Hello all I have a question. I have recently noticed a number of night photos appearing which show a sky full of stars, which would not be visible to the naked eye. Apart from using star trails methodology, could somebody please advise me on the technique for this? Thanks in advance
You will want a sturdy tripod, some sort of remote trigger so you don't shake the camera while you're shooting, and then a long exposure. Also I've heard people take a lot of different pictures and then they overlay them.
It helps much if you have a camera with 'T' or 'B' shutter setting. It is quite impossible to hand-held a camera for several minute's exposure times. A good tripod or at least a ball head bolted to suitable place is essential. Some electronic remote releasers can simulate 'B' or 'T' - and also give possibilities to use longer exposure times than the camera itself.
Hi all, I'm pretty sure that you also need to take into account the location. If you look at the images you speak of, you'll find none taken in a city. If you do, then there is verrrry likely some photoshopping going on. Which you will have to do anyways to get internet points. So you have found a remote spot and a sturdy tripod... I have tried a technique where I take several images (30+), with say, 4 secs/f2.8/ISO 1600, and stack and align them to get stationary stars. There are several programs that do this (I used DeepSkyStacker), but photoshop can also do it pretty well. You'll get plenty of layers and if you have planned everything correctly, you can get good results, similar to those in the webs. Search for "How to Stack Photos for Epic Milky Way Landscapes" and similar guides.
Sounds like excellent advice. Thanks for the quick reply. Now, a question. If iso is 1600, how is the noise removed? Or, will it not be noticeable because of the overlaying?
If you have a Pentax then consider using the Pentax O-GPS1 which allows you to do long exposures without getting trails. Then you can stack those images. Need to be in Dark Sky area otherwise you will get a lot of light pollution
Just out of interest at 30 sec exposures is there much star movement detected? In also guessing wider views rather than zoomed in are best... Thanks!
Shooting wide is a good idea to capture as many stars (trails) as you can. I use a 20mm prime and find it gives good results. If you can frame the north star at the center of your frame (assuming you're in the northern hemisphere), or at least near the center, the earth's rotation will mean that you see circles of star trails rather than partial arcs. And you'll be surprised how much movement you see in as little as a 30 second exposure. If you are taking multiple exposures and stacking them, it is wise to have a short gap between each exposure - otherwise the buffer will fill up and you may find the camera stops capturing successive shots. If you have 30 second exposures with a 2 or 3 second gap I have found it works well - and with an hour of shooting I typically get good results when stacked (i.e. the small gap caused by the 2 second pause is invisible to most viewers).
Thanks, how then do photographers obtain the static night sky, showing stars as points of light and sometimes the Milky Way or landscape features? If you use stacking you get star trails, and any long exposures you get star movement. But due to lighting surely these must be long-exposure shots. One more thing, I know by mounting cameras on a motorized equatorial mount you can get a sky that seemingly doesn't move - but any static landscape feature would!!
All depends on what sort of image you want at the end. Star Trails around North Star (or Southern Cross if you are down under) just needs long exposure but you get light pollution affecting the image so need to be somewhere really dark. Detailed image of Milky Way without trails and any landscape not moving is down to multiple images that are stacked. Equatorial mount will give you good sky images especially if you only have sky in shot - leave any static objects out. DeepSkyStacker is a good start for stacking and I believe they have a good forum for asking questions
The maximum length of exposure you can use without getting star trails depends on the focal length of the lens. Lots of information here: http://www.davemorrowphotography.com/p/tutorial-shooting-night-sky.html#exposure
Just like the others have replied, it very much depends on the focal length. I think shooting with a 50mm lens on an APS-C sensor, your maximum length of exposure is about 5 seconds, if I remember correctly. Meaning you have to bump up the ISO, use a very fast lens, use stacking etc. So before you take the picture you have to consider all sorts of things - the composition, what focal length you want to use, whether or not you have a lens fast enough at that given focal length, how well your camera handles high ISOs... But when you get some nice results, it'll be worth the effort.
Like mentioned above, it depends what look you are going for. You can achieve excellent images without the need of stacking. Just need the right "recipe" for single exposure. Stars as points of light ISO at least 1600 f2.8 or greater Shutter speed 15 or slower It all depends on conditions of the atomshpere, light pollution and your gear. Use manual mode and set your camera up on a tripod. Use a cable release, remote or the 2 second delay. Star trails ISO 400 or lower f3.5 or greater Shutter speed minutes to tens of mintues at least. Again it depends on conditions. You will need a remote or cable relase and a camera witn the ability to hold the shutter open. good luck, just get out there and play, that's the best way to learn.
If you don't want to go for an equatorial mount then you could build a barn door tracker. As others have said light pollution will be a problem in a built up area. Link: http://barn-door-tracker.co.uk/
