Dark sky with lots of stars... how to picture that???

BlueEye · 07-29-2009, 05:20 PM

Hi,

Last night I was in a remote area in the mountains... At midnight the sky was clear and we could see the stars... lots and lots of them. We tried to make a shot of this with a K200D but I guess we did something wrong...

What should be the exposition time, iso, f, anything??? to make this shot???

Thanks!

Annie
BlueEye

Duck Dodgers · 07-29-2009, 06:59 PM

Here's my recent attempt:

The "Sagittarius Star Cloud." Milky Way near Scutum, with M11, M16, M17, M24, and M25.

K10D, ISO 1000, A-50mm @ f/1.7, 8 seconds

Marc Sabatella · 07-29-2009, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by BlueEye

Last night I was in a remote area in the mountains... At midnight the sky was clear and we could see the stars... lots and lots of them. We tried to make a shot of this with a K200D but I guess we did something wrong...

What should be the exposition time, iso, f, anything??? to make this shot??

Here's the simple answer:

If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. If your picture came out too light, you need less exposure. If you don't know how to increase or decrease exposure, you need a book on exposure - one that explains how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO relate.

Eventually, it might be possible to learn enough to be know ahead of time what exposure would be appropriate for this shot, or to know how to use the camera's meter to get a reasonable answer. But if you know the basics of exposure, it will always work to take a test shot then increase or decrease exposure as necessary. Not just as a method for taking starry night photos, but as a method for taking *any* photos.

David Glazebrook · 07-30-2009, 04:51 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Here's the simple answer:

If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. If your picture came out too light, you need less exposure. If you don't know how to increase or decrease exposure, you need a book on exposure - one that explains how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO relate.

Eventually, it might be possible to learn enough to be know ahead of time what exposure would be appropriate for this shot, or to know how to use the camera's meter to get a reasonable answer. But if you know the basics of exposure, it will always work to take a test shot then increase or decrease exposure as necessary. Not just as a method for taking starry night photos, but as a method for taking *any* photos.

Ummm .... yep ?!? and ...

flyer · 07-30-2009, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

Here's the simple answer:

If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. .

But if you increase your exposure time, you will have star trails instead of "well" defined stars. So, instead of increasing exposure time, you might want to open up the diaphragm and increase ISO.

theprisoner6 · 07-30-2009, 05:32 AM

I've tried star trails with very limited success. But I like the look of pics like the one below.

I'm thinking this is a photoshopped composite of a long exposure for devil's tower and short (no trails) for the stars. Is this guy perhaps using a star tracker (something to allow for long exposures by counter-rotating the camera as the earth rotates)?

APOD: 2009 July 29 - The Milky Way Over Devils Tower

This link has some interesting ideas about photographing stars:

http://www.ozanimals.com/blog/photographing-stars-with-kit-lens/

Lowell Goudge · 07-30-2009, 05:47 AM

the image is obviously photoshopped. the way to tell is that it has stars visible through the clouds, oops!

alohadave · 07-30-2009, 06:09 AM

Check out the Beginning Imaging and dSLR forums at Cloudy Nights. They do this kind of imaging all the time.

Telescope Reviews: Viewing forum: Beginning Imaging

Telescope Reviews: Viewing forum: DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing

It's much more involved than a single exposure.

Marc Sabatella · 07-30-2009, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by flyer

But if you increase your exposure time, you will have star trails instead of "well" defined stars. So, instead of increasing exposure time, you might want to open up the diaphragm and increase ISO.

True, but note I didn't say say increase exposure *time*; I said increase *exposure*. Which can be done by slowing the shutter, opening up the aperture, or raising the ISO, or any combination. Once you've got the exposure right, then one can worry about finding the right tradeoff between these three parameters to get the kind of definition you want. I suppose it's possible that this is what the OP was up against, but without images to work from, I'm guessing the basic exposure problem needs to be solved first.

wildlifephotog · 07-30-2009, 11:55 AM

Pacholka said he employs simple techniques and does nothing extraordinary to get his shots. He uses a standard 50mm lens mounted on a tripod, and points a small flashlight on nearby desirable rocks and other land features he wants to stand out in the photo.

He allowed that his digital camera has a light-gathering power that is in some instances more than 50,000 times greater than a typical daylight camera setting. Pacholka runs his exposures anywhere from a few seconds to a minute. But he doesn't consider himself a guru.

"This is something the average person could do, absolutely," he said.

Source: About Wally Pacholka

Many times the stars will show through thin cloud layers. The human eye doesn't see this, but the film or digital does.

Duck Dodgers · 07-30-2009, 11:56 AM

The other night, I found that 5-6 seconds was about right for minimizing star trails and maximizing exposure, with a 50mm lens. Obviously, the wider the lens, the longer you can expose before trails become apparent. I have a star drive, but couldn't be bothered to hook it up that night, since I was in the middle of town. I just wanted to see what I could do with a K10D in all the ambient light pollution.

Arpe · 07-30-2009, 03:55 PM

Southern Cross-

Pentax *istDs
Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 at 70mm
Exposure - 8 seconds f2.8 (may have had 1.4x TC on - can't remember)
Tripod (funnily enough)
No flash
Camera and lens pointing up

Das Boot · 07-30-2009, 07:44 PM

If you want to capture a lot of stars with no trails you can stack multiple images and use some special software or you could build a cheap barndoor tracker. Below is a picture of the one I built. It's a little more elaborate with the $20 rifle scope and $10 ball head - other than those two items it cost around maybe $10-$15. All you do is align the hinge to the north star, point the camera at the section of sky you want, and turn the crank 1 rpm during exposure. Longer exposures will reveal hundreds of stars you never knew were there. Cool stuff. Google 'barndoor mount'... there are several designs out there. Some simple like mine... others more complex than they need be.

-Brian

PentaxPoke · 07-31-2009, 05:38 PM

Google "astrophotography Stacking". Also, I just posted on the topic here with a link to some freeware that will help you:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/689414-post18.html

Here is an example from someone on Flickr that used the stacking technique.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattie_shoes/816277697/

I don't have any examples using my Pentax gear yet, but I hope to soon!

Edit: Love the innovative mount Boot!

joebob · 08-01-2009, 03:49 AM

Interesting. How did you mount the ball head to the tracker? And does 1 rpm = one exposure?

07-29-2009, 05:20 PM	#1
BlueEye New Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Montreal, Qc Posts: 21	Dark sky with lots of stars... how to picture that??? Hi, Last night I was in a remote area in the mountains... At midnight the sky was clear and we could see the stars... lots and lots of them. We tried to make a shot of this with a K200D but I guess we did something wrong... What should be the exposition time, iso, f, anything??? to make this shot??? Thanks! Annie BlueEye

07-30-2009, 05:32 AM	#6
theprisoner6 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Winnipeg, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26	I've tried star trails with very limited success. But I like the look of pics like the one below. I'm thinking this is a photoshopped composite of a long exposure for devil's tower and short (no trails) for the stars. Is this guy perhaps using a star tracker (something to allow for long exposures by counter-rotating the camera as the earth rotates)? APOD: 2009 July 29 - The Milky Way Over Devils Tower This link has some interesting ideas about photographing stars: http://www.ozanimals.com/blog/photographing-stars-with-kit-lens/ Last edited by theprisoner6; 07-30-2009 at 05:43 AM.

07-30-2009, 07:44 PM	#13
Das Boot Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky Photos: Gallery Posts: 689	If you want to capture a lot of stars with no trails you can stack multiple images and use some special software or you could build a cheap barndoor tracker. Below is a picture of the one I built. It's a little more elaborate with the $20 rifle scope and $10 ball head - other than those two items it cost around maybe $10-$15. All you do is align the hinge to the north star, point the camera at the section of sky you want, and turn the crank 1 rpm during exposure. Longer exposures will reveal hundreds of stars you never knew were there. Cool stuff. Google 'barndoor mount'... there are several designs out there. Some simple like mine... others more complex than they need be. -Brian Last edited by Das Boot; 07-30-2009 at 07:53 PM.

07-31-2009, 05:38 PM	#14
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Google "astrophotography Stacking". Also, I just posted on the topic here with a link to some freeware that will help you: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/689414-post18.html Here is an example from someone on Flickr that used the stacking technique. http://www.flickr.com/photos/mattie_shoes/816277697/ I don't have any examples using my Pentax gear yet, but I hope to soon! Edit: Love the innovative mount Boot! Last edited by PentaxPoke; 07-31-2009 at 07:55 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dark Sky - HDR	NorwegianViking	Post Your Photos!	5	08-03-2009 03:57 PM
GIMP 2 to create a better sky in picture	Green_Manelishi	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	6	07-20-2009 02:24 PM
How to put lots of tag on lots of pictures in flickr?	Andi Lo	General Talk	10	06-27-2009 02:49 PM
Are people required to be in a picture to make it a good picture?	BPT	Photographic Technique	46	07-07-2008 05:44 PM

07-29-2009, 06:59 PM	#2
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Here's my recent attempt: The "Sagittarius Star Cloud." Milky Way near Scutum, with M11, M16, M17, M24, and M25. K10D, ISO 1000, A-50mm @ f/1.7, 8 seconds

07-29-2009, 09:57 PM	#3
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,686	Originally posted by BlueEye Last night I was in a remote area in the mountains... At midnight the sky was clear and we could see the stars... lots and lots of them. We tried to make a shot of this with a K200D but I guess we did something wrong... What should be the exposition time, iso, f, anything??? to make this shot?? Here's the simple answer: If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. If your picture came out too light, you need less exposure. If you don't know how to increase or decrease exposure, you need a book on exposure - one that explains how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO relate. Eventually, it might be possible to learn enough to be know ahead of time what exposure would be appropriate for this shot, or to know how to use the camera's meter to get a reasonable answer. But if you know the basics of exposure, it will always work to take a test shot then increase or decrease exposure as necessary. Not just as a method for taking starry night photos, but as a method for taking any photos.

07-30-2009, 04:51 AM	#4
David Glazebrook Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Blue Mountains, NSW Photos: Gallery Posts: 217	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Here's the simple answer: If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. If your picture came out too light, you need less exposure. If you don't know how to increase or decrease exposure, you need a book on exposure - one that explains how aperture, shutter speed, and ISO relate. Eventually, it might be possible to learn enough to be know ahead of time what exposure would be appropriate for this shot, or to know how to use the camera's meter to get a reasonable answer. But if you know the basics of exposure, it will always work to take a test shot then increase or decrease exposure as necessary. Not just as a method for taking starry night photos, but as a method for taking any photos. Ummm .... yep ?!? and ...

07-30-2009, 05:06 AM	#5
flyer Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Ste-Anne des Plaines, Qc., Canada Posts: 2,014	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella Here's the simple answer: If your picture cme out too dark you need more exposure. . But if you increase your exposure time, you will have star trails instead of "well" defined stars. So, instead of increasing exposure time, you might want to open up the diaphragm and increase ISO.

07-30-2009, 05:47 AM	#7
Lowell Goudge Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 16,414	the image is obviously photoshopped. the way to tell is that it has stars visible through the clouds, oops!

07-30-2009, 06:09 AM	#8
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Check out the Beginning Imaging and dSLR forums at Cloudy Nights. They do this kind of imaging all the time. Telescope Reviews: Viewing forum: Beginning Imaging Telescope Reviews: Viewing forum: DSLR & Digital Camera Astro Imaging & Processing It's much more involved than a single exposure.

07-30-2009, 08:49 AM	#9
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,686	Originally posted by flyer But if you increase your exposure time, you will have star trails instead of "well" defined stars. So, instead of increasing exposure time, you might want to open up the diaphragm and increase ISO. True, but note I didn't say say increase exposure time; I said increase exposure. Which can be done by slowing the shutter, opening up the aperture, or raising the ISO, or any combination. Once you've got the exposure right, then one can worry about finding the right tradeoff between these three parameters to get the kind of definition you want. I suppose it's possible that this is what the OP was up against, but without images to work from, I'm guessing the basic exposure problem needs to be solved first.

07-30-2009, 11:55 AM	#10
wildlifephotog Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: USA Posts: 924	Pacholka said he employs simple techniques and does nothing extraordinary to get his shots. He uses a standard 50mm lens mounted on a tripod, and points a small flashlight on nearby desirable rocks and other land features he wants to stand out in the photo. He allowed that his digital camera has a light-gathering power that is in some instances more than 50,000 times greater than a typical daylight camera setting. Pacholka runs his exposures anywhere from a few seconds to a minute. But he doesn't consider himself a guru. "This is something the average person could do, absolutely," he said. Source: About Wally Pacholka Many times the stars will show through thin cloud layers. The human eye doesn't see this, but the film or digital does.

07-30-2009, 11:56 AM	#11
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	The other night, I found that 5-6 seconds was about right for minimizing star trails and maximizing exposure, with a 50mm lens. Obviously, the wider the lens, the longer you can expose before trails become apparent. I have a star drive, but couldn't be bothered to hook it up that night, since I was in the middle of town. I just wanted to see what I could do with a K10D in all the ambient light pollution.

07-30-2009, 03:55 PM	#12
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,378	Southern Cross- Pentax *istDs Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 at 70mm Exposure - 8 seconds f2.8 (may have had 1.4x TC on - can't remember) Tripod (funnily enough) No flash Camera and lens pointing up

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-01-2009, 03:49 AM	#15
joebob Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery Posts: 184	Interesting. How did you mount the ball head to the tracker? And does 1 rpm = one exposure?