Hot answers tagged

43

@Michael Clark and @Itai have provided good answers. A few more thoughts from the perspective of the enthusiastic amateur: Tracking technology isn't perfect and sometimes its better to work within the practical limitations of the tracking available rather than push it too far Very long exposures may not play well with high levels of light pollution. There's ...


34

It looks like there are parallel light trails below each streelamp -- going down, then right, then down some more (ASCII art): / | | | \_ \ | And highlighted on the original: I would guess that these are when the shutter button was pressed, tilting the camera, because only bright sources show this effect. This is in addition to the normal, more ...


33

Use the maximum aperture. Shutter Speed: Use the 600/(focal length * crop Factor) rule so as to not see the star trails in your picure (Refer here in section 3. Camera settings). For your 19mm lens you can go up to 20 seconds. Highest ISO possible for your camera that you find the images acceptable. You can use the application: Stellarium to find ...


31

The light you describe as "green" also contains components of "red" and "blue" light. They are much weaker than the green component, but they are there. Once the exposure is bright enough for the green channel to be fully saturated, increasing the exposure further can not increase the value recorded in the green channel to more than 100%. If green is fully ...


27

You could've probably got a decent result just by picking an intermediate exposure. Alternatively, you can try to take a short and a long exposure of the same scene, and combine them digitally afterwards. Here's what I got just by taking your two images above (mouse cursor and all), aligning them (manually, using the Scale tool in GIMP) and blending them ...


22

With regard to reasonably bright stellar objects: technically, yes. With regard to dimmer objects like those that make up most of what we mean when we say "The Milky Way": practically speaking, no. In addition to the phase of the Moon, which determines the overall amount of light falling on the atmosphere above a specific location on the Earth's surface, ...


19

You've hit the diffraction limit. That link has some amazing answers with a lot of detail, so I won't be redundant, but in short, once the aperture gets to be below certain physical size, diffraction causes inevitable blur. For your camera (and any other camera with an APS-C-sized sensor), the limit is a little beyond f/11. The amount of light let in doesn'...


18

It is firstly because we can now. Bulb photography can indeed shoot exposures of minutes to several hours, depending on the camera. Using a film camera, astrophotography is done with very long exposures and those cameras have no time limit since they do not need power to operate. A digital camera can be used in the same way but most mirrorless limit bulb ...


18

The main advantage of stacking is to average out the randomized Poisson distribution "shot noise" that can be a problem in low light images such as astrophotography. Another advantage for stacking comes in using dedicated monochrome imaging sensors while alternating color (or specialized astronomy related) filters over the entire sensor for each exposure and ...


16

I see two main problems: Too slow shutter speed. Overexposure. The first goes directly to the issue you ask about. You are stuck with whatever lighting there is, so you can only trade off ISO, shutter speed, and f-stop (short of using a different camera with a more sensitive sensor). You did a good job of following the motion. That's why the car looks ...


15

Let me answer the question by amalgamating suggestions made by several posters throughout the already provided answers and comments. Hopefully these suggestions taken together will help yield the best possible results. - Know where the Milky Way is Obviously, knowing which way to point the camera is important, but actually spotting the Milky Way with your ...


14

Based on how the second photo looks, my guess is that it was extremely dark and that they took a flash photo with a bulb exposure and then tilted the camera upwards to create the trails from the only lights in the room (which would have been the audio gear). This would leave the DJ well developed since he is only exposed during the flash and then expose the ...


13

I think the other answers may have missed the issue here. Seeing compression artefacts on a RAW file in Lightroom is quite a common issue and it drove me nuts when I first encountered it. It turns out what you're seeing is just regular JPEG compression in the preview image that Lightroom generates. For performance reasons, in the Library module Lightroom ...


13

The problem with fast wide angle lenses is that a fast lens by definition has a large entrance pupil, and to illuminate the image plane the entrance pupil has to be visible across the field of view. So a combination of wide aperture and wide field of view is very difficult to achieve. In addition wide angle lenses for digital cameras are often retrofocus ...


13

Photographing Milky way while a full moon is up? No. Can't be done. Photographing other stellar objects then? Yes, with reservations. The problem is the amount of particles in atmosphere. Air pollution, dust and water/humidity. Particles in air reflect the light from moon practically blanketing the whole sky with thin haze. Quite similar to what light ...


12

I already have a Nikon D5200 and I I tried so much to get a clear view of the sky and it didn't work so much. The camera you have is a fine one to start with. You should spend some time working on technique before you worry about switching to a different camera. Astrophotography is all about capturing tiny amounts of light compared to daytime photography, ...


11

Unless you put a polarizing sheet on the lamps, no effect (other than the global ND effect inherent in these filters), except if there is a reflection on the ground from them, then the reflection will be attenuated. The polarizer removes the reflections from non-metallic surfaces and the stars are direct light from emitting sources. Since the stars ...


11

There's already something that has been invented to collect light for photographs. We call them lenses. In order to collect more light, the front element of the lens must be larger for the same focal length, or have a wider angle of view for the same entrance pupil diameter.


9

Shoot during blue hour, just after sunset. Once the sky goes black you lose a lot of impact, the contrast between lit buildings & black sky is too much. Try googling 'blue hour photography'.


9

While all of the answers here offer something helpful, there's one thing that can't be stressed enough: you need to shoot from somewhere free of light pollution. Even if you don't have any major cities around for miles and miles and miles, it's likely that there's still some light pollution cast. You don't realize just how dark outside can be, and how easy ...


9

The best time to shoot the supermoon is when you can really show off it's size. Shot solo, up alone in the sky, a supermoon doesn't look any different than any other moon. It lacks any dramatic comparisons to other objects of well-known size. You want to shoot a supermoon when it is lower in the atmosphere, and in proximity to foreground object, with the ...


9

Clearly there is some artificial light affecting the shot. Look at the top of the distant house too, and you'll see that it, also, has a red tint on the roof. And more importantly, there is a distinct shadow line on both the roof (from the roof next door) and on the trees (from the distant roof) that shows that the external source of light is coming in at ...


9

The dynamic range of cameras is limited and is unable to capture large brightness differences within one shot. For static subjects use Exposure Blending or HDR preferably on a tripod or similar stable base. For exposure blending you take multiple shots of the same composition but with different exposures. Those images then get merged together by using an ...


9

Your question boils down to auto vs manual focus. From the methodology you've described, it seems that you are attempting to use autofocus to get a picture of the night sky. That's not a great plan because the objects your camera can focus on in the night sky are pretty small points of light, and autofocus usually only works well under brightly lit ...


9

How annoying :-) - I finished marking up a photo and now see that Chris H has done much the same but better. So I'll post this 'for completeness' but with less comment than I otherwise would have. I saw a movement pattern similar to Chris's. This may have occurred in one motion, but the variable brightnesses along each path suggest it may have been a ...


9

The first thing you must realize is that what you are seeing on your monitor is not "the" raw file. What you are seeing is an 8-bit demosaiced preview conversion of the raw file created by Photoshop (or whatever other raw conversion application you are using) based on the current settings. It's just one of many possible interpretations of the full ...


8

There is a little bit different here than in the linked potential duplicate. The Polarized image is roughly the same situation, but the other shot with the moon is a bit different. I applied similar edits to the Aurora from the linked question to get this result with the polarized version: There is actually quite a bit of detail in the shadows. Even at ...


8

The building did not become darker in the second picture, the colors are different but the brightness is about the same. There are two differences between the photos: White balance. The building is lit with somewhat yellow lights, in the 1st picture the camera compensates and makes the light white. For the second picture the flash's light is blue, the ...


8

Are those other planets or other stars? Or is that a lens effect? Looks to me like a planet and some moons. I don't know where you are, but Jupiter has been very bright in the night sky lately in my neighborhood, and with a long enough lens it's not hard to see some of its moons. Seen through a sufficiently powerful telescope, a planet looks very different ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible