Do you see it like that in real?

Heii guys, im trying since a year to get to a place where little light polution can disturb my ability to photograph the night sky with the milky way etc.

However, i sometimes see a lot of stars but i never see something like this:

Link

However, does the sky look like that in real too, or is this just a technique which makes the stars more visible?

Its just a technique. Most of the color and magic come out in post processing.

No, especially not all the colours.

Your eyes have two types of light-sensitive cells. Cones are the colour-sensitive cells. But they only work properly with bright light. Rods are much better at detecting faint light, but they only work in monochrome. Because most astronomical objects are very dim it's the rods that can detect them, so they appear black and white.

Some stars and planets are bright enough for the cones to detect the colours. A few very bright extended objects are also coloured when viewed through a telescope - the Orion Nebula is a great example. Also, some comets will look green in a scope.

But the density of all the stars is really seen as on the picture?

Ive never seen so much stars in the sky :O

The best place I found to shoot the MW Galaxy on Earth is on a volcano in Costa Rica ...
About anywhere near the Equator and away from civilization in September
should be just as good. Try a mountain on a island in Pacific ...
Then Photoshop it.
But the sky in Costa Rica was near to what is in the photo.

davidfarina wrote in post #16441772
But the density of all the stars is really seen as on the picture?

Ive never seen so much stars in the sky :O

No, you'll not see as many stars. Your eyes are good down to around magnitude 6, after that stars are just not bright enough to register on your rods. The camera is even less sensitive than your eyes - but it can keep collecting light for a long time, something our eyes can't do.

It really is the case that Milky Way shooting in the Southern Hemisphere gives better opportunities than in the Northern Hemisphere. I suppose it's compensation for having to cling to the bottom of the planet to avoid falling off.

hollis_f wrote in post #16441905
It really is the case that Milky Way shooting in the Southern Hemisphere gives better opportunities than in the Northern Hemisphere. I suppose it's compensation for having to cling to the bottom of the planet to avoid falling off.

As an Australian now living in Canada, I can confirm. I can do a lot more with my day now I don't have to worry about clinging to the earth anymore.

Stacking & aligning shots of the stars will bring out some detail which cannot be seen with your eyes.

Yea stacking your light frame data is how you build up a dense star field. Also, full frames like 5d2,3, and 6D's tend to gather alot more light in a single shot than a crop sensor, whose sensor is 1.6 times smaller than a full frame, less surface area to collect photons.

calypsob wrote in post #16444372
Also, full frames like 5d2,3, and 6D's tend to gather alot more light in a single shot than a crop sensor, whose sensor is 1.6 times smaller than a full frame, less surface area to collect photons.

Er, nope.

A crop sensor will collect the same amount of light per unit area as will a full-frame sensor. Imagine you're standing just in front of a wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling window. If somebody partially draws the curtains the view that you see through the window doesn't get darker, even though there's less total light coming through.

Or imagine taking a 30s exposure with a 6D. Then covering half the sensor with a bit of black cardboard (in effect, 'cropping' it) and making another 30s exposure of the same subject. Would the exposed half of the 'cropped' image be darker than the 'full-frame' image? No, of course not.

hollis_f wrote in post #16444609
Er, nope.

A crop sensor will collect the same amount of light per unit area as will a full-frame sensor. Imagine you're standing just in front of a wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling window. If somebody partially draws the curtains the view that you see through the window doesn't get darker, even though there's less total light coming through.

Or imagine taking a 30s exposure with a 6D. Then covering half the sensor with a bit of black cardboard (in effect, 'cropping' it) and making another 30s exposure of the same subject. Would the exposed half of the 'cropped' image be darker than the 'full-frame' image? No, of course not.

But the pixel density on the sensor will most likely not allow to catch light from small and not so bright stars, where a full frame sensor which is mostly higher resoluting and the pixels are bigger, may catch light from smaller stars..

I guess

davidfarina wrote in post #16444760
But the pixel density on the sensor will most likely not allow to catch light from small and not so bright stars, where a full frame sensor which is mostly higher resoluting and the pixels are bigger, may catch light from smaller stars..

I guess

Well, for a start FF sensors tend to have lower resolution that crop sensors. However, they do tend to have larger pixels (strictly sensels, but we'll use pixels for now). That means that each pixel can grab more photons than the smaller pixels of a crop camera - but they both have (roughly) the same amount of noise. This gives the FF sensor an advantage in signal:noise which is a good thing.

At the same ISO values both will catch the same stars, but the FF sensor will produce less noise than the crop.

I just realized that i (even if i travveled already around the world) never was sonewhere in the south hemiswhere. But i see images from north europe or north america where it is possible to catch stars liek in the image.

So what do you guess, how much more stars is visible after PP and stacking in percent?

davidfarina wrote in post #16448477
I just realized that i (even if i travveled already around the world) never was sonewhere in the south hemiswhere. But i see images from north europe or north america where it is possible to catch stars liek in the image.

So what do you guess, how much more stars is visible after PP and stacking in percent?

Use a lengthy time exposure with good equatorial mount to keep stars as single points as opposed to swirls and the sky is the limit ... many many times.
If the galaxy is straight up as opposed to horizon there is less atmosphere haze between you and stars thus much brighter sharper.
The reason why Costa Rica is so good in Sept is because its straight up with few city lights and high on the several volcanoes there.
But look at the many Fred M. posts on stars and asto photography .. all around the world .. only a little PP is needed if photo done right .. one example is ..
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …/0?keyword=star​s#11851581

also see .. http://www.weatherscap​es.com …at=astronomy&pa​ge=eqmount