|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-28-2020, 03:32 PM
|
| |
This is a topic of much discussion. Unfortunately from my understanding of things there isn't a clear good answer. The best way to answer is with another question. What do you want to shoot?
You mentioned the moon and planets which are very different from shooting deep sky objects. Because these objects are bright light gathering isn't any where near the issue it is with deep sky objects. For things like that look for focal length and adapting a telescope. It won't matter much what camera you hang off the back.
Beyond that do you prefer panoramas and wide shots of the night sky, or do you want to chase objects like what is in the Messier catalogue?
That is an important consideration as you are looking to compare the framing you get with each camera+lens combination to the amount of dynamic range you get with that same camera-lens setup.
In general if I needed to buy a camera now It would be a hard choice between the K-1ii and KP but for my use case of going after DSOs the KP would be a slightly better choice. However I currently am under the assumption that the K-3iii will be a very clear upgrade for astro shooting. Personally I like to look here to compare dynamic range at the ISOs I would shoot at. When looking at the regular K-1 and K-3 the K-1 offers a bit less than 1 stop more dynamic range when shooting at ISO 3200. However I would have to use a longer lens to get the same framing on the K-1. This would result in me having to run a 600mm lens instead of my 400mm, but using that 600mm lens I give up a stop of light since there isn't a 600mm f/2.8 lens that I can stick in front of my camera. So by using the K3 + SMC A* 400mm f/2.8 ED [IF] I get better performance than running a K-1 and any of the * 600mm f/4 lenses, also from what I have read the 400/2.8 is a better sharper lens anyways. However running an APS-C camera for wide astro shots actually hurts me as really wide lenses tend to get slower. I have the Laowa 12mm f/2.8 Zero-D but to get a similar wide shot with a K-1 one could use an 18mm lens. The 12/2.8 is fairly fast (and it is a really good astro lens), but getting a similar fast or faster lens that gives similar framing on full frame is doable. So after taking a quick look over in the lens review section there is the Samyang 16mm F2 ED AS UMC CS which would give a bit wider framing on full frame than my 12mm on APS-C but that lens is a whole stop faster than my 12mm. Also since the K-1 has almost another stop worth of dynamic range that setup would provide a little less than 2 stops more of usable data with each shot. However that 12mm can do longer untracked exposures than the 16mm without showing trails so that eats some of that 2 stops but not even an entire stop's worth so the K-1 is still a clear winner.
So with those 2 quick examples hopefully I have clarified things some and said that it is a maybe. Figure out your use case and then figure out the best combination. Astrophotography sadly is one area of photography where throwing money/gear at the problem more often than not does dramatically improve the result. When the K-3iii comes out it will very clearly be the best option for a Pentax astro camera (my educated guess and opinion) but I would then assume that the next iteration of the K-1 would again lead to the analysis above being the correct method of analysis.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
11-21-2019, 10:05 AM
|
| |
You may want to learn GIMP. I've not used Affinity or DXO so I'm not sure how they stack up against photoshop but you would be looking for almost a 1:1 feature map of the techniques mentioned in the videos and with only some minor trickery GIMP can do that. I still use photoshop CS3 for some editing of astro images and even the current Creative Cloud version of photoshop doesn't allow much 32bit per channel edits like the current GIMP does.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
11-20-2019, 11:05 PM
|
| |
Start with Deep Sky Stacker (DSS) it is free and when you start out it won't be the limiting factor in your pictures. Beyond cropping the image don't do any actual editing in it though as it really sucks for that.
I don't know if earlier in the thread if I mentioned some video tutorials on editing but some that I got referred to by one of the greats over in the astro group
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ke3iO9d2Qw8?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
. Some of them are pretty quite but they cover the basics that will be applicable to almost everything you will want to do with editing astro images. There are a lot more techniques that are available and a lot more software but knowing these basics will still be applicable with those as well.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
11-19-2019, 01:29 PM
|
| |
A constelation is always a nice thing to start with and you will probably get the Orion nebula showing up fairly nicely with the 50mm and K-1. I've gotten it in untracked shots with my S-M-C 28mm f/3.5 Takumar and the K-3. The Orion Nebula is always a good starter target as is the Pleiades as they are big, bright, and easy to find.
A 300mm lens would provide a nice view of it with running man also in the frame. With a 300 and a K-1 you should also be able to get the horsehead nebula and flame nebula in the frame as well.
They Hoya red Intensifier is a good option and isn't that expensive at about $80 for a 77mm filter thread size one so get that one and some stepdown rings and use it on a bunch of lenses. That is what I did and since you are going from a bigger filter to smaller lens you don't need to worry about vignetting. If you really get into things then spending some more on a better light pollution filter might be warranted, but if you just want to play some the hoya filter is a cheap way to start. Even if moderately dark skies a light pollution filter will help with the sky glow near the horizon where you will still have problems from lights off in the distance.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
10-04-2019, 03:51 AM
|
| |
Glad to help. lots of people ask the same questions over and over again so I just answered them and pointed out some other pitfalls when starting out.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
10-03-2019, 12:15 PM
|
| |
The correct question you should be asking yourself is what do you want to photography in the night sky?
Star fields and the milky really demand a wide if not an ultrawide lens
Constellations depending on their size would be a normal lens to a wide
Deep sky objects like various nebula, galaxies, star clusters, etc. are all things that need telephotos of various sizes. One of the largest deep sky objes in the night sky is M31 the Andromeda galaxy and it will basically almost fill the frame on my K-3 with a 400mm lens. A larger object still but it is darker is the veil nebula which is hard to frame the whole thing in the frame with a 300mm lens. A 200mm lens frames up a lot of the nebulae in Orion nicely and even will work with smaller objects but you will have to crop the image. A 100mm lens would give you a bunch of nice wider shots of things. A 600mm would give some nice shots of smaller messier objects if you crop them. If you want to go longer than 600mm you would be better off getting a telescope and necessary adapters and corrector optics as you will need a lot more than 600mm, think 2000mm to 3000mm. A big telescope also will give reasonable shots of the planets.
So to answer your question: Yes I recommend big telescopes, ultra telephotos, telephotos, normals, wides, and ultrawides for astrophotography. Buy fast primes that don't need to be stopped down much or any to be sharp.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-23-2019, 01:09 PM
|
| |
I think here we may be going after different things in the night sky. I go after dim objects that even under good conditions are difficult to see as naked eye objects while others are not, it sounds like you might be going after things that are substantially brighter like the milky way or substantially larger.
I think there it really depends on what you are shooting and what you are using for tracking. I didn't think any of the pentax cameras would allow pixel shift with astrotracer but if you are working off of an equatorial it might work but that seems like it would require some very accurate tracking other wise it might turn into a hot mess. Even wide shots at 30 seconds using pixel shift seem like they would lead to sub optimal results as you would want to really be using the rule of 300 so a lens no wider than a 10mm to avoid star trails.
What software are you using for stacking? If you are using Photoshop then yes going much beyond 16 frames doesn't provide much benefit as it kind of sucks at alignment and you are really limited to 16 bits per channel so it isn't long before you have exaused that space when using a K-1 which gives some nice 14bpc images. I use DeepSkyStacker (DSS) for stacking images of the night sky that aren't the moon. Out of DSS you get a 32 bpc (96 bit color) TIFF. From there you want to do some initial stretching using levels in Photoshop before converting to a 16bpc (48bit color) image. I have actually taken to working more in GIMP for initial edits now as it allows more things to run with a 32bpc image so you can do some initial noise reduction, stretching and curve editing before tossing out a bunch of info. I have found that curves in GIMP don't seem to produce quite as nice of results as the ones in photoshop but I think that is more me not understanding the difference fully.
I've stacked moon images but for those I up sample them to 2x resolution first and for alignment I use the Hugin tool align_image_stack for aligning the individual images since unless the moon is really huge in the frame photoshop wanders off and gets lost. I usually do multiple iterations of alignment, first a course x,y alignment, then a fine x,y one, next a fine one for rotation, and finally a super fine x,y one. What I am trying to accomplish is a super-resolution version of my moon shot when I do this. I usually do this to make up for the fact that I want one of those impressive moon images that people take with giant lenses and telescopes but the biggest I own is a 400mm so I try to make the best of what I have.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-23-2019, 07:53 AM
|
| |
It all depends on the length of the lens. There is no way I would be getting even a 2 minute exposure with my 300mm lens or my 400mm but with a 50mm or 28mm that seems doable without issue but astrotracer is pretty optimistic with it's estimates of total exposure time. I don't typically shoot wide field astro shots and even when I do I prefer shooting with astrotracer and stacking. I don't make use of the slow shutter speed noise removal as one will get better results by stacking frames. If clouds are going to roll by or during tear down I will go and shoot dark frames which are frames that use the same exposure settings as the ones with actual images but are of the lens cap and astro image processors like Deep Sky Stacker will make use of these too and will subtract out the systematic noise that is found by averaging dark frames. Basically dark frames are use to remove the systematic noise from dark current in the sensor and are dependent on temperature. There are also bias frames that are shot at the same ISO as the actual image frames but these are shot at the fastest shutter speed and again are images of the inside of the lens cap. You really need to shoot a lot of these and by a lot I mean 200 to 300 but they are not temperature dependent so can be shot at your leisure. These frames capture the systematic noise introduced by the signal apm circuit, known as amp glow, which is another source of noise. The last bit of noise that should be left is the random thermal and noise and random photon quantity noise and this can only be resolved by taking more and longer images so that you can drive noise down. Depending on the ISO you had to shoot at and how dim of an object you were chasing you will need varying numbers of shots. The dimmer or more washed out object you are shooting the more shots you will need to get the noise floor to a usable level below the object. A 100 shot stack will have 1/10 the noise of a single image in that stack but often that isn't enough and you really want several hours of total exposure with good images for deep sky objects. This often means shoot even more hours worth of images and then only stacking the best 25% to 50%.
As far as what ISO to use I find that I am often shooting in the ISO 400 to ISO 1600 range depending on what I am shooting and the conditions I am shooting in. In my massively light polluted backyard I have to use a lower ISO otherwise the sky glow just dominates the image, even with a light pollution filter. My goal in choosing an ISO varies based off of what I am shooting. If it is something bright like M45 or M42 I will be shooting at ISO 400 and now maybe even ISO 100 from my backyard. However when chasing after really dim things like M51 or M101. I will be shooting at ISO1600 or even ISO3200 as they appear just above the noise floor from my backyard
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-01-2019, 12:11 PM
|
| |
I should remember to check what I am responding to before submitting as I wanted to say more. Now I am jealous I am in a very bright Bortle 8, the dark place near by is a bright Bortle 5 with a 45min drive and it is a 2hr15min drive to a dark Bortle 3. Given your location a light pollution filter won't provide as dramatic results but will be of most benefit when shooting from your home, or shooting towards civilization near the horizon from you Bortle 1 spot(s) and don't expect as dramatic improvements as I got with one. Some day I will make it out to some very dark places but the nearest ones to me require driving almost to Canada, or way into Iowa. Maybe this summer if I am out in Colorado I can go way out into the mountains some night and enjoy shooting through less atmosphere that is drier in a super dark spot.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-01-2019, 11:55 AM
|
| |
Take them off they are only hurting your image quality at night. The only filters I would recommend would be either a real narrow band light pollution filter (big bucks great results), or a red intensifying filter (the poor man's light pollution filter). A specialty light pollution filter used for actual astronomical observation will block almost all of the really bad light pollution and little else. They also are usually optically better so don't degrade the image quality much at all. A red intensifying filter will block a good portion of the light pollution but unfortunately aren't as narrow band as real light pollution filters so they will block some of the other good useful wanted light. They also aren't as optically great as real light pollution filters. However the decrease in light pollution substantially outweighs the decrease in image quality so you will still get substantially better results. It was almost shocking how much better my M42 (orion nebula) pictures got by sticking one in front of my 300mm. Expect much better contrast and detail in deep sky objects, these get washed away by the light pollution, and a big reduction in sky glow. It was good enough that I decided that all my old astro images I took with that 300mm needed to get binned. As in a single frome shot from my back yard gave better results than a stack of 10 minutes worth of shots from the near by dark area. I do live in an area that has a massive light pollution problem so your results may not be as dramatic but you should expect a good increase. Now I am just waiting for it to stop snowing, have clear skies, and to not have to work the next day.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
02-26-2019, 12:01 PM
|
| |
I wouldn't make fun of someone's first attempt, or any attempt. Everyone has to start somewhere and asking questions and for feedback is always a good thing.
More than likely it is a focus issue combined with the lenses being wide open. With my still limited experience I have found that lenses that in normal shooting are good lenses can show all their weaknesses with ease when doing astrophotography. I found this out with my Series 1 Vivitar 135mm f/2.3 which was a bit disheartning given how well that lens does under more normal conditions. Basically if you don't have a proper equatorial you will be stacking, and even if you do have an equatorial there are benefits to stacking.
I would say that for your exposure time your ISO is good enough but stop those lenses down 1 or 2 stops. I shoot my 300mm f/4 at f/5.6, ISO 400, and 20 seconds when going after M42 (the Orion nebula) and M45 (the Pleiades) from my backyard with a red intensifying filter (I've only been out twice since I got it because of weather but it gives some great improvements). For dimmer things like M31 (the Andromeda Galaxy) I will crank things up to ISO 1600 but I will probably shoot it at ISO 800 when I try again or even ISO 3200 for really dim things like M51 (the whirlpool galaxy). Basically for the dim things I am trying to get the object visible just above the noise floor on a test image while maintaining as much dynamic range as possible.
For your 55-300mm and 100mm macro I would suggest making a bahtinov mask for each of them, use that for focusing, and stop them down 1 if not 2 stops. For the 50mm focus using magnified live view without focus peaking, get the stars as small as possible and then stop it down to between f/4 and f/5.6 to paper over the coma and any missed focus. Focusing is best done on a really bright star, I like using Sirius, Rigel, or any of the other really bright stars that are super easy to find. However be careful to not use a planet as they don't provide good results, especially with a bahtinov mask.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-17-2018, 07:47 AM
|
| |
That will fit nicely in the frame, but I suggest recomposing every 5 or 6 shots to keep it properly in the frame. With a 200mm you should be able to do 30 second exposures with astrotracer. I do 20 second ones of Andromeda with a 300mm lens.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-15-2018, 11:37 AM
|
| |
I am in an extremely light polluted area so to be able to bring out any detail I need to have a lot of shots to drive the noise way down so that I have a hope of separating the details from the sky glow. I also do not have any long term accurate tracking (only astrotracer) so with that I need to use a higher ISO to make up for having shots that are only 20 seconds long which only worsens the noise problem.
My backyard is in a very bright Bortle 8 area so that fact that I can manage to find some of these things seems impressive. If you look at some of what the masters over in the astrophotography group are able to do they are using total exposure times usually starting at an hour with some approaching a full day (yes 24 total hours of exposure) and they have some really nice tracking mounts. I always refer people to this image from Pete_XL with just over an hour of exposure and he is in a Bortle 5 area and has a proper equortorial mount.
Depending on where you are you could start to get something good at 10 minutes. I think I could at my lake which is a very dark Bortle 3 area but the sky has never cooperated when I am up there. This winter it will be nice as I can just go out on the ice and shoot unobstructed in some cold clear skies which should produce some great results.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-14-2018, 04:45 PM
|
| |
Took me a while to get around to doing this but here is an image I took of andromeda using my 300mm lens and K-3 with the moon superimposed in also taken with that same 300mm lens:
The picture of the moon is basically straight out of the camera but cropped and yes it was that color because of the smoke and haze from the fires out west and in Canada. Andromeda on the other side of things was 1.5 hours of total exposure with a lot of processing to bring out the detail.
 |
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-12-2018, 06:42 AM
|
| |
I think I will need to do a composite picture of Andromeda and the moon both taken with my 300mm so people can see the scale of them. But yes Andromeda is huge but really dim compared to the moon or even the bright stars and if visible appears as s dim spot or a slightly larger dim smudge in the sky to the naked eye. What you see is either just the very bright center core or the dimmer but still brighter core region in these cases. The large disk and arms are what makes it huge. With my K-3 and 300mm lens the moon is around 750 pixels across when full and Andromeda is around 2800 pixels across so yes it is about 6x the size.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-11-2018, 10:25 AM
|
| |
If you want to know what things might look here is a much smaller in the sky galaxy set called M51 (the Whirlpool galaxy) at a 100% crop that I took a few weeks back once the sky was clear enough to actually see some stars. It was taken with my Sigma 300mm f/4 and K-3 with astrotracer in rather poor conditions and was a very quick (5 minute) processing effort of 6 minutes of total exposure (18x20s).
I want to say Andromeda will come close to filling half the frame with the galaxy and you will get M110 and M31 in the frame as well. Anywhere I have been able to do night photography lately I have not been able to see it in the sky unaided and even through the 300mm f/4 it only appears as a very dim smudge. I end up star walking to it from the great square of pegasus as Andromeda is between Pegasus and Perseus. I have an image I have been working with that has about 1.5 hours of total exposure (around 180x20s) in similarly bad conditions that I need to get posted.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-09-2018, 04:04 PM
|
| |
Probably, especially since it looks like you have nicer skies than I have. I grabbed 1.5 hours of exposure for Andromeda (M31) from my very light polluted backyard on friday night and got something not awful and managed to pull out some detail. That was with a 300mm f/4 and while a SMC 200mm would have a wider view Andromeda is pretty big. The area in the sky is about 6 times that of the moon so even smaller telephotos can get good shots of it. I've never gotten a shot of the milky way from my backyard, even pointed straight up with my 35mm wide open with a 60 second tracked exposure, there is just too damn much light pollution in my city.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-07-2018, 12:25 PM
|
| |
If you want to go for a DSO a good 300mm f/4 lens is a nice place to be starting from. If you have darker skies than I have (you may even in Maryland) you should be able to do quite well. Right now M31 (The Andromeda Galaxy) is up and isn't too hard to find. When centered it will almost fill the frame but is pretty dim so if you are in a bright area it might only look like a dim orange smudge in the view finder with that lens. That is what I deal with but a couple of nights ago got some shots with reasonable results. Another thing that is up that is pretty easy to get in the view finder is M51 (the Whirlpool galaxy) as all you have to do is get the star on the end of the big dipper in the top middle of your view finder and then go 2 frames below it (of that is what I do on my K-3 with my 300mm).
If you have clear skies the next few days will be great for chasing DSOs as the moon is basically non existent which helps a lot.
Here is an example of what can be accomplished with a K-3, O-GPS1 astro tracer, a Sigma 300mm F/4 APO lens, 6 minutes of exposure, and a quick edit. Also all the frames for that picture were taken within 1 hour of sunset in a very light polluted area with a near full moon up. I have since taken an additional hour worth of exposure from the same spot and did a better job editing it and there is a lot of detail that comes out. I would imagine that you could get similar results with practice. Be sure to have a focusing aid and release cable as well as use the 2s mirror up delay off of a tripod. You will need to recompose every few minutes (3 to 5 typically) to keep the object in the frame. I would expect similar results with similar exposure and time when you are shooting.
As winter comes to the northern hemisphere you can get some really easy to shoot DSOs like M42 (the Orion Nebula) or M45 (the Pleiades) which are easy to find and photograph. These are really good starter objects as they are pretty big (not as big as M31) but are really bright and super easy to find in the sky. If you can be out late you will get better results than mine where I am shooting not long after sundown which is one of my problems because all the dark places near me require that I leave by 10pm.
Look at the link to the light pollution map I provided in the guide and see if you can find a Bortle Class 6 or darker near you and go there. For me that is a 45 minute drive and that only gets me to a darker Bortle Class 5 spot but that park closes at 10. A bright Bortle 7 is only a 15 minute drive but again there the park closes at 10 but even that offers a dramatic improvement over my backyard. My lake property is a very dark Bortle 3 but that is a two and a quarter hour drive and the weather never wants to cooperate when I could go there.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
09-07-2018, 10:34 AM
|
| |
Basically when I started I found some tutorials that focused on local changes and some tricks that produced some reasonable results for some things but quickly went off the rails and hit their limits. For a great example there is this thread of just how far off the rails things ended up. Looking back on that holy crap was that bad I am kind of embarrassed by the results. I have tried a couple times since to reprocess that image and I can get closer to what Pete_xl was able to pull out but I still get nothing for the horse head nebula other that something that looks like a bit more noise in that region.
I should be able to pound out a beginners guide to astro image processing this weekend as the wife will be away so I will be stuck with the kids and can't go sneak off when they are in bead. Even the park behind my house is going to be out because it will be mostly cloudy on the overnights here so I will have some time to fill. Having discovered wavelet decompose in GIMP I have been wanting to play some with that and astro images as a way to see about decreasing noise and highlighting detail but that seems like something that could also go off the rails quickly so I have stayed away from it for now. that won't be in the guide as it is something that will likely only cause problems for beginners.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-29-2018, 11:46 AM
|
| |
I still struggle but no where near as much as I did. Now I struggle to get near the fantastic results guys like Pete_XL, DrawsACircle, VoiceOfReason, and others more experienced in editing can get, but I keep trying. My problem was I didn't know how wrong what I was doing was so I didn't know bad I actually was doing as it produced some results that on initial inspection looked OK. Once I got pointed in the right direction I saw a rapid improvement in the overall image quality even if the first few attempts didn't turn out all that great.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-29-2018, 10:51 AM
|
| |
You're welcome. Now I just need to find the time to write the other up so that it beginners can know what to do with all those hopefully not awful first astro pics they just took.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-28-2018, 12:12 PM
|
| |
Then stay tuned because I will probably write up a beginners guide to processing astro images in the next day or 2 as that is the other major part of astrophotography. I haven't processed a milky way image as things just refuse to cooperate but I have done DSO processing so will focus on that. Pete_XL got me pointed in the right direction as I found some tutorials that lead me down the very wrong path initially. Pete has taken a stab at some of my image data and gotten some impressive results and I keep on practicing and am getting better but he is a true master and has much more experience. He finds things in my images that didn't know were there.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-28-2018, 10:36 AM
|
| |
Great to know that people are finding benefit in it. If others have tips for beginners that helped them please post them. Lets get an info dense thread that is really useful.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-28-2018, 06:47 AM
|
| |
That is what I am going for. I have learned a lot from others here and since these are items I keep seeing others ask about I figured that since I do know something why not write it all up in one place and then can refer someone who is just starting to them. I don't inted for this to be the be all end all on the subject but it should get them going. Get them off on the right foot so that they don't have to make all the mistakes I and other did when starting out is the goal. As a side benefit these posts should up the signal to noise ratio of the posts as some around here a putting up a lot of little to no effort posts.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
08-28-2018, 04:05 AM
|
| |
As promised here are some pictures. Note that there has been a fair amount of post processing with these.
A stacked image of orion taken with my 35mm plastic fantastic. My best guess for the settings used here were ISO 400 at a few seconds. I don't know how many images were stacked as this was one of my very first attempts.
Here we have the big dipper. This is a stack of 10 images 15 second exposures taken with my 28mm SMC Takumar. ISO 400 fairly early in the evening. This was cropped down to this size. I combined the stacked sky with one of the foreground exposures so that the trees weren't blurred to get this.
Here we have Jupiter and the 4 Galilean moons. This was a single 1 second exposure at ISO 400. I used my Sigma 300mm F/4 APO lens. Note the slight trailing from the movement. This is a 100% crop.
This is one that I captured recently. It is M51 and it was in the park behind my house about an hour after sunset. It was captured using astrotracer with the K-3 amd Sigma 300mm F/4 APO lens. This is a 100% crop. 18 20 second exposures at F/4 at ISO 800. There was a lot of light as the last picture was taken on a little more than an hour after sunset with a 3/4 moon up, with haze and humidity in the summer air, in a bright Bortle 8 area.
This is a picture taken using astro tracer and my 55mm SMC Takumar of the orion constellation. The Orion nebula is clearly there. The blurring of the foreground is because astro tracer keeps the stars stationary. I believe that this was a stack of 6 60 second exposures at ISO 100 with the lens stopped down to F/8.
 |
