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
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by FEChariot.
     
May 22, 2017 11:54 |  #3691

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18360423 (external link)
QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MnDS​bb  (external link) Christmas Meadows [EXPLORE 10/03/16] (external link) by Eric (external link), on Flickr

I think it looks way more UNNATURAL when a picture of water reflected stars is exactly the same as the sky. To me those shots look like someone just copied the sky and inverted/mirrored it to make the reflection rather than actually take shots of the reflection. Reflections shouldn't be exactly the same as the sky, it's just impossible due to the physics of light refraction in water. I get comments on that picture all time from people who think I've just photoshopped in a inverted/mirrored portion of the sky and that it's not actually a water reflection.

OK I am confused. So this image you posted is a natural image where you did not photoshop the stars into the lake, yet you think it looks unnatural? I think it looks great FWIW.

What was your exposure time on the landscape portion of the bottom image from above? What lens? If there was water movement causing it, I would expect it to have zig zag looking stars in the reflection and not straight lines.


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: 1024
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
May 22, 2017 12:15 |  #3692

FEChariot wrote in post #18360435 (external link)
OK I am confused. So this image you posted is a natural image where you did not photoshop the stars into the lake, yet you think it looks unnatural? I think it looks great FWIW.

What was your exposure time on the landscape portion of the bottom image from above? What lens? If there was water movement causing it, I would expect it to have zig zag looking stars in the reflection and not straight lines.

No, I'm saying the image I posted (in your quote) is the closest I've gotten to pinpoint stars, it's borderline impossible to get perfectly sharp stars in water reflections due to water movement and refraction of light. I said people give me comments about that image, that THEY think it looks unnatural because the water reflection looks like it's just a photoshopped copy of the sky and not actually a reflection.

I do shorter exposures of water reflections, usually 30-45 seconds, compared to exposures for the landscape/sky, usually 2-5 minutes, in order to limit the effect water movement/refraction has on star shape/sharpness. That image was taken with a Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens, the landscape portion is 3 minute exposure(s), the reflections were 45 second exposure(s). The direction of the water movement will dictate the elongation of the stars, they won't be zig zag because water doesn't move in a zig zag direction, water flows along a single vector line in one direction. In the case of the shot with the 50mm lens the water was moving directly towards me (towards the shore) and so the stars are elongated towards the camera. Imagine waves moving towards a beach, the waves aren't changing direction as the crash on the beach, they are moving in one direction toward the beach.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
Post edited over 3 years ago by FEChariot. (3 edits in all)
     
May 22, 2017 12:43 |  #3693

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18360455 (external link)
No, I'm saying the image I posted (in your quote) is the closest I've gotten to pinpoint stars, it's borderline impossible to get perfectly sharp stars in water reflections due to water movement and refraction of light. I said people give me comments about that image, that THEY think it looks unnatural because the water reflection looks like it's just a photoshopped copy of the sky and not actually a reflection.

Well I think that image is amazing.

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18360455 (external link)
I do shorter exposures of water reflections, usually 30-45 seconds, compared to exposures for the landscape/sky, usually 2-5 minutes, in order to limit the effect water movement/refraction has on star shape/sharpness. That image was taken with a Rokinon 24mm f1.4 lens, the landscape portion is 3 minute exposure(s), the reflections were 45 second exposure(s).

So you end up combining three exposures? one for the sky, one for the reflection and another for the land?

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18360455 (external link)
The direction of the water movement will dictate the elongation of the stars, they won't be zig zag because water doesn't move in a zig zag direction, water flows along a single vector line in one direction. In the case of the shot with the 50mm lens the water was moving directly towards me (towards the shore) and so the stars are elongated towards the camera. Imagine waves moving towards a beach, the waves aren't changing direction as the crash on the beach, they are moving in one direction toward the beach.

You lost me here. Waves definitely can have a zig zag effect when you combine different waves coming from different directions.
https://g1.img-dpreview.com …04D6BA59DE3620F​B91424.jpg (external link)

But you are saying in the 50mm image, that over a 30-45 second period, I don't know how long the reflection exposure was so please correct me on the time, that the waves only traveled a few feet causing star lines 5-10 feet long?


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
danialsturge
Senior Member
Avatar
894 posts
Likes: 1239
Joined Aug 2014
Location: Sheffield, England
     
May 22, 2017 13:11 |  #3694

My experience reflects (pun intended) that of pdxbeneditti. When I shot the Milky Way and its reflection at Crater Lake, Oregon, the water itself was as still as it could be. This is a panoramic, but all the settings were exactly the same for each shot:

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/341/18134962463_de06c6e12b_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/tCwq​wB  (external link) Parallel Universe (external link) by Danial Sturge (external link), on Flickr

Even with the naked eye the reflection of the stars appeared elongated - most likely due to the angle of reflection as I was quite high up above the lake.

X100V

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1024
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
May 22, 2017 13:16 |  #3695

FEChariot wrote in post #18360475 (external link)
Well I think that image is amazing.

So you end up combining three exposures? one for the sky, one for the reflection and another for the land?

You lost me here. Waves definitely can have a zig zag effect when you combine different waves coming from different directions.
https://g1.img-dpreview.com …04D6BA59DE3620F​B91424.jpg (external link)

But you are saying in the 50mm image, that over a 30-45 second period, I don't know how long the reflection exposure was so please correct me on the time, that the waves only traveled a few feet causing star lines 5-10 feet long at best? Those are the slowest moving waves I have ever seen then.

Waves/water might be staggered, but those waves are all moving along the same vector (direction) line. Water might look like this (when looking at it from above):

/\/\/\/\/\

But the water is moving in a vector direction which is this:

-------->

When taking a long exposure the side to side choppiness of the water becomes averaged out and you are left with a straight line for the star and not a zig zag. If you took a very fast exposure you would capture the side to side zig zag as you see in your image you linked to, that is only an instant in time (probably just fractions of a second). Over 30-45 seconds the movement of the water, even if it's subtle, is enough to smooth (an averaging) that out.

A star trail in a reflection isn't going to be 5-10 feet long, that light isn't going to stretch indefinitely as the water moves (ie the water movement does not "carry" the reflected light with it all the way to the shore). The reflection is probably only a few inches long.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
May 22, 2017 13:26 |  #3696

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18360494 (external link)
Waves/water might be staggered, but those waves are all moving along the same vector (direction) line. Water might look like this (when looking at it from above):

/\/\/\/\/\

But the water is moving in a vector direction which is this:

-------->

When taking a long exposure the side to side choppiness of the water becomes averaged out and you are left with a straight line for the star and not a zig zag. If you took a very fast exposure you would capture the side to side zig zag as you see in your image you linked to, that is only an instant in time (probably just fractions of a second). Over 30-45 seconds the movement of the water, even if it's subtle, is enough to smooth (an averaging) that out.

A star trail in a reflection isn't going to be 5-10 feet long, that light isn't going to stretch indefinitely as the water moves (ie the water movement does not "carry" the reflected light with it all the way to the shore). The reflection is probably only a few inches long.

Ok I think I am following you now. I have yet to have the opportunity to shoot long exposure over water so I haven't seen it first hand like that.


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
tuffty
Member
Avatar
133 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Likes: 408
Joined Sep 2015
Location: Gloucestershire, UK
     
May 22, 2017 14:54 |  #3697

I can see what you mean about the pin sharp stars... had to look at this on flickr to see properly... fills me with hope that one day I will get a shot half as good as I have mostly the same kit you used for this (Samyang 2mm f1.4 and Star Adventurer)... I just lack the dark clear skies and bravery to be on my own at remote places in the dark lol...

<tuffty/>




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiriusDoggy
Senior Member
Avatar
589 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2006
Post edited over 3 years ago by SiriusDoggy.
     
May 23, 2017 22:11 |  #3698

Under the Desert Skies.

Canon 5D Mark II, 24mm 1.4 Rokinon lens at 1.4, ISO 1600, 20 seconds.
This is what I was imaging with the scope. http://www.alnitakprod​uctions.com …nomy/n-dkWpW3/i-35wJZtt/A (external link)

IMAGE: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VwGGPJv/0/1bb67ea4/X2/i-VwGGPJv-X2.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …i-VwGGPJv-X2.jpg&lb=1&s=A  (external link) on Smugmug

Canon 5D Mark II & Mark III 50mm 1.4, 16-35mm 2.8L, 24-70mm 2.8L, 24-104 4L, 70-200mm 2.8 IS L, 100-400mm 5.6-6.3L, 600mm 4L, 24mm 3.5 T/S L, 16mm 2.8 Zenitar Fisheye, Rokinon 24mm, 35mm, 85mm T1.5 Cine set

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gaabnz
Senior Member
Avatar
924 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2755
Joined Jul 2013
Post edited over 3 years ago by gaabnz.
     
May 24, 2017 04:57 |  #3699

I've just used the Sharpstar to try and focus on the Southern Cross as a test.

I'm not happy with the top left corner at all. Any ideas or comments?

Lens is Samyang 24mm f1.4

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4267/34861659815_388e743d7c_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/V7B7​Ug  (external link) _DSC3307 (external link) by Gary Ashton (external link), on Flickr

and a crop. Southern Cross in lower right corner

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4204/34475361180_fc78a35669_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Uwte​LY  (external link) _DSC3305 (external link) by Gary Ashton (external link), on Flickr

Sony A7mkiii / Zeiss Batis 18mm f2.8 / Zeiss FE35 f2.8 / EF24-105F4L / EF70-200f4L / EF50mm f1.8 / Sigma 105mm f2.8 macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pdxbenedetti
Senior Member
Avatar
312 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1024
Joined Jul 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, United States
     
May 24, 2017 10:30 |  #3700

The whole image is badly out of focus, the out of focus problem is exacerbating the coma problem of the lens. When using the focusing mask are you see diffraction spikes from the very bright stars? When a star is in perfect focus the diffraction spike pattern should look like this:

IMAGE: http://www.geoastro.co.uk/85bahtinov/baht.jpg

If you're not seeing diffraction spikes at all you need to find a larger star (or a planet like Mars/Jupiter/Venus, but not Saturn) or you are using to wide angle of a lens and cannot resolve the stars well enough to generate the spikes.

Honestly I think bahtinov masks (which is what the Sharpstar is, a really really expensive bahtinov mask) are only useful on lenses of 85mm focal lengths and longer. And no offense to Ian Norman, but what he's charging for that Sharpstar is an absolute ripoff, go buy a gosky bahtinov mask off Amazon for $15.

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sporadic
Senior Member
Avatar
580 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 178
Joined May 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
     
May 25, 2017 07:54 |  #3701

pdxbenedetti wrote in post #18361937 (external link)
Honestly I think bahtinov masks (which is what the Sharpstar is, a really really expensive bahtinov mask) are only useful on lenses of 85mm focal lengths and longer. And no offense to Ian Norman, but what he's charging for that Sharpstar is an absolute ripoff, go buy a gosky bahtinov mask off Amazon for $15.

Never heard of the Sharpstar, but $65 for some laser etched acrylic? Wow. Seems a few people have 3D printed these for scopes and cameras - https://www.thingivers​e.com/search?q=Bahtino​v+Mask (external link). I may draw one up for my Cokin "P" holder.


Fuji X-T1 | X-T2 | X-T3 | 35/1.4 | 10-24 | 18-55 | 55-200 | 50-140 | Rokinon 8/2.8II Fisheye | Rokinon 12/2
Fringer EF-FX Pro
7D | 300/4 L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lazypineapple
Member
Avatar
37 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 54
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Granbury,TX
     
May 26, 2017 10:08 |  #3702

Over Lake Granbury,Tx.


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


BJ
60d, 6d, with Canon 24-105,18-200, 200mm 2.8L, Tokina 11-16, iEQ45 ProMount, 8" Astrograph Newtonian, ST-80, Curved Rod BarnDoor Tracker

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rezcar
Goldmember
1,314 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 651
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
     
May 28, 2017 01:59 |  #3703

Another from Joshua Tree

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4274/34128729003_90c3b88fd2_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/TZQE​78  (external link) DSC09030x10s (external link) by owen yano (external link), on Flickr

Fotostream
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/59148177@N06/ (external link)
#re240zcar
.
"Image quality is not the product of a machine, but of the person who directs the machine, and there are no limits to imagination and expression." - Ansel Adams

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HorribleAvatar
Member
Avatar
121 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 431
Joined Aug 2015
Location: Salt Lake City, USA
     
May 29, 2017 11:19 |  #3704

Well finally got out to Skull Valley on Saturday like I had wanted to for awhile. The weather was perfect, the sky was clear but boy does the light pollution ever suck. Next time I'll try further south in the valley it's overall a very plain non-descript place but it's also an easy drive from Salt Lake City. These are from the base of Lone Rock and that's my first pano which I'm pretty satisfied with for a first try.


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


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


flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
2cruise
Goldmember
Avatar
4,524 posts
Gallery: 720 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 7052
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Virginia.....I'm also known as Whisle
     
May 29, 2017 11:25 |  #3705

For me it's a work in process that seems to be going slowly both in shooting and processing.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4195/34545132530_b66727db8f_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/UCCQ​nh  (external link) RR Crossing Milky Way (external link) by Whisle (external link)

5D Mark IV~100-400L II IS~16-35 f4L IS ~Zeiss 25mm f2~Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar~ Sigma 24-105 Art~Lee filters
My Flickr (external link)

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

1,572,594 views & 6,986 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 genobinia
874 guests, 302 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.