Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Astronomy & Celestial Talk 
Thread started 24 Jun 2012 (Sunday) 16:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Help with processing

 
James33
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jun 24, 2012 16:03 |  #1

I'm new to this end of photography and would love some help in processing. Not sure how to proceed, or how good my images can be made. I have a couple of RAW files if anyone is interested in trying their hand at editing them and them posting here. I'd love to know your steps you used to create the final image. I'm headed to the Grand Canyon this summer and want to get some amazing images - so I want to get up to speed now. Granted, I shot these with a 17-40L lens and I'll be renting the 16-35L 2.8 for the trip to give me that extra stop of light.
That super bright light at the bottom of the one photo is a cruise ship. This was taken on the southern shore of Grand Cayman.

Thanks for any help!
James

Zip file is here:
http://www.photophilep​hotography.com/files/G​randCayman.zip (external link)


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jun 25, 2012 10:30 |  #2

You want someone to download 46 megabytes? At least post a Jpeg here so we can see what we are in for.


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James33
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jun 25, 2012 11:16 |  #3

They are 2 RAW files which is what I assume you would need to do a suitable job. Over a broadband connection it's just a few minutes. I can post JPGs when I get home.


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jannefoo
Member
68 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jun 2012
Location: .fi
     
Jun 26, 2012 07:50 |  #4

The signal to noise ratio of the images isn't too good, so there's not much to process.


my flickr (external link) | blog about panoramic photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James33
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jun 26, 2012 09:45 |  #5

jannefoo wrote in post #14633269 (external link)
The signal to noise ratio of the images isn't too good, so there's not much to process.

Got busy last night and forgot about the JPGs. I've seen plenty of 1 shot milky way photos that look awesome. Why is mine so bad in this regard? What can I do differently to improve the shot?

Thanks all and I'll upload 2 small unprocessed JPGs tonight.
James


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jun 26, 2012 10:50 |  #6

James33 wrote in post #14633807 (external link)
Got busy last night and forgot about the JPGs. I've seen plenty of 1 shot milky way photos that look awesome. Why is mine so bad in this regard? What can I do differently to improve the shot?

Thanks all and I'll upload 2 small unprocessed JPGs tonight.
James

waiting....


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James33
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jun 26, 2012 20:13 |  #7

Posting...

These are what I managed (poorly) which is why I'm asking for a little help.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jun 27, 2012 00:08 as a reply to  @ James33's post |  #8

While I am waiting for your RAWs to download (it takes more than a few minutes for people not blessed with fast connections) I had a quick play in Photoshop with your two JPEGs.

I don't know why, but it seems a lot of beginners point their camera's at the least populated parts of the sky or they centre it on Orion. If you just wait a bit longer in the night or year, you can capture sooooo much more interesting parts of the sky for widefield.

Nothing against you mate, it's just something I have seen time and time again over the years. When I first began, it just didn't make sense to me to point my camera at the sky unless I could see a decent amount of structure - ie. the Milky way centre.

So, what I have done here is a simple colour balance, by using the "remove colour cast" tool and clicking the eyedropper on an area of space that I think should be black. With light pollution combined with smoke, smog, fog are anything else in the air, this can be tricky. Experience will tell you what colour the sky should be in time.

I then adjusted the levels on the histogram, bringing the midtone slider slightly left.

What did you shoot through? There is some VERY HEAVY vignetting around the first one.

I'll have a look at your RAWs as soon as they have downloaded.

Baz.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jun 27, 2012 00:21 as a reply to  @ A.S.I.G.N. Observatory's post |  #9

OK, I had a look at your RAW's and they are not much better. I colour balanced them, again raised the midtone slider in levels and did some noise reduction at 100%. No sharpening or it comes out too crunchy.

I don't know why you didn't get much data with your 5DII at ISO2000. Your focal length was 17mm and your aperture at F4. Is that the widest you can go on that lens? Regardless, at 25 seconds on these settings you should have captured more light than that. Is the light pollution in your area bad?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James33
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jun 27, 2012 06:13 |  #10

Thank you for the time and for looking over my shots. I was on Grand Cayman in the Bahamas on vacation. First shot I know wasn't the milky way - it was to the east near my hotel. I drove to the south shore for the 2nd shot. The light in the 2nd shot was a cruise ship and the light in the foreground is from a light pole on the pier. Other than that, not much around. It was one of the few nights without clouds we had. My 17-40 only does f/4 but I am renting a 16-35 for my trip that is wider at f/2.8. I could (and may rent) a 24mm f/1.8 but wanted to go wider than 24. My 5D MKII is a full frame camera and that may be causing some vignetting at the edges with it at 17mm.

Would light from the nearby pole cause that much of an issue? I see shots made of the milky way that are stunning and the sky is still blue from the sun just setting (or just before rising).


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jun 27, 2012 06:36 |  #11

James33 wrote in post #14638443 (external link)
Thank you for the time and for looking over my shots. I was on Grand Cayman in the Bahamas on vacation. First shot I know wasn't the milky way - it was to the east near my hotel. I drove to the south shore for the 2nd shot. The light in the 2nd shot was a cruise ship and the light in the foreground is from a light pole on the pier. Other than that, not much around. It was one of the few nights without clouds we had. My 17-40 only does f/4 but I am renting a 16-35 for my trip that is wider at f/2.8. I could (and may rent) a 24mm f/1.8 but wanted to go wider than 24. My 5D MKII is a full frame camera and that may be causing some vignetting at the edges with it at 17mm.

Would light from the nearby pole cause that much of an issue? I see shots made of the milky way that are stunning and the sky is still blue from the sun just setting (or just before rising).

Both your shots are of the Milky Way, just the outer arm Orion view, rather than the inner Sagittarius view. 16 mm at f2.8 will be great. It must have been the light pole that did the damage on your photos mate. Try to get away from all light sources, especially close ones. I have a 5DII with 16-35mm lens and I get this. (external link)

With the same camera and lens on a mount that tracks I can get this (external link) in four minutes.


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skater911
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 01, 2012 09:37 |  #12

A.S.I.G.N. Observatory wrote in post #14638478 (external link)
Both your shots are of the Milky Way, just the outer arm Orion view, rather than the inner Sagittarius view. 16 mm at f2.8 will be great. It must have been the light pole that did the damage on your photos mate. Try to get away from all light sources, especially close ones. I have a 5DII with 16-35mm lens and I get this. (external link)

With the same camera and lens on a mount that tracks I can get this (external link) in four minutes.


Not to hijack the thread, but with a lot of talk on the 16-35, is the he most suitable lens for wide field? I have a 24L mkii and the 17-40. I don't think I want to buy the 16-35 for just this use.


Nikon D850 l Nikon 28 1.4E l Nikon 50 1.8 g l Nikon 24-120 F4 l Tamron 100-400 l

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
A.S.I.G.N. ­ Observatory
...For the future of mankind
Avatar
2,629 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 907
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Canberra, Australia
     
Jul 01, 2012 09:47 |  #13

skater911 wrote in post #14656039 (external link)
Not to hijack the thread, but with a lot of talk on the 16-35, is the he most suitable lens for wide field? I have a 24L mkii and the 17-40. I don't think I want to buy the 16-35 for just this use.

At a wide 16mm, which is about the widest you can do while still remaining aspherical, the other advantage of this lens is it is an F2.8, which means it lets in a LOT of light.

On a full-frame camera, it is the perfect lens for this application.


Builds By Baz website http://www.buildsbybaz​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James33
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
568 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 30
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Memphis, TN
     
Jul 01, 2012 16:02 |  #14

Thanks for the help and suggestions - I'm renting the 16-35 and if it's all that and a bag of chips,I'll sell my 17-40 for it. Headed to the Grand Canyon North Rim next month - I'll use it then.


www.jamesparkerphoto.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,277 views & 0 likes for this thread
Help with processing
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Astronomy & Celestial Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is stapelt
846 guests, 337 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.