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

 
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jul 27, 2016 10:32 |  #3286

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18078832 (external link)
Ya, it's tough, definitely taken me a long time to figure out how to merge the two as seamlessly as possible. The hardest parts are trees or anything with gaps, the blurry portions from a sky shot are bigger and if you don't merge them right those regions become really visible because of light differences.

This is exactly why I would rather use a fast ultra wide angle lens even if it means I am collecting less light than a longer lens. I suck at photoshop. If it was a pain for you, then I would really be in a hurt locker.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1019
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jul 27, 2016 11:31 |  #3287

FEChariot wrote in post #18079010 (external link)
This is exactly why I would rather use a fast ultra wide angle lens even if it means I am collecting less light than a longer lens. I suck at photoshop. If it was a pain for you, then I would really be in a hurt locker.

It's a give and take thing, I spend way less time editing the foreground portion of my shots these days, mostly just increase exposure and shadows and then apply some contrast and maybe a little saturation. I don't have to do any noise reduction anymore, with a single exposure and editing the foreground separate from the sky I could never get noise free foregrounds which bugged me. In terms of time spent overall editing a single exposure versus merging two exposures I honestly don't think it's added much now that I've gotten a hang of the process. Sure, at first it probably doubled my editing time trying to figure out the little tricks needed, but now I just fly through it unless there is something really tricky (like the gaps the in bridge framing in my second to last shot). I probably spend 5 or even 10 times as much time editing the sky of each shot versus the foreground and that's with a streamlined workflow that I've gotten used to.


flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paloika
Senior Member
395 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 740
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jul 27, 2016 11:47 |  #3288

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18078775 (external link)
Thank you

I 'tried' to merge them together with Photoshop Elements 13, but no success :-(

You did a marvelous job!


Try watching this video tutorial on Photoshop Elements. It might help.

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=PnEAeXxPtbw (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1019
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jul 27, 2016 12:15 |  #3289

Inspeqtor wrote in post #18078894 (external link)
Do you use full Photoshop or something else?

Photoshop Creative Suite 6 I think is what it is.


flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TCampbell
Senior Member
443 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 272
Joined Apr 2012
     
Jul 27, 2016 13:19 as a reply to  @ pdxbenedetti's post |  #3290

Adobe no longer sells Photoshop as a stand-alone application. The only way to get it today (for those who don't already own an older version) is to "subscribe" to the Adobe Creative Cloud ("Adobe CC"). They have a photography bundle which provides Photoshop and Lightroom for about $10/month (requires a minimum 1-year subscription).

You can still buy Lightroom as a stand-alone application -- just not Photoshop.

You can also still buy Photoshop Elements as a stand-alone application.

This can be done in Photoshop Elements.

If you're not familiar with Photoshop, the two key concepts are to learn about "layers" and "masks". Layers are just what they sound like... stacking layers of images on top of each other. Anything solid in the top layer will prevent you from seeing things in the layer below it. Anything transparent in a top layer will reveal what is in the layer below it (you can also set the degree of transparency/opacity.)

It is "as if" you were to make physical prints of these images, and after making the foreground (landscape) print, you take a pair of scissors and carefully cut out the sky so you are just left with the foreground/landscape. Then place that foreground landscape carefully on top of the photo of the "sky" image to end up with a combined image that has the best parts of both photos. Except instead of making a physical print, you're doing this with "masks" and "layers".

The trickiest part is doing a good enough just selecting the line that divides the foreground from the sky. Photoshop has a number of tools that help you create the selection and then refine the selection so that you can then make the mask from your selection.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,418 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 336
Joined Sep 2011
     
Jul 27, 2016 17:01 |  #3291

TCampbell wrote in post #18079189 (external link)
The trickiest part is doing a good enough just selecting the line that divides the foreground from the sky. Photoshop has a number of tools that help you create the selection and then refine the selection so that you can then make the mask from your selection.

This is the part where I would rather be stapling my balls to a park bench.


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
NCHANT
Goldmember
3,007 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2102
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jul 27, 2016 22:49 |  #3292

Admins: feel free to delete this if it's against the rules.

I am building the Ultimate Astro Guide for Photographers, click through for more details :)

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8193/28315465160_53908a19c0_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/K99a​ib  (external link) The Ultimate Astro Guide! (external link) by Mikey Mack (external link), on Flickr

6D | 600D | A6000 | 10-22mm ƒ3.5-4.5 USM | 24-105mm ƒ4L USM | TM 35mm ƒ1.8 VC | 40mm ƒ2.8 STM | 50mm ƒ1.8 | 85mm ƒ1.8 | 135mm ƒ2L | 200mm ƒ2.8L II | 55-250 ƒ4.5-5.6 II | Sy 24mm ƒ1.4 | Sy XP 14mm ƒ2.4
Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1019
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jul 28, 2016 09:18 |  #3293

TCampbell wrote in post #18079189 (external link)
Adobe no longer sells Photoshop as a stand-alone application. The only way to get it today (for those who don't already own an older version) is to "subscribe" to the Adobe Creative Cloud ("Adobe CC"). They have a photography bundle which provides Photoshop and Lightroom for about $10/month (requires a minimum 1-year subscription).

You can still buy Lightroom as a stand-alone application -- just not Photoshop.

You can also still buy Photoshop Elements as a stand-alone application.

This can be done in Photoshop Elements.

If you're not familiar with Photoshop, the two key concepts are to learn about "layers" and "masks". Layers are just what they sound like... stacking layers of images on top of each other. Anything solid in the top layer will prevent you from seeing things in the layer below it. Anything transparent in a top layer will reveal what is in the layer below it (you can also set the degree of transparency/opacity.)

It is "as if" you were to make physical prints of these images, and after making the foreground (landscape) print, you take a pair of scissors and carefully cut out the sky so you are just left with the foreground/landscape. Then place that foreground landscape carefully on top of the photo of the "sky" image to end up with a combined image that has the best parts of both photos. Except instead of making a physical print, you're doing this with "masks" and "layers".

The trickiest part is doing a good enough just selecting the line that divides the foreground from the sky. Photoshop has a number of tools that help you create the selection and then refine the selection so that you can then make the mask from your selection.


I think this brings up a touchy topic with regards to photography, the creation of composites. I've seen A LOT of photos made by people that are composites, which is fine, technically all my shots using a tracking mount are composites since it's two separate shots (or more) that went into make them. The problem I have is when people use sky shots layered over foreground shots that were taken at completely different locations, or times of the year/day, or from different angles. If you're going to make those kinds of photos, at least label them as such so that it's clear how it was done. I've seen posts by people talking about those shots saying things along the lines of "oh, I'm going to try that next time I'm at that location" and I think to myself "you can't, because it's not possible". I'd hate to make a composite picture that technically is not possible (like taking a picture of the foreground facing north and then layering the Milky Way core behind it) and then for someone to see it, think they can get a similar shot, and go out and waste their time taking pictures trying to recreate the scene. I personally don't label my photos as "composite" because the sky and foreground shots were taken just minutes apart, but that doesn't change the fact that the pictures are blended images.

I laugh thinking about the worst composite offender I've seen, it was a relatively young astrophotographer who was just getting into the field (and is pretty good), he took a shot at Joshua Tree in California, I noticed something funny about the Milky Way....it was upside down and too high in the sky. Well, he had used the sky portion of a Milky Way shot from somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere (not sure if he just took the picture off the internet or was his own/someone he knows). He posted the shot in a number of Facebook groups for astrophotography and people figured it out pretty quick, but not before a number of people commented about how they wanted to see the Milky Way like that and now wanted to go to Joshua Tree. It didn't stay up long, maybe a couple hours, but it definitely gave some people a false impression.

Technology is awesome, new software makes editing photos much easier and gives people much more creative freedom to create artwork which can be good and bad.


flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kukulkan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,349 posts
Gallery: 183 photos
Likes: 849
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 2 years ago by kukulkan.
     
Jul 29, 2016 22:29 |  #3294

Learning to use Photoshop cs6, what you Guys think?

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7713/28640594185_9a2074b46d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KCSw​Q2  (external link) 8058TCD (external link) by alan marquez (external link), on Flickr



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonuser123
Senior Member
Avatar
584 posts
Gallery: 31 photos
Likes: 689
Joined Dec 2014
Location: Southern California
     
Jul 30, 2016 02:56 |  #3295

Another attempt. I still have a lot of light washing out the bottom that I need to learn to deal with.


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtbdudex
Goldmember
Avatar
1,615 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 99
Joined Nov 2009
Location: SE Michigan
     
Jul 30, 2016 12:47 |  #3296

NCHANT wrote in post #18079705 (external link)
Admins: feel free to delete this if it's against the rules.

I am building the Ultimate Astro Guide for Photographers, click through for more details :)

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/K99a​ib  (external link) The Ultimate Astro Guide! (external link) by Mikey Mack (external link), on Flickr

Mikey if I felt your post was against the POTN terms I'd report it, but you are not selling anything here just making people aware of a resource that can help them if they so choose.
As usual, your work is A+ including your guide.


Mike R, P.E. ...iMac 27"(i7), iPad2, iPhone5s, 24" iMac, AppleTV(160), MacBook
Canon: 70D, T1i + lens:70-200 L f2.8 IS II / TC 1.4x 2x / 15-85 / f1.4 50 / UWA 11-16 Tokina
FEISOL tripod CT-3441S + CB-40D Ball Head, iOptron EQ tracker
My top 10 in Astrophotography. . .DIY acoustic panels (external link) . . APOD Aug-5-2011 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1019
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
Jul 30, 2016 19:47 |  #3297

A couple from last night:

Shot this one at the end of astronomical twilight so there's a bit of a light gradient from right to left, still a little bit of light towards the west (far right of the shot) while it was pretty much dark to the east (far left of the shot). 4 shots for the sky, 4 shots for the foreground, sky shots are 3 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5, foreground shots are 1 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5. All shots taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount.

IMAGE: https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8693/28582510261_3af5124c63_b.jpg


10 shots for this one, 4 for the sky, 4 for the foreground, and 2 for the reflections. Sky shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, and f2.5. Foreground shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, f1.4. Reflection shots were 45 seconds, ISO 1600, f1.4. All were taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount. While I shooting one of the sky shots a beaver swam up near me and slapped its tail SUPER hard on the water, nearly jumped out of my skin it scared me so much, lol.


IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8351/28376629260_a7153c4f46_b.jpg

flickr (external link)
SmugMug (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
paloika
Senior Member
395 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 740
Joined Mar 2013
     
Jul 30, 2016 20:28 |  #3298

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18082185 (external link)
A couple from last night:

Shot this one at the end of astronomical twilight so there's a bit of a light gradient from right to left, still a little bit of light towards the west (far right of the shot) while it was pretty much dark to the east (far left of the shot). 4 shots for the sky, 4 shots for the foreground, sky shots are 3 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5, foreground shots are 1 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5. All shots taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount.

QUOTED IMAGE


10 shots for this one, 4 for the sky, 4 for the foreground, and 2 for the reflections. Sky shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, and f2.5. Foreground shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, f1.4. Reflection shots were 45 seconds, ISO 1600, f1.4. All were taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount. While I shooting one of the sky shots a beaver swam up near me and slapped its tail SUPER hard on the water, nearly jumped out of my skin it scared me so much, lol.


QUOTED IMAGE

Love your work...please keep them coming!! Thanks for sharing the steps too!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pagman
I just hold the thing :-)
Avatar
8,036 posts
Gallery: 1557 photos
Likes: 5542
Joined Dec 2011
     
Jul 30, 2016 21:33 |  #3299

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18082185 (external link)
A couple from last night:

Shot this one at the end of astronomical twilight so there's a bit of a light gradient from right to left, still a little bit of light towards the west (far right of the shot) while it was pretty much dark to the east (far left of the shot). 4 shots for the sky, 4 shots for the foreground, sky shots are 3 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5, foreground shots are 1 minutes, ISO 800, f2.5. All shots taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount.

QUOTED IMAGE


10 shots for this one, 4 for the sky, 4 for the foreground, and 2 for the reflections. Sky shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, and f2.5. Foreground shots were 3 minutes, ISO 800, f1.4. Reflection shots were 45 seconds, ISO 1600, f1.4. All were taken with my Nikon D600 and Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens on a Sky Watcher Star Adventurer tracking mount. While I shooting one of the sky shots a beaver swam up near me and slapped its tail SUPER hard on the water, nearly jumped out of my skin it scared me so much, lol.


QUOTED IMAGE

Lovely shots, I maight be wrong but I think some of your work may have been shown on Yahoo?

P.


Some stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basketballfreak6
Goldmember
1,340 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 1842
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Jul 31, 2016 05:01 |  #3300

IMAGE: https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8858/28590726251_5e373ca3d5_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KysW​Q4  (external link) In a dream (external link) by Tony (external link), on Flickr

https://www.instagram.​com/tony.liu.photograp​hy/ (external link)
flickr (external link)
https://500px.com/tony​_liu_photography (external link)
5DIV, 5DIII, modified 760D, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II f/2.8, 70-200L IS II f/2.8, S150-600 f/5-6.3 SPORT, S14 f/1.8 ART, S50 f/1.4 ART, S135 f/1.8 ART, 100L IS Macro f/2.8

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

890,670 views & 4,750 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 Petru
777 guests, 365 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.