Bubbahotep
Well-known member
I took this a few days ago. What do you think? Other than the shape of some of the stars, what would you do differently?
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Milky Way Landscape photo
- Thread starter Bubbahotep
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
I like it as is.
MorganP
Well-known member
I love this shot. I like the transition between day an night.
The oblong stars are caused by leaving your shutter open longer then 30 sec. To stay under 30 sec. you will need to sacrifice something else, Aperture or ISO.
The oblong stars are caused by leaving your shutter open longer then 30 sec. To stay under 30 sec. you will need to sacrifice something else, Aperture or ISO.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Actually the starfield portion of the image used 20 second exposures because I couldn't polar align. I know some people modify the 500 rule, using 300 or 250 (instead of 500) as the numerator in determining how many seconds to leave the shutter open. Next time, I'll try 10 seconds.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Here's another image using a star tracker. Here I was able to polar align and get 2 minute exposures.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
beautiful. I love your composition here.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Thanks, Patrick, very kind of you.
How did you do this with the static foreground?
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
The foreground and star field are shot separately. The foreground was taken just after sundown (you can also capture the foreground on a moonlit night). The reason is to capture more detail. The star field was taken at night.
Bob k.
Active member
Great images! Thanks for sharing. I will suggest two possible edits of your first image to consider. If the Milky Way is your main subject a tighter crop would make it more prominent. You could try cropping more off the bottom and the right side of the image to see if the Milky Way stands out more prominently. The second area I would look at is the water at the horizon. If I am seeing it right, the water makes an abrupt transition from a green tone to a blue tone. The mountains on the horizon have a blue tone and the rest of the land is shades of green. Is that how the scene was or is that a product of the blending the images?
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Hi Bob, thanks for your comments. I'll respond to the comments abut the first image. I tried this crop and I think it's better. Thanks! I'll have to get back to you regarding the second image. I'll say this however with respect to the water in the second image. The water color is essentially straight out of camera other than desaturation.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Both are super, the 2nd with the tracker is really outstanding.
Bob k.
Active member
My comment on the water was about the first image, sorry if I was not clear. I agree with Andrew that both images are strong and your use of the tracker in the second image is outstanding.
Nice work. Both are great to look at!
I like the second image better. I love the composition and I especially love that you came at dusk for the foreground and stayed to catch the stars. I have never used or even see a star tracker in real life. The results are amazing.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
Star trackers are well worth your investment. If you're just looking to do landscape astrophotography, Omegon and Move Shoot Move offer very affordable (and light) trackers at roughly $200.
Last edited:
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
I plan on responding to your comments when I have extra time.
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
My plans are to work on the Milky Way in the first shot again, using 8 second exposures as recommended by Photo Pills. The 500 rule doesn't work well for getting round stars. One of my reasons for disclosing this is that if someone else tries this type of photography, that person will have access to my full experience. I've found too many other posts describing problems and solutions to be incomplete to be useful to someone who is learning.
I am now planning another Milky Way shot during this next new moon cycle. I like the composition a lot so it'll be good to see what you think. The question is whether the composition is complete or missing a subject. Putting that composition will have other challenges as well.
In the meantime, I took this a few weeks ago. It is not a blended image taken at two different times but one taken with a stack of images taken in one short, late night session. The landscape and the star field were processed separately. I think the cloud cover is interesting.
I am now planning another Milky Way shot during this next new moon cycle. I like the composition a lot so it'll be good to see what you think. The question is whether the composition is complete or missing a subject. Putting that composition will have other challenges as well.
In the meantime, I took this a few weeks ago. It is not a blended image taken at two different times but one taken with a stack of images taken in one short, late night session. The landscape and the star field were processed separately. I think the cloud cover is interesting.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Bubbahotep
Well-known member
I'm happier with 8 second exposures for the Milky Way.
ninog
Active member
Almost my first experience with this subject, the sky was so beautiful that it was difficult not to want to experiment.. Z9 plus 20mmF1.8..6400iso..6sec exposure. Cheers
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.