HOME | DD
Thomas-Koidhis β Symphony
Published: 2011-06-10 11:24:44 +0000 UTC; Views: 28786; Favourites: 1283; Downloads: 590
Redirect to original
Description
I very much plan on enjoying the insane amounts of daylight (19 hours at least, not sure about the peak) this summer - some absolutely unreal light during these times! Still...I can't help but look forward to late summer and autumn when the dark skies return and the mosquitoes fuck off a little.99% sure this is a falling meteor and not iridium flare (the sliver of light in the top left of the photo) but I could be wrong. So sure because this frame is a part of a time lapse clip and normally satelites leave their path through several images. This flash of light was apparent in only one frame.
Reprocessed with a bigger size - please full view!
To see the time lapse video trailer that this is a part of, please visit here: [link] This particular clip is very short and can be seen near the end of the video.
Related content
Comments: 306
One question for you, Thomas, if you don't mind : how do you deal with the noise issue ? Or maybe it's not an issue with your camera/lens ?Β
I'm asking this because it looks sharp and clean, but it's 900px wide so I can't judge. My pics are quite awfully noisy when I zoom at more than 50%.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey there! I'm so absent lately but I'm still sorry for taking a month to respond. It can vary depending on conditions. Certain areas of softer tones that are underexposed at high ISO speeds can leave some heavy grain and even color aberration. It really helps to have a fast lens (f/2.8 or wider) and you have to consider that I'm shooting on a full frame sensor. The larger photon receptors on a larger chip allow a more efficient signal to noise ratio which allows me to shoot some decent printable images at upwards of 6400 ISO. The trade-off is that I can overexpose a little with the shutter speed without creating too much motion blurring from the Earths rotation. The general rule with with shooting higher ISO speeds is to overexpose without blowing out your highlights. You can darken your image in processing if need be. You get better signal to noise this way. Every camera body/lens combination has its own limits and trade-offs. The combination of better exposures, knowing the limits of your equipment and careful post production is where you'll find the relatively clean and crisp images you want.
Most modern crop-frame or aps-c sensors lately can do well with noise upwards of 2000 ISO. I would shoot pretty nice images on my old 50D at 1600, which coupled with a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and exposed well, resulted in decently clean, printable starscape images. A little noise treatment with the Noise Ninja plug-in or even Adobe Camera Raw's noise reduction sliders can really clean them up nice too. It all depends. What are you shooting with at the moment?
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey there !Β
Thanks for responding, really appreciated.Β
Well yeah I'm starting to have this feeling that I'm simply limited by the D5200's cropped sensor. I shoot with the same lens, Tokina, but I need serious post treatment in LR and PS (Noise Ninja ftw indeed) to diminish the noise. Don't even think about shooting at 6400ISO, you won't recognize stars from noise. I usually don't go over 2000.
For instance, in those two images
fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/201β¦
chillpill39.deviantart.com/artβ¦
1. Those annoying white spots in the black parts are apparently inherent to the sensor's limitations during long exposure shots -so Nikon said. I didn't bother removing them in post treatment, I'm not happy with the overall photo anyway.
2. Noise reduction is obvious and still insufficient. And that's not sharp.
3. I know I did a mistake at that time, I totally forgot to activate noise reduction on the camera. *Maybe* it's one of the reasons, but I may be placing my hopes too high.
Since you also have the Tokina, maybe you know about this problem, but some models can't really well focus to infinity. I had my model checked by two professionals because I suspected mine has this pb, but I had two different opinions so I'm still trying to figure this out. Maybe this alsoΒ doesn't help to obtain sharp images. On the other hand, I could be blaming the lens instead of me.
Anyway that's a nice region you live in, I'd like to photograph it soon while I still live in Canada.Β
Cheers man
π: 0 β©: 1
Well first off dude, don't be too hard on yourself. Enjoy the images and the learning process. We're all our own worst critic - I probably know that better than most. Those two images aren't bad at all. I mean...Look at this image: spatarozliev.deviantart.com/arβ¦
That photo got a DD. It's well done. If you look at your star field in Milky way lake George, it's not far off the money if at all by comparison. Honestly in my eyes I can only see two things that are left to be desired in those two photos, other than the grain reduction.
Infinity focus can be a problem on many lenses, especially at night. I use little 'hacks' for these types of issues. If you wanna call them that...Such as: you're working under a starscape and you really want the stars to be as in focus as possible - pinpricks of light if you can. To accomplish this, I would pick a bright star, Sirius is a great one for this, and actually use my live view zoomed in at 10x, and carefully turn the focusing ring until you can get that pinprick of light to nearly vanish or get as small as possible. Once you reach that point, make sure you don't bump the focusing ring, take it off live view and get down to making your exposure.
The other thing you'll be forced to contend with on the Tokina is the fact that at wide open, the corners are very soft - almost deformed. You can actually see it in many of my own night photos taken on this lens. There isn't much way around this other than cropping off the edges, or just letting it be. Sometimes it doesn't hurt the photo too much to have the stars stretch out in the corners like that. Look at the very top of the frame of Autumn Spire on full view. Symphony too. thomas-koidhis.deviantart.com/β¦ Even my two photos with the best stats and which both have won DD's (over 5000 faves each) have, by my own standards and experience level, what I consider to be something to be improved on in terms of quality of my star fields. Yet, they are still loved. It's a compromise, always.
I no longer have my Tokina (I gave it to my sister) but I loved that lens, imperfections and all. Thing is, if most of your image is focused well, exposed well, and you stay within your image chips general comfort zone (let's call it 1600 ISO on your D5200), you're going to have sharp star fields. I'll tell you man, your star fields aren't bad. At all. You're very close to being as sharp as pretty much anything in my gallery. It just takes small tweaks and refinement in your technique, comprehension and post processing. That just takes practice and dedication of time. If you aren't shooting in .RAW format, you should be. For these types of photos, it gives you a lot more room to work with.
Sometimes that sharpness and clarity does come down to your skill at honing the image to your desired output size and format. How you should sharpen and clean up your image depends on how big it is going to be displayed and on what medium it will be displayed. Sharpening for web isn't anything like sharpening for print. I personally sharpen every print a little differently, giving it detailing catered to the image content, etc.
A decent rule of thumb for a proper dark sky in my opinion with a set up like yours: Start with 1600 ISO, 20 seconds, f/2.8. My reasoning: 1600 ISO is probably the acceptable limit while you're exploring the technique flow for night skies, since it's decently bright and the artifacts should be manageable. 20 seconds is a good time for 11mm on a 1.5x crop, roughly equivalent to 16mm on full frame. This is wide enough that the Earths rotation (and thus star trailing) should be apparently minimal. 15-25 seconds will probably be your best range and you will have to adjust depending on conditions.
Β Wide open can be a tough choice, but it lets in so much glorious light! I almost never stop down at night, cuz that's the compromise I'm willing to make. I still sell prints with my stars expanded in the edges because I make sure the rest of the image makes up for it. If you're having noise troubles, at 11mm it can be worth your while to push the shutter speed down to as long as 30 seconds. The extra signal will go a long way toward reducing your grain levels.
The first image you linked - you referred to the white spots caused by sensor limitations at long exposures (they call them hot pixels). While that will be something you'll have to contend with, they're pretty easily removed the same way you remove dust spots from images - spot healing. It is important to note that, it seems to me, most of what seem to be "hot pixels" in the trees on milky way lake gorge are actually starlight managing to pass through some gaps in the leaves. I may be wrong but if it bothers you in future images then play dust removal 
There was one more thing...Oh yeah! When you shoot in .RAW format, you don't need to worry about in-camera noise reduction. (I am 99% sure, though it may differ from one manufacturer to another). With more experience you'll find what works best for you, but even a basic laptop has much more processing power than even a higher end camera does. Which is why it's better to shoot in .RAW and not let your cameras processor do anything to the image data and then show it who's boss on your computer.
That said, I would also recommend toying around with your in-camera noise reduction settings to see how it works out for you. In-camera NR may bypass the whole .RAW thing, honestly I don't know! haha. If that were the case then you could potentially have your .RAWs ready to process with NR already done.
Jeez, sorry for the novel. I will proofread this a bit but sorry for any odd language/grammar. I think that touches base with most of what you mentioned. It's impossible to cover all bases of course but learning it all at once would be boring
π: 0 β©: 1
Jeez thank you very much again for taking the time! (but sorry about the delay).
Yeah I also use the live view technique. Though I donβt know if Iβm bein too picky or what, but itβs never really sharp enough to me, each time I just try to reduce the blurriness. Iβm conscious about the Tokinaβs corners and all wide angle limitations, but I donβt know, I feel like itβs softer than for most people. And yes, I shoot RAW (well, NEF), all the time, I don't even bother with JPEGs. 32Gb SD card and Lightroom/PS FTW !!
Regarding the white spots, they are indeed hot pixels, not stars trying to make their way
The settings you recommend are similar to those I use, so yeah thatβs nice to know that.
Not sure about the in-camera noise-reduction/RAW. Will definitely check. Itβs been too long now I didnβt shoot a nightsky, I need to go in the countryside ASAP
One thing we didnβt mention is the importance of a sturdy tripod. I just bought a new one, not the best quality and cheap but still an upgrade; I have to try it by night.
Oh my I didnβt even realize that it was a public discussion. Not so much familiar with DA. I just followed you on Flickr btw. Β
Cheers man, keep up the very good work ! It would be cool to do some exploration when I come in the western area
π: 0 β©: 1
Β Sorry I left this comment for months man! Totally slipped my mind. Note me anytime if ya wanna chat or anything. I don't go on flickr toooo much but I'm on 500px now (and apparently doing not so bad there!)
π: 0 β©: 1
No prob man. I added you on 500 pix
I may be in the western part of Canada sooner than expected, if I find a nice camper van. Very excited to photograph (and paint) nature's beauties. I'll let you know, if you're interested.
π: 0 β©: 1
Haha yeah! My first day one of my photos got to 99.5 pulse. I was somewhat freaking out haha. Then I got kinda bummed when after 24 hours it dropped to 84 something. Then I realized that was normal and I actually like that after a certain time frame the pulse drops off for pretty much any photo. I have nothing to complain about! haha
π: 0 β©: 1
This is a good system indeed. Congrats for your high pulse (lol), you deserve it !
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you! By the way, what's your name on 500?
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh yeah right! Jean-Guilhem Bargues
π: 0 β©: 0
Have a 13x19 when you get home :3
π: 0 β©: 0
It's a falling star.
Pretty darned sure of it.
Nice picture.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is stunning!!! I've taken a few shots of the stars and milky way, but none of them look like this! The sky is always black, and you can't see the defined shapes or anything... I think I'm doing something wrong. I may try using the same settings you used for this photo tonight if it's clear. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Two things that really help with this type of photo are to get the image as bright as possible without going overboard, and giving it a generous contrast curve afterward. You'll get the shapes by letting enough light in, and the contrast curve will make them pop against the black of the night. You may need to darken the photo a bit as well. Good luck
π: 0 β©: 1
Sweet, thanks!
Hopefully the skies will clear up soon, it's been a few weeks and it's always raining.
Alaska weather sucks this time of year I swear. Anywho, thanks again!
π: 0 β©: 1
No problem, any questions I'll do my best to help.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hello there!
Your art is featured here
Have a really nice day
π: 0 β©: 0
This is spectacular. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Have fun and be persistent. It will pay off
π: 0 β©: 1
Will do. 
π: 0 β©: 0
It was an incredible night.
π: 0 β©: 0
I got a couple questions...
1. How did you focus the night sky? It's dark and I find that is very very hard to focus if there's no light
2. How did you find the the Milky Way? How can you see it? Like If I try to shoot a picture of the Milky Way it'll probably cut off a bit in my picture. I can see that you have captured the full view of the Milky Way. And that's very impressive.
π: 0 β©: 1
1. There are two main ways I set the focal point on the stars (infinity). One is just lining it up visually with the markers on the focusing ring readout. It's usually perfect unless you are shooting in cold (like below 0o Celsius). If you can't see it in the dark, bring a flashlight with a red filter if you can to look at your readings. I'll mention why you want it to be filtered red later. The other way is if your camera has a live view function that can zoom in for manual focusing (most recent DSLR's can do this, to 5x or 10x at least), you can find a bright distant object, like a bright star, a planet or a streetlight and use the focusing ring to get that point of light as small as possible in the live view, which should be right at your infinity focus point.
2. You have a much, much more epic view of the Milky Way in California than I do in Northern Canada. Be happy for that.
You don't need to wait that long. Five or ten minutes will more than do the trick. When ready...just look up. The Milky Way should be hard to miss.
Also, light from the "blue" end of the spectrum basically destroys the compound and it dissolves from the rods. Red light leaves it unaffected. So if you need a flashlight, as I said above, find a way to filter it deep red if you can't find one already red-tinted. :3
Putting the two together isn't as hard as it might seem either 
π: 0 β©: 2
So when will you be able to reply to my other message? Just wondering
π: 0 β©: 0
Thank you so much. I appreciate this long reply, but sorry I got another question for you...what do you mean by the "blue" end of the spectrum, and where am I suppose to shine the flashlight with a red filter over it? You said to look at my readings with it, what do you mean?
π: 0 β©: 2
Hey there Angela,
I'm reeeally sorry for taking so long to respond. I'm often very busy and things come up, not a good combination haha
Light has different energy levels, or wavelengths, and in the visible spectrum we can see that seven main colors of light compose what we call "visible" or white light. (you can see the effect of white light or sunlight being split, or diffracted as it's technically called, into the seven colors of the spectrum when you see a rainbow, or when you let let sunlight pass through a prism at the right angle.
The colors in order are red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. The higher energy light (green-blue and up) causes your night vision to diminish (if you held a flashlight filtered even deep blue your night vision would be destroyed and you would have to start again) so that's why it's important to use a red filtered one.
The point of bringing the light is just so you can see in general if you need a light.
On your lens you should be able to find, somewhere near your focusing ring, some numbers indicated in feet or meters or both, and some sort of line or marker near this readout to set the distance from your sensor you want the lens focus to be centered on. If you can't find it you should tell me what lens model you are using so I can show you.
In the dark, even with dark-adapted eyes, it can be hard to see the numbers and the focus line on your manual focus readout, so that's basically all the flashlight is for. It will let you see without blinding you, I guess is the short version, hahaha!
If there is anything else you need to know don't hesitate to ask...And sorry again for taking a while to respond. Life is crazy at the moment!
Thomas
π: 0 β©: 0
I typed another long reply, and then accidentally hit the wrong key and my browser went back and I lost it all! I think I scared the neighbors cause I cursed out loud...VERY LOUD. So...I'm still kinda pissed about that, but I promise I'll come back and do it up again once I'm over it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Alright lol, sorry about that and take your time.
π: 0 β©: 0
OMG! I love the photo! Can you give an advice how can i do something like this with canon, please?
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey there
π: 0 β©: 1
hello, sorry it was my friend's account as i didn't have my own.
Well i am really like photography and want to take some good pictures. I have Canon D600.
I was trying to set the camera to take some pictures of the sky....failed. I tried to set it on M and play with all the settings....never got any good result with that...
So maybe there are some standard settings for that kind of photos?
Thank you so much for responding. I really appreciate that
π: 0 β©: 0
Those aurora time lapse video are really cool
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey those aren't bad! You could bring out the milky way a little more with a light contrast adjustment if that suits your fancy, but I think they are good images just the way they are. Thank you
π: 0 β©: 1
I wait next clear sky, when i visit my parents land home
π: 0 β©: 1
I wish you luck, and would like to see it when you make new images with it!
π: 0 β©: 0
This is absolutely gorgeous. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks so much
π: 0 β©: 1
Unfortunately, there's too much light pollution where I live. If I ever did go somewhere that I could see such beauty, I would definitely need a better camera so I could capture it.
π: 0 β©: 1
mm
π: 0 β©: 1
Alas, I have a digital point-and-shoot camera right now. I would love to have a DSLR. If I had the funds, I would purchase a camera like yours. (I have always been fond of Canons.)
...Still, my camera has been good to me over the years. So, it's not a total bust.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, that's exactly how I started more or less
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree that you have to start somewhere.
Yes, that is also important. I definitely do have a blast with photography. I've messed with what little settings my camera offers to get different effects. I've been testing my camera's limits.
I'm interested in learning more. It's fascinating when you think about how far photography has come.
π: 0 β©: 0
absolutely breathtaking!!! I love it! this is amazing and you did an awesome job capturing it. i'm still new to photography, how do you do a time lapse photo like this???
π: 0 β©: 1
You basically need a DSLR that can take long exposures, a tripod and a wide angle lens. The higher sensitivity your camera can shoot at and still get usable images, the better! In a lot of cases it's as simple as finding the milky way and pointing your camera at it. It might take some trial and error to get the brightness correct, but that will get you started!
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you!!! 
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>