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

Considering the relatively long exposure time, I would say this is an airliner flying over. You can see how the lights flash on alternate wings. The central line is likely some other, steady light on the undercarriage.


32

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 ...


30

The trick is very easy, actually: bring your own lighting. The existing orange sodium-vapor lighting is missing important parts of color spectrum, so those colors will never be reflected from anything. Filtering will only further reduce the colors available for recording. The "good" examples in the question look very much like one would get with a couple ...


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 ...


20

Body - you can get better high ISO performance from a full frame body, if you're willing to rent one. That's worth a couple of stops. Lens - another couple of stops if you buy/hire an f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens, especially if you're shooting at the long end of your zoom at f/5.6 Light - in the picture you've given as an example, you seem to be standing in the dark....


20

Basically, you need to do some post processing on this image. From the original, the first step I performed was to make the darkest part black and the lightest white. That alone made a sizeable diffefence since your original lightest spot was only (.37, .34, .38). In other words, you were wasting over 60% of the dynamic range. Original: Black and white ...


20

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

This is a difficult problem as in general those orange sodium vapour lamps give you little to work with, but there are some options Lighting varies with location, it's probably the case that the lighting in the second two examples was better (more sources, broader spectrum), so move around and compare results. By careful editing you can sometimes get a good ...


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

Well, given that all I have to work with is a JPEG, the results are not perfect. If you have the original RAW, you should be able to do what I've done, and more (particularly in the deep shadows). I imported your photo into Lightroom 4.2, and made the following adjustments: Exposure: +2.0 Shadows: +100 Blacks: +100 Whites: +50 Clarity: +25 Vibrance: +15 ...


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

Looks like there was some dust or watter droplets or whatever in the air and that they reflect the flash light. The effect is not very present but as your background is black you can see them. Furtehrmore as they are out of focus they appear as disc rather than dot (in fact you got nice bokeh)


14

Shoot with a small aperture, f22 or like. It is called diffraction. There is a detailed answer Here And here are some sample photos taken with Sony Alpha A35 and an old Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/3.5 lens. I choose this lens to experiment because it has six blades and has a nice octagonal aperture at f/22. And also being a lens from cold war era, it is much ...


14

I initially marked this as a duplicate of How can I avoid star trails without an expensive tracking mount?, but on reflection, I think the answer here is simply the assumption in that one: to get a night-sky exposure longer than 30 seconds or so, you have to track the motion of the sky, and a fancy tracking mount is the way to do that. It looks (from the ...


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

If you're using direct flash, then any flash should 'freeze' the action pretty sufficiently, but it may look like crap. I'd advise not using the auto sports mode - try to set the settings yourself so that you know what the camera should be doing. Switch to A mode, open aperture full up, ISO 800, but then set auto-ISO to go up to 3200 with a shutter speed of ...


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.


10

For dark places you can turn off autofocus and use manual focusing. That works for focusing using the ring on the lens. To get very precise you do it after pressing the LV button. This shows the image on screen bigger. To get manual focus, press the [i] button and change AF-S (or AF-C) to MF. The lens for shooting only the moon is too short but if you want ...


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