Tips and tricks please?

[nikonkelly]

I am not known as a landscape photographer - and I doubt I will every be - but when the flowers flower - and the stars align - I try

I keep thinking the sky in the Milky way is too dark - but making it lighter it looks crap - what am I missing?

Last photo - too saturated?

Whatever you have to add - thank you

South Africa has some of the most beautiful flower displays once a year - and people visit from all over the world to see and photograph it. You might notice I am not a good flower photographer either

So, not trying to be smart but what color do you think that the night sky should be? I want it as black as possible, personally.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

So, not trying to be smart but what color do you think that the night sky should be? I want it as black as possible, personally.

I agree - I also want it as black as possible - but then you sit with the foreground subject - how to make it stand out without doing any light painting.

 

[O]

I am not known as a landscape photographer - and I doubt I will every be - but when the flowers flower - and the stars align - I try

I keep thinking the sky in the Milky way is too dark - but making it lighter it looks crap - what am I missing?

Last photo - too saturated?

Whatever you have to add - thank you

South Africa has some of the most beautiful flower displays once a year - and people visit from all over the world to see and photograph it. You might notice I am not a good flower photographer either

View attachment 67582

View attachment 67583

View attachment 67584

With the astro image,

I usually use around iso 3200, F2.8 or F4 for around 15-25seconds. I mean it varies from location to location.

The 16 mm fish eye i just love, i sometimes shoot it in portraiture position as it has a 180 degree filed of view, again it depends on if there are mountain peaks involved.

Light painting the tree a little as stated by others also is a very good idea. I use a Led Torch or at times a older yellow light torch
with different colourd pieces of celo film attached, this is to create a different effect that really works well.

Cambridge Colour is an excellent web site.

Only an opinion

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

With the astro image,

I usually use around iso 3200, F2.8 or F4 for around 15-25seconds. I mean it varies from location to location.

The 16 mm fish eye i just love, i sometimes shoot it in portraiture position as it has a 180 degree filed of view, again it depends on if there are mountain peaks involved.

Light painting the tree a little as stated by others also is a very good idea. I use a Led Torch or at times a older yellow light torch
with different colourd pieces of celo film attached, this is to create a different effect that really works well.

Cambridge Colour is an excellent web site.

Only an opinion

Thank you very much for your opinion.

 

[markymark]

Thank you Mark. I think - as with all things - the more we put in, the more we get out. I really need to work on my landscapes
I do have Photopills now... of course after the fact

BTW - I thought the UK has clouds 24/7 bar 3 days a year...

Yes, but those 3 days are incredible

 

[Neil H.]

With night sky photography it depends whether you want to show what the eyes see (blackness) or what your camera is capable of seeing (nebulae, colour of stars, dust lanes etc etc). Astro-photographers show the later usually with foreground light painting or combining a blue hr image of the foreground. As a introduction into this world try Googling: Nightscape Images, John Rutter Photography, Starry Landscape Stacker (there is free Windows program), stretching astrophotography images. A few of my efforts below. The first is using Starry Landscape Stacker to combine images to reduce noise, then stretching the sky to bring out all the detail that the camera has been able to capture. The second image of star trails shows the individual colours of the stars (done by taking care to set white and black points and making sure highlights are not blown -otherwise all stars are white dots). By asking your question I think you are about to start a very enjoyable photography journey.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

With night sky photography it depends whether you want to show what the eyes see (blackness) or what your camera is capable of seeing (nebulae, colour of stars, dust lanes etc etc). Astro-photographers show the later usually with foreground light painting or combining a blue hr image of the foreground. As a introduction into this world try Googling: Nightscape Images, John Rutter Photography, Starry Landscape Stacker (there is free Windows program), stretching astrophotography images. A few of my efforts below. The first is using Starry Landscape Stacker to combine images to reduce noise, then stretching the sky to bring out all the detail that the camera has been able to capture. The second image of star trails shows the individual colours of the stars (done by taking care to set white and black points and making sure highlights are not blown -otherwise all stars are white dots). By asking your question I think you are about to start a very enjoyable photography journey.

Neil - thank you. Your images are both beautiful - and I appreciate you posting them. At this point, I do not want to do star trails (might later) so I am leaning towards the scene in the first photo. I will google and check out your references. I have been around Photoshop for 2 decades - and never heard of stretching. Good grief very interesting!
I tend to lean towards blackness at this point - but I think this is from a point of inexperience. I need to find what I am wanting to do.

 

[Neil H.]

Neil - thank you. Your images are both beautiful - and I appreciate you posting them. At this point, I do not want to do star trails (might later) so I am leaning towards the scene in the first photo. I will google and check out your references. I have been around Photoshop for 2 decades - and never heard of stretching. Good grief very interesting!
I tend to lean towards blackness at this point - but I think this is from a point of inexperience. I need to find what I am wanting to do.

I was unsure about posting those links that use star trackers. I do not, but if I can I take 6-10 frames I combine them with Starry Landscape Stacker to reduce noise. My attitude is that if the camera I have can see it - I WANT A LOOK! To stir your curiosity here are a few more to consider. The first is just a 2 frame stitch of a reported big southern aurora. I could see nothing - pure black at horizon and no moon. However on back of camera a beautiful aurora blew me off my stool - pink with yellow fingers shooting skyward. I quickly took 2 frames and combined them into the pano. Of course I have processed it to bring out the colour, but with the naked eye nothing at all was visible. For the other 2 images, I realised that the fastest lens I owned was my 90mm f1.8 macro lens. So one evening I went into the back garden and aimed at the brightest stars which was the Southern Cross (Crux). At 90mm I could only expose for 4 secs at a high ISO so not to have the stars trailing. I was surprised that I got an image so I quickly took another 9. I then lifted the camera a fraction and took another 10. I combined the 2x10 with Starry landscape Stacker, then made a 2 shot vertorama. That is the base image below - something close to what you would see on dark night if you have let your night vision develop. However with removing the stars with "Star Xterminator" I then stretched the sky and applied "Gradient Xterminator"
on the sky layer. Finally I put the stars back and processed the image. So all that information in the final image is in the previous one. When all the data is there in the image it is a shame not to look at it. The dark Coalsac Nebula, and the pink Running Chicken and Carina Nebulae and many star clusters are all clearly visible together with all those dark dust lanes.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Neil - these are amazing. I don't want a telescope - I want photos to keep. I am sorry I don't have my D850 still.!
I appreciate the info - and FWIW - I was really surprised with the results of photo stretching - it's not the kind of editing I would do in my usual processing - but with the stars - what a difference. I have always maintained that the sky makes some of the most beautiful pictures you can dream of - because it's in many ways such a mystery. It's great to learn something new - and it appears there is a lot...

 

[Neil H.]

I suppose what I am saying is - '"if you get an itch be very careful if you start scratching". No telling where it will lead! When I read that the sky colour is not black nor blue (by setting WB around 4,000K), but is actually green, I went back to many "bad" night raw files and when I lightened them up to have look there was the green sky. These were great to practice stretching on to reveal all sorts of detail.
I think you will be like me and have foregrounds in your night images. Most of the best stretching videos on Youtube do not have foregrounds in them. When stretching you have to ignore what it does to the foreground and just look at the bump on your histogram that represents the sky. I do it with series of "levels" adjustment layers and move the individual red green and blue sliders a tiny bit on each layer and do lots of adjustment layers. When the image gets too dark I put curves adjustment layer on and put the cursor on the bump that is representing the sky and pull it up to lighten, then continue with more levels adjustment layers. The biggest lesson I learned here was to have a good base image with minimal processing and the least light pollution. Do any processing after stretching the sky, and treat the foreground separately. Best of luck!

 

[Winston Churchill (Sir)]

Thanks again. Your pointers all make sense. And ye - don't scratch if it aint itching - damn there is always an itch!