# first try on stars and milky way - any unedited shot samples?



## arioch82 (Sep 18, 2013)

Hi guys,

on the first weekend of october i'm going camping in joshua tree desert in southern california, for the occasion (and my upcoming birthday) i've bought the samyang 14mm f/2.8 and i would love to try to do some stars photography and possibly getting a glance at the milky way.

Having always lived in highly polluted areas I've never tried any kind of "astrophotography" before and i see all these beautiful images around... that maybe are too beautiful to be true without a lot help in post? 

I was wondering what kind of results you can get as a single shot (raw) straight out of the camera without any post-processing (even just stars, stills no trails), so when i see my images on the camera after the shot i can actually understand if i'm going the right way or not (I am a fan of the good old trial and error...); how many stars are actually visible? how many are just luminance noise for the high iso/long exposure?

Thank you all!


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

*Re: first try on stars and milky way - any unedit shot samples?*

Envious of you! I've not been there, but I will try to give you some tips.

You can google to find out how many stars you can see with the naked eye in that location for that time of year. A good photograph may show a bit more than the naked eye can see.

The main kind of noise you will be dealing with is color, or chrominance noise (not luminance)...and also "hot pixel" noise...for longer exposures at lower ISO. Also depends a bit on which camera and lens you will be using.

I recommend the 6D, coupled to whatever high quality, fast lens you can rent, or buy. I'm shopping for the same thing myself. Ideally an f/1.4 lens is best for noise, but not very good for sharpness. For an f/stop of 2, try ISO 800 to 1000...for 20 to 40 seconds shutter. Experiment to get the right exposure. For an f/2.8 lens, it will need to be ISO 3200 or higher, for 20 to 40 seconds. I've narrowed it down to two lenses for myself...either the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8, or the Sigma 24mm f/1.8. I don't want to spend more than these cost, and also don't want the manual Rokinon 24mm f/1.4. 

The 14mm f/2.8 Rokinon/Samyang/Bower that you have, is probably the best wide angle lens value there is, at around $300 (it's basically as sharp as the $3k Zeiss 15mm)...but I don't think I need a lens that wide, for myself. Also it's "only" f/2.8. But at that wide angle, you can probably get by with a 45 to 50 second exposure, so that is a plus.

For crop cameras, you can get "ok" results with Canon, and a bit better with Nikon and Sony. This is a compromise, though.


----------



## arioch82 (Sep 18, 2013)

thanks first of all 

and yeah i meant chrominance noise (no idea of why i wrote luminance).
i'm going to use my 5D MkII so up to 1600 i shouldn't have any problems, going over with the long exposures i'm a bit worried about the color noise... but i've seen incredible milky way shots made at 3200 with the 5D so it should be fine, i will do some experimentation for sure!
is it easy with stars to see what's a star and what is chroma noise?
I was thinking that maybe correcting for color noise is going to remove stars and not correcting enough is going to leave "too many stars"...
That's the main reason actually of why i was asking for unedited raws... do people normally "fake stars" leaving some chrominance noise to get a fuller sky?


----------



## dswtan (Sep 18, 2013)

You might find this useful, even if it's a 5D3 - I just added my "RAW" from my popular milky way shot on 500px, so you can see the relative amount of post processing required to make "art". http://500px.com/dswtan/stories -- it is the first one there. 

Lightshow I - RAW converted straight into JPG with default processing in Lightroom.
Lightshow II - some contrast and enhancements to bring out a more realistic (to me) look.
Lightshow III - the modern fashion is to be more dramatic and enhanced - I like it. This is how it *felt*!

Direct link: http://500px.com/dswtan/stories/1394220


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

arioch82 said:


> thanks first of all
> 
> and yeah i meant chrominance noise (no idea of why i wrote luminance).
> i'm going to use my 5D MkII so up to 1600 i shouldn't have any problems, going over with the long exposures i'm a bit worried about the color noise... but i've seen incredible milky way shots made at 3200 with the 5D so it should be fine, i will do some experimentation for sure!
> ...



It's very easy to tell the difference between stars and chrominance noise...because the stars usually make a short line (gets longer with longer exposure and also with distance from Polaris, the north star)...and the noise is perfectly round. Also the stars are generally close to white in color, usually with some longitudinal fringing around them (pink halos of chromatic aberration)...and nearer the corners...usually they get stretched a bit with coma distortion. Again, what stands out worst of all are the "hot pixels", which are bright purple and red spots at much higher intensity than the chrominance noise. The brighter stars appear much larger than they do to the naked eye or in binoculars, because the longer exposure lets them over-expose the area around them.

As for how many stars you're seeing...the part of the Milky Way we see, includes perhaps 40 billion stars or more. You don't see them individually...you see them all mashed together as a glow, which lights up warm brownish dust and gas...some of which obscures them...so it's like a big warm cloud with irregular dark areas in it.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 18, 2013)

dswtan said:


> You might find this useful, even if it's a 5D3 - I just added my "RAW" from my popular milky way shot on 500px, so you can see the relative amount of post processing required to make "art". http://500px.com/dswtan/stories -- it is the first one there.
> 
> Lightshow I - RAW converted straight into JPG with default processing in Lightroom.
> Lightshow II - some contrast and enhancements to bring out a more realistic (to me) look.
> ...



Nice job, although the last image is a tad overdone...looks like single shot HDR processing...I can see a false contrast halo around the mountain where it meets the sky.


----------



## SwnSng (Sep 18, 2013)

Was there this summer. Try going on a new moon or close to one. We didn't so it wasn't as spectacular but still a great place regardless.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 18, 2013)

dswtan said:


> You might find this useful, even if it's a 5D3 - I just added my "RAW" from my popular milky way shot on 500px, so you can see the relative amount of post processing required to make "art". http://500px.com/dswtan/stories -- it is the first one there.
> 
> Lightshow I - RAW converted straight into JPG with default processing in Lightroom.
> Lightshow II - some contrast and enhancements to bring out a more realistic (to me) look.
> ...



Just started looking at your links..pretty cool.

Curious...how did you get the two bright stars *on *the mountain on the right side?


----------



## nitelife2 (Sep 18, 2013)

Buy a white(!) water resistent textmarker. Use your 14mm in bright daylight and focus to infinity at f/2.8. Mark that point with the textmarker on your focus ring! In the night you dont have a chance to focus with that lens! (the infinity marker from samyang on the lens does not work).


----------



## dswtan (Sep 19, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Curious...how did you get the two bright stars *on *the mountain on the right side?


Thanks for the kind words, cayenne and CarlTN!

The "stars" on the mountainside are the LED headlamps of climbers, early in their summit attempts for the coming day ahead. You can see more here, faintly, near the top, snaking their way up: http://500px.com/photo/11734889


----------



## cayenne (Sep 19, 2013)

dswtan said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Curious...how did you get the two bright stars *on *the mountain on the right side?
> ...


Wow!!

That is just too cool!!

I'm hoping to try some of this type photography myself soon...I have the Rokinon 14mm, I want to give it a try for night sky shooting soon.

C


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Sep 19, 2013)

Wow, I've never really done any star photography but looking at all these pics makes me want to try it. I have the 16-35mm so I'll have to see how that does.


----------



## preppyak (Sep 19, 2013)

arioch82 said:


> I was wondering what kind of results you can get as a single shot (raw) straight out of the camera without any post-processing (even just stars, stills no trails), so when i see my images on the camera after the shot i can actually understand if i'm going the right way or not (I am a fan of the good old trial and error...); how many stars are actually visible? how many are just luminance noise for the high iso/long exposure?


As a few examples have shown, you'll definitely know if you got it right from your LCD. I always use the same lens and am within a few days of a new moon, so I can fairly reliably use the same settings for every shot. For me, it's always (at 11mm on a 60D) 30s at f/2.8 and ISO1600. If I was using a 5dII, I might also try those same settings at ISO3200, to get the stars and milky way to pop more.

You'll definitely have to do some processing to really get the saturation and lighting right...but, it should be pretty clear in your display that you have the milky way and stars. Otherwise you'll have to raise the exposure 2+ EV, and it'll look awful

Also, if you are dealing with a new moon, you'll like either need to light paint your foreground, or shoot a separate exposure. Sometimes its a 2-3min exposure needed to make it look good


----------



## arioch82 (Sep 19, 2013)

Thanks guys for all your beautiful advices 

dswtan that unprocessed raw of the milky way is really what i was looking for, thanks and congratulation for that beautiful shot!

nitelife2 that textmarker advice is great, i haven't really thought of that, thanks!

I have double checked and the next new moon is going to be exactly that weekend i'm going to the desert, what a lucky coincidence, can't wait for it!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 19, 2013)

Didn't read all the comments in detail, but you will also need a good, sturdy tripod and a remote shutter release if you're going to go longer than 30s exposure.

Sturdy tripod is self-explanitory. You don't have to spend $1500 (unless you want to), and you can always rent.

Remote shutter release is needed because I believe the maximum time for Canon is 30s exposures. If you want longer, you need to use Bulb mode, which means you need to hold down the shutter button. Not ideal, however most/all wired remote shutter will have a 'lock' which lets you keep it open without needing to hold the button down. Or if you get one of the fancier ones it'll allow for an appropriate time without you need to release the button after counting using your watch.

Last, use Mirror Lockup, and ideally the long exposure subtraction which will take a 2nd shot of the same length but without opening the shutter in order to subtract generated noise from the exposed image. Of course, it'll be 2x the length of time.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 19, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Didn't read all the comments in detail, but you will also need a good, sturdy tripod and a remote shutter release if you're going to go longer than 30s exposure.
> 
> Sturdy tripod is self-explanitory. You don't have to spend $1500 (unless you want to), and you can always rent.
> 
> ...



Can you expand on this last part you posted? How do you take a picture and not open the shutter? How do you subtract it?

Thanks in advance!!

C


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 19, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't read all the comments in detail, but you will also need a good, sturdy tripod and a remote shutter release if you're going to go longer than 30s exposure.
> ...



Canon calls this Long exp. noise reduction (I believe). Just turn it on, and the camera should automatically do it for you. The LCD will just say "wait" or something like that after you hear the shutter close at the end of the exposure.

You can do it manually yourself, although you'll need to just put the lens cap over the lens in order to capture that 2nd frame. The technique is called Dark Field Subtraction. You can google it if you like to read more.

EDIT: This seems to be a pretty decent description complete with sample images and workflow if you want to do it yourself.


----------



## cayenne (Sep 19, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Drizzt321 said:
> ...



Wow..interesting!! I learn something new every day!!


I'll give this a google and some reading..thanx for the info!!

C


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 19, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > cayenne said:
> ...



In case you missed it, check out the link from my previous comment, http://photo.net/learn/dark_noise/.


----------



## arioch82 (Sep 19, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Didn't read all the comments in detail, but you will also need a good, sturdy tripod and a remote shutter release if you're going to go longer than 30s exposure.
> 
> Sturdy tripod is self-explanitory. You don't have to spend $1500 (unless you want to), and you can always rent.
> 
> ...



Hi Drizzt321,

I have a manfrotto 055CXPro3 with an Acratech ultimate ballhead, never tried exposures that long but i think i should be fine?

That link about the long exposure noise reduction seems like a great read, thanks!


----------



## emag (Sep 20, 2013)

With my 60D or astro-modified 40D, I find I can manually focus using a bright star and 10x magnification in LiveView. At Joshua Tree you should also be able to get some wonderful time lapses. My biggest blunders included not realizing I'd moved the focus ring and shooting a wonderfully OOF sequence. I *can't* recommend that! 20-30 seconds at 1600ISO should work fine as a starting point. If you're taking individual shots, long exposure noise reduction can help, but it eats up valuable dark sky time. Be sure to post some of your images after your trip! (meaning....I'm really interested in how that RokSamBow 14mm performs. I have the Tokina 11-16, but that lens interests me.) 

FWIW, these are a couple of guides I threw together for my astronomy club friends, for some simple prettification of astro images. More for telephoto/telescope shots but I've used them for wide field shots in more light polluted areas. Here is a sample of the difference taken 10 years ago on like the third day after I bought a Digital Rebel (300D).

Before: http://www.pbase.com/emagowan/image/21459259
After: http://www.pbase.com/image/21459102

http://www.pbase.com/emagowan/processing

http://www.pbase.com/emagowan/processing_with_gimp


----------



## Drizzt321 (Sep 20, 2013)

arioch82 said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't read all the comments in detail, but you will also need a good, sturdy tripod and a remote shutter release if you're going to go longer than 30s exposure.
> ...



I'd say that's probably a pretty sturdy tripod, unless you overload it of course. You can also hang a small weight/bag so that it's putting most of the weight on the tripod in order to help dampen out any vibrations from wind. Don't know if there's a small hook on the bottom of the center column like there is on my Benro, but you can always rig up a something from the a piece of string/rope to something that has some decent weight.

If you don't want to go to that trouble, you'll almost certainly be find unless you have a strong and/or gusting wind conditions.


----------



## emag (Sep 20, 2013)

Regarding remote shutter release or timer remote, you could install Magic Lantern and have that capability without additional hardware.


----------

