My pics

Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Heading out to California on Friday for work, but tacking on a weeks photography trip on the end the week after (13th till the 22nd), gonna either stay in CA and maybe focus on Joshua Tree or maybe go up to Death Valley, or make the Trek over to New Mexico to a few of my fave locations, going to concentrate on doing a lot of Astrophotography.

I've never done Astrophotography in my life, anyone got any handy hints? I'll be using my A7Riii with a 16-36 GM, anybody know what the optimal ISO is for Astro work on the A7riii? I assume it's somewhere between 1600 and 3200? want to try and keep exposure time below 30 seconds, I have a couple of different torches for painting the foregrounds in, I'll probably be in either sand dunes or rock formations..

Any hints or tips would be appreciated if anyone has any :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Nov 2003
Posts
35,691
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
It depends. If you're going to be stacking images then ISO200-400 with a wide aperture and 6-12s exposure should do it.

Infect, I would argue you don't want an exposure any longer than 6s if not stacking as otherwise you're going to start getting star trails.

The Sony has a ridiculous ability to handle noise. So don't be afraid to push it. Manual focus to infinity, yes it is possible to miss focus on stars :p

When composing, I find having something in the foreground as a reference makes for more impact.

sfs.jpg


I am no means an expert, but just what I have found through experimentation and reading :)

To stack images (if that's what you want) then use a piece of software called starstax. :)
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Ok cool, I'll look into that, so I assume instead of 1x 60 second exposure, I take 10x 6 second ones, then the software lines up all 10 images down to the pixel level, and I end up with one image? (I did some focus stacking once, so I assume it's a similar<ish> principle)

Sounds like the way forward, I'll obviously be doing landscape shots, rather than telephoto shots of galaxies, so hopefully it'll still work just as well
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Nov 2003
Posts
35,691
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Ok cool, I'll look into that, so I assume instead of 1x 60 second exposure, I take 10x 6 second ones, then the software lines up all 10 images down to the pixel level, and I end up with one image? (I did some focus stacking once, so I assume it's a similar<ish> principle)

Sounds like the way forward, I'll obviously be doing landscape shots, rather than telephoto shots of galaxies, so hopefully it'll still work just as well
Yep thats it. Software just layers them over the top of each other. I use a remote lock shutter and set my camera to a 6 second exposure. So it just continuously shoots 1 after the other. The above shot is about 900 stacked images.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Apr 2013
Posts
3,067
Hi @Screeeech ,
Lonely Spec is a fantastic source for tutorials on milky way photography. Lots of helpful videos on stacking, masking in various software packages - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCs00ToGzisok-qW9c8XomPQ

I have done a fair bit of Astro and right now I work on Windows with Sequator, Lightroom & Photoshop CC.
Sequator is great for stacking your images and I would definitely recommend giving it a go.

Bear in mind I don't know your locations really, nor the twilight/dark times or levels you will get, nor the MW core location etc...
Depending on your landscape/scene/foreground you can shoot that prior to full darkness to get better light on your non-sky portion of the image or you can shoot in darkness with light painting. You then want to focus on the sky of course and would echo the above for stacking.... your camera is exceptional at high ISO so I would be shooting lowest aperture f2.8 (what can your lens do actually?) and ISO2500 upwards for 12 seconds at 16-24mm. lower exposure if you are shooting at 30mm but doubt you will be if shooting the MW core.

The Lonely Spec tutorials already exist and are great so no point me trying to explain masking and layering for piecing your final images together but if you do get into Sequator and want some tips, I am more than happy to try and help you with that. Starstax is also good but I just have my workflow set with LR>Sequator and Photoshop and works best for me. There is no best combo of apps, it's personal preference.

Phone apps - Photopills is super helpful for virtual reality lining up stars/MW with your scene as well as twilight/darkness times etc.
Stellarium app is also very helpful for timings and again lining up your shots for Astro. These are must haves I would say and invaluable for planning but also when out in the field.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Thanks guys,

My locations should be pretty excellent for milky way photography, I'll probably go where the skies are clearest, but it's going to be, Joshua Tree National Park, OR either northwest New Mexico, or down near Las Cruces (white sands) might do some further research, but those will be my prime locations,

Those guides look pretty good, will check them out tonight,
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Out in the wilderness of the US Southwest at the moment, been a pretty eventful trip, started off in Joshua Tree national park, wanted to do some astro photography, however it's the monsoon season in the Southwest right now, so a bit too much cloud to make it worthwhile, also lots of storms..

Unfortunately the first night at Joshua Tree was a nightmare, I hate large style American campsites, everything is designed for driving and I hate it - because they spend all night driving around in RVs and trucks until ******* 3am, to make matters worse I was next to a party of 6 who decided to have a rave until about 4am, by morning just about everyone on the campsite was raging and had had enough - including me.

I made the trek down to Kanab in Utah and got a wilderness permit to go to the Tuweep overlook of the grand canyon, it's a 70 mile dirt/mud road, with 5 miles of boulders and rocks to drive over at the end, so 4x4 required. Forget the south rim or north rim, there is no comparison to Tuweep, it is an utterly magical place - no services, no noise, no nonsense, no people - just an overlook right into the grand canyon itself. I did 2 days there, I could spend all week there to be frank, it's beyond words.

Some shots;

PvTZn2M.jpg

Xj0Ltbq.jpg

Quick dirty pano of the campsite, managed to setup under a gigantic rock so was in the shade for most of the day;

YboYSYI.jpg

After that I headed to Page in Arizona, I wanted to go to White Pocket (which I went to earlier in the year) it's very remote and difficult to get to, (deep sand, slick sandstone rocks) when disaster struck, I got within 4 miles of the place when I had a low tire pressure alarm - the last place in the world you want to be is somewhere like that with a flat - I obviously had a spare, but in using it I'd have to get back without a backup, so with air still left in it and it looking like a slow puncture, I headed back to page and swapped the tire out in a Walmart carpark... I then went to a mexican joint and got ****** wrecked on margaritas as I needed to de-stress :D

UeBlqjZ.jpg

After that, I opted to head to New Mexico to photograph the "Bisti Badlands" one of my fave locations, it's an absolute goldmine of photographic opportunity, but it's really testing - it involves a lot of hiking and there are no "hot spots" or areas that get done to death, it's very much a case of finding your own compositions, rather than copying others. Combined with the remote nature of it and the low numbers of people who go, you have to put serious effort in to come away with anything half decent.

When I got there, there were several large thunderstorms in the area, gigantic dark anvil-shaped clouds, I scouted out a couple of locations and hoped that the setting sun would turn them purple. Those storm clouds stretch very high into the atmosphere, so there's always a good chance you'll get some colour.. I was about to pack up, when the light delivered;

gsKHRLn.jpg

I'm heading back there later to try and scout out some more locations and I'll maybe in with a shout of getting some decent evening light again, just camping in a hotel at the moment, doing my laundry and other BS, in Farmington NM.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Back in the UK now, just been going through some other shots, a couple from Death Valley, was 47 degrees when I hiked out into the dunes, very tough going - the water in my canteen was like the hot tap lol.

I do wish I'd stayed in New Mexico for longer, I found a couple of really good spots - think I'll spend an entire week there next time,

X26y8O3.jpg

lO2nRzL.jpg
 

olv

olv

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
5,295
Location
london
Lovely tones through the dunes and I always like how you render skies.

Just very pleasing.

Now you’ve had time to compare, thoughts on film vs digital for your uses?
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Lovely tones through the dunes and I always like how you render skies.

Just very pleasing.

Now you’ve had time to compare, thoughts on film vs digital for your uses?

Thanks!

I shot mostly Velvia 50 up until about 2014, it's... totally different to digital in a way that's hard to explain, technically it's very poor compared to digital in terms of exposure latitude, (11-12 stops) and with it being transparency, it blows out or underexposes if you're more than 1/3rd of a stop away. It makes shooting harsh landscapes very difficult and some shots become almost impossible - or require two grad filters to even out the distribution of light.

That said, in my opinion - Velvia 50 had a "look" that was and still is impossible to emulate, it wasn't the most natural of looks, it had a tendency to exaggerate magentas and had problems with greens, but Velvia 50 shots just look great in the right hands, they absolutely sing in a way that I've never seen digital images do.

There are still people out there shooting it, but I gave up 5x4 when they stopped making quickload - it also got so expensive to develop and scan, when you have the quality and convenience of something like a A7Riii, which is sharper and better in every way technically - then for me it's a no brainer... I will however say, that Velvia still has that look you just can't get from digital, and I really wish I still shot it sometimes...

Two good photographers who shoot Velvia;

http://www.into-the-light.com/
https://www.brucepercy.co.uk/
 

olv

olv

Soldato
Joined
12 Jan 2005
Posts
5,295
Location
london
Interesting. Thanks. And what about MF digital vs FF? Is there a big difference there in the look and feel of the images as they come out?
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Posts
7,070
Great pictures but most impressed with the time and effort you put in to getting the right location at the right time and the early starts. Think I'll stick with APSC though given the cost of the equipment, the Phase One stuff is not cheap! The results are definitely worth the investment you put in.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
29 Dec 2014
Posts
5,758
Location
Midlands
Interesting. Thanks. And what about MF digital vs FF? Is there a big difference there in the look and feel of the images as they come out?

There are a couple of comparisons on youtube of people comparing MF Technical to FF, unfortunately most of them don't really know what they're doing and just end up with similar images. MF Technical is very hard to use, harder than 5x4 film because with a digital back - the tolerances for focus and sharpness are so tiny - if anything is slightly off in terms of the setup, focus, or movements - the image won't be as good as it can be. You have to be a real technician to get the best out of them - it takes a lot of practice.

With Rodenstock Digaron lenses - there is literally no way you can physically get a sharper image, some of those lenses are actually used by planes for aerial photography and reconnaissance - because the MTF charts are so good - they're sharp corner to corner, and I mean seriously sharp.

Regarding sensors, the newer CMOS backs have now overtaken the older style CCD backs, however some people (including myself) feel that some of the CMOS backs make images look a little too smooth - the CCD backs had a tendency to give images a really nice organic look - again, like film it's hard to explain, the old (10 years?) Phase One P65+ is a good example of that - that back takes really really nice images, sure it's dynamic range sucks compared to an A7Riii, or Nikon D850. However - if you're a good photographer and understand how to use cameras and actual photography, rather than someone who's only interested in reading the specifications and buying the newest tech, I can guarantee that if you use an old P65+ you'll be very happy with the images it puts out, they have real depth.

The reasons I sold my Phase one kit were;
  • It was insanely heavy, I'm very fit and strong - but my whole pack ended up weighing nearly 40-50lb (just camera gear) and it ends up being prohibitive - (I can't carry anything else, like tents or camping kit)
  • The insurance cost almost the same as my car
  • It was so expensive that I became terrified of it, a few times I almost knocked it over...
  • The A7Riii is 85% as good and 1/4th the weight, I can fit my whole system into the bottom of a rucksack and go trekking with it
  • Lenses cost between £3000-10000 so making changes to the system is very difficult....
 
Back
Top Bottom