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 Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
Thread started 20 Oct 2011 (Thursday) 11:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Milkyway nightscapes

 
danialsturge
Senior Member
Avatar
890 posts
Likes: 1199
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, England
     
Aug 19, 2015 05:27 |  #2491

WildernessTracker wrote in post #17674685 (external link)
The first photo was shot above the house towards the SW, so I missed the bottom half of the core that night.
The second photo is a panorama and the Milky Way in the left is looking towards the SW which is where I was expecting it to be (based on Stellarium). It was a relatively clear night with the aurora being very active.

Some photos I can edit it reasonably ok, but with others I struggle with, even when I am out of the light polluted areas. The area where I live has relatively lower light pollution based on maps so should be fine to get a semi-decent image. The difference can be seen in the images below, both taken with the same lens. The second image is a stacked vertical panorama with 3 horizontal shots.

Is it normal to struggle with finding a balance between noise and det

Ah, my mistake. I would have thought if it's dark enough to capture the aurora that well, then the milky way would show up more clearly.

How many images if you stack in the second one? I guess it's probably just light pollution, even if you shoot from a low light polluted area, if the camera is aimed in a direction where there is some glow it can wash out some detail and colour. As for noise, I don't know how well the 70D handles it? I know my 60D is pretty bad at 1600 and pretty unusable at 3200. For astro I always use my Canon EOS M as it very usable at 1600 and not too bad at 3200.

Also, what time are you shooting at? Being up in Scotland you're probably only getting a couple of hours of truly dark hours during the summer. Even here in Sheffield it doesn't stay properly dark that long.


X100T | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
WildernessTracker
Member
Avatar
98 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 203
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland
     
Aug 19, 2015 05:45 |  #2492

danialsturge wrote in post #17674695 (external link)
Ah, my mistake. I would have thought if it's dark enough to capture the aurora that well, then the milky way would show up more clearly.

How many images if you stack in the second one? I guess it's probably just light pollution, even if you shoot from a low light polluted area, if the camera is aimed in a direction where there is some glow it can wash out some detail and colour. As for noise, I don't know how well the 70D handles it? I know my 60D is pretty bad at 1600 and pretty unusable at 3200. For astro I always use my Canon EOS M as it very usable at 1600 and not too bad at 3200.

Also, what time are you shooting at? Being up in Scotland you're probably only getting a couple of hours of truly dark hours during the summer. Even here in Sheffield it doesn't stay properly dark that long.

In the second one I had 5 or 6 images for the panorama. I have read image stacking can help but not tried it with milky way shots. That number of shots may have been a bit over the top but I have found stitching photos of the milky way to be a pain so far. I do have enough images to do a 360 panorama of the aurora but it is not working out how I would have liked. May be down to me and how I am stitching it in Hugin/LR.

At 1600 I think it is usable but other more experienced folks may disagree.....certainly it is better than my old 400D which was terrible at ISO 800.

In my second set of images these were shot around 1 - 2am, which is still within the darkest hour according to the Clear Outside website. The shot with the aurora was taken a bit later and I think twilight was starting to come in behind me so may be the reason it is washed out. The aurora that night was very active and even showed some colour to the naked eye so and lasted well into the early hours.


flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)
My Gear: Canon 70D, 400D | Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM, 18-55, 55-250 IS, 50/1.8 | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danialsturge
Senior Member
Avatar
890 posts
Likes: 1199
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, England
     
Aug 19, 2015 05:53 |  #2493

WildernessTracker wrote in post #17674705 (external link)
In the second one I had 5 or 6 images for the panorama. I have read image stacking can help but not tried it with milky way shots. That number of shots may have been a bit over the top but I have found stitching photos of the milky way to be a pain so far. I do have enough images to do a 360 panorama of the aurora but it is not working out how I would have liked. May be down to me and how I am stitching it in Hugin/LR.

At 1600 I think it is usable but other more experienced folks may disagree.....certainly it is better than my old 400D which was terrible at ISO 800.

In my second set of images these were shot around 1 - 2am, which is still within the darkest hour according to the Clear Outside website. The shot with the aurora was taken a bit later and I think twilight was starting to come in behind me so may be the reason it is washed out. The aurora that night was very active and even showed some colour to the naked eye so and lasted well into the early hours.

Right, I understand now. Stacking 10 or so images will help reduce noise dramatically - which means you can get away with a higher ISO and bring out some more detail that would otherwise be loss to noise, it's certainly worth a try. It wouldn't surprise me if 1600 is fine, I may be wrong, but I think the sensor in the M is the same as the 70D.


X100T | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 19, 2015 08:48 |  #2494

NCHANT wrote in post #17674648 (external link)
Trying to embed this video :)


Your work here is always exceptional nchant. But this video is nothing less than epic!!!


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,497 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 299
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
Post edited over 3 years ago by MakisM1. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 19, 2015 09:05 |  #2495

WildernessTracker wrote in post #17674614 (external link)
I am still trying to get used to editing the Milky Way but can't seem to get near the level of detail and colour that I am wanting.

Here are a couple shots from this month.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wAbf​KG  (external link) August Milky Way (external link) by Andy McDonald (external link), on Flickr

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xsHE​X9  (external link) Aurora and Milky Way Panorama (external link) by Andy McDonald (external link), on Flickr

I took the liberty of editing your photo, if you don't like it, PM me and I will take it down.

--Image removed, at no one's request--

Is this what you are looking for?


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidmtml
Senior Member
Avatar
848 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 385
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Montana
     
Aug 19, 2015 13:47 |  #2496

Another of mine from the same night.

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/635/20719209871_14cf325be5_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xyTn​fp  (external link) 20150815-220616-IMG_6209 (external link) by David Rabenberg (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 19, 2015 15:23 |  #2497

davidmtml wrote in post #17675238 (external link)
Another of mine from the same night.

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xyTn​fp  (external link) 20150815-220616-IMG_6209 (external link) by David Rabenberg (external link), on Flickr

Wow:oops:


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
danialsturge
Senior Member
Avatar
890 posts
Likes: 1199
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, England
     
Aug 19, 2015 15:52 |  #2498

I've been re-editing some photos I took back in May:

IMAGE: https://farm1.staticflickr.com/674/20528140079_5575fb3aeb_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xh15​RD  (external link) Back In Time (external link) by Danial Sturge (external link), on Flickr

X100T | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jsecordphoto
In disbelief of how amazing I am
Avatar
257 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Aug 2014
Location: New Hampshire
     
Aug 19, 2015 19:10 |  #2499

MakisM1 wrote in post #17674903 (external link)
I took the liberty of editing your photo, if you don't like it, PM me and I will take it down.

Is this what you are looking for?

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=176​74903&i=i25770349
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

that is a lot of contrast


Nikon D750, Nikon 50 f1.8, Tokina 16-28 f2.8, Tamron 150-600
www.jsecordphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,497 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 299
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 19, 2015 20:07 |  #2500

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17675619 (external link)
that is a lot of contrast

It's a curve adjustment. Yes, it increases the contrast, I can do a smoother job with the RAW. The issue is to bring up the highlights, so you can see more stars. The rest is a matter of individual taste.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jsecordphoto
In disbelief of how amazing I am
Avatar
257 posts
Likes: 160
Joined Aug 2014
Location: New Hampshire
     
Aug 19, 2015 20:44 |  #2501

MakisM1 wrote in post #17675682 (external link)
It's a curve adjustment. Yes, it increases the contrast, I can do a smoother job with the RAW. The issue is to bring up the highlights, so you can see more stars. The rest is a matter of individual taste.

Yes, I'm familiar with curve adjustments. I'm saying that is way too much contrast.


Nikon D750, Nikon 50 f1.8, Tokina 16-28 f2.8, Tamron 150-600
www.jsecordphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Aressem
Goldmember
Avatar
4,364 posts
Gallery: 39 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 507
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Aug 19, 2015 21:07 |  #2502

jsecordphoto wrote in post #17675715 (external link)
Yes, I'm familiar with curve adjustments. I'm saying that is way too much contrast.

Well everyone is entitled to their opinion.


Ryan Mackay WEBSITE (external link) | FACEBOOK (external link) | GEAR LIST | Buy & Sell Feedback: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,420 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 338
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 20, 2015 02:17 |  #2503

Aressem wrote in post #17675740 (external link)
Well everyone is entitled to their opinion.

If we are taking votes, I am leaning on the too much contrast side.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WildernessTracker
Member
Avatar
98 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 203
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Aberdeenshire, Scotland
     
Aug 20, 2015 03:01 |  #2504

danialsturge wrote in post #17674708 (external link)
Right, I understand now. Stacking 10 or so images will help reduce noise dramatically - which means you can get away with a higher ISO and bring out some more detail that would otherwise be loss to noise, it's certainly worth a try. It wouldn't surprise me if 1600 is fine, I may be wrong, but I think the sensor in the M is the same as the 70D.

I will have a look at stacking some images and seeing what happens. :)

MakisM1 wrote in post #17674903 (external link)
I took the liberty of editing your photo, if you don't like it, PM me and I will take it down.

Is this what you are looking for?


thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=176​74903&i=i25770349
forum: Astronomy & Celestial

It is closer to what I am looking for but just a bit too much contrast for my liking. But thanks for having a go. :)
Is it better to use the curves in LR to adjust contrast rather than just using the contrast slider?


flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)
My Gear: Canon 70D, 400D | Canon EF-S 18-135 IS STM, 18-55, 55-250 IS, 50/1.8 | Samyang 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidfarina
Goldmember
Avatar
3,357 posts
Gallery: 52 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 1033
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 20, 2015 05:30 |  #2505

WildernessTracker wrote in post #17675995 (external link)
I will have a look at stacking some images and seeing what happens. :)

It is closer to what I am looking for but just a bit too much contrast for my liking. But thanks for having a go. :)
Is it better to use the curves in LR to adjust contrast rather than just using the contrast slider?

I would say yes since curves in LR will lean on the pixel informations from the raw file versus PS taking informations from a tif which has less informations.


Sony A7RII | Sony A7S
EF 40 | EF 70-300L | FD 35 Tilt-Shift
FE 16-35 | FE 28 | FE 90
CV 15 4.5 III | CV 40 1.4 MC | Summilux 50 ASPH
Website (external link) | 500px (external link)

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

922,807 views & 5,148 likes for this thread
Milkyway nightscapes
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Astronomy & Celestial 
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 Dom07
900 guests, 424 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.