Second Attempt at Star Shots

[RxForB3]

Well, here is another attempt at star shots. I'm really feeling that I'm lacking in either the quality of the camera, or the post processing technique. Anybody want to loan me a Canon 5D Mark II or III or a 60Da? Renting is fine until you include shipping or live in the boonies! Thoughts?

1.


Mt. Hood Stars by RxForB3, on Flickr

2.


Mt. Hood Stars 2 by RxForB3, on Flickr

3.


Mt. Hood Star Trails by RxForB3, on Flickr

4.


Mt. Hood Star Trails 2 by RxForB3, on Flickr

I had intended to do a series of shots of 1 minute or so in length to combine for star trails, but unfortunately the moon was starting to wash everything out. I really like the Takhlakh Lake location a lot better than Trillium Lake. The lights on Mt. Hood are very annoying!

 

[laurenvictoria]

How did you take these!? they look great! just a little noisy though

 

[CouncilmanDoug]

with a little editing these would be awesome

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Man there was alot of traffic that night.


Your exposures still need to be longer dude.. I know it's exciting to see what you get but you've got to be more patient.

 

[RxForB3]

Thanks for the compliments. Unfortunately, these ARE edited But as I said, I think I lack at the processing side of things.

Sw1tchFX, patience wasn't really the issue this time. I was nervous about the noise issue, so I erred on the shorter side, I suppose. Is it better to overexpose or underexpose in this case? Overexposing creates much more noise initially, but underexposing creates noise when you compensate in post, so I'm not sure which would be better. I realize the obvious answer is to do neither one, but for the sake of argument...

This time I turned off both the high ISO noise reduction and the long exposure noise reduction in my camera and tried some noise reduction using DFine 2.0 (unfortunately just a trial version). Do you ever combine multiple exposures for the star trails, or do you generally do one long exposure?

For what it's worth (though I imagine you're already aware), this coming weekend should be a fairly decent showing of the Perseid meteor shower. I intend to head out to Takhlakh again on one of the nights and try shooting lots of short, high ISO images, then trying to do what I can to combine them. I just got a subscription for Photoshop CS6, so it will be quite a learning experience, I'm sure!

 

[CouncilmanDoug]

Its definitely better to over expose

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Definitely better to overexpose rather than push up a weak signal in post and no, I don't stack exposures (dont' like the laser look).

Yeah, you're going to get a little bit of noise..but so what is a little grain here or there? I just don't recommend going longer than an hour.

 

[Tschnitker]

Your T3i is more than capable of doing astrophotography, you just need to know what you are doing. Do not blame your equipment because you don't have the skills (yet). Also, a 60DA will do nothing but drain your wallet as it's meant for TRUE astrophotography....Like camera attached to a tracking telescope. A T3i and 60DA will look exactly the same by doing the camera on tripod method. You need a few thousand dollars in extra equipment on top of the 60DA's price to see what it's capable of.

The biggest problem I see is that there is too much ambient light. For good astrophotography you need DARK, BLACK skies.

Your ISO is way too high, I use 6400 for composition and focus checks only. Drop it down to 100 or 200.
EXIF shows that you took this at 10:24PM, way too early. Try around 1-2AM for the blackest skies.
The 18-55 isn't very good for this. At 18mm it's F3.5, and a very blurry one at that. I'd get something around a 1.8 to 2.0 that will be sharp at F3
15 second exposure isn't long enough to get good exposure without trailing. By the rule of the 400s 22 seconds is the longest you can expose while avoiding trails.

As example, this is a (stacked)photo I took with a T3i (with a much nicer lens).
Star trails over northern Minnesota lake | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[RxForB3]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying that it IS the equipment. Just not necessarily the camera, but the lens.

I realize that it wasn't quite dark enough. Unfortunately, the moon was making things brighter as it rose in the sky. 1-2AM would have been even brighter, unfortunately. I'll have to try again some time with a new moon or something close. Luckily this weekend will be more ideal.

As for the ISO, I didn't really have any option to use a lower ISO for the shots without a star trail. I already had the aperture wide open, so if I lowered the ISO to 3200, I would have had to take a 30 second exposure that would have caused distortion of the stars at the very least. For the two star trails, I did use a much lower ISO. I didn't go as low as 100 because I wanted to close the aperture a bit because I knew it wasn't ideal to be at 3.5. I could have tried a longer ISO, but I would have been verging on the hour or longer range, with the additional noise that brings. I could have (and probably should have) tried a 22 second exposure by bulb mode, but that wouldn't have provided but about 1/2 stop more exposure.

So unless, I'm misunderstanding, the only thing I could have done differently was to go on a darker night, or have a better lens. However, I don't have a better lens. The fastest I have is the 50mm f/1.8, but that was way too cropped, plus I would only be allowed an 8 second exposure to avoid trails. My other lenses are the 55-250 kit lens, 100mm f/2.8L, and the Sigma 50-500. In order to get a faster wide angle, I'd have to spend pretty close to getting a new camera (though, who knows, maybe it would be a better investment long-term). The EF 14mm f/2.8L would be nice, but it's about $2,300. The 24mm f/1.4L is the only one that's much faster, really, and it's about $1,700...

 

[invisible]

Man there was alot of traffic that night.

I think this piece of advice (hidden behind a seemingly innocent comment) has gotten lost. Unfortunately, the cars (and their reflection) ruin these images. The first one would've been very pleasing if it wasn't for those light blobs. Shooting later in the evening would've not only given you a darker sky – like someone mentioned – but it would've also reduced the chances of seeing traffic.

For night photography, you really want to drive away from cities/towns. All four photos here show a glow behind Mt. Hood that can only be light pollution from a city or even a small town. It doesn't affect photo #1 as much as it affects the others, but that's something to try and stay away from, every time.

 

[RxForB3]

I definitely agree the lights ruin the image as a whole, but this was mostly for practice in a location that is a bit more accessible than my typical spots. Plus, my son and I were heading to the Portland Zoo the next day, so it was just a little detour.

I still don't think it would have been darker later that night because of the moon, but luckily the next attempt will be with much less moonlight and in a much more remote location. Thanks for the comments and suggestions!

 

[tacosanchez]

The last one is very nice, it's a pity about the lights on the mountain. Those hot pixels need to be removed though, very easy to do.