Photographisers, a question

[smegballs]

https://i.imgur.com/e3BFhur.jpg

Am I correct in thinking you can only get these lush milkway pics with a very long exposure? I've been to really remote places, and although the sky has a lot more visible, nothing on this scale. Maybe light pollution is really just that pervasive?

Ie, even if there was zero light pollution, you wouldn't be able to see such cool pics with the naked eye. Thus the pic (altho cool) is a load of bollocks.

[clancy]

You need a long exposure, a low f stop and high iso
____________________
KLX 300r

[Lord Percy]

I think this is bullshit. When you're in an aeroplane you don't see such beautiful sights, even though you're quite a way up in the atmosphere and are often nowhere near zones of light pollution.

Your eyes will never see something like that anyway because of the layout of the rods and cones at the back. I don't know much about it, but the best way to explain it is - Look at a fairly starry night and you'll find that when you look directly at some stars they disappear, and you can only see them if you look a couple centimetres to one side. That's to do with the rods and cones in your eyes, and is a reason why we'll never be able to see the night sky as well as a proper telescope or camera with the correct exposure settings.

@Clancy - the only thing you truly need is a long exposure. High ISO can just make it grainy, and low f-stop just makes it harder to focus. The perfect photo would be with a super high f-stop and an uber long exposure, and if you wanna get super tech, set it up on a mechanical thing that moves precisely with the spin of the earth so everything stays in position. Then you could set your f-stop to crazy high to get absolutely everything in focus and have a shutter speed of a good half hour or so. It's just an 'intelligent guess' but I reckon that's what space telescopes probably do too.

Image of rods and cones here:

https://starizona.com/acb/ccd/advimages/eye01.gif

Rods are more sensitive but don't see in colour. So when you aren't looking directly at something, your rods still detect the light. Hence if you look directly at a star the cones fail, but if you look a bit away from it the rods detect it.

tl;dr - Human eyes will never be able to see something as epic as the photo suggests. At least not over those cities. Probably nowhere in the countryside either. (Probably).

[clancy]

Yeah I high iso can, bit of trial and error really, equipment obviously makes a difference


And yeah that would be perfect but I don't have a crazy automated thing would be cool though

I agree I don't think it's possible to see with the naked eye at all
____________________
KLX 300r

[oldpink]

I do Astro Photography
the photo above is what the sky would look like without light pollution

Astro photography isn't easy but you can do it with a decent DSLR and a telephoto lens
but for anything decent you need a tracking mount that tracks the movement of the stars

exposure times go from 10s to 900s or even longer using two scopes and two camera's
one doing the actual imaging and the other is tracking a star using software to correct the mount position constantly

you can still see the Milky Way if you get far enough away from city's and you can still get great shots of the Stars
but in the city's these days your lucky to see the brightest stars
or the major planets
which a lot of people often mistake for bright stars

Saturn looks like a bright star low in the southern sky just now
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR

[stinkwheel]

[oldpink]

LP is a real issue that we all live with but don't even realize

this is a 60 second exposure the orange / yellow is the LP
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR

[oldpink]

this is what you can go with a camera and a telescope

not mine but just shows what you can do
____________________
I have become comfortably numb

Theory & hazard 24-may 2016, CBT 8th June 2016, MOD 1 2nd Aug 2016 Mod 2 2nd-Nov 2016 - Current bike CBR 600 RR

[Lord Percy]

[slowlydoesit]

[weasley]

Point for debate then... why do all the images from the moon landing show inky black 'skies' with little evidence of stars and such? Is it just due to short exposures not capturing any detail in the sky? Same for images of space walks from the shuttle etc.
____________________
Yamaha XJ600 | Yamaha YZF600R Thundercat | KTM 990 SMT | BMW F900XR TE

[Tungtvann]

[The Wobbly Orange]

These days the best place to see that with the naked eye is at sea
____________________
People tell me I am lovely. How wrong they are!

[stinkwheel]

[Lord Percy]

[orac]

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7391/9988354116_6aee197e5c_b.jpg
Night ban Complete_edited-1 by f2268d215cc925918731918f4efa0289, on Flickr

this was taken on the 09/09/13 and 02:44 with a nikon d50 set to iso 1600 using a kit 18-55 at 18mm f3.5, 30 sec exposure. this is actually a stitch and there is paralax errors in the centre. it was taken standing on the gorge dam of burrator reservoir.

with that in mind i can get the same results from my d7100 with the same lense, iso, and fstop but with onlt a 15sec exposure.

so is it possible to see the milky, i would think it is. can you see that many stars with the naked eye, i would think so - i am not going to count them to find out for sure.

as for the moon, the moon is very bright, if you get the stars in the back ground, the moon would be over exposed, unless you used HDR - take 2 or more shots of different exposure (one for the moon, one for the stars) then combine them you would get what you are looking for
____________________
Current rides - 2016 Triumph Street Triple Rx, 1994 Suzuki Bandit 400 VM, TGB 204 Classic 125cc
"with nothing left to lose, there is everything to gain. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"

[andy_uk]

Somebody mention the Milky Way?
This was taken a couple of miles out of Scarborough.
3 (or 4) images stitched.
ISO3200 (too high really, but I needed it to reduce the exposure time due to not having a tracking mount with me)
f/4
30s
18mm lens

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3686/11984249074_d92a9eb341.jpgMilky Way - Oct 2013 by andyy_uk, on Flickr


As for a basic tracking mount...I'm tempted to knock one of these up :
https://www.garyseronik.com/?q=node/52
____________________
Aprilia Classic 125, GS500E, ER5-A1, ER5-C4, ER6 & an XJ6 project frame...

[orac]

how do you find other objects in the feild of veiw are when using the moving mount, or doe it no move fast enough foe there to be an issue.

i may consider making a tracking mount at some point
____________________
Current rides - 2016 Triumph Street Triple Rx, 1994 Suzuki Bandit 400 VM, TGB 204 Classic 125cc
"with nothing left to lose, there is everything to gain. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog"

[Islander]

The Earth's rotation is surprisingly fast (roughly 15 degrees an hour) . With a wide angle lens you'll get away with around 30s of exposure before you start to see noticeable star trails appearing.

You can't use a tracking mount if you're including landscape or cityscape as it will cause them to blur. The trick is to use as high an ISO as you can get away with (a decent camera will cope with 1600 or so without too much noise), as wide a stop as your lens will give and as long an exposure as possible. Most cheap lenses don't open up that much - what you really want is a good quality fast lens that will open up to f2.8 or better.

[Islander]

Double post

[KLR600]

My friend took this photo at my wedding:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/serenaur/_MG_3278_zps74943759.jpg

It was a 30 second exposure and he used a strobe to light us. We're a bit blurred because we were a bit drunk and couldn't stand still for 30 seconds. You could clearly see the milky way with the naked eye and I have seen it loads of times in North Wales, granted he's done a bit of a levels tweak in photoshop on that photo but it was definitely very clearly visible with the naked eye. You can see some light pollution sneaking in from a nearby town on the left though.
____________________
Now: '00 Kawasaki ZRX1100R - Past: '84 Yamaha DT125, '89 Kawasaki KLR600, '97 Yamaha XJ600N
<My Bikepics Page> <My Yootoobes> <My Websites> <My Photos>
<Take Cool Photos!>

[_Will_]

Yes with no light pollution and clear skies it would be very similar to what you would see.

https://www.samhurdphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/09-stars-night-portrait-bride-and-groom-csta-rica.jpg

https://www.samhurdphotography.com/2013/destination-wedding/britney-wedding-terence-nosara-costa-rica

https://ryanbrenizer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Group-0-pano-140417-212228-24mm_f1.4_pano-140417-213041-24mm_f1.4-10-images1.jpg

https://ryanbrenizer.com/2014/04/the-cove-eleuthera-night-sky/
____________________
Past -Honda qr50 | 2004 Peugeot Tkr s 50| | 1996 Yamaha XJ600s Diversion|

[oldpink]