Capturing the stars !

[Jeffowashere]

Hey everyone, just had a few quick questions as i'm going to be attempting to capture some stary sky shots tonight if the weather cooperates. I live out in the county away from city lights and can see the stars very well some nights, although there are some heavy clouds tonight.

Anyways, is this possible with my camera and lens? I have the Canon Rebl EOS T5 kit which comes with an EF-S 18-55 III lens. I have been doing a bit of research and looking around on the forums to hopefully capture a little something anyways, I do not expect much at all as this will be my first attempt. I don't care if it's grainy, blurry what, just looking for a little something better than a point and shoot of course lol.

Here's what i've got my camera set at right now for when the opportunity strikes with this camera:
ISO 3200
1/30 Shutter Speed
F5.6 Aperture
Then there seems to be an additional shutter speed setting which is listed as 30" on the screen.
Also, set on Tungsten light

I seemed to have set all these settings up by switching the dial between M/Av/Tv/P, to get it all dialed in, then I shoot on M (manual) i'm guessing?

I have a tripod! I know this is critical, any tips for focusing properly, I do this manually I take it, I turn the lens all the way to 55 to zoom in, or towards 18 to keep a wide field of view?

Any tips would be great on the set-up and how to properly take the photo with the tripod, also how do my settings seem? Are these ideal to produce somewhat of a result and toggle them from there?

Thanks everyone, just very anxious to try to capture these beautiful star pictures i've been seeing, if I even have proper equipment !

 

[jsecordphoto]

ISO 400 and f5? Good luck with that. Hope you like completely underexposed frames.

Here's a guide my buddy wrote a few years back- Adam Woodworth Photography Introduction to Landscape Astrophotography

I have a tutorial I wrote for a company that was supposed to be released like this spring but they're taking forever, this guide is a few years old but still relevant

 

[Jeffowashere]

Thanks for the tutorial link Jsecord.. and also I appreciate the information Bryston. I'm sure everyone has different opinions on the ideal settings, but then again it is a lot of trial and error.

I did pick up some useful information from your post though, especially about setting the camera to a 2 second delay. I was trying to be so precise when pushing my shutter button to not jiggle the camera/tripod set-up and those two seconds will definitely eliminate any of the fiddling I was doing haha.

Great tips I appreciate it guys, I ended up shooting some pictures last night, there was barely any stars that the human eye could see but my camera still picked up a **** load, very surprising! Mind you, almost all the pictures were a little blurry, wrong settings, but there were some neat results and I can't wait for a clearer night to try again. Of course these types of pictures only come with practice but I did enjoy shooting them even though they came out pretty crappy as it was my first attempt!

 

[jsecordphoto]

Heres my issue, every time a thread like this comes up, a few people end up offering advice that is just wrong. Trust me, this type of photography is my bread and butter- I know not every camera can handle high ISO, but you'll need to be at iso1600+ (I shoot between 3200-12,800 on moonless Nights) and the widest aperture your lens has.

 

[jsecordphoto]

ISO 400 and f5? Good luck with that. Hope you like completely underexposed frames.

Well, thanks.......I guess I am pretty lucky, my frames aren't completely underexposed. That luck stuff is pretty swell.

Post a screenshot showing the histogram of one of your raw exposures at that setting then

 

[jsecordphoto]

I'll get right on that.

Is it so hard to admit that you're wrong?

my histogram is heavily leaning to the left, clipping some of the darks, on an exposure of 25 seconds at 6400 and f2.8. Want to know the equivalent exposure settings for ISO400 and f5? Just over 21 minutes.

 

[D-B-J]

I'll add my two cents. In the limited experience I have, you'll need an ISO above 1600, an f stop of f4 or lower, preferably 2.8 or lower, and somewhere between 15 and 30 seconds for your stars (depending on how wide your shooting). I shot just the other night in Rhode Island on the new moon, and my optimal exposure was 16mm on FX, ISO 6400, f4, and 25 seconds. And personally, f4 only kinda works: it just so happens that I don't have a wide angle 2.8 or lower lens.

Trust me, John KNOWS what he's talking about. I'd take his advice over all others in regards to astrophotography, on this forum.

Cheers!
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TCampbell]

Here's another example. This is ISO 1600, f/2.8, and 40 seconds. This shot is a bit underexposed.

I have a few that I tried to push to 60 second exposures and in small size they look fine, but if I view at full resolution and inspect the stars, they are elongating (this camera was on a stationary tripod -- not one of my equatorial mounts.) It was shot at a fairly dark sky site (not the darkest, fairly good -- this was taken at the Great Lakes Star Gaze a few years ago. This is an annual star party in Michigan.) Although I was sure I took some, I was hoping to find an example at ISO 3200 and also 40 seconds at f/2.8 but I can't find any in this library (I was trying lots of different exposures on this particular night to see what would work best.) That means I cannot offer an ISO 3200 example to compare, but hopefully you get the idea that this exposure is a bit dark.

Though this is a RAW to JPEG conversion (and reduced size), this is essentially a "straight out of the camera" version (it doesn't have any exposure adjustments.)

You can see the histogram is over in the left quarter of the range.

ISO 400 would be 2 stops slower from this ISO 1600 shot. f/5 is 2 & 2/3rds stops slower. That's a total of 4.6 stops difference. To collect only this much light I'd need to expose for a little over 3 minutes which would result in a noticeably elongated stars -- and this is underexposed. I'd would prefer this at ISO 3200 -- which would require just a little over 6 minutes.

For a stationary tripod, you probably want at least ISO 3200. If your camera is on an equatorial telescope mount (tracking the sky) or if you have a tracking head for a tripod, then you can drop the ISO and run a much longer exposure time and not worry about blur. 6 minutes is fine with a tracking mount (assuming you've properly aligned it so the axis of rotation is parallel to the Earth's axis of rotation.)

 

[jsecordphoto]

Is it so hard not to be a pompous ass?

I certainly feel no need to prove anything to anyone, especially someone with a major league attitude.

Make no mistake, your pictures are gorgeous, but you sir..........that's a different story.

Edit: By the way, chief, if you'll go back and read my post containing the picture you'll notice that it was that picture that was shot at the EXIF you've become so hung up on. And in that picture I was shooting the pond picking up the moonlight, not stars. Notice too that the frame is not 'completely underexposed'.

I'm most certainly a pompous ass, but one that is giving advice to the OP based on countless hours of experience. Your attempts at backpedaling don't go unnoticed- if you were attempting to meter for the moonlit pond and not the stars (your photo is still very underexposed), then why are you giving the OP advice on how to shoot the stars?

No other topic (and this one gets brought up a lot) brings on so many people giving completely inaccurate advice. Go on out on a moonless night and shoot at your suggested settings and see how far your luck gets you

 

[nerwin]

I agree with @jsecordphoto. I've done similar milky way shots at similar settings and always had decent results. If you are concerned about noise..you can always trying stacking. I'm pretty new to this stuff as well, but can't wait to try it again with a faster lens.

 

[Jeffowashere]

Hey this is supposed to be a friendly atmosphere lol, none the less I appreciate all your tips and tricks!
I have noticed when shooting depending on how bright it is that night, near by lights, etc playing with the ISO is definitely a must. I found taking the same shot over and over without moving the camera but applying different settings and viewing the pictures afterwards is a great way to learn hands on.

Anyhow here is one of my favourite shots I got so far from my backyard! Pretty grainy when viewed at a larger scale but pretty sweet still! (also the airplane that photobombed me added a nice effect in my opinion)

 

[KmH]

Note the stars are short trails. The earth rotated that much on it's axis during the exposure.
Shorten your exposure time if you want stars that aren't streaks.

 

[Jeffowashere]

Note the stars are short trails. The earth rotated that much on it's axis during the exposure.
Shorten your exposure time if you want stars that aren't streaks.

Thanks for the tip KmH I did not realize this until you mentioned it and had a closer look, makes sense!

 

[NancyMoranG]

Good luck with your efforts. I can feel your excitement!
I know how I felt when I got my first good night shots, it can be addicting.

 

[nerwin]

I was browsing on Flickr this morning and came across this guy that does astrophotography...I am mind blown. This guy is incredible! Highly recommend you check out his album, its very inspiring.

The details he captures are just amazing. I think he uses a modified Canon 5D and a 500mm lens. I'm sure it must be paired with a high end telescope.

Astrophotography Flickr - Photo Sharing