Shooting Night pictures of stars (and stuff)

Yup those are very nice however some night shots require stacking to get a good result. These 2 shots was taken with my 350D and the 75-300mm lens...

Andromeda galaxy.
Exposure 4 mins x 13 stacked and processed.
ISO 800.
F 5.0.
220mm.
AndromedaGalaxy-1.jpg


Here is the Orion nebula using 1 exposure of 180 secs @ 280mm unprocessed.
Orion2.jpg


180 secs x 5 stacked and processed.
280mm
Orion-1.jpg
 
These are amazing! What kind of "processing" are you using? Just sharpening up the image after stacking or is there something more specific you are doing?


Edit: Somehow ended up here and failed to notice this was the second page...
Now that I've read the original article I must say I'm ridiculously impressed! Just started on this forum today and immediately went from feeling that I knew a little bit about photography, after a year, to feeling like I don't know anything!

I really enjoy reading quality articles like this and look forward to using them to expand my horizons! (Quite literally with this technique...)
 
Last edited:
Part of my beef with stacking is that I hate doing post production. It's a lot of work for something that can be temperamental. With single shots, you know if you've got what you want during shooting. You don't have to wait till you get home and spend an hour on the computer to figure out if it works or not. Also, if you're doing deep-sky type stuff shooting pictures of galaxies and whatnot, that's a totally different technique.
 
These are amazing! What kind of "processing" are you using? Just sharpening up the image after stacking or is there something more specific you are doing?Edit: Somehow ended up here and failed to notice this was the second page...Now that I've read the original article I must say I'm ridiculously impressed! Just started on this forum today and immediately went from feeling that I knew a little bit about photography, after a year, to feeling like I don't know anything!I really enjoy reading quality articles like this and look forward to using them to expand my horizons! (Quite literally with this technique...)
It's mostly just white balance adjustments, dodging/burning, and high-pass to bring the stars and texture out.
 
These are amazing! What kind of "processing" are you using? Just sharpening up the image after stacking or is there something more specific you are doing?


Edit: Somehow ended up here and failed to notice this was the second page...
Now that I've read the original article I must say I'm ridiculously impressed! Just started on this forum today and immediately went from feeling that I knew a little bit about photography, after a year, to feeling like I don't know anything!

I really enjoy reading quality articles like this and look forward to using them to expand my horizons! (Quite literally with this technique...)
You say this is the second page but for me it's still the first. You can go to Forum actions and then general settings and choose to show 30 posts per page...
 
Edsport, you need to tell people that those exposures were guided. Anything with 200mm+ over 10 sec will show star trails if shooting on a simple tripod. If you have an equatorial mount (one that is properly aligned and can compensate for the earth's rotation), then much longer exposures can result. I am in awe of what the advanced astrophotographers are able to do these days. Here is a link to Sky and Telescope's gallery pages on Nebulas: Nebulae & Galaxies - Celestial Scenes - SkyandTelescope.com. If you look at the images, which are gorgeous, and then at the equipment list, you realize that the beauty shown is extracted by using very good equipment, and even better technique and LOTS of work in postprocessing.
 
great job but boy you better be correct with a 32min exposure time.
 
Edsport, you need to tell people that those exposures were guided. Anything with 200mm+ over 10 sec will show star trails if shooting on a simple tripod. If you have an equatorial mount (one that is properly aligned and can compensate for the earth's rotation), then much longer exposures can result. I am in awe of what the advanced astrophotographers are able to do these days. Here is a link to Sky and Telescope's gallery pages on Nebulas: Nebulae & Galaxies - Celestial Scenes - SkyandTelescope.com. If you look at the images, which are gorgeous, and then at the equipment list, you realize that the beauty shown is extracted by using very good equipment, and even better technique and LOTS of work in postprocessing.
Actually they are unguided. I used tracking to counteract earth's movement but unguided...
 
great article. i recently read a book called Creative Night Photography that explained similar tips as you did. Night photography is awesome!
 
happy.gif


You are asking two different questions here. Taking pictures of stars is very different from taking pictures of the moon. The moon is like any other sunlit object, and you can use a much faster shutter speed than you think. If sunlight in daytime is a "sunny 16", the the moon is about a "moony 11". The stars require timed exposure, and a equatorial mount tracking device to keep them from forming star trails. To get the color you see in the astronomy magazines requires long exposures, long lenses, and lots of know how. Or you can plan to shoot star trails, where the stars "revolve" around an axis in the sky. Either one requires a good tripod and manual exposure. Use the lowest ISO and a middle aperture for the moon, and bracket your exposure. Be sure to dress warmly. You might want to have a look at the Geminid Meteors this weekend, maybe you can capture some meteor trails.
 
:hail: Switch

Thank you for taking the time!
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top