fbpixel

Moderators: E.J. Peiker, Greg Downing

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 11 posts | 
by MND on Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:36 am
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
I’ve been taking pictures of the Night Sky up in Acadia NP but I’m having difficulty with getting that “Milky Way” look that I see often. 

Any ideas on WB and any other settings you use in your workflow?

Thanks
 

by Tim Zurowski on Fri Oct 13, 2017 12:00 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18627
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Mike . . . . . I posted almost the same question a couple of months back in the Photography Forum. I am pretty sure that your problem is the same as my problem; ie too much light pollution. I would estimate that you need to get about 80 miles away from ANY light pollution sources. 
Cheers
Tim Zurowski
www.timzphotography.com
 

by MND on Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:14 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Hey Tim. I remember your question. I’m currently in Acadia where the night skies are dark. Last night I was photographing out on Schoodic Point over the Atlantic. I’m more interested in the post processing aspect, particularly using Capture One which I know quite a few people use.

I had quite a good tutorial on processing using Lightroom but I cant find it anymore.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Oct 13, 2017 5:33 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80101
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
I think posting a shot would help, it's hard to know where things are going wrong without knowing that. Probably an unprocessed version and then your processed version would be needed.
 

by MND on Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:22 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
E.J. Peiker wrote:
I think posting a shot would help, it's hard to know where things are going wrong without knowing that.  Probably an unprocessed version and then your processed version would be needed.



Thanks E.J.

We're just packing up for the drive home but I will put a suitable unprocessed image in a dropbox when I get home.

In here are three from last night Night Sky Images
 

by E.J. Peiker on Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:37 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80101
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Looking forward to the originals. Just from looking at those on the blog page, the first thing I would look at is exposure. The shots look a bit underexposed. What were the exposure settings?
 

by MND on Sun Oct 15, 2017 12:11 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Looking forward to the originals.  Just from looking at those on the blog page, the first thing I would look at is exposure.  The shots look a bit underexposed.  What were the exposure settings?



Here is the NEF 8secs @ ISO2500

D850 NEF

C1 Edited Version
 

by E.J. Peiker on Sun Oct 15, 2017 2:34 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 80101
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Yup, like I thought...  I downloaded the image, it is way underexposed.  A typical exposure in a situation like that would be about 15 seconds at ISO 6400.  Your image is about 2 1/3 stops under that.  I played with it a little, knowing that it would be a very noisy image due to the severe underexposure and loaded the image into C1 and added 2 1/3 stops - here is a general starting point for you that I believe mimics more of the look you are after but realize that it would be much much better with a lot more exposure.  You will need to click on it to see the settings clearly.  Realize this is just a starting point and you will likely want to brighten the galactic core part of the image a bit relative to the rest...

Image
 

by MND on Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:43 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Thanks for the help E.J. I’ll try out your advice next time I get to see a sky clear of light pollution. I might have to pop up to Cherry Springs SP as that is about the nearest dark sky preserve near where I live.
 

by Anthony Medici on Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:22 pm
User avatar
Anthony Medici
Lifetime Member
Posts: 6737
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Location: Champions Gate, FL
Member #:00012
The core is also down by the horizon where there is more atmospheric interference. That darkens the core simply because of where it is.

Of course, the issue with using 30 seconds or more on the shot is that there will probably be earth motion in the image elongating the stars near the equator. Of course, that could be solved by using a tracking mount. Even a poorly aligned tracking mount will allow for wide angle images between 30 and 120 seconds...
Tony
 

by MND on Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:16 pm
MND
Forum Contributor
Posts: 385
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Location: Pennsylvania
Anthony Medici wrote:
The core is also down by the horizon where there is more atmospheric interference. That darkens the core simply because of where it is.

Of course, the issue with using 30 seconds or more on the shot is that there will probably be earth motion in the image elongating the stars near the equator. Of course, that could be solved by using a tracking mount. Even a poorly aligned tracking mount will allow for wide angle images between 30 and 120 seconds...



I don’t get much chance to do any Astro photography in south central PA so it’s usually on vacations to Maine when I get a chance to practice.

I’ll try again next year.
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
11 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group