How to have the sun appear like a star

Alex_B · May 4, 2008

Sontizzle said:
nice picture alex

thanks, took it in 10 minutes walking distance from my house when I was bored one day

NoamC · May 4, 2008

Lovely shot indeed, Alex.

bikefreax · May 4, 2008

Alex_B said:
f/22, an example :

Super shot but I am stumped. With the sun in the picture how did you not blow out the grass? Did you use a grduated ND filter? I just got one for this reason but have no clue how to use it. My first attempts were horrible. The sky was pitch black.

Alex_B · May 5, 2008

bikefreax said:
Super shot but I am stumped. With the sun in the picture how did you not blow out the grass?

Actually, not to blow out the grass was pretty easy. The problem was more not to get it too dark. The sun is bright, the grass (actuially not grass, but winder crop I think) is dark. so I metered on the grass, and a second metering on the sky away from the sun, and both were about equal. So I could take the shot without a graduated filter. Of course I blew out the sun, but that is OK in this shot and inevitable

Did you use a grduated ND filter? I just got one for this reason but have no clue how to use it. My first attempts were horrible. The sky was pitch black.

Well, if it was pitch black, then you maybe had a scene like this where the sky is about as bright as the foreground. then one should not use such a filter. Or maybe it was simply to strong? How many stops in the gradient?

TamiyaGuy · May 5, 2008

usayit said:
Yup... number of points == number of aperture blades.

Aaaahhh, so that's why the "star" effect comes out different depending on which lens I use! Very clever...

BrandonS · May 13, 2008

If anyone can help me with this I'm confused. I was out the other night on a walk with the wife and tried to get some shots with my 17-55mm at f/32 of the sun. It didn't have a star effect at all. In fact it either came out with everything exposed and the sky over exposed or it would come out really dark save for the sun being decent looking. I'm not suprised, as these are what I would have expected with the fastly different exposures between the ground and sun/sky. Yet, it was still a sphere in the sky in any picture it wasn't completely blown out. I tried different aperatures and also over and underexposing. None produced anything close to a star effect. Does it now work when the sun is lower in the sky?

Thanks for any insight.

Valethar · May 13, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
F/22.

Bet my F-22 can beat up your f/22

<<Evil Wicked Laughter>>tm

Alex_B · May 13, 2008

BrandonS said:
If anyone can help me with this I'm confused. I was out the other night on a walk with the wife and tried to get some shots with my 17-55mm at f/32 of the sun. It didn't have a star effect at all. In fact it either came out with everything exposed and the sky over exposed or it would come out really dark save for the sun being decent looking. I'm not suprised, as these are what I would have expected with the fastly different exposures between the ground and sun/sky. Yet, it was still a sphere in the sky in any picture it wasn't completely blown out. I tried different aperatures and also over and underexposing. None produced anything close to a star effect. Does it now work when the sun is lower in the sky?

Thanks for any insight.

it also has to be small enough in the frame to give that effect, else you would hardly notice the star ... you were shooting normal to tele? My shot was ultrawide.

BrandonS · May 13, 2008

Just checked the photos. Looks like I was at 50mm on the 17-50mm lens.

Alex_B · May 13, 2008

can you maybe just post it?

BrandonS · May 13, 2008

Well rather than the JPEGs that the camera saved, I opened up the RAW files and played a little bit with the levels. I did get somewhat of a star effect on the one that was underexposed. Do you think it was that the sun wasn't bright enough? The shot itself might not be bad with some cropping (probably removing the sun) and adding some reds to the sky. I just played with levels though to show you the effect I got; or lack of intensity of it. Also looks like my sensor is dusty or the lens has dirt on it.

50mm 1/200s f/32
ISO 100

Joves · May 13, 2008

Rhys said:
Yup - and Pluto got demoted and now isn't a planet.

To me Pluto is still a planet. To the devil with the Internationals demoting it. I met Clyde Tombaugh up here at Lowell, he was one heck of a nice guy.

usayit · May 13, 2008

Helen B said:
... unless there are an odd number of blades, when there will be twice as many points as there are aperture blades. For example 5 blades, 10 points.

Best,
Helen

Ah yes... I forgot about that tid bit... (don't ask me why).