Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 74 of 74

Thread: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?

  1. #71
    Founder QT Luong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1997
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,194

    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

  2. #72

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2,482

    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...
    GPS

  3. #73

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    NY area
    Posts
    1,025

    Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by QT Luong View Post
    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.

  4. #74

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    2,721

    Re: Proper exposure for stars, no moon?

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian K View Post
    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:


    [...]

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Proper Exposure Compensations
    By Alar70 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-May-2009, 06:06
  2. Moon exposure...not what you might think!!!
    By Douglasa A. Benson in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 13-Oct-2008, 06:25
  3. Exposure for star trails, with 1/3 moon
    By Daniel_Buck in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2-Oct-2008, 11:42
  4. FULL MOON & CLOUD EXPOSURE
    By Steve Feldman in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 29-Jan-2002, 21:18
  5. exposure of dark evergreen trees?
    By Bill Glickman in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 8-Sep-2001, 05:33

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •