Milky Way
- Thread starter tpatana
- Start date
Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting 
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
Attachments
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
I see the repetition of two identical patterns to these squiggly lines. To my eye, this appears to be something we used to call multiple exposure, in this case a triple exposure.
Upvote
0
How do you suppose a multiple exposure could have happened? Some sort of hardware malfunction? I was shooting a panoramic series with no issues on any of the other shots. Curiously it's just on this one image and not affecting all the stars equally.JMZawodny said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
I see the repetition of two identical patterns to these squiggly lines. To my eye, this appears to be something we used to call multiple exposure, in this case a triple exposure.
Upvote
0
telemaq76 said:Milky way with 50 1.4 art series, 1dx and ioptron skytracker for the sky
3 minutes exposures, iso-1250 f3.2
Beautiful. Ok, if you're tracking the stars how come the foreground isn't trailed? Is it a separate exposure for the foreground layered onto the sky shot?
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
It's all one frame.
Check each "cluster" of squiggles.. one "vertical" one and a "patch".. then go and find another "patch" and hey presto there's another vertical just to the side of it... it's a bit like lining up complex patterns on wallpaper, it seems impossible until you get your eye in.
So the camera moved.
I've had loads like this when I was trying to get tracking working in the early days... the movement involved is not terribly much and easy to miss in the dark.
Upvote
0
The mystery is solved.rfdesigner said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
It's all one frame.
Check each "cluster" of squiggles.. one "vertical" one and a "patch".. then go and find another "patch" and hey presto there's another vertical just to the side of it... it's a bit like lining up complex patterns on wallpaper, it seems impossible until you get your eye in.
So the camera moved.
I've had loads like this when I was trying to get tracking working in the early days... the movement involved is not terribly much and easy to miss in the dark.
You are indeed right. My brother (an astrophysics student) helped fill in the last piece of the puzzle. The camera was not properly locked down and did in fact move. And the clouds did impact the image as well.
There were two instances of movement one vertical sag and one horizontal twitch. The passing cloud obscured some of the stars during those two instances. As a result some stars weren't exposed during the various phases of movement and were captured as sharp, while stars which were exposed during the movement(s) would have one or a combination of the movement trails.
It is indeed difficult to see minute movements in the dark. Dark sky photography requires concentration, and with that light pollution and overhead cloud I guess my head was not in the game.
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:How do you suppose a multiple exposure could have happened? Some sort of hardware malfunction? I was shooting a panoramic series with no issues on any of the other shots. Curiously it's just on this one image and not affecting all the stars equally.JMZawodny said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
I see the repetition of two identical patterns to these squiggly lines. To my eye, this appears to be something we used to call multiple exposure, in this case a triple exposure.
Either a test or intentional deception.
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:The mystery is solved.rfdesigner said:StudentOfLight said:Weird squiggly lines near the milky way. There's no camera shake as can be seen with most of the bright stars. There was significant moisture in the air and a lot of light polution, hence the galaxy is hardly visible. Not a good night out shooting
Anyway, is this an atmospheric lensing phenomenon?
It's all one frame.
Check each "cluster" of squiggles.. one "vertical" one and a "patch".. then go and find another "patch" and hey presto there's another vertical just to the side of it... it's a bit like lining up complex patterns on wallpaper, it seems impossible until you get your eye in.
So the camera moved.
I've had loads like this when I was trying to get tracking working in the early days... the movement involved is not terribly much and easy to miss in the dark.
You are indeed right. My brother (an astrophysics student) helped fill in the last piece of the puzzle. The camera was not properly locked down and did in fact move. And the clouds did impact the image as well.
There were two instances of movement one vertical sag and one horizontal twitch. The passing cloud obscured some of the stars during those two instances. As a result some stars weren't exposed during the various phases of movement and were captured as sharp, while stars which were exposed during the movement(s) would have one or a combination of the movement trails.
It is indeed difficult to see minute movements in the dark. Dark sky photography requires concentration, and with that light pollution and overhead cloud I guess my head was not in the game.
Great!.. you now know why the mount is the key element in any astronomy setup and remote shutter release is also very useful.
As it fringes onto this discussion, if you decide to go for a scope please to come back and ask for help, I'll say right now that for astrophotography, spend most of your budget on the mount. As you now know it doesn't matter how good your camera/lens/scope is if you can't point it in the right direction consistantly then you're totally sunk.
Upvote
0
Hey, thanks Click on three counts. Cheers mate!Click said:
The new Canon tech with on sensor chip ADCs - I really hope they maintain good long exposure integrity (low dark current and amp glow). They reckon the 7DII is excellent in that respect. We already know that the new tech is better for pushing 5 stops at ISO100 (not required for even my landscape work), and producing very good high ISO with digic NR. Hoping for a good snr 5DsR II with good QE and low dark current with new sensor tech. Looking forward to seeing some long exposure/high ISO raws! We will see that with the 80D first.
Upvote
0
Hi Troy, I stumbled on an article about the award you won last year. Congratulations. You've brought some incredible images to the fore here on CR and it is amazing that you've gained recognition from your peers. I hope you keep inspiring us here for years to come. Best regards!cazza132 said:Hey, thanks Click on three counts. Cheers mate!Click said:
Upvote
0
Image pulled from time lapse sequence. The passing satellite (I assume) in this frame makes for a more interesting shot.
Exposure: 20s @ f/2.5, ISO 6400.
In aiming for a good exposure of the LMC, I ended up overexposing some of the milky way stars. You live you learn...
Exposure: 20s @ f/2.5, ISO 6400.
In aiming for a good exposure of the LMC, I ended up overexposing some of the milky way stars. You live you learn...
Attachments
Upvote
0
StudentOfLight said:
not bad at all.. Southern hemisphere?.. I've never seen the Magellanic Clouds.
It's worth doing say 4 or 5 exposures all the same then doing a median stack if you want to remove satellite/aircraft trails
Upvote
0
I don't mind satellites and meteors as they leave a clean line, but airplanes leave dashed lines which are quite harsh and distracting.rfdesigner said:
I'll definitely give the LMC another go (with image stacking) probably with a longer focal length so it fills more of the frame.
Upvote
0
Don't you love just finding a memory card lost in some obscure corner of a drawer...
I shot an out-of-town wedding in September last year and went to scout the locations the weekend before. I took the opportunity to shoot some astro as a short drive from the small town has nice dark skies.
Anyway... I unfortunately had two hard drive failures in the past 6 weeks and lost the images I had imported. For some reason I left the card in my desk drawer and never formatted it so last week when clearing out I found two memory cards and voila I'd found some really nice astro pics, some of which I never had time to edit.
Attached are 145 degree overhead panoramas. On the RAW image I decided to trace out some of the constellations to learn where they are for future reference. With the second image I pushed the RAW file as far as I think I could. I'm quite astonished by how much detail lies buried in the RAW file.
I shot an out-of-town wedding in September last year and went to scout the locations the weekend before. I took the opportunity to shoot some astro as a short drive from the small town has nice dark skies.
Anyway... I unfortunately had two hard drive failures in the past 6 weeks and lost the images I had imported. For some reason I left the card in my desk drawer and never formatted it so last week when clearing out I found two memory cards and voila I'd found some really nice astro pics, some of which I never had time to edit.
Attached are 145 degree overhead panoramas. On the RAW image I decided to trace out some of the constellations to learn where they are for future reference. With the second image I pushed the RAW file as far as I think I could. I'm quite astonished by how much detail lies buried in the RAW file.
Attachments
Upvote
0
This thread (or the fraction I've seen of it so far) is amazing! Thank you everyone, who's sharing their efforts and insight
I've lots to learn but I really, really want to! I've been threatening to convert my EOS M to Full Spectrum for a little while, thinking I might give it a go myself, having seen some online deconstructions etc, but I'm no expert on these things.
I love the idea of going FF/FullSpectrum like you have with the 6D, cazza132, your results are wonderful... but I think I'll start with the EOS M Is yours a total filter-removal job, and is this the preferred way for Astro-'togs? I'm aware there are various filter replacements with different frequency ranges for different results but if there's no reason to replace one bookend with another I'll be happy to go properly Full-Spec and filterless!
Also any advice on where to start with the essentials (tracking equipment etc? Software?), as direct advice or respected online resources worth reading through, would be super appreciated! I'll start with the rest of this thread, from the beginning, and take notes
Happy shooting, everyone!
I've lots to learn but I really, really want to! I've been threatening to convert my EOS M to Full Spectrum for a little while, thinking I might give it a go myself, having seen some online deconstructions etc, but I'm no expert on these things.
I love the idea of going FF/FullSpectrum like you have with the 6D, cazza132, your results are wonderful... but I think I'll start with the EOS M
Is yours a total filter-removal job, and is this the preferred way for Astro-'togs? I'm aware there are various filter replacements with different frequency ranges for different results but if there's no reason to replace one bookend with another I'll be happy to go properly Full-Spec and filterless! Also any advice on where to start with the essentials (tracking equipment etc? Software?), as direct advice or respected online resources worth reading through, would be super appreciated! I'll start with the rest of this thread, from the beginning, and take notes
Happy shooting, everyone!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
