star photo help
- Thread starter iwols
- Start date
on the first one I don't think that your exposure was nearly long enough and I'd say the focus was a tiny bit off on it too 
- Messages
- 3,097
- Edit My Images
- No
There's not that much to be disappointed about.
Ok so the focus is just slightly out at close inspection and there's a little motion evident in the second but for images taken just on a tripod you should be happy.
I would keep the exposure times down a little, the 19.8 second one of the seven sisters has shown movement so I would cut it back to maybe 10-15 second exposures.
The defocus issue is probably due to the camera cooling down, best to put everything outside to cool down for an hour before shooting (except batteries).
you could also try stacking your exposures in something like registax, its not so easy on images shot from a tripod rather than a driven EQ mount, but it can work.
There's also some astro actions somewhere on the web (Niel carbone?), I cant remember where right now but they can help with final processing of images.
All in all though I would be fairly happy if I'd shot those
Ok so the focus is just slightly out at close inspection and there's a little motion evident in the second but for images taken just on a tripod you should be happy.
I would keep the exposure times down a little, the 19.8 second one of the seven sisters has shown movement so I would cut it back to maybe 10-15 second exposures.
The defocus issue is probably due to the camera cooling down, best to put everything outside to cool down for an hour before shooting (except batteries).
you could also try stacking your exposures in something like registax, its not so easy on images shot from a tripod rather than a driven EQ mount, but it can work.
There's also some astro actions somewhere on the web (Niel carbone?), I cant remember where right now but they can help with final processing of images.
All in all though I would be fairly happy if I'd shot those
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
As for focus, I assume you are focusing manually? If not, do so. Use live view to really get it bang on, then switch all AF off.
You have a lot of light pollution showing. Most of this can be easily removed by setting the white point to the background, but it can have a tendency to shift things to blue a little. You can also stretch the histogram a little with levels. A quick faff around would give thins...
Using a wider lens will allow longer speeds, but you could try upping the ISO a stop or two which will give you the equivalent of using 1 or two stops longer but noise may be an issue.
By far and away though, you need to get away from light pollution.
Taking several 10 second exposures and stacking them in Registax will help a great deal too, but bear in mind that as the stars move across the frame from shot to shot, Registax will have to align these when it stacks and that will result in the image being cropped a little.
Don;t underestimate the difference a light pollution free sky can make though. Here's a shot of Orion I made with a 50mm lens, then cropped in. No EXIF I'm afraid as I lost the RAW as it was just a test shot for something else and I just pulled this off a hosting site I use, but it would have been around 10 seconds at ISO6400. I recall stretching the histogram a little to pull out some detail in the nebula, but little else. This was taken in Galloway forest where there is almost zero light pollution.
The problem with a light polluted sky is that the orange sky glow is brighter than the lower magnitude stars, so no matter how much post processing or stacking, you'll never get them.
You have a lot of light pollution showing. Most of this can be easily removed by setting the white point to the background, but it can have a tendency to shift things to blue a little. You can also stretch the histogram a little with levels. A quick faff around would give thins...
Using a wider lens will allow longer speeds, but you could try upping the ISO a stop or two which will give you the equivalent of using 1 or two stops longer but noise may be an issue.
By far and away though, you need to get away from light pollution.
Taking several 10 second exposures and stacking them in Registax will help a great deal too, but bear in mind that as the stars move across the frame from shot to shot, Registax will have to align these when it stacks and that will result in the image being cropped a little.
Don;t underestimate the difference a light pollution free sky can make though. Here's a shot of Orion I made with a 50mm lens, then cropped in. No EXIF I'm afraid as I lost the RAW as it was just a test shot for something else and I just pulled this off a hosting site I use, but it would have been around 10 seconds at ISO6400. I recall stretching the histogram a little to pull out some detail in the nebula, but little else. This was taken in Galloway forest where there is almost zero light pollution.
The problem with a light polluted sky is that the orange sky glow is brighter than the lower magnitude stars, so no matter how much post processing or stacking, you'll never get them.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 6,133
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not much wrong with those Iwols.
Camera sensors are very good at picking up light pollution and as already said WB can help, but I'd agree getting to somewhere with a really dark sky makes a world of difference.
To stop the stars from trailing the 600 rule is a good place to start.
Maximum exposure in seconds = 600/(focal length of the lens x crop factor)
It is not an absolute rule but a reasonable place to start experimenting.
Dave
Camera sensors are very good at picking up light pollution and as already said WB can help, but I'd agree getting to somewhere with a really dark sky makes a world of difference.
To stop the stars from trailing the 600 rule is a good place to start.
Maximum exposure in seconds = 600/(focal length of the lens x crop factor)
It is not an absolute rule but a reasonable place to start experimenting.
Dave
OP
iwols
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 915
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks guys for the comments all suggestions taken on board,the two main dissapointments for me was the colour/amount of bright stars,and secondly please dont laugh,i found the milky way was near this constellation so expected a little more of that(like i say im no astronomer so please dont laugh)
OP
iwols
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 915
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks for that pookeyhead certainly looks better than the original and i dont mind the blue tinge at all,infact i prefer it,could you explain what you mean by altering the white balance and what program did you use thanks iwols
As for focus, I assume you are focusing manually? If not, do so. Use live view to really get it bang on, then switch all AF off.
You have a lot of light pollution showing. Most of this can be easily removed by setting the white point to the background, but it can have a tendency to shift things to blue a little. You can also stretch the histogram a little with levels. A quick faff around would give thins...
Using a wider lens will allow longer speeds, but you could try upping the ISO a stop or two which will give you the equivalent of using 1 or two stops longer but noise may be an issue.
By far and away though, you need to get away from light pollution.
Taking several 10 second exposures and stacking them in Registax will help a great deal too, but bear in mind that as the stars move across the frame from shot to shot, Registax will have to align these when it stacks and that will result in the image being cropped a little.
Don;t underestimate the difference a light pollution free sky can make though. Here's a shot of Orion I made with a 50mm lens, then cropped in. No EXIF I'm afraid as I lost the RAW as it was just a test shot for something else and I just pulled this off a hosting site I use, but it would have been around 10 seconds at ISO6400. I recall stretching the histogram a little to pull out some detail in the nebula, but little else. This was taken in Galloway forest where there is almost zero light pollution.
The problem with a light polluted sky is that the orange sky glow is brighter than the lower magnitude stars, so no matter how much post processing or stacking, you'll never get them.
Mystery57
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,811
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Im also starting to experiment, but before going off into the middle of nowhere I actually sat in our front porch and took these photos last night. I adjusted the lens hood to try and stop some of the streetlight glare, then experimented around with Paintshop pro to finish them off.
The one picture which got bit of the house in was using my 10-24mm lens.
All in all I was reasonably pleased with these some of my first attempts.
Andrew
The one picture which got bit of the house in was using my 10-24mm lens.
All in all I was reasonably pleased with these some of my first attempts.
Andrew
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
Lightroom would be the easiest, as there is a white balance dropper tool in the development panel, just to the left of where the white balance slider is. Select it, and click on the background of your image.
OP
iwols
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 915
- Edit My Images
- Yes
thanks thats one hell of a tool for this type of work
Pookeyhead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,746
- Name
- David
- Edit My Images
- No
It is, but just remember, you are not "removing" the orange light pollution, you're just adjusting the white balance to make it neutral... the result is blue stars.
Go here... and scroll down to the light pollution map and find somewhere near you with LV Mag of 7 or more, or a Bortle rating of 2 or less... just go there... let your eyes dark adapt for 10 minutes... then look up..
If no such place is near you (they are rare) then find somewhere with a LV Mag of 6 or more, and a Bortle rating of 5 or less as that will still be a great improvement. You're in a very light polluted part of the country I'm afraid.
Maybe go up to the dales... around Malham.. it's pretty good up there. Malham Tarn springs to mind. That's around Bortle 4 ish.
Go here... and scroll down to the light pollution map and find somewhere near you with LV Mag of 7 or more, or a Bortle rating of 2 or less... just go there... let your eyes dark adapt for 10 minutes... then look up..
If no such place is near you (they are rare) then find somewhere with a LV Mag of 6 or more, and a Bortle rating of 5 or less as that will still be a great improvement. You're in a very light polluted part of the country I'm afraid.Maybe go up to the dales... around Malham.. it's pretty good up there. Malham Tarn springs to mind. That's around Bortle 4 ish.
Last edited:
SLRUser
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,748
- Name
- Stuart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As said, you can't beat dark skies, but also as said, practice at home, no point driving off to the middle of nowhere (where it is very cold and very dark) fumbling about. You may lose interest quickly.
I know someone who goes to the Peak District, shouldn't be too far from "South Yorkshire". There are areas of Lincolnshire that are also pretty dark which may be closer. Try and take photos during new moon, and certainly not during full moon (unless you are taking photos of the moon).
Here's another dark sky map (though take with a pinch of salt):
http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2012
Just be careful though, it can get highly addictive and turn you into a bearded, pipe smoking geek
I know someone who goes to the Peak District, shouldn't be too far from "South Yorkshire". There are areas of Lincolnshire that are also pretty dark which may be closer. Try and take photos during new moon, and certainly not during full moon (unless you are taking photos of the moon).
Here's another dark sky map (though take with a pinch of salt):
http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2012
Just be careful though, it can get highly addictive and turn you into a bearded, pipe smoking geek