[gifthorse]

I took the OGPS-1 out last night. I'm pleased but not overjoyed. What do I need?



I have several fast lenses, but still have to stop down all of them to get acceptable sharpness.

But there were a lot of meteors last night


On a side note, the winds were at least 15 knots with gusts and the ogps appears to compensate for wind moving the camera. Has anyone else tried using the ogps when the wind is blowing?

[Adam]

Great shots! What's missing here is a sharp foreground: I see a bit of shake in all 3.

[DeadJohn]

Great start. You asked what you need. I suggest taking those photos and adjusting the contrast curve with light room, photoshop, gimp, or whatever processing software you prefer. Make the darks darker and the lights lighter. Raw format is preferred but jpg works too.

The GPS is not compensating for the wind, but wide angle lenses and long exposures hide vibration.

Try a flashlight to illuminate the foreground. Use a bright light for only a short part of the exposure so the O-GPS1 won't cause as much motion blur.

---------- Post added 06-24-14 at 10:32 PM ----------

Great shots! What's missing here is a sharp foreground: I see a bit of shake in all 3.

Adam, the O-GPS1 is causing that "shake" as it moves the sensor.

[Kozlok]

Another choice it to shoot two shots, one with the GPS off, one with it on, use the stars from one shot, the foreground from the other. You'll have to make the foreground slightly larger to cover up the blur.

[interested_observer]

Evening,

I am going out again this weekend to shoot the Milky Way with the GPS. June and July are the best months to shoot, especially at the new moon. I have somewhat given up on using my fisheye because of the bend when shooting the Milky Way. There is no way to avoid it when you are maximizing the amount of sky in the frame. Actually, I am moving towards shooting longer focal lengths (25 to 35mm) and stitching.

If you are going to have some landscape in the foreground, you might as well shoot a separate frame with the gps tuned off, and then composite the two together. Otherwise it is just muddled blob there in front. I have pretty much the same shots, just a different location. Landscapes do better when they are farther back in the frame.

I like your images. You have captured good color and definition - much better than my first couple of tries. For the wind, hang something heavy under the tripod. That should stabilize it a bit more.

[gifthorse]

Thanks for the input, everyone. It is greatly appreciated. I did some tinkering in Elements 11. It improved a little. (or I'm just too critical of my own work)

I solved the fuzzy foreground problem by using the paintbrush tool to follow along the edges of the rocks. They're black silhouettes and jagged and I didn't have to be an artist!

[mikeSF]

much better.
my eye wants to find recognizable shapes in those rocks which causes me a little confusion. Since you came this far and did the milky way capture, perhaps you'll explore some light painting, just a few quick passes with your flashlight over the rocks to reveal some detail.
regardless, the starfield processing is pretty!

[Chex]

I agree about the shots with and without the GPS unit on.. and as Mike said.. a touch of light painting can/will go a LONG way in sharpening up your details in your rocks, no matter how you choose the exposure value to use when you layer mask in in with your tracked star background.

[interested_observer]

I liked the first one before - in terms of the sky treatment for the stars. The new one is much better. I like the improvement both in the stars - the Milky Way structures, the coloring and the sharpening up of the foreground silhouette. My eye, however wants to see behind the foreground rock to see more of the MW structure and rendering. Much better than my first (and second) outing. I am slowly figuring out a post processing approach.

• https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/38-photographic-technique/263550-astrotra...out-field.html

I have found that if you get the landscape far enough in the distance so as to pick up some light, that it can come out looking like a painting to a degree. I like Mikes suggestion of light painting. I don't think that a lot of light would be necessary.

Anyway - I going back out Friday evening to the same location to try to capture the Milky Way arched to some degree over Superstition Mountain.

[AussieTrev]

The reason for the blur with the fore ground is the sensor is moving with the stars, or staying still and the camera is moving with the earth. Hence the earth, fore ground blur. Great shots thought.