Help with processing

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

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

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.

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

jannefoo wrote in post #14633269
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

James33 wrote in post #14633807
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....

Posting...

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

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.

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?

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).

James33 wrote in post #14638443
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.

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

A.S.I.G.N. Observatory wrote in post #14638478
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.

With the same camera and lens on a mount that tracks I can get this 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.

skater911 wrote in post #14656039
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.

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.