# Spiral Arm of the Milky Way above the Texas Desert



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

Finally got somewhere dark enough worth shooting some long exposures. So we headed an hour east of Lubbock, Texas, to where it is virtually pitch black. The moon was 1 day past new so it was ideal. Only thing that could have been better was the time of year, the brightest part of the Milky Way is only visible during the summer (in the Northern Hemisphere anyways). And it was in the 20's with wind chills near zero, but for 5 hours me and a buddy shot almost nonstop. I shot a time lapse with the 5D3/14LII/Dynamic Perception Stage Zero dolly, still working on that. Set up my friend with the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8/5D2, adjusted settings and he took it from there and actually got some great shots. I was shooting with another 5D3/24LII and 16-35mm f/2.8. Keep in mind these are individual exposures, most of the really insane pictures of the Milky Way you see are a bunch of stacked exposures, but I don't have a tracking mount yet so I couldn't do that.

Here are a couple of ones I liked from the first batch of shots I processed:

24mm f/1.4L @ f/2, ISO3200, 20 Seconds (That little bright disc to the left is a Galaxy!)






16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 22mm, f/2.8, 30 seconds (Little bit too long for focal length, but it turned out ok)





I know alot of astronomy buffs may be sickened by these, but the general public love shots that look like this. It was a learning experience and I'm thrilled to have had the chance to finally get some shots like these. I'm going back in the summer since that's when the brightest part of the Milky Way is visible.


Edit: I posted these a few pages up, figured I'd move them here:

16-35L II, ISO3200, f/2.8, 30 seconds (Used a Night Sky preset and exported to show you, post processing a bit too much for me, but you get the idea).





Here is one with nothing in the foreground, so kinda boring, but lot of cool stuff is visible
24LII, ISO3200, f/2, 20 seconds.


----------



## RobertG. (Jan 22, 2013)

Hi,
Thank you for these great shots! I'm living in the largest city of central Europe (Berlin) and so I never saw the Milky Way myself. It never get's dark enough here.... No village or town is further can dozen miles away


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 22, 2013)

Absolutely beautiful shots! 

20 seconds, hey? That's all it takes to get all the stars like that without a dolly?


----------



## skullyspice (Jan 22, 2013)

as a member of the general public, I say fantastic!
I would love to try this but its hard to find any dark sky here in L.A.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 22, 2013)

Very nice. The galaxy especially.

So the top picture is off a fixed tripod and not on a equitorial mount? Is 20 secs not long enough to produce star trails?


----------



## serendipidy (Jan 22, 2013)

Beautiful...I'd love to take some photos like that.


----------



## Faxon (Jan 22, 2013)

Wonderful use of a 24mm lens for astronomy photos. Now I want that lens.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

R1-7D said:


> Absolutely beautiful shots!
> 
> 20 seconds, hey? That's all it takes to get all the stars like that without a dolly?



Not sure what you mean about the dolly, I guess maybe you're referring to a tracking mount? Yeah this is what you get from 20 seconds when it's pitch black, that's the crucial part.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

skullyspice said:


> as a member of the general public, I say fantastic!
> I would love to try this but its hard to find any dark sky here in L.A.



Thank you very much! Yes LA is littered with light pollution as is Atlanta (where I am). But lucky for you, you are much closer to dark skies than I am, pretty much the entire state of Nevada is pitch black, as is Utah. Take a road trip, it's absolutely worth it! Just make sure you go when there is a new moon!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

Faxon said:


> Wonderful use of a 24mm lens for astronomy photos. Now I want that lens.



Thanks! Yes it's great to have a lens that fast but that wide. At the same time when you shoot wide open the stars on one side will start to turn into a weird shape, it even did it a bit on this one (at f/2) on the right side. But it's still an amazing lens for all kinds of stuff!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> Very nice. The galaxy especially.
> 
> So the top picture is off a fixed tripod and not on a equitorial mount? Is 20 secs not long enough to produce star trails?



Yes, they are both just static tripod shots. I had a motion controlled time lapse running separately with my 14L that was doing 30 sec exposures, but the way that works is that it shoots, moves a fraction of an inch, then shoots again. 

As for the star trails, you divide the focal length by 600 (some say 500 just to be safe) and that's the number of seconds you can do before the stars start to turn into a oblong shape. So:

600/24 = 25, so max exposure for 24mm is 25 seconds.
600/14 = 42.85, so you can go really long with a 14mm before the stars start turning into trails

Of course with a tracking mount you can do 5 minute exposures, or multiple exposures and then stack them (that's how you get really crazy results).


The key is getting somewhere with no light pollution. I mean where I was there wasn't a major city for miles. I could see more with my own eyes than I could in pictures I took in the southeast (even after processing!). You could see the faint outline of the spiral arm with the naked eye, it was breathtaking.


----------



## emag (Jan 22, 2013)

Hmmmmmm.....might want to check your AFMA. You seem to be front focusing a parsec or two..... 

Excellent work, I'm jealous of those skies. I have 5 scopes, two cameras (one Ha modified), several equatorial mounts and a home made slider.....and the Florida panhandle hasn't had two clear nights in succession since mid-November....particularly on weekends! Sheesh - I should probably drop the whole astrophotography thing and take up needlepoint.


----------



## Mr Bean (Jan 22, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Faxon said:
> 
> 
> > Wonderful use of a 24mm lens for astronomy photos. Now I want that lens.
> ...


Beaut pic's. I've been trying a similar thing with the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. The Canon 24 1.4 suffers from coma (around the edges) when used wide open, as you have suggested. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to get one


----------



## BrettS (Jan 22, 2013)

Nice. Thanks for posting. Interesting to hear your techniques. I'd like to try this some day.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 22, 2013)

emag said:


> Hmmmmmm.....might want to check your AFMA. You seem to be front focusing a parsec or two.....



*chuckle* I am sure some pixel peeping measurbators thought you were bein' serious.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 22, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Yes, they are both just static tripod shots.



I live in an urban environment in the snowbelt... I can only dream of nights like that. But occationally I see the easy Orion constellation... will give the nebula a go with the 100L for ~6 secs and see. It should be an easy target.

Of course forcast is always nice in January, you don't have to even look it up: "Cloudy"or "Overcast" or "Snow" or "Blizzard". :


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 22, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> Beaut pic's. I've been trying a similar thing with the Zeiss 21mm f2.8. The Canon 24 1.4 suffers from coma (around the edges) when used wide open, as you have suggested. But that doesn't stop me from wanting to get one



Thanks! And I thought it was called coma but second guessed myself at the last minute. You can see some on the right side of the first picture (and that was at f/2!). The ZE 21mm does an excellent job and has absolutely no coma whatsoever (and you can expose for up to 28/29 seconds vs the 25s of the 24mm). I was letting my buddy use that lens (he's relatively inexperienced) and adjusted the settings on the 5D2 for him and it was just point and shoot from there, and he got some AWESOME pics. 

Only tricky part really is framing when it's pitch black outside, it's pretty difficult, especially considering the camera is usually very low and pointing up. Ideally I would have liked to scout the location during the day but didn't have the opportunity, but I'm still pretty happy with the results. I would have loved to have had the time lapse running upward towards the road sign in the 2nd pic, with the sign gradually getting bigger and the spiral arm passing in the background, but I didn't even notice the sign until a few hours into shooting (that's how dark it was!).


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

emag said:


> Hmmmmmm.....might want to check your AFMA. You seem to be front focusing a parsec or two.....
> 
> Excellent work, I'm jealous of those skies. I have 5 scopes, two cameras (one Ha modified), several equatorial mounts and a home made slider.....and the Florida panhandle hasn't had two clear nights in succession since mid-November....particularly on weekends! Sheesh - I should probably drop the whole astrophotography thing and take up needlepoint.



Go to the Indian Pass Peninsula! It's one of the few places in the southeast I found with a "black" rated dark sky. It's maybe an hour east of Panama City if I remember correctly. My family has a place inbetween Panama City and Destin off 30A and I have been trying to plan a trip to that peninsula next time I'm there. In the summer the brightest part of the Milky Way is the most visible, and you would be shooting South with nothing but ocean in front of you! Can't be that far from you if you're in the panhandle, go next new moon, it's totally worth it!


Here is the light pollution in that area:




Apalachicola National Forest is where you would want to go, except closer to the 98 sign underneath it, as close to the ocean as possible.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

For those of you looking for dark skies, this light pollution map is great:
http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2010

I put a screen shot of where I was, specifically between Plainview and Childress. For comparison, the second shot is of Georgia.


----------



## RomanRacela (Jan 23, 2013)

@Axilrod - What was your ISO when you shot these? Was the moon out? If it was, what phase of the moon was it? I'm not sure if having moonlight is important so the foreground illuminated a bit. I too have had difficulty focusing at night.


----------



## BPLOL (Jan 23, 2013)

Long time reader, first time poster. Awesome shots. Just awesome!

Thank you for the tips! I must try it someday.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

RomanRacela said:


> @Axilrod - What was your ISO when you shot these? Was the moon out? If it was, what phase of the moon was it? I'm not sure if having moonlight is important so the foreground illuminated a bit. I too have had difficulty focusing at night.



It's at ISO3200 in both. It was a new moon, but this month was weird, there was no completely full moon, the 11th and 12th just had like a 5% moon, but never was truly new (here: http://www.moonconnection.com/moon-january-2013.phtml).

But I suppose you could use a slight bit of moonlight to your advantage, or you can easily light the foreground with MINIMAL light, I mean even a single tiny LED could light the entire thing with these kind of exposure times. For example, in the shot with the van below, that red/green light inside is actually the little green led on a Macbook Pro charger, and a red LED on a phone charger. Pretty crazy huh? The bright red light in the bottom left corner is the LED on the back of the 5D3 that was doing the time lapse.


16-35L II, ISO3200, f/2.8, 30 seconds (Used a Night Sky preset and exported to show you, post processing a bit too much for me, but you get the idea).






Here is one with nothing in the foreground, so kinda boring, but lot of cool stuff is visible
24LII, ISO3200, f/2, 20 seconds.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> For those of you looking for dark skies, this light pollution map is great:
> http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2010



Great link--thanks!!


----------



## AmbientLight (Jan 23, 2013)

@Axilrod: Thank you for the useful tips. I would love to take shots like that. I especially like the first one.

My only serious problem is that I happen to be almost constantly in densely populated areas with massive light polution, so seeing the milky way like this just doesn't happen. Should I ever happen to get to a reasonably empty area at least now I know the settings to use.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> @Axilrod: Thank you for the useful tips. I would love to take shots like that. I especially like the first one.
> 
> My only serious problem is that I happen to be almost constantly in densely populated areas with massive light polution, so seeing the milky way like this just doesn't happen. Should I ever happen to get to a reasonably empty area at least now I know the settings to use.



Yeah it's all about getting somewhere dark enough and at the right time of the month. I shot some in Oregon in August (where it is pretty damn dark) and there was a half or quarter moon and the pics turned out nothing like this at all. Even if you drive just an hour or so outside of your city it will be a big improvement, shooting in pretty much any city is almost pointless. I wish I had been in New York during the blackouts, that would have been AMAZING!

I used to see pictures of the Milky Way and think that the people were doing something magical and amazing and doing crazy post processing (which in some cases they were), either way it seemed like it was very hard to do. And in some respects it is, but honestly finding dark enough skies is really 90% of it. Like I said, my buddy that has pretty much no experience got some amazing pictures after I adjusted the settings for him. 

And if you have a Mark III (or even a Mark II) go ISO 3200, wide open or close to it, and do 600/focal length to determine the maximum exposure you can use before the stars start to blur. Some people do 500/focal length to be safe. And with the ISO you may want to use 1600 if you're only in a medium dark area. 

Oh and this one people forget alot, *TAPE OVER THE VIEWFINDER*! Or use the piece on your neck strap that is designed to go over it (but is difficult to get on and doesn't seem to work very well). Stray light can enter the viewfinder.

*Other tips I learned from this experience and past research:*
•Use a remote trigger when possible
•Focusing - Get in live view, punch in 10x and move the focus ring close to the infinity mark. You'll see stars come into focus and should be able to eyeball the sweet spot.
•Use Mirror Lockup and Silent Shooting (SS only if you have a Mark III)
•Turn off all in-camera noise reduction
•Tape over viewfinder
•White balance is debatable, but I shot these at 2800K as a starting point. Daylight balanced will make it look yellowish/red. 2800 may look a bit too blue initially, but it's a good point to make adjustments from.
•Take off the neck strap, heavy winds can cause enough movement to screw with the image.
•Be prepared to deal with the environment. Me and a buddy almost used an entire box of 24 hand, toe, and body warmers. Also, get some lights that will shine red, so if you have a time lapse or something going you can turn on the light without worrying about it picking up as much as normal light.


----------



## eml58 (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod, great Photos & appreciate the posting, this is the reason I like this site, I do a lot of Photography in Africa, mostly wildlife, but this is something I've been thinking on for a while, with your great Post here I'll give it a go in March when I'm back in Botswana. Thanks


----------



## RomanRacela (Jan 23, 2013)

@ Axilrod - thanks for the info. I'll definitely try your tips.

I was in Death Valley last month just before Christmas and was thinking of shooting some Milky Way stuff at Racetrack Playa but the temp was in the 20s and I just couldn't hack the cold. I just ended up shooting some sunrise and sunsets there. Plus, like you said, the Milky Way's bulging disc in the middle wasn't visible so it looked a bit odd to me and didn't give me any extra motivation to stay up. I'll go back there in late spring or early summer and maybe I'll take home with me a Milky Way image.

Here's one from that trip.


----------



## rpt (Jan 23, 2013)

One word: *Stellar!*

Thanks for the tips.


----------



## 20Dave (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Keep in mind these are individual exposures, most of the really insane pictures of the Milky Way you see are a bunch of stacked exposures, but I don't have a tracking mount yet so I couldn't do that.
> 
> I know alot of astronomy buffs may be sickened by these, but the general public love shots that look like this. It was a learning experience and I'm thrilled to have had the chance to finally get some shots like these. I'm going back in the summer since that's when the brightest part of the Milky Way is visible.



A few quick comments:
1) Excellent photos! I love the colors and the contrast. 
2) I'm somewhere between "general public" and "astronomy buff" (closer to the latter in visual experience and knowledge, but a newbie in terms of astrophotography skills and experience), and I can assure you that nobody would be sickened by these. For starters, this is precisely the right way to start taking nighttime images. And these are phenomenal regardless of how long you've been doing it.
3) You can actually stack photos without tracking, although you might need to do a little photoshop work with the landscape. There is stacking software that takes into account the movement of stars, both lateral and rotation.

And, it is possible to stretch images and sqeeze data out of even relatively short exposure images. Here is an image that I took a number of years ago of Comet 17P-Holmes on a tripod, only 4 seconds exposure at ISO 3200, 200mm @ f/2.8 with a 20D. Not eye-popping by any means, but just showing what you can capture in just a few seconds at a longer focal length (8 seconds started showing exaggerated star trails).






Keep 'em coming!

Regards,
Dave


----------



## dafrank (Jan 23, 2013)

*Don't just shoot; look and really see.*

To the OP: thanks for posting those literally awesome pictures.

I feel like I should share something else about the night sky to those who might be interested. Just go to a really dark place as some on here have advocated, and, if you're a city or suburban bred person, _just look_. When one hasn't seen it before, it is a revelatory experience like few others you may have in your lifetime.

I grew up in the LA area and then on Long Island - near NYC - and then settled in the suburbs around Detroit. I had never thought much about the night sky at all, except that it was a little better to sleep with less light coming through my widow than during the day.

I remember, when I was about 26 years old, going with an old girlfriend to visit her artist friend who lived in the woods, waaaaay off the beaten track, in the vast empty Michigan Upper Peninsula, in a couple of small sandwiched together mobile homes with the adjoining walls broken down to form a sort of fiberglass and plastic hillbilly castle. We all three sat on the steps leading up to his doorway one chilly November night, and I, certainly not expecting much, had a near religious experience when I looked up to see what seemed to be literally millions of visible stars. I was shocked, astounded. I just silently sat there, open mouthed, and stared for over an hour and a half without uttering a sound. Wow!

I repeated that same experience when out working in the deserts of California, Arizona and Utah. Shooting cars at sunup and sundown brought me to places where light pollution was almost non-existent. Sometimes, when setting up for a dawn shot, we would work on the cars and camera positions until just after the end of "nautical" dusk and then stay the night in vehicles or in sleeping bags until the just-before-dawn call time. My whole crew would typically barbeque some food, drink beer and then smell the occasional burning cigar or wafting bouquet of an assistant's trusty blunt break up the nearly perfect lack of anything from the city . After scaring the new guys with tales of scorpions and rattlers under the tarps and hearing an occasional coyote or other small critter break the otherwise eerie silence, we would all look into the sky and see the miracle of the universe right there before us, in the real world 3-D that makes those plastic glasses and Imax screens seem puny and uninteresting. I kind of wished that someone of us could play some mournful tune on an old harmonica, just to compliment what I felt were the faint voices in the desert wind of the ghosts of all those lonely cowboys of the American West who really had lived under the stars and loved it so much that they stayed living there, in the insufferable deserts and on the desolate prairies, as long as "progress" allowed.

Sometimes, pictures are not enough. Sometimes, you should just put down the camera, to not just record the world, but to live in it. The brilliantly adorned night sky, as countless generations of our long past forbears in song, story and legend saw it, is one excuse to sometimes do just that.

Regards,
David


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

RomanRacela said:


> @ Axilrod - thanks for the info. I'll definitely try your tips.
> 
> I was in Death Valley last month just before Christmas and was thinking of shooting some Milky Way stuff at Racetrack Playa but the temp was in the 20s and I just couldn't hack the cold. I just ended up shooting some sunrise and sunsets there. Plus, like you said, the Milky Way's bulging disc in the middle wasn't visible so it looked a bit odd to me and didn't give me any extra motivation to stay up. I'll go back there in late spring or early summer and maybe I'll take home with me a Milky Way image.
> 
> Here's one from that trip.



Awesome picture man, yeah some night shots from there would have been sick!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

20Dave said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > Keep in mind these are individual exposures, most of the really insane pictures of the Milky Way you see are a bunch of stacked exposures, but I don't have a tracking mount yet so I couldn't do that.
> ...



Thanks for the info! That's good to know, I didn't realize that stacking software could do that. I'm looking into telescopes now, there are so many options it's kind of overwhelming. And that pic makes me wish I had some longer lenses, nice shot.


----------



## sach100 (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod - Great pictures! especially the one with the van.

I think your tip on removing the neck strap is very valid - it messed up my first attempt at star trails.

But during my later attempts i used the rubbery thing in the neck strap to cover the viewfinder.


----------



## emag (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Go to the Indian Pass Peninsula!



I'm in Pensacola, my astronomy club's dark site is in Blackwater River State forest, VERY nice in winter and about a 55 mile drive. I do astronomy outreach for scout groups that have a campground farther into Blackwater Forest, spectacular skies and very stable air. I frequently head to Gulf Islands National Seashore and nearby Big Lagoon State Park, they're both very close and dark towards the Gulf, not too shabby overhead. Our summer skies are very hit and miss and any location is a serious mosquito feed on summer evenings - August is particularly useless, miserable humid and perpetual thunderstorms. We do somewhat of a 'sidewalk astronomy' gaze at Pensacola Beach two nights per month in the warmer weather, near first quarter moon. Lots of light pollution but with a modified camera and LPR filters it's surprising what can be picked out. Meet a lot of interesting folks from all over who come for a few weeks.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

Thanks for the compliments folks. Just thought of something else. When it's pitch black framing can be very difficult, but try to get it as close as you can on the first try. Shooting 30 second exposures means you can only take a couple pictures a minute at most, so you're not going to end up with as many images as you're used to getting, so try and make them count! Just one more reason to scout the location during the day whenever possible.

Oh, for anyone looking for a way to check out what is going to be where in the night sky, *Stellarium *(http://www.stellarium.org) is an awesome free application for that. You put in your exact location, and can pick any date and time and it will show you exactly what will be in the sky and you can simulate what you'll see at any speed over any amount of time. It's a must have!


----------



## emag (Jan 23, 2013)

These were shot from VERY light polluted Pensacola Beach during a public stargaze. Before and after gussying up to counter the light pollution. They were taken with a modified 40D using a Sigma 70-200 at 200/2.8. You can pick up a T3i for a song now and have it modified for astro work. Plop it on an equatorial mount with a drive and you have a setup that can do some amazing work. The camera is on my grab and go astrophoto setup. The tripod and drive base are from an old scope that I have since mated to a much better computerized mount. Nothing fancy but it does the job and fits neatly in my motorcyle sidecar when I don't feel like lugging the big guns.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

emag said:


> These were shot from VERY light polluted Pensacola Beach during a public stargaze. Before and after gussying up to counter the light pollution. They were taken with a modified 40D using a Sigma 70-200 at 200/2.8. You can pick up a T3i for a song now and have it modified for astro work. Plop it on an equatorial mount with a drive and you have a setup that can do some amazing work. The camera is on my grab and go astrophoto setup. The tripod and drive base are from an old scope that I have since mated to a much better computerized mount. Nothing fancy but it does the job and fits neatly in my motorcyle sidecar when I don't feel like lugging the big guns.



Wow that's awesome, you could have gotten some amazing stuff in Texas!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

emag said:


> These were shot from VERY light polluted Pensacola Beach during a public stargaze. Before and after gussying up to counter the light pollution. They were taken with a modified 40D using a Sigma 70-200 at 200/2.8. You can pick up a T3i for a song now and have it modified for astro work. Plop it on an equatorial mount with a drive and you have a setup that can do some amazing work. The camera is on my grab and go astrophoto setup. The tripod and drive base are from an old scope that I have since mated to a much better computerized mount. Nothing fancy but it does the job and fits neatly in my motorcyle sidecar when I don't feel like lugging the big guns.



Oh and what's the story with your equatorial mount? Did you make that yourself?


----------



## R1-7D (Jan 23, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely beautiful shots!
> ...



Yeah, I meant the track mount. Thanks! I am going to have to try this sometime. Finding a completely dark sky is the difficult part.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 23, 2013)

R1-7D said:


> Finding a completely dark sky is the difficult part.



I agree, just check out the light pollution map I posted and try and plan it around the new moon and you'll be good!


----------



## emag (Jan 24, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> Oh and what's the story with your equatorial mount? Did you make that yourself?



Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 24, 2013)

emag said:


> Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.



Thanks for that info, I figured that thing was a "frankenstein" mount of some sort. I've been looking into getting one of these Astrotrac tracking mounts: http://www.astrotrac.com/Default.aspx?p=tt320x-ag

Supposedly they work very well and are very easy to transport and set up. Check it out and let me know what you think.


----------



## RomanRacela (Jan 24, 2013)

I have a Vixen Polarie Star Tracker that I bought in the Fall and have yet to try it out. 

Axilrod's images excites me to get started.

http://www.astroshop.com.au/guides/vixen-polarie.htm


----------



## abirkill (Jan 26, 2013)

While dark skies are unquestionably a huge advantage, you can get quite reasonable shots even in areas with moderate light pollution if you get very clear conditions.

I use the ClearDarkSky forecasts to check on atmospheric conditions, and usually find acceptable results with a seeing and transparency value of 3/5 or higher. It's interesting to see that this doesn't always happen when you've got an apparently clear night -- humidity and temperature can affect the visibility more than you might think.

Here are a couple of shots taken from Mount Baker National Forest, which is a good dark sky location, although the thin cloud on the horizon was highlighting distant lights more than ideal. As others have said, these might be considered overprocessed from a purely photographic standpoint, but they are quite popular!

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/3.2, 30 second exposures, 11 shot panorama:




Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 5000, f/2.8, 30 second exposures, 4 shot panorama:




The next two are taken from a park half-way between Vancouver and Whistler -- this is definitely not a dark sky location (it's about 30 minutes drive from Vancouver and 15 minutes from Squamish, a relatively large settlement), but the conditions allowed good visibility of the Milky Way:

Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 8000, f/2.8, 45 second exposures, 5 shot panorama:




Canon 5D Mark III, Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II @ 16mm, ISO 6400, f/2.8, 30 second exposure:




I'm still very much learning how to take these shots, so there is unquestionably a lot more that can be got out of the camera (and probably some more sympathetic processing that can be done, as well!) The most important thing is to get out there and try it -- don't think you need to drive half-way across the country, just try and find somewhere reasonably dark on a clear, moonless night and see what you can get!


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 27, 2013)

abirkill said:


> While dark skies are unquestionably a huge advantage, you can get quite reasonable shots even in areas with moderate light pollution if you get very clear conditions.
> 
> I use the ClearDarkSky forecasts to check on atmospheric conditions, and usually find acceptable results with a seeing and transparency value of 3/5 or higher. It's interesting to see that this doesn't always happen when you've got an apparently clear night -- humidity and temperature can affect the visibility more than you might think.
> 
> ...



Those are great, but it looks like you had to push them quite a bit to get them there. And I'm sure while some photographers might consider these over-processed, the general public probably love them. And after trying to get shots like these for 2 years I think light pollution is by far the biggest factor, I tried shooting in Atlanta (fools errand) and couldn't see anything hardly. Then I tried in Oregon, which was dark but there was a half moon which ruined stuff. But Texas was just right. But I agree, even if you are near moderate light pollution it's worth giving it a try just to get some practice.


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 27, 2013)

RomanRacela said:


> I have a Vixen Polarie Star Tracker that I bought in the Fall and have yet to try it out.
> 
> Axilrod's images excites me to get started.
> 
> http://www.astroshop.com.au/guides/vixen-polarie.htm



And I didn't even use a tracking mount! I'd be excited too : )


----------



## Crewser (Feb 1, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> For those of you looking for dark skies, this light pollution map is great:
> http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2010



Thanks Axilrod for posting the light pollution map link. I will use the map come this spring and summer to try my luck with some local astrophotography. 

Here in Ontario where I live we have a protected Dark Skies Preserve, the Torrance Barrens that I will visit as well mid-summer. It is great area in that the few trees that are there are fairly small and stunted in growth due to the harsh growing conditions present. http://www.rasc.ca/content/torrance-barrens-dark-sky-preserve

Steve


----------



## tron (Feb 1, 2013)

emag said:


> Hmmmmmm.....might want to check your AFMA. You seem to be front focusing a parsec or two.....


I just read this and could stop laughing ... ;D ;D ;D


----------



## tron (Feb 1, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> emag said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod - the tripod, wedge and drive base are from an 8 inch Celestron I've had for 35 years, the optics are great but it needed to be on a better mount to reach its potential. The wood is recycled from another project and the tripod head lives either on this mount or my home made slider depending on what I'm doing. Older Celestron mounts come up for sale on Astromart once in a while when people transplant the scope to a better mount like I did. There's another used equipment website I've used, I can't find it with Google but I have the link on my home computer, I'll PM you with it. Orion sells a small equatorial setup as an intro to astrophotography but it just won't handle much weight. A used CG5 or SkyViewPro mount for a good price would be an excellent setup, you wouldn't need the computerized version of either. I use my old C8 mount setup for tracking with up to a 300/f4L. Setting it vertical I can do panning time lapses. I've even used it with the mount vertical and the camera pointed straight up in my back yard, the trees rotate around the perimeter of the frame while the stars slowly parade through....would be interesting to try in a place like Joshua Tree. I'm blocked here at work from getting to the link, it's on YouTube, you should be able to find it with search terms 'emagowan' and 'SkySpin'.
> ...


Not so fast with Astrotrac. I do have it BUT: Its polar scope is very loose which means you cannot be certain you have polar aligned it perfectly. Second, even with best possible alignment you get about a 10fold increase in exposure (10x the seconds you could expose without it). It seems a lot but actually it is only with short focal lengths. Third, no tracking device can do the trick for astrophotography landscapes since to photograph the landscape camera has to be still on tripod otherwise you will have no star trails but blurred landscape.

So it is still tripod and the 600/(focal length) rule for these cases ( 500/(focal length) if you want to be more strict).


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 3, 2013)

tron said:


> Not so fast with Astrotrac. I do have it BUT: It's polar scope is very loose which means you cannot be certain yo have polar aligned it perfectly. Second, even with best possible alignment you get about a 10fold increase in exposure (10x the seconds you could expose without it). It seems a lot but actually it is only with short focal lengths. Third, no tracking device can do the trick for astrophotography landscapes since to photograph the landscape camera has to be still on tripod otherwise you will have no star trails but blurred landscape.
> 
> So it is still tripod and the 600/(focal length) rule for these cases ( 500/(focal length) if you want to be more strict).



Ahhh I didn't even think about that aspect. Thanks for your input, may not get this thing after all.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Axilrod, your pics from the front page are nice! I think I could do as well, or better, though...especially after I get a better camera. Post some more of your work if you can.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Axilrod, your pics from the front page are nice! I think I could do as well, or better, though...especially after I get a better camera. Post some more of your work if you can.



Thanks, and I'm sure you can do as good or better, I'm no expert and this was my first time, and I rarely shoot stills. As for the "better camera" it doesn't matter how great the camera is if you can't get to the right spot, with the right conditions, during the right time of the year.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

That's certainly true! I'm not exactly a world class expert either, of course. I just love Milky Way pictures! I'm thinking the galaxy in your shot, is Andromeda. It's the closest galaxy, and is on a collision course with us. Will take a little while to get here though.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> That's certainly true! I'm not exactly a world class expert either, of course. I just love Milky Way pictures! I'm thinking the galaxy in your shot, is Andromeda. It's the closest galaxy, and is on a collision course with us. Will take a little while to get here though.


Yes! It is indeed Andromeda  You can enjoy viewing it even with binoculars...


----------



## eyeland (Feb 20, 2013)

*Re: Don't just shoot; look and really see.*



dafrank said:


> To the OP: thanks for posting those literally awesome pictures.
> ...if you're a city or suburban bred person, _just look_. When one hasn't seen it before, it is a revelatory experience like few others you may have in your lifetime.
> 
> I grew up in the LA area and then on Long Island - near NYC - and then settled in the suburbs around Detroit. I had never thought much about the night sky at all, except that it was a little better to sleep with less light coming through my widow than during the day.
> ...


+1
Great shots, great story, I am officially inspired 
Thanks for the advice and techniques, will give it a shot next week as I am heading into the Negev desert to do some location research for a video shoot. 
Guess I better get started on that diy slider


----------



## eyeland (Feb 20, 2013)

Btw, any reason to use the 2010 map rather than http://www.blue-marble.de/nightlights/2012 ?


----------



## Alex (Feb 20, 2013)

At first glimpse it looked like a Vivitar camera


----------

