Light Pollution

Hello again,

So a question came up while talking about photographing the Milky Way. It was basically can the Milky Way be photographed when it can’t be seen because of city lights. My response was no because of the light pollution. I never really tried though so while going out of town to get some Milky Way images I decided to see what the images would look like to have my own proof to my statement. So I live in Las Vegas which is a pretty bright place with the strongest beam of light in the world coming from the Luxor on top of all the other lights coming from the Strip, Downtown, and the surrounding city. It is the biggest light polluter in the state of Nevada, with the help of a few smaller cities it ruins the night sky for most of Clark County going past the borders of neighboring states. So I was going to Big Dune which is about 2 hours away from where I live just South of Las Vegas. I made some stops and took some pictures with settings that I have used to capture the Milky Way.

All of these images were taken with the same settings 10 seconds, f2.8, iso 1600, 28mm and facing roughly South.

The first image was taken from an overpass roughly 15 miles from the center of the city some stars can be seen but the lights over power most of it. It picked up more stars than I could make out with my eyes though.

The second image was 10 miles later or 25 miles from the center of the city. It was actually facing closer to south. I had time to figure it out as I wasn’t illegally parked. That 10 miles decreased the city lights quite a bit, they can still be seen though and the truck driving by didn’t change it much. I had one with no lights going through the frame and it was nearly the same but I bumped the tripod so there was camera shake.

The third image was another 15 miles later or 40 miles from the center of town. The amount of stars increased drastically by adding that distance. At this point I am still seeing the light from the city on the left of the image.

The fourth image adds another 25 miles making it 65 miles North West of the middle of Las Vegas. The main difference now is that the sky is more black. It doesn’t seem like there are many more stars noticeable to me they appear more prominent in the blacker sky though.

Here is an image taken with the same settings and processed the same. This was from about 100 miles North West of the center of Vegas in Big Dune. It was aimed more South West than South though.

The difference between 65 miles and the 100 miles might not be that great, to me it was less interference, no cars, the quiet, being able to take my time, and again the quiet. I wasn’t going out there to take pictures of just the stars I was doing it to get the Milky Way which is processed differently. The reason the above image is South West is because of the Milky Way.

Above is all of the images edited the same as I would for the image of the Milky Way. To me the only one that looks right like this is the one of the Milky Way. The rest the stars look altered and the rest of the lights look either way too warm or purple. I was just doing it for comparison. I hope that I gave out some worth while advice. Again I would enjoy seeing images that were helped by this in the comments.

~Scott

High ISO for placement

Hello,

Today I wanted to talk about not taking extended periods of time to find the desired placement of a scene and also not using a flashlight and ruining your night vision. Those extra seconds can really add up when it is cold outside. I recently went to Mammoth California. There was still snow around and it got chilly at night. Now being far away from a city I wanted to get some night shots that included the Milky Way. I succeeded and had many minutes of being cold. While setting up the frame I didn’t want to turn on a flashlight and I didn’t want to wait 15 to 30 seconds a bunch of times to get what I wanted into the frame. So what I do is turn up the ISO to the highest setting, 16,000 in my case, and snap a shot and reposition until I get what I want in the frame. Then I drop the ISO a level that I am comfortable with and get the pictures.

ISO 16,000 28mm f2.8 1.6 second

Granted there is a ton of noise and the picture is basically unusable. It does provide the location for where aspects of the image are, such as the Milky Way, Boat, Waterfall and Tree line.

ISO 1600 (3.25 stops of ISO less) 28mm f2.8 15 seconds

Now I know that it is not shown but there were about 6 or 7 pictures to get the placement the way that I wanted it. Seven 15 second exposures is doesn’t seem like a lot but when you are shivering because it is nearly freezing outside those seconds add up. Instead of 105 seconds plus moving the camera and checking the display I spent 11.2 seconds taking pictures. It’s pretty easy and only really usable in few situations but it is good knowledge to have.

Car Trails

Good evening,

So I realized after publishing the last blog that I am late on it and owe you all one. So car trails were brought up. Once you know how to do them they are easy and it becomes more placement of the subject and background than anything else.

The main needs are a steady camera, a long exposure, cars, and a darkish location.

Here is an 8 s exposure at f18. The camera was sitting on the median and I used a self timer because I did not have a remote.

Ideally a remote shutter and a tripod will be added. It gives some more control over the image. Instead of being limited to guessing on when a car will come into the frame, like I did in the above image, the shutter can be triggered when you want without disturbing the camera. Having a tripod will let you place the camera where you want for the image you are trying to create.

Below I had a tripod and remote shutter. So I was more focused on other aspects of the image than just when the car was coming into the frame. I knew the Milky Way and Luxor light were in the frame. I also placed the bush, that is illuminated by my tail lights to give the image more depth. On a side note that is not the sunrise, it is the lights from Las Vegas.

A tripod mounted 30 second exposure. The car was traveling relatively slow so I did a longer exposure.

I have not gotten a really good capture of it but keep in mind that flashing lights from emergency vehicles can add a bunch of interest to a car trail image.

While getting ready to pull out I saw the flashing lights coming my way so I quickly grabbed my camera and set it on my dash, no timer and I had to stop it from sliding around on the dashboard. Not a sharp image it does show the lights well though..

So have fun with it. Grab your gear after nightfall and find some cars hopefully with their headlights on.

PS if you have any questions about photography that you want me to tackle let me know in the comments or through the contact page.

Star Trails

Good afternoon,

Today it is onto star trails which are very different from getting the stars to be static. Similarities are; needing a sturdy tripod, know what you are trying to capture, a foreground interest can make a picture, and planning helps.

Now the differences; a high ISO is not needed, a large aperture is not as important, and a remote release is important. After about 15 seconds or so the stars can be seen as more than a dot. With trails we want that so that is why ISO and a large aperture aren't as big of a deal. 

Here is a stack of 30 second exposures taken back to back from a balcony in Lake Tahoe. Pointed North - Northeast. Around 140 images put together for a total of a 70 minutes exposure, each photo was 30 seconds each, 28mm, f2.8, 200 iso.

So there are 2 ways to go about star trails. Either taking a bunch or photos and stacking them afterward like above. The benefits are; less noise, if frames have something unwanted (planes, satellites, UFOs, etc) they can be left out. The down side it is time consuming in post.

Below is the other way which is to keep the shutter open for a really long time. I have heard of all night exposures. Personally I have gone with a couple of hours at most with good results. The benefits are it has more of a set it and forget it approach, and post processing is just a couple of images (if combining exposures of a separate foreground and background). The bad part is if something goes across the frame it is a pain if even possible to remove it and there could be more noise from the long exposure.

This was taken in Death Valley, I light painted the tree. I was trying to capture some meteors in the shot and failed. This was a 29 minute single exposure. 28mm, f5.6, 1759 seconds, 400 iso.

Experiment and see which you prefer. There are programs that are designed to make the stacking process easier, I just use photoshop because I don't take this type of image often. So find a night sky, grab your tripod, shutter release, camera then go out and shoot.

~Scott

The Stars

Good afternoon,

More or less back on schedule. So I was at Cedar Breaks with the family a bit ago. If you are not familiar with it, Cedar Breaks is a designated an International Dark Sky park. The night skies are amazing there. After posting some of the pictures I was asked "How did you capture this?" and a response was placed by a friend "Read his photo blog." So I knew that I had to write about it.

For shooting the stars there are a few things. 1st know what you are trying to accomplish. If we are trying to have static stars then a wide aperture is important, star trails not so much. 2nd have a sturdy tripod and for best results a timer setting or a shutter release. 3rd Foreground interest sets a scale. The sky is a big place, if there is nothing but sky it doesn't seem as big. 4th planning helps, I use Stellarium (www.stellarium.org), and Google Star Maps. 5th Having an idea of what you want to capture. And 6th Knowing the Moon and Sun rise/set times.

Tripod mounted, a57 3200 iso 1/6 second 210mm f4 with a cable release. Venus is on the bottom and Jupiter is on the top with 3 moons.

Today I will talk about getting the stars static. So a wide aperture lens and a high ISO are goals here. Focal length can vary greatly with what we are trying to capture. When Venus and Jupiter had a conjunction a few years back I used a telephoto zoom and a high ISO. 

For the Cedar breaks pictures I was using an 11-18mm lens. Again I used a high ISO and as wide of an aperture as I could, to collect more light I used a longer shutter. Now with the higher ISO you risk losing some stars with noise reduction or having noise. I am okay with losing some stars especially if I am in a dark location. Below the noise can be seen and in the second image noise reduction has been applied. ISO 3200, 10 seconds, f4.5. With a focal length like this I have found that 10 seconds in about the longest that I can go and not see streaks or the beginning of trails. If you go and look around you might come across a "Rule" called the 500 rule. I feel that it is bogus, it says to divide 500 by the focal length. In this case it would be 500/11 which would equal 45 seconds. While I was taking pictures I decided to see how long I could go before seeing trails. It was 13 seconds which is a far cry from 45.

So to answer the question of how I took static images of the stars and Milky Way it was using a high ISO, a tripod, a wide aperture, less than a 10 second shutter speed, and just playing around with settings. So find a dark sky, grab your largest aperture lens, then go out and shoot.

~Scott

Again I would enjoy seeing readers photography.