Mushy This a super fine shot. thumb
I was rather hoping someone
would post an example like this. Star trails are way cool but so is 30 secs
on its own, one frame, in the night sky + foreground.
CatOne that shot is stunning! Especially for a 30 min exposure, I always shoot much longer thinking I need to!
This isn't a star trail but a night time shot all the same
ISO 3200, 33 Secs, F4, there is plenty of noise but it looks fine at this size:D
I'm off to the middle of nowhere next weekend and will be experimenting with setting from this thread!
Thanks all
One from Mt. Rainier
I woke up early on Saturday and headed out to Mt. Rainier for some sunrise and wildflower shots. I got there about 30 minutes before dawn after leaving home at 2:45 AM, and the sky was completely clear, and because there's no light pollution and the high elevation, I saw more stars than I had ever seen before in my life. Very cool.
Anyway, I didn't get there early enough to do a "proper" star trails shot, but since I didn't have anything to do until dawn, I tried an 8-minute exposure (and luckily got the mountain in focus which I could barely see through the viewfinder):
Love that first one! I'm guessing you had fading moon light helping with the foreground?
Thanks! First shot was actually just before sunrise. Total exposure time was around 2 1/2 hours. Each shot was 4 minutes at F2.8 and ISO 400. The sky was totally black in each frame until about an hour before sunrise, then each frame started getting lighter and lighter.
Congrats Pyry on getting your first "true" star trails.
I tried it with digital the other night and didn't know I needed to
turn off the camera's matching dark frame for each photo to be
used in stacking effort. Spent a lot of time saying "what the heck"
after each 30 sec exposure got followed by a 30 sec dark frame.
Never did lock down "bulb" while out that night. Live and learn.
Of the two I like this one best. Really nice foreground interest getting
to play its part.
The dominate constellation looks to be Ursa Major. A little bit of Draco above. Constellation pieces parts beyond that.
Congrats Pyry on getting your first "true" star trails.
I tried it with digital the other night and didn't know I needed to
turn off the camera's matching dark frame for each photo to be
used in stacking effort. Spent a lot of time saying "what the heck"
after each 30 sec exposure got followed by a 30 sec dark frame.
Never did lock down "bulb" while out that night. Live and learn.
I've thought my camera had stuck it's shutter because I forgot I turned the danged dark frames on once...
You really need to have a gapless series of pictures for these things, I've noticed. I had to reject the first 2 minute exposure from the first pic because I did something to the camera - for about half a minute and caused a gap. The second - the airplane was in the middle of the exposure series! I put it in rather than produced a break in the trail. You can actually see me fiddling in that one.
Anyone know how a wide angle lense effects star trails?
I ask, because I'm off on a couple camping trips in a few weeks and have star trails earmarked as something I'm going to be doing. Does the wider angle of the lens emphasize the rotation in any way? Or are telephotos better?
Anyone know how a wide angle lense effects star trails?
I ask, because I'm off on a couple camping trips in a few weeks and have star trails earmarked as something I'm going to be doing. Does the wider angle of the lens emphasize the rotation in any way? Or are telephotos better?
You will need a longer shot (or composite) to show good trails with wide angles. This is because the stars have a longer way to go for a given length of trail in the final image.
Another thing is the distortion from the rectilinear corrections in the lens, see my second shot a few posts earlier for the effect. This should be correctable in post though.
You will need a longer shot (or composite) to show good trails with wide angles. This is because the stars have a longer way to go for a given length of trail in the final image.
Another thing is the distortion from the rectilinear corrections in the lens, see my second shot a few posts earlier for the effect. This should be correctable in post though.
Thanks for the respose, Pyry! I kind of like the distortion from the wide angle lens... I'll give it a try... and hopefully end up with something worthy of posting!
I think most folks shoot star trails pretty wide. If you want that circular look, it's the way to go.
These are my first two star trails, taken at Death Valley.
Single shot, 12 minute exposure
Thanks for sharing, KDog!
This one appears to have 2 different rotations... the top left and bottom right each seem to have their own rotations... I wonder if that's an effect of the wide angle lens or some other phenomenon... You didn't discover some bizarre new dimension while you were out there, did you?!
You didn't discover some bizarre new dimension while you were out there, did you?!
:wow :s85
Hehe, good catch. Yeah, it's a super-wide 13mm shot looking directly south. So the polar rotation is overshadowed by the wide angle barrel distortion. Kinda cool, huh?
I got hooked on star/milky way shots doing a Dgrin challenge a couple of months ago. This is a composite of Mt Rainier at dusk with 13 stacked 30 second 1600 ISO f4.6 (Nikon D40) images of the Milky Way. I used Jim Solomon's Astrophotography Cookbook article to take the stack shots (flats/darks/bias etc) and then used DeepSkyStacker (free program) for stacking and NR. First attempt at this, and I think it turned out pretty well.
I got hooked on star/milky way shots doing a Dgrin challenge a couple of months ago. This is a composite of Mt Rainier at dusk with 13 stacked 30 second 1600 ISO f4.6 (Nikon D40) images of the Milky Way. I used Jim Solomon's Astrophotography Cookbook article to take the stack shots (flats/darks/bias etc) and then used DeepSkyStacker (free program) for stacking and NR. First attempt at this, and I think it turned out pretty well.
I took this shot a few months ago. Had a good night without much wind, and and the moon set before midnight, so I had dark hours after midnight when the planes let up (I'm under a fairly major flight path here- we have a drinking game where you have to drink everywhere you see a plane!). Two 45 minute exposures, combined in GIMP. Horizon glow is Vegas >100 miles away (I've posted this one before).
Wanted to try stacking multiple short exposures next time. Only had one night this time with low enough wind to dare leaving my camera out, and the moon rose about midnight (I went to bed ~10), so there are quite a few planes. 99 1 minute exposures, no dark image correction at all, combined in GIMP. The multiple stacking really cuts down on the ambient sky light. I changed the levels in the later shots to get rid of the ambient moon glow except for the hill illumination. I wanted to redo it to get closer to the sleeping bag, but it was too windy on subsequent nights to leave my camera out, hopefully I'll get out again soon to redo.
For some reason I had the idea that I needed a gap between shots to let the sensor cool. It was probably ~50 F during the shooting. 5 second gaps were too much for the periphery, but okay for the center of the whorl. I guess if it's 50, I don't need to let the sensor cool, what about if it it's 80 degrees F in the evening when I'm doing multiple long exposures?
Comments
I was rather hoping someone
would post an example like this. Star trails are way cool but so is 30 secs
on its own, one frame, in the night sky + foreground.
Milky way rising
I have to admit to never acually shooting a star trail. Will have to fix that.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Hey, using a eq or barndoor mount is cheating!
Tree trails are good.
SBIG STL-11000
Alta U16M
I woke up early on Saturday and headed out to Mt. Rainier for some sunrise and wildflower shots. I got there about 30 minutes before dawn after leaving home at 2:45 AM, and the sky was completely clear, and because there's no light pollution and the high elevation, I saw more stars than I had ever seen before in my life. Very cool.
Anyway, I didn't get there early enough to do a "proper" star trails shot, but since I didn't have anything to do until dawn, I tried an 8-minute exposure (and luckily got the mountain in focus which I could barely see through the viewfinder):
Photo Gallery | Blog | I'm Unemployed!
C&C always welcome!
Thor
I took the advice given on the forum and tried it again. I think it turned out much better! Please feel free to share your thoughts, etc...
(30s at ISO1000, 12mm, 84 minutes total exposure time, stacked with the fore mentioned action)
Dan
A. Adams
First a short 8 minute one. Guess what the constellations are
A wider 48-minute trail, shot at the premier Finnish site for radioastronomy, Metsähovi.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com
Love that first one! I'm guessing you had fading moon light helping with the foreground?
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Thanks! First shot was actually just before sunrise. Total exposure time was around 2 1/2 hours. Each shot was 4 minutes at F2.8 and ISO 400. The sky was totally black in each frame until about an hour before sunrise, then each frame started getting lighter and lighter.
The second shot had a small moon right behind me.
James
Langford Photography
http://www.langfordphotography.com
james@langfordphotography.com
I tried it with digital the other night and didn't know I needed to
turn off the camera's matching dark frame for each photo to be
used in stacking effort. Spent a lot of time saying "what the heck"
after each 30 sec exposure got followed by a 30 sec dark frame.
Never did lock down "bulb" while out that night. Live and learn.
Of the two I like this one best. Really nice foreground interest getting
to play its part.
The dominate constellation looks to be Ursa Major. A little bit of Draco above. Constellation pieces parts beyond that.
I've thought my camera had stuck it's shutter because I forgot I turned the danged dark frames on once...
You really need to have a gapless series of pictures for these things, I've noticed. I had to reject the first 2 minute exposure from the first pic because I did something to the camera - for about half a minute and caused a gap. The second - the airplane was in the middle of the exposure series! I put it in rather than produced a break in the trail. You can actually see me fiddling in that one.
Thanks!
Right on the constellations there
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
I ask, because I'm off on a couple camping trips in a few weeks and have star trails earmarked as something I'm going to be doing. Does the wider angle of the lens emphasize the rotation in any way? Or are telephotos better?
SmugMug QA
My Photos
You will need a longer shot (or composite) to show good trails with wide angles. This is because the stars have a longer way to go for a given length of trail in the final image.
Another thing is the distortion from the rectilinear corrections in the lens, see my second shot a few posts earlier for the effect. This should be correctable in post though.
http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
Thanks for the respose, Pyry! I kind of like the distortion from the wide angle lens... I'll give it a try... and hopefully end up with something worthy of posting!
SmugMug QA
My Photos
These are my first two star trails, taken at Death Valley.
Single shot, 12 minute exposure
Single shot, 1 hour exposure
Link to my Smugmug site
Thanks for sharing, KDog!
This one appears to have 2 different rotations... the top left and bottom right each seem to have their own rotations... I wonder if that's an effect of the wide angle lens or some other phenomenon... You didn't discover some bizarre new dimension while you were out there, did you?!
SmugMug QA
My Photos
Hehe, good catch. Yeah, it's a super-wide 13mm shot looking directly south. So the polar rotation is overshadowed by the wide angle barrel distortion. Kinda cool, huh?
Link to my Smugmug site
Nah... It's very cool!!
SmugMug QA
My Photos
This is a stacked composite of 155 images taken over an hour and a half.
There are a few airplanes in the image and if you look closely at the original you can see 3 satellites.
Fun stuff!
The original is located in http://gnooj.smugmug.com/gallery/4693268_wa6m7/1/370014033_uJ5Uk
Looking at the original I see the little dots that connect to make the rings and it seems a lot of work to stack pics and PP.
Anyone uses just film for these super long exposures? Seems like the way to go about it.
Anyone just use long exposure with long exposure NR turned on?
Thanks
http://www.amirbarzi.com
www.bf2015.smugmug.com
Absolutely outstanding image.
Link to my Smugmug site
Star trails redux.
I took this shot a few months ago. Had a good night without much wind, and and the moon set before midnight, so I had dark hours after midnight when the planes let up (I'm under a fairly major flight path here- we have a drinking game where you have to drink everywhere you see a plane!). Two 45 minute exposures, combined in GIMP. Horizon glow is Vegas >100 miles away (I've posted this one before).
Wanted to try stacking multiple short exposures next time. Only had one night this time with low enough wind to dare leaving my camera out, and the moon rose about midnight (I went to bed ~10), so there are quite a few planes. 99 1 minute exposures, no dark image correction at all, combined in GIMP. The multiple stacking really cuts down on the ambient sky light. I changed the levels in the later shots to get rid of the ambient moon glow except for the hill illumination. I wanted to redo it to get closer to the sleeping bag, but it was too windy on subsequent nights to leave my camera out, hopefully I'll get out again soon to redo.
For some reason I had the idea that I needed a gap between shots to let the sensor cool. It was probably ~50 F during the shooting. 5 second gaps were too much for the periphery, but okay for the center of the whorl. I guess if it's 50, I don't need to let the sensor cool, what about if it it's 80 degrees F in the evening when I'm doing multiple long exposures?