Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 31 posts | 
by Tim Zurowski on Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:52 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I have been trying to take some night images with hopes of capturing the Milky Way, but have been failing miserably. Can someone go through for me (and others who might like to learn) how you capture images like these:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=271741&p=2514686&hilit=milky+way#p2514686

viewtopic.php?f=26&t=272085&p=2516917&hilit=milky+way#p2516917

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=270897&p=2508574&hilit=milky+way#p2508574
 

by ChrisStarbuck on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:07 pm
User avatar
ChrisStarbuck
Forum Contributor
Posts: 33
Joined: 28 Apr 2010
Location: St. Charles, MO, USA
I'll second the request for comments and instruction.  I'd love to learn how to do this.

I did Google "how to photograph the milky way", and found the page linked below as the first hit - it looks like a good place to start, but doesn't say anything about such things as how to stack images to reduce noise:
https://www.lightstalking.com/how-to-photograph-the-milky-way/
Chris Starbuck
[url]http://www.chrisstarbuck.com[/url]
 

by pdschu on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:18 pm
User avatar
pdschu
Forum Contributor
Posts: 175
Joined: 23 Mar 2009
Location: Orlando, Florida
I found this e-book modestly priced and full of relevant instruction.


http://www.philhart.com/shooting-stars
Paul Schumacher
Schumacher Photography
 

by Anthony Medici on Wed Aug 23, 2017 11:52 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
I think this won't be easily done on line as I have no idea where you are failing or what you have tried.

Are you having a camera setup issue?
A focusing and framing issue?
A light pollution issue?  
An image processing issue?
Or more than one of these?

And, there is an equipment issue too. Which camera since each has its strong points and weak points. What lenses do you have available? Which ones have you tried with?

On my trips to Africa with Thom Hogan, we try to dedicate one or two evenings getting the participants familiar with the basics of wide angle astrophotography. Most of the beginnings of those sessions has to do with various basic items. we rarely run these sessions for more than 2 hours and most people come away with some simple images of the night sky.

How to setup the camera best for the activity.
What issues you'll have with dealing with the equipment at night.
Basic focusing.
Basic Framing.
And then shooting sample images.

The first example you showed could have been done with this type of review. The other two, which took multiple images and the processed them with a stacker we usually don't get to and, I have little practical experience with them since the only good software for the task is for a windows machine and I don't have one of those at this time.

So where do you want to start? (That goes for everyone as everyone has to start somewhere.)
Tony
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:02 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
The easiest issue to deal with is light pollution.

Light pollution is the term used for general issues with stray light. Stray light will scatter in the atmosphere and not only rob you of contrast, it will obscure the fainter stars. The biggest source of light pollution is the moon. If the moon is up, you generally can't shoot Milky Way images. The second biggest source of light pollution is man. Artificial light scatters in the night sky reducing contrast and obscuring stars.

That's why we like going over this in Botswana in a tented camp on Safari. We are far away from most artificial light sources, we go out when the moon is not up and we control the use of lights while we practice.
Tony
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:21 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Chris, thank you for posting that link. It has lots of good info in it :)

Tony, I am not having issues with any of the things you listed. I have done astro photography in the past, but it was more with telescopes and the like. What I am having difficulty with is actually capturing the Milky Way itself. I live a ways away from the city, and while there is still a small percentage of light pollution here, I don't believe it is enough to make this a problem. There is a Canadian Dominion Astrophysical Observatory just a couple of miles away from my place and they have a few large telescopes there. Anyway, I was asking more about the techniques and actual camera techs you use to capture those images.

For equipment, I don't have the very best, but I do believe it is adequate to capture some good basic astro shots. For this I have a D600 or D500 with a Nikkor 24 f2.8 and a Nikkor 50 f1.8. So if you had this gear, what would your settings and process be to capture decent Milky Way shots?
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:59 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Next we'll look at the equipment used for the images shown so that you can decide what equipment to use. I adding a link to an image a posted to help the conversation along. And we the three examples you posted originally.

Baine's Baobabs

My image above and well as EJ's Milky Way and Large Magellanic Cloud were taken with extremely wide lenses, a full frame body and from the southern hemisphere. More specifically, we both used D810's, though mine was the A variant, he used a 15mm lens and I had my DX lens set at 16mm which is the widest I can go with it and not vignette on an FX body. Our aperture setting were F2.8 or F3.1 which is basically wide open and we shot for either 20 or 30 seconds. I shot at ISO 6400 for that image and EJ used ISO 2500. I know I didn't stack, I'll leave EJ to say if he did or not. My feeling on that one is that he didn't.

For the other two images the differences run this way. EJ other shot used a 22mm equivalent lens and stacked multiple frames. My guess is he focused stacked as well as used software to align stars and stacked. On Jeff's image, it looks like he used the 14-24 at its widest setting based on what the Milky Way looks like and also stacked images.

So based on these four images, I'd say you should start with your D600 and the 24mm F2.8 lens. That would net you about as much of the Milky Way as EJ's second image but less than any of the other images. Unfortunately, the D600 is harder to work with than the D500 at night since it doesn't have light up buttons and it also doesn't have an adjustable screen.

Of course, you'll also need a tripod and, to start with, I think it needs to be tall enough so that you can put the camera up where you can easily see the screen WITHOUT moving the camera. You'll also need a head lamp or small flashlight that is DIM. Anywhere from 1 to 5 lumens minimum or a slightly brighter red one. This is to work with your equipment in the dark. Although not technically needed, a shutter release would be useful though that can be worked around.
Tony
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:41 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Camera settings useful for night work.

Some of these setting can be changed prior to going out and changed back after you are done. Others might need to be changed while out. For convenience , I put many of these in the My Menu area so that I can get to them quickly and change them when needed.

Monitor Brightness - I use the minimum brightness setting the camera has so that the camera doesn't disturb my night vision.
Image Review - For night work I like to have this on so that I know when the camera is done with an exposure.
Monitor off Delay/Image Review - You might want to increase this for convenience.
Monitor off Delay/Playback - Again, you might want to increase this for convenience.
Long Exposure NR - I leave this off on the Nikon since it takes as long to do this as it does to take the picture.
High ISO NR - This is a jpg setting so it really doesn't matter if you are working with RAW files.

You are going to use Manual exposure mode. Nothing is left to the camera to decide!
Aperture - Wide open or close to it.
ISO - Initially set it to the highest numbered ISO you have. Adjust to taste.
Shutter speed - Initially, something reasonable like 4 to 8 seconds. Eventually, as high as 30 seconds.
Auto ISO OFF

Most times you need to focus manually. This is because if it is dark enough to photograph the Milky Way, you won't see anything through the view finder. Also, Live view is useless for night sky work, even on the D810A which has a special boost mode. The exception is if you can see something through the viewfinder. The only things you might be able to see through the view finder might be a bright planet (Venus, Jupiter) or star (Sirius). If the moon is a new crescent and will set before you start your real work, that could be used too. If you can see it through the view finder, it might be possible to focus an autofocus lens using it using the center point.
Tony
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:23 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Night Sky Practice

At this point in the workshop, we usually walk out to where the guides have decided is (relatively) safe from animal issues a little ways away from the camp. Even the mobile camp has a number of lights as well as the campfire and moving away from these helps.

The basic steps of the process we're going to use goes like this:

Setup the tripod/camera and point up at the section of sky you are interested in. Don't worry about exact framing, we'll deal with that later. The sky in Botswana in July/august has the Milky Way high in the sky in the evenings. So many times I have them start with pointing the camera up towards it without any ground in the image. (A basic sky picture.) Adding the ground and framing is an intermediate level skill.

Now we focus the camera. Once you realize that auto focus won't work and Live view doesn't see anything you skip those and to get to the real work. Set the camera and/or the lens to manual focus. If the lens has a distance scale, center the infinity mark on the focus line. (It the infinity mark is a sideways 8, put the line in the center of the 8.) (Use the light you brought. You can't see the scale otherwise!)

Now take a picture at the settings we talked about before. (Highest numbered ISO, Aperture Wide open, 8 seconds)

If you remembered to turn the image review on, the image will pop up on the display when the camera is done. Zoom into the image to 100% view. If the stars are points, the camera is in focus. If not, pick a direction and move the focus slightly in that direction.

Now take another picture and zoom in again. If you have points, you're done. If it got worse, adjust in the other direction. If it got better but is still off, adjust again in the same direction. Continue this process until you are satisfied with the focus.

Next comes framing. You've been taking images to adjust your focus without paying attention to the framing. Now look at the framing, decide if you like it or if it needs to be changed. If it needs changing, loosen things up slightly and make a SMALL adjustment to the framing and then tighten things up again. Take another image and continue until you are happy with the framing.

At this point, check the histogram to see how your exposure is. This is usually pretty hard to see but important in the long run. The histogram will be a big vertical bar on the left and a very thin line to the right. (Same thing for the RGB one.) You don't want to have blown out stars. Usually at this point, you either think that the exposure is good or it needs to be brighter. If the exposure is good, you could lower the ISO and lengthen the shutter speed leaving the exposure the same. If it is too dark, lengthen the shutter speed. Most cameras max out at 30 seconds without needing to go to Bulb. Generally you don't want a longer shutter speed anyway since you will start to get star trails as the shutter speed lengthens. (If you are using a D5 and the exposure was too bright, lower the ISO down from the over 100,000 ISO you have it set to!)

At this point, you've taken a night sky image that can be worked with later in post processing.
Tony
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:44 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Basic Night Sky photography issues:

For daytime photography, rarely is any shutter speed considered too long. For night sky work, this isn't true.

You are on a moving, revolving earth. If you leave the shutter open too long, the stars will elongate into streaks. If you keep going, they eventually become lines. To make things more interesting, stars near the poles don't move nearly as far as stars near the equator. 

So what is too long? Well, really it depends. It depends on how large you will view the image and from what distance you are looking at it from. The OLD standard was based on printing an 8" x 10" print. The numbers given with that formula was based on being able to notice the stars weren't points in that print. If your goal isn't an 8 x 10, technically the formula needs to change.

So what was the old formula? It was called the 500 rule. The calculation was such that you could take a 1 second exposure with a 500mm lens and still have points on that 8 x 10 print if you were pointing at a star at the equator. So you ended up with a little table:

500mm = 1 second
250mm = 2 seconds
125mm = 4 seconds
60mm = 8 seconds
30mm = 15 seconds
15mm = 30 seconds.

Noticed I played with the numbers just like the camera makers play with shutter speeds. After all, these are just a guideline. Also remember that it is based on the hypothetical 8 x 10 print. If you are going to a different type of view, you may need to modify these number significantly.

To lengthen the shutter speeds past this point, you would need to move the camera to compensate for the motion of the earth. that means using some type of motor drive that can keep the stars stationary relative to your position on the earth. Which is why including the earth in the image is an intermediate level skill. After all, if the stars are no longer moving compared to the earth, then the earth is moving in the frame at the same rate the stars used to be!
Tony
 

by delong1301 on Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:14 am
delong1301
Forum Contributor
Posts: 83
Joined: 23 Jun 2008
http://www.markbowie.com/shop/books

Check out Mark Bowie's website.....he specializes in night photography and has a couple of very informative ebooks modestly priced.

Don
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:11 am
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Thanks for taking the time to post all of that info Tony. Most of it I know and had tried. My main problem is "actually" catching and exposing the Milky Way itself. Even though I wouldn't have thought it an issue here, I am now thinking that it is likely a light pollution issue causing my results. Even with 20 to 30 second exposures I am not getting the Milky Way, yet things are bit washed out. I have tried various exposures and I am not capturing it. So my next step will be to pick a nice clear night with a "new" moon and head about 20-30 minutes north where I know the light pollution will be at its lowest, and see if that helps.

I am also interested in knowing how the stacking is done for astro photography. I do tons of stacking for DOF with macro and bird subjects, but I assume astro stacking is not for DOF, but rather for capturing more light and exposure. Do you just let the stacking software do it? Are you taking a variety of exposures? What is done with each exposure to capture the light and details for astro subjects?
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:13 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
For some reason I didn't see this yesterday,

On the second image, I did use software to render a cleaner image. The XF-IQ3100 shot at ISO 6400 is very noisy but that noise is of a somewhat random nature so by taking many shots, stacking them, aligning and then using the median color value for every pixel site, you dramatically reduce the noise. I used a piece of software that is quickly catching hold in the astro photography community called Starry landscape Stacker - it runs on mac only. The software allows you to mask off the stationary land portions so that those don't move when stacking the stars which do move.

The other image of mine that you showed, Tony pretty much already analyzed. That one was super easy since there is essentially zero light pollution in Patagonia.

Go to YouTube and type in Lonely Speck in the search box. That channel has a huge amount of info and instructive videos on how to photograph and process all of this stuff.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:21 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
As for the 500/focal length rule for shutter speed, that works kind of OK as long as your print size is relatively small and if you are in the middle latitudes.  As the angular velocity of the Earth increase when you get closer to the equator, you need to use a smaller number in the numerator.  At the equator, even 250/fl show star trails and at the arctic circle you can go to about 750/fl before you see any significant star trailing.  Here in AZ, at 33 degrees N I generally use about 400/fl and I certainly can see star trails at that on both my 42mp FF camera and my 101mp 645 camera but you really don't see it significantly in a print up to 16x24.  If I had faster lenses for the medium format stuff (which they don't make) I would use 300/fl on that camera.

Where you are on Vancouver Island 500/fl should work pretty well.
 

by Anthony Medici on Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:35 am
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6879
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
Tim Zurowski wrote:So my next step will be to pick a nice clear night with a "new" moon and head about 20-30 minutes north where I know the light pollution will be at its lowest, and see if that helps.
You don't need a new moon to do this. You need no moon during the time you are shooting. When I was doing Deep Sky viewing in college, we did it for 2 weeks each month from 3 days after the full moon until 2 days after the new moon. And you can't do it before Astronomical Twilight Dusk ends. (Or you need to do it before Astronomical Twilight Dawn begins.) We obviously did it in the evening. you can adjust that based on the time you plan to be out. After all, you need to combine a no moon situation with clear skies. 
Tony
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:36 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yeah I would consider all but 4 days before to 4 days after full moon as doable - You just need no moon or no more than a slither at the moment that you are taking your exposures.
 

by bradmangas on Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:09 pm
User avatar
bradmangas
Forum Contributor
Posts: 278
Joined: 15 Feb 2013
To make this as simple as possible, the basic answer to your question is, no. But, with that said start here. At 24mm, f2.8, iso 3200, 20 seconds, push the button. Then adjust from there. All the same principles of photography apply. Whether taking a picture of the milky way at 3am or a tree at high noon. You are simply capturing light as dictated by; aperture, shutter speed, iso.

I am always amazed when folks want to "take pictures of the milky way". No doubt because of the pictures they have seen. If just capturing the same thing others have done then that will just be a matter of repeating what they have done. No creativity or imagination required. Just technical know how. It actually rather saddens me that so many see photography as, doing the same thing others have done.
 

by DChan on Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:35 pm
DChan
Forum Contributor
Posts: 2206
Joined: 9 Jan 2009
bradmangas wrote: [snip] If just capturing the same thing others have done then that will just be a matter of repeating what they have done. No creativity or imagination required. Just technical know how. [snip]
Exactly the reason why I did not plan to shoot the solar eclipse, definitely not the kind with just the sun/moon in the frame.
 

by andre paul on Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:17 pm
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
Tim Zurowski wrote:Thanks for taking the time to post all of that info Tony. Most of it I know and had tried. My main problem is "actually" catching and exposing the Milky Way itself. Even though I wouldn't have thought it an issue here, I am now thinking that it is likely a light pollution issue causing my results. Even with 20 to 30 second exposures I am not getting the Milky Way, yet things are bit washed out. I have tried various exposures and I am not capturing it. So my next step will be to pick a nice clear night with a "new" moon and head about 20-30 minutes north where I know the light pollution will be at its lowest, and see if that helps.

I am also interested in knowing how the stacking is done for astro photography. I do tons of stacking for DOF with macro and bird subjects, but I assume astro stacking is not for DOF, but rather for capturing more light and exposure. Do you just let the stacking software do it? Are you taking a variety of exposures? What is done with each exposure to capture the light and details for astro subjects?
tim, without seeing yur images it is quite difficult to see what the problem is ;-)
i am just wondering if yu are aplying post processing as  much as needed. milky way shots will need significant post processing to reveal the milkyway images as you desire as they do look a bit washed before post processing... ( just wondering here .... )

details for astro subjects? if you are planning to use stronger focal lenses for shooting astrosubjects you will need an equatorial mount! ( not sure what you meen with astrosubjects... but individual astro subjects is a whole different beast then astrolandscapes... )

regards
andre.
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

by andre paul on Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:22 pm
User avatar
andre paul
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1829
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
bradmangas wrote:To make this as simple as possible, the basic answer to your question is, no. But, with that said start here. At 24mm, f2.8, iso 3200, 20 seconds, push the button. Then adjust from there. All the same principles of photography apply. Whether taking a picture of the milky way at 3am or a tree at high noon. You are simply capturing light as dictated by; aperture, shutter speed, iso.

I am always amazed when folks want to "take pictures of the milky way". No doubt because of the pictures they have seen. If just capturing the same thing others have done then that will just be a matter of repeating what they have done. No creativity or imagination required. Just technical know how. It actually rather saddens me that so many see photography as, doing the same thing others have done.
brad, i would agree with you for the majority of your statements.

on the other hand when i started shooting some images at night including milkyway shots i do think that dominating the technique includes obtaining technically good shots that have already been made , even if not original.

this would be a first step two achieve a second desired level ( that you mention ) , that is , putting your style and imagination in the game .

i would just feel sad if one only makes things already done ;-)

andre.
andre reichmann
**sao paulo-brazil**
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
31 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group