Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?
http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/...hp?f=9&t=14503
"My night sky/landscape photographs which are my trademark have traditionally always been single frame shots of both the night sky and landmarks in one single exposure. In the olden days like for comet hale-bopp, the longer time exposures with tracked camera to follow the stars would always leave a tell tail sign on the landscape rocks as they would blur if lit or they would cast a shadow against the background stars if you lit them momentarily like with a flash. Now a days, all is different. Anybody with a decent digital camera like canon 20D and 24mm lens with high iso like 1600 at f/1.6 can record deep detail in the Milky Way in just 20 seconds and 10 times more stars than the eye can see." Wally Pacholka
Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?
While it is true what Pacholka says, he does not say the whole truth. These digital starry night pictures have their very typical tell tail sign too. Using high ISO sensitivity they register not only a lot of stars but also a lot of sky fog too. Therefore they look like taken on a very light night but with an unusual number of stars - very artificial.
Some photographers even try to present these pictures like those of the reality seen with your eyes, which is nonsense, of course.
I once saw a picture of the zodiacal light taken by a physics professor that claimed how easy it is to see it. When I emailed him saying that his picture is a digital vision never available to a human eye in nature he was furious...
Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
QT Luong
http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/...hp?f=9&t=14503
"My night sky/landscape photographs which are my trademark have traditionally always been single frame shots of both the night sky and landmarks in one single exposure. In the olden days like for comet hale-bopp, the longer time exposures with tracked camera to follow the stars would always leave a tell tail sign on the landscape rocks as they would blur if lit or they would cast a shadow against the background stars if you lit them momentarily like with a flash. Now a days, all is different. Anybody with a decent digital camera like canon 20D and 24mm lens with high iso like 1600 at f/1.6 can record deep detail in the Milky Way in just 20 seconds and 10 times more stars than the eye can see." Wally Pacholka
There's no way that's one exposure. He claims that he works with a 24mm at around f1.6, ISO 1600, but if you look at the degree of DOF he has objects a few feet from the camera, and the stars completely in sharp focus. f 1.6 is not going to allow that. Also if you look at the horizon it is a harshly sharp line where it meets the sky, it looks cut. Also the horizon sky is usually brighter then the higher sky.
Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian K
There's no way that's one exposure. He claims that he works with a 24mm at around f1.6, ISO 1600, but if you look at the degree of DOF he has objects a few feet from the camera, and the stars completely in sharp focus. f 1.6 is not going to allow that. Also if you look at the horizon it is a harshly sharp line where it meets the sky, it looks cut. Also the horizon sky is usually brighter then the higher sky.
It isn't a single exposure.
He is simply using 24mm/1.6/ISO1600 as an example of what was technologically possible using the technology of the day a couple of years or so ago.
Here's what Wally says himself about the image on this site:
Quote:
[...]
Since the cave is so large, even with my 24mm lens I was not able to get the whole cave in view without doing a panoramic image with 4 shots. During the exposures the crescent Moon lit up the canyons and I artificially lit the inside of the cave.
[...]
A four-shot stitch and a fill-in light, presumably flash.
Still a rather nice image, much easier to diss than to make.