[bricha]

Conditions were perfect last Friday so I thought I'd try to get some Milky Way photos... something I've been wanting to try for a while. Any feedback is appreciated.







Brian

[LensBeginner]

3rd (time/picture) is the charm!
Nice work!

[Rondec]

Awesome shots! Thank for sharing.

[bricha]

Thanks

[Joris]

Wow!

Yes, the third one I like the best too. Because of the ambient light, the structure stands out the best. And the milky way is off centre, which looks more appealing (to me). I haven't tried this kind of photography myself (yet) so I can only comment on the composition /aesthetics I think.

And I'm viewing it on a phone, but maybe the structure could be a bit brighter?

Great shots!

[jadedrakerider]

Last one is my favorite, although I much prefer the stars in the first. The building is at a far more interesting angle in the last photograph.

[tuco]

The shutter speed looks a little too long (star streaking). Flickr is showing 605 for shutter speed. What's up with that. And ISO 800 is not enough for f4 either, IMHO. A shutter speed of around 15 seconds and ISO 1600 to 3200 at f2.8 will really bring it in for a single exposure.

[bricha]

Thanks for the replies. I was wondering if the building is a little dark... I edited them on my laptop and sometimes it's hard to tell. I didn't want to make it too bright because I thought it looked a little odd.

The EXIF isn't technically correct. I should have mentioned at the top that they are all made of two photos that I combined in Photoshop. The settings Flickr shows is of the long exposure to get detail in the building. The sky in all of three was shot at 15s, F4, and ISO 6400. I wish I had F2.8 so I wouldn't have had to go to ISO 6400 but all have is F4.

[tuco]

... I wish I had F2.8 so I wouldn't have had to go to ISO 6400 but all have is F4.

If you are going to combine multiple exposures, you can have it all. Both lower ISO and pinpoint stars baring any coma a lens may have. You just need exposures around 2 to 4 minutes depending on things.

Perhaps you can get the Pentax GPS Astrotracer or build yourself a Barn Door Tracker. You can find plans online from simple to complicated. For 5 minutes or so you can get by with a simple tangent type. You don't have to constantly keep rotate these things ( like a motor would) if you have a wide angle lens on them. You can rotate them on increments of say 5, 10 or 15 seconds depending wide your lens is and how sharp you want your stars.

[Joris]

After viewing it on a computer instead of phone (which is also actually full hd) I have to come back on my comment and say the structure isn't too dark. I actually like it this way, more natural indeed.

And I might be alone on this, but I actually like the expanding star trails in the edges. Just because people go through various extensive methods to eliminate these, to me it doesn't mean that it always looks better. A matter of taste probably. But in this case, I like them :-)

[nodders]

Love the shots, BUT...totally distracted by the fact that it is at Duncan's Cove! One of my favorite places on the face of this planet! Well, a close tie with Cape Split. Envy you being able to get out there with a camera!

[DK77]

I agree with previous comments - third time's a charm. Why? I think there are a few reasons, and it's interesting to take a look at these reasons, because the differences between the three photos are very subtle, and yet the third photo definitely stands out. It's the small things that make a difference.

First of all, the angle on #3 is different - instead of shooting from straight on, you're shooting a bit off to the side, and that instantly gives the structure a 3D shape (helped by your lighting), because we can see the side and the corner of the roof. You also got lower - at least, it appears you did, because we no longer see the dead grass at the base of the hut - the foreground is cleaner now - there are only the simple shapes of the rocks, and then the hut, and then the sky.

#3 also has more colour in the sky - that little bit of pink from the light pollution actually adds a nice colour gradient to the sky. As much as we try to avoid it, sometimes light pollution is a good thing!

Finally, whether as a result of focal length or exposure time, the stars, especially the stars on the edges, are more pinpointed in #2 and #3. That does make a difference. All in all, #3 has a more refined, professional look to it, just from these little changes.

If I can make a suggestion, I would brighten the whole image slightly, and personally, I would have lit up the inside of the building with my flashlight, but whether that would look better, I do not know.

It's a neat spot - until I saw your Flickr post I wouldn't have guessed this was outside Halifax, and just around the bend from Peggys. Is this an old war bunker?

[LucaBumble]

Wow DK77 that was a very interesting post from you that I can agree to 100%. Looks like you're a very experienced photographer

[DK77]

Thanks, LucaBumble! I wouldn't say I'm super experienced, but I've spent a lot of time looking at photographs and watching critiques from great photographers, and so am learning to analyze photos better. I find it hard to look at my own photos so analytically, but critiquing others' photos does help to see one's own work better. Teaching is the best way to learn.

[Logics]

Love the sky in the first pic. Looks like I am looking into a nebula. Love the close crop on the building.

Love the stars (Much fewer trails) and the angle and lighting of the building in the third pic. Love the dark area rising from the shack up to the stars. Reminds me of something out of HGTTG by DNA. (Yeah, some of you know what I'm talkin' 'bout).