like this.
  2. Signal 11

    Signal 11 Ich bin maroon!

    Well done, that's great!

    I've marked a few things on it. The "summer triangle" of Deneb, Vega and Altair tend to be the first ones you see as it starts to get dark at this time of year and a good way to get your bearings.
    DSC_6925w_annotated.jpg

    It's worth using something like Stellarium for planning and identifying what you captured, or one of those phone apps that shows you what it's pointed at.
     
  3. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Thanks, quite pleased with myself :)

    Thanks for that, very interesting and useful, I did have a bit of hunt to find it before my eyes had adjusted, I took pictures around where I thought south was and found it in shot 3. The camera could see it before I could. In fact I could only partly see it even after an hour outside. But there were some notably bright stars and I thought if I knew what they were I could have found south sooner.

    Mars (from your notes) was noticeably bright and low to the horizon.

    Unfortunately I don't have a smart phone at the moment, so no aps for me :-(

    So Signal 11, you are very knowledgeable about the night sky, how is it that you know so much?
     
  4. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

  5. Signal 11

    Signal 11 Ich bin maroon!

    Thanks. There are some here who know a lot more than me. I've been interested since I was very young, but haven't studied it properly. I go to a local group where we have lectures once a month and observing evenings. There's a list of groups here.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  6. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Really nice shot!
     
    weltweit likes this.
  7. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Interesting page, thanks for the link. There are two in my area. There may be some that know more here than you but they have not been as helpful to a beginner like me as you have!!

    I recently read the Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin series (Master and Commander) by Patrick O'Brien. They would regularly take navigational readings from the stars on the open oceans. Like now, I realised how little I know about the night sky.

    Last night I drove to near Sennybridge which your dark skies website told me should be relatively free from light pollution, it was very striking just how many stars were visible. Quite beautiful the night sky.

    Blimey England 2 Sweden 0 :)
     
    Chilli.s and Signal 11 like this.
  8. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Now I want a milky way with some interesting ground object, there are some chapels and castles around here which might make interesting shapes but they aren't in wholly dark sky areas. I will have my son down shortly so perhaps I can persuade him to pose.

    Some photographers seem to take two exposures, one low ISO long exposure for the ground object followed by a shorter high ISO exposure for the milky way and then they combine the two in photoshop. I am not that expert at photoshop so would prefer not to have to do this.

    I am also thinking of light painting the object if it is small enough or my torch is bright enough, perhaps I could use flash ..

    What do you think?
     
  9. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    If you've got a flash you can use off-camera, that's what I'd do. Set it on very low power (maybe 1/16 or 1/32) and set it off by hand during the long camera exposure. You'll need to experiment a bit.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  10. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Aha, yes I have a Sunpak flash that could do that. Do you think that might be enough to light something big like a chapel? As to experimenting yes I agree and at least these will be only 25s exposures, when I did that star trails one I was committed for an hour!
     
  11. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Yes, with more than one flash.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  12. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    If you do try to use this technique wear dark/black clothes and you're less likely to register in the shot as you walk through frame.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  13. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Good point. I am definitely going to give it a try, I have done some light painting with my flash before so I have an idea … but tips are always welcome.

    At the moment I am wondering if the castles and chapels I am thinking about are in dark enough areas to also give me a good milky way. The night sky where I went for that first image was so vivid and stunning I am not sure about more lit areas. Then there is the moon, I am just looking into its predictions at the moment.
     
  14. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I went back to the same location as the first shots on Saturday. I found the milky way in the same part of the sky but it was not as impressive. Same settings, no moon or clouds. I don't yet understand why sometimes it is more impressive than others.

    Here for example is a shot taken by Matt Pinner at Durdle Door on the Dorset coast:

    My images are just very underwhelming compared to that.

    Sunday I went to an old castle, hoping for some ground interest and the milky way. Sadly there were too many clouds which I could have predicted when I left but I was hopeful for a break. Light painting a tower of the castle worked ok with my flash on its lowest settings - if a little interesting because of the bright white light of the flash.

    I don't know when the next opportunity will be, the moon is coming back in the coming week, although I don't know in which part of the sky it will be but anyhow the weather is saying cloudy every day.
     
  15. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    You can always tell exactly where the sun or moon will be relative to the landscape.

    Photographers Ephemeris

    I think I already linked to this up thread. You can either use the website, or d/l the app.

    So easy these days. When I used to work full time as an architectural photographer I had to use OS maps and astronomical tables.
     
    kropotkin likes this.
  16. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Aha, RoyReed good point thanks, I need to have a play with that. Can't download an app because I don't have a smart phone but the web app should be helpful.
     
  17. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    Your patience paid off. That is a quality result for second attempt.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  18. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Thanks Stan, although in attempt #3 & #4 I was not able to repeat it.

    I gather some photographers are taking 3-4 images then combining them - lining them up - in photoshop which seems to give more of an effect.
     
  19. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    Personally I think PS is crossing the line from photography to digital imaging once you go beyond basic levels. Photography for me is about recording a reality and presenting it as a visual document, or archive.

    As wrong as this might sound, I would try using a polarizing filter and stopping down to the smallest aperture as a starting point. Then, compromising the exposure time. Sounds like making a difficult job even harder, but there is logic in my madness.

    A smaller aperture will increase contrast and give a sharper image. Less refraction going on in the lens elements and you are using the very best part of your glass only. Polarizing will also dramatically increase contrast. It might be too dark to your eyes, but the camera doesn't know this - the light, water vapour and pollution is still there to be filtered out.
     
  20. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I don't know Stan, I see what you are saying about contrast and such but will it not increase my shutter speed massively to capture the faint light? and it is all moving up there, I have been told that 25s on a 20mm lens is about as slow as I can go to avoid the stars turning into streaks.
     
  21. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Matt Pinner wrote that he recommends ISO3200 - 6400 which might be something for me to vary.. So far I haven't been above ISO3200.
     
  22. Signal 11

    Signal 11 Ich bin maroon!

    If it's still too easy after that you could try adding a solar filter too. :thumbs:
     
  23. Stanley Edwards

    Stanley Edwards 1967 Maserati Mistral.

    Of course there is a lot of movement going on up there. Every star is a sun! However, I doubt if any camera our money could buy would be capable of recording that movement. Think about it.

    You have 30 Seconds to play with. At 6400 ISO that is a lot of Stops. My time would be spent experimenting before taking the experts word for granted. Everyone assumes a wide aperture is better. I suspect something around f11 would get the best results.

    Cameras do not have the cognitive stuff going on we have going on in our visual cortex. Time is the only limiting parameter here.
     
  24. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I am going to have a try at iso6400 next opportunity I get because the milky way is very faint and it could brighten my exposure of it. I don't know how much noise it will produce but it will be more than at iso3200.
     
  25. Signal 11

    Signal 11 Ich bin maroon!

    You should do your experimenting before telling us that all the people who are getting good results are doing it all wrong.
     
  26. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I added a compass to my camera bag today, so no more wondering which way is south :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2018
  27. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    The issue of my computer and software raised its head tonight. I tried to transform, align and merge 3 x 36mpx images of the milky way in elements 9 and it almost crashed my machine. Since I got my D800 my kit has so far seemed to do everything I asked of it but it seems there are limits after all.

    In the end I did manage to achieve it but the result was underwhelming.
     
  28. Signal 11

    Signal 11 Ich bin maroon!

    weltweit you'll need a lot more than 3 frames to get much benefit from stacking and you'll want something like DeepSkyStacker to stack them automatically. They have a page here with an explanation and examples of the effects of stacking. Basically it reduces the noise with the square root of the number of frames, so you can get away with a higher iso and stretch it more in post processing.

    It's best to shoot in raw mode and turn off any in camera processing if you're going to stack them.
     
    weltweit likes this.
  29. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Signal 11, weltweit and clicker like this.
  30. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Hi Signal 11,
    I didn't realise DeepSkyStacker was free! that makes it much more interesting :)

    I will take a look and see how many frames it recommends, but in my limited experience the MW seems to move quite fast across the frame so I am unlikely to get more than perhaps 6 before it is largely gone.
    eta: or can I move the camera?

    And I am shooting raw with no NR of whatever on ..
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice