Great shot, definitely enjoyed seein it.
Upvote
0
tpatana said:CarlTN said:Was this at f/1.4 aperture? How long was the exposure?
As I mentioned above, F2 and 15 sec exposure.
I knew the 600-rule, but I thought 30 secs would be close enough. Pixel-peeping it wasn't, but I guess for web (at that size anyway) it would have been ok. But 15 sec came out nice too.
Yup! Use WB to cool the picture. Will get you bluish hues.tpatana said:cellomaster27 said:How did you get the blue??
I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.
Other explanation could be WB-slider?
rpt said:Yup! Use WB to cool the picture. Will get you bluish hues.tpatana said:cellomaster27 said:How did you get the blue??
I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.
Other explanation could be WB-slider?
cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
CarlTN said:cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
This one seems a tad underexposed. Color shows up more with a brighter exposure...which is difficult to do unless you can shoot faster than f/2.8, or else have a longer exposure (or else shoot higher ISO)...but then you lose some contrast due to the air/atmosphere growing brighter while the stars do not (unless you're tracking on a polarie, but even with one the air grows a bit lighter than the subject over time).
jrista said:cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
It all depends on how you process it. I ran your photo through photoshop, got the below result in about 2 minutes:
Added Levels Layer Adjustment:
Blacks -> 17
Grays -> 1.39
Whites -> 121
Added Color Balance Layer Adjustment:
Tones: Midtones
Cyan/Red: -25
Magenta/Green: +2
Yellow/Blue: +66
That song is not for taking pictures of stars!!!!cellomaster27 said:rpt said:Yup! Use WB to cool the picture. Will get you bluish hues.tpatana said:cellomaster27 said:How did you get the blue??
I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.
Other explanation could be WB-slider?
Ah! Okay. I had a feeling but I only changed it a couple clicks. Tonight's gonna be a good night.
cellomaster27 said:CarlTN said:cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
This one seems a tad underexposed. Color shows up more with a brighter exposure...which is difficult to do unless you can shoot faster than f/2.8, or else have a longer exposure (or else shoot higher ISO)...but then you lose some contrast due to the air/atmosphere growing brighter while the stars do not (unless you're tracking on a polarie, but even with one the air grows a bit lighter than the subject over time).
Agree. I shot that at f3.5, 30sec, iso3200. Maybe 6400 iso.. Thanks for the tip!
jrista said:cellomaster27 said:Love the photo that was with the first post on this thread.. been trying to do something like that but my photos always look..boring? Just the stars and lots of grey.. I get the general settings but am I missing something? How did you get the blue??
It all depends on how you process it. I ran your photo through photoshop, got the below result in about 2 minutes:
Added Levels Layer Adjustment:
Blacks -> 17
Grays -> 1.39
Whites -> 121
Added Color Balance Layer Adjustment:
Tones: Midtones
Cyan/Red: -25
Magenta/Green: +2
Yellow/Blue: +66
Wow! Thanks! It looks so much better!! ) (I'm getting Lightroom in >8 days so... ) all you guys are so nice. Thanks!
Archangel72 said:These are my first steps in astrophotography (Milky Way and stars).
I know it could be much better than this, but this shots were taken near my hometown (light pollution was pretty intense).
Hopefully, my next shots will be far outside, in darker area, and they should "reveal" more light in the sky.
(light on the wooden house was from led light of my iPhone4s ).
Archangel72
CarlTN said:Archangel72 said:These are my first steps in astrophotography (Milky Way and stars).
I know it could be much better than this, but this shots were taken near my hometown (light pollution was pretty intense).
Hopefully, my next shots will be far outside, in darker area, and they should "reveal" more light in the sky.
(light on the wooden house was from led light of my iPhone4s ).
Archangel72
As photographs they're nice to look at. As honest portrayals of the beauty of the Milky Way, I find them very lacking. The Milky Way is not a neon sign in the sky, in a cartoon. Even on "Futurama" the Milky Way looks more natural than your take on the subject. But I suppose there is a market for your style, or is there? Just curious...
Archangel72 said:CarlTN said:Archangel72 said:These are my first steps in astrophotography (Milky Way and stars).
I know it could be much better than this, but this shots were taken near my hometown (light pollution was pretty intense).
Hopefully, my next shots will be far outside, in darker area, and they should "reveal" more light in the sky.
(light on the wooden house was from led light of my iPhone4s ).
Archangel72
As photographs they're nice to look at. As honest portrayals of the beauty of the Milky Way, I find them very lacking. The Milky Way is not a neon sign in the sky, in a cartoon. Even on "Futurama" the Milky Way looks more natural than your take on the subject. But I suppose there is a market for your style, or is there? Just curious...
Well, I think this is because stars looks nicer and with more vivid colors here in Croatia )
Come and check'em out, after shooting stars will head for beer and some "chevapchichi" (you should try that as well).
Here is the link for that cuisine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%86evapi
rpt said:That song is not for taking pictures of stars!!!!cellomaster27 said:rpt said:Yup! Use WB to cool the picture. Will get you bluish hues.tpatana said:cellomaster27 said:How did you get the blue??
I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.
Other explanation could be WB-slider?
Ah! Okay. I had a feeling but I only changed it a couple clicks. Tonight's gonna be a good night.
Leverage it.
So it seems I am not alone. (Not a compliment though . )cellomaster27 said:rpt said:That song is not for taking pictures of stars!!!!cellomaster27 said:rpt said:Yup! Use WB to cool the picture. Will get you bluish hues.tpatana said:cellomaster27 said:How did you get the blue??
I guess same way than I get most photos I like: dumb luck.
Other explanation could be WB-slider?
Ah! Okay. I had a feeling but I only changed it a couple clicks. Tonight's gonna be a good night.
Leverage it.
Ahahaha!! You caught it!
joshmurrah said:Here's a recent shot of mine... had a good opportunity while at a beach condo facing the Gulf of Mexico on a moonless night.
Canon 5D3, 16-35 f/2.8L II - ISO 3200, f/2.8, 16mm, 30 seconds (right around the 600 rule)
Within Adobe PS CS6' ACR tool: cooled the temp to 3300K w/ -2 tint, contrast +98, clarity +48, vibrance/saturation both +21, +52 NR w/ 82 detail, and a very slight crop.
Hope you guys enjoy and find the details helpful.
AWESOME ... the details are indeed very helpful ... thanks for sharing.joshmurrah said:Here's a recent shot of mine... had a good opportunity while at a beach condo facing the Gulf of Mexico on a moonless night.
Canon 5D3, 16-35 f/2.8L II - ISO 3200, f/2.8, 16mm, 30 seconds (right around the 600 rule)
Within Adobe PS CS6' ACR tool: cooled the temp to 3300K w/ -2 tint, contrast +98, clarity +48, vibrance/saturation both +21, +52 NR w/ 82 detail, and a very slight crop.
Hope you guys enjoy and find the details helpful.