UKC

In reply to MikeR:

I would suggest that you've caught them in a way that is very close to how they actually were.

A few things to try in Lightroom to get a bit more wow factor:

Clarity slider, this increases local contrast so will make the stars stand out more. Try the contrast slider too.

Noise reduction. Lightrooms tools are very good for this. Increase luminance NR if they are noisy.

Sharpening, if you use NR then you should always sharpen. It makes a huge difference to stars.

In reply to MikeR:

Are you using the noise cancelling (I think that's what it's called) on the camera? It's in one of the special menus - basically it takes another exposure without opening the shutter and uses that to compensate in the actual exposure.

I presume you're using a tripod? If so you probably don't need such high isos. Are you using a remote shutter release? There's also a special mode to do the mirror and shutter separately (to eliminate the vibration from the mirror in long exposures.

In reply to MikeR:

Amazing shots. Have you tried contacting Andi Turner? He's a bit of a hotshot when it comes to astrophotography. Might be able to give you some pointers.

In reply to MikeR:


Could you give us an example of "a really good one". The ones which people seem to like on here usually look very unrealistic to me - often sort of "daylight with stars"!

I like your diagonal gully one, but in the others the sky doesn't look black enough. Try darkening the shadows and brightening the highlights? I'm very far from being expert though.

In reply to MikeR:

Nice shots Mike.

Some info and data from this one that was published in National Geographic: http://yourshot.nationalgeographic.com/photos/8997463/

Camera: Nikon D810
Lens: 14-24 2.8
Focal length: 14mm
Aperture: 2.8
Shutter speed: 30 seconds
ISO: 3200
Tripod

A potentially huge topic but essentially you're looking to get as much light into the camera as possible. However you can't go too high with the ISO or it will look grainy, and you can't expose for too long or the stars will move (the length of time it takes the stars to move depends on the focal length - wider = longer).

You need to focus to infinity (which can be problematic).

A starry sky on its own isn't especially interesting without the moon or something eye catching. Hence most people try to capture the milky way. The best bit of the milky way is the galactic core located near sagittarius. This can only be seen at certain times of the year (a phone app like star tracker will help with this).

Lots of lenses produce coma at the edges (it makes your stars look like angels) - a smaller aperture reduces this but then you lose light.

I wrote an article that touches on the basics at: https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=6741

Unfortunately good night shots require some reasonably expensive kit and quite a bit of post processing.

It's frustrating at first but well worth sticking with!

In reply to robhorton:

I played with some star photos when on Tenerife last year and I also tried the in camera noise cancellation and found the pictures to have more noise that way.
I ended up using the Dfine noise removal from the Nik collection.


Those "really good" pictures are heavily processed in Photoshop.
Below was taken with a 7D Mk2 using sigma 8-16mm at 4.5 so not as fast as I would have liked, had to go a big higher on the ISO than I would have preferred.

I tried all sorts of tricks in photoshop but always ended up with something looking to unreal.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/83246699@N00/31222532316/in/album-72157677006...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83246699@N00/31222519316/in/album-72157677006...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/83246699@N00/31114665302/in/album-72157677006...

In reply to Dan Arkle:

Thanks, I'll have a play around in lightroom and try the stuff you've suggested.

In reply to robhorton:

Not using the cameras noise reduction. It was on a tripod, well a gorilla, and shot on a. 10 second timer rather than a remote.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah, I guess a lot of the really striking ones are heavily photoshopped, although just a much sharper image would be good. I'll try some noise reduction tools, and have a play with the shadow tools. Thanks.

In reply to James Rushforth:

Thanks James, loads of useful information there. I'll have a read through the article when I've got more time. Cheers.

In reply to Mikkel:

Interesting you found more noise with the noise reduction applied!

Nice photos, especially like the first one.

In reply to MikeR:

James has a lot of info in his article. On the tech side, a couple things to note:
The 60D is relatively old by current standards and ISO / noise performance has really improved of late.
If you're comparing to a lot of online images, remember many (like James') are taken on full-frame cameras, where the noise performance is another step change better (see dpreview article on equivalence https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-sh... )
Did you take photos in RAW? You can get more out of noise reduction and ability to increase exposure without gaining more noise.

On the actual photography
I think on your focal length 12 photos you've exposed for slightly too long so the stars look like they're moving - see James' article on that. Also, note that this varies depending on where you point the camera. If you point towards the celestial equator, stars move around the night sky faster than if you point towards Polaris / North Star.
If you can, before it gets dark, focus on a far away point in the light, and gaffa tape the focus ring so it doesn't move.
Did you use a remote / self timer?

In reply to MikeR:
Did you actually focus for the stars? They all look really blurry. Usually I'd focus in live view. I don't expose for more than 10-15 seconds. 30 seconds is too long. Also did you turn off vibration reduction on your lens, if it has one?

In reply to MikeR:

First of all, good effort for getting out there while most of us were cosily tucked indoors. A shame about the unseasonal lack of snow. More snow would probably have helped technically too.

It is worth looking at others and working out what sets apart the ones you think are 'really good' (subject, composition, technical aspects, etc.). Some comments may be more subjective too ranging between the faithful reproduction of 'it's very dark' to a more 'arty interpretation'.

For me there is too much star movement for me, or at least, the blurry stars dominate the images.
The rest of the image doesn't look too sharp - that may be camera shake or it could just lack of detail or anything to draw my eye. I'm not sure a gorillapod is stable enough. Did you also lock the mirror up first to reduce vibration?

From your position you're looking upwards at the terrain and without much ambient or reflected light, you don't get much detail, and probably not much moonlight to help either (about 1/3-moon on Sat I think).
Looking at James' Rifugio Locatelli & Tre Cime photo - he has similar blurriness to the stars, but there is much more visual interest - both in the sky and on the ground.

You may have had the camera perfectly level, but it looks to me as if it's tilted slightly to the right - the top of Carn Etchachan doesn't look to be directly above it's reflection in the loch. Apart from technical bits, the main aspect for me is the subject/composition - although a nice place to be, it probably suffers from not being too visually interesting - maybe a different vantage point would have worked better (perhaps from higher vantage point, looking into the basin).
In the Diagonal Gully picture the stars have an odd blue cast to them.

In reply to MikeR:

I think they're cracking shots. I love the reflections and the ralistic portrail of what you saw.

As for something constructive..... The sky looks a bit muddy, take your time in post processing to highlight, then darken the sky. It's always a bit fiddly, but not too much of an issue for smaller pictures. A blue hue will always look better than a brown one. If you can, increase the saturation in your stars too, they should be colourful.

Other than that, well, it's probably your lens. Star photography is one of the harshest tests on a lens, it's why as astrophotographers we end up spending a fortune on what on paper seem like pretty average spec lenses... The pictures show a lot of pincushioning, and the stars will become out of focus in the outer reaches of the frame as a result. It depends what you're happy to live with, I think for a picture taken with a modestly priced zoom lens you're doing an excellent job, which could be improved even further by a bit of cleaning up in PS. If it's something which floats your boat and you get to a point where you feel the lens is holding you back, then look into getting some posh primes perhaps

In reply to Mikkel:

They're lovely, especially the 1st shot.

In reply to tk421: and Pete Dangerous

Thanks for the comments. I've heard of the trick of focusing in the daylight and taping the lens in place, but as I arrived long after dark I just focused to infinity then stepped it back a small amount. No vibration reduction on this lens.

Shot in RAW using a 10 second timer. Much as I'd love the latest full frame camera, it'll be a while before I can justify the cost!

In reply to Wry Spudding:

Thanks, the photos are all level, I used the levelling tool to make sure. Perhaps I could have posed in front to add some foreground interest.

In reply to andi turner:

Thanks for the encouraging feedback! I'll try your suggestions in LR. As for the lens, I also have a Canon 15-85 which might be slightly higher spec, but I thought this would be better for start photography given the ultra wide angle. Would love a decent prime lens, but that might be a few birthdays and Christmases off!

In reply to MikeR:

What do you want to improve?
Star clarity?
Background contrast, sharpness.
Focus?

At 30 seconds the stars will blur due to the rotation of the earth, so if you want pin shar stars you need a telescope type mount to hold the position in the sky.

In reply to MikeR:




But there are no stars to focus on during the day. What would you set the focus to?

If you're really serious about it then look into focal stacking. I haven't tried it yet but know someone who has with good results. It'll vastly reduce noise.

In reply to MikeR:
I'm still surprised at how many people are suggesting it's a tracking issue. It's clearly the lens. If it was tracking, the stars all move in the same direction, not outwards from the centre of the picture as is seen in your photographs.

You don't have to spend a lot for decent prime

In reply to MikeR:

The Samyang primes are the usual go-to answer. 14mm, 20mm, or perhaps best the 24 1.4

In reply to Jon Read:

I can't recommend the new Samyang 14mm 2.4 enough... (certainly for full frame).

In reply to James Rushforth:

£64 for one!
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/u...

(there is a catch...)

In reply to Jon Read:

Looks like someone shot it! Fine providing your subject isn't in the centre

I meant the new 1.4 version though: http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/samyang_8040_14mm_f2.4_canon_ae&gcli...

In reply to MikeR:

Although I like your one of diagonal gully for the great idea it overall looks like an 8-bit computer game. Just doesn't look quite right? Thought the original was better!

In reply to MikeR:
The Pentax K3 has a useful feature for photographing stars

Combining the built in GPS and in-camera image stabilisation (which moves the sensor) enables it to move the sensor to track stars' movement so enabling a longer exposure without streaking them.

For my Pentax K-S2 (which unfortunately doesn't have the star tracking feature) I fancy the Samyang 10mm f2.8

In reply to MikeR:
i deleted the files but what i recall was that when using the incamera noise reduction and then trying to use noise reduction on top in lightroom or photoshop, the black sky was suddenly full of "stuff" as if you had cranked up the exposure in post.

In reply to MikeR:

Yes, like Jon and the others have said, the Samyang lenses are a good deal. Good glass and you're not wasting money on all the features you don't need.

In reply to MikeR:

Thanks for posting these again Mike - this whole thread has been useful and got me to think a bit and read around a bit more.
What I assumed was excessive movement in the stars is, as James mentioned, coma aberration, which can be reduced by stopping down a little but then that may be countered by a requirement for longer exposure (or buy an aspherically corrected lens).
Some useful info on overcoming coma here (both with and without buying a new lens).
http://intothenightphoto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/overcoming-coma-in-starry-n...

I still think they're slightly tilted though (sorry) - I downloaded your Carn Etchachan and Shelter Stone pic and had a little play and by rotating 2 degrees anticlockwise the top of CE sit directly above its reflection. I also cropped a bit of the sky out removing some of the more obvious coma, and this looked better to me (but that is my subjective opinion).

Andi (who has some very impressive astrophotos in his flickr portfolio) mentioned pincushioning but I wonder if he means coma? Pincushion distortion tends to occur with telephoto lenses and barrel distortion in wide angle lenses - only really an issue when the image is obviously distorted/deformed such as with geometric features and thus shouldn't be apparent in an assemblage of stars.

I'm happy to be corrected if wrong or contradicted - I'm no expert, just have an interest.

In reply to Wry Spudding:

Of course. I typically refer to coma as something inherent in reflector telescopes, but yes, whatever it's called, this is a lens aberration which is causing the star trailing not star movement.