[Seminole]

Here's the rest:


San Francisco Bay Boats by Seminolez, on Flickr


Golden Gate Sunset by Seminolez, on Flickr

[The1]

original in first post and last in second post are my favs. first one seems a touch warm though.

first one in second post is crooked. Might change my opinion of it if it were straight, I'm having a tough time seeing around that. Or perhaps lens correction because it looks like the one building has one line going straight up.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by The1

original in first post and last in second post are my favs. first one seems a touch warm though.

first one in second post is crooked. Might change my opinion of it if it were straight, I'm having a tough time seeing around that. Or perhaps lens correction because it looks like the one building has one line going straight up.

The first might need some WB adjustment. I like the 3rd the best, but fix the crooked horizon.

[M_Six]

I like the first one. (Although check the horizon for level. Can't stress enough how important that is.) I've seen other twilight images of the GGB and it seems that orange glow is "the way it is." I like it.

[Weebl]

Chewy, the sodium lights on the bridge do give out that color and it looks really odd compared to other sodium lights. If anything it would need more black to counteract the brightness of the orange.
I can't find my version...

[Seminole]

Here's that one pictures you all liked straightened out. There's a tiny bit of distortion on the left tower that I can't get rid of, but I think overall it's much more level than the first one.


Golden Stars by Seminolez, on Flickr

[The1]

I'm pleased by it

[Chewy734]

nice shot 'nole.

[vachss]

Time to bump this thread to the front page I guess...

Anyway, I was camping near Death Valley this week and took a few nightscapes from campsite. Since I was awake both before and after moonset and almost until dawn I got the chance to take night shots under very different lighting conditions:

11 AM by moonlight (looks almost like twilight, except for the stars):




5 AM with fully dark skies and the best star viewing:




and only about 45 minutes later, with dawn washing out the starscape, but adding color to the sky:

[Chewy734]

nice shots!

[M_Six]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

nice shots!

Serious understatement. Awesome shots, vachss. The Milky Way shot is amazing.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by M_Six

Serious understatement. Awesome shots, vachss. The Milky Way shot is amazing.

yeah, that's true... I've just had this headache all day and I'm off my game.

That 2nd shot is my favorite out of the three. I'm surprised you only had an exposure time of 30s. You must have some really clear night skies over there.

[dcstep]

Great astro photography series.

[4caroption]

Wow, those are some EPIC shots vachss!!

[The1]

Originally Posted by 4caroption

Wow, those are some EPIC shots vachss!!

great shooting. Surprised you didn't get mars or jupitor (or which ever planets were really showing this week)

[remmib]

Awesome night time shots vachss.

Did to bump up the ISO to get enough light since the exposure doesn't seem long.

[vachss]

Thanks guys. Yeah I had to bump the ISO up to 1600-3200 for these and limit exposure times to 15-30s to limit star trailing. Makes fast wide angle lenses like the 24/1.4 really helpful.

[The1]

that 1.4 would definitely be a bit help. Ever try longer lenses? Even if they are like an f2.8 they often have a larger aperture opening then something like a 24 1.4 and let in more of the stuff you wouldn't see as a result.

but you wouldn't be able to get as much of the milky way and such, which would be a shame.

[vachss]

Originally Posted by The1

that 1.4 would definitely be a bit help. Ever try longer lenses? Even if they are like an f2.8 they often have a larger aperture opening then something like a 24 1.4 and let in more of the stuff you wouldn't see as a result.

but you wouldn't be able to get as much of the milky way and such, which would be a shame.

That point about aperture is very true. If taking pictures of point sources like stars then the bigger the physical aperture of your lens the brighter the star (and the more stars show up in the image). However, if you don't have a tracking mount, longer focal lengths translate into shorter exposure times (to avoid star trailing).

It turns out that to be able to record the brightest and largest number of stars from a fixed platform you want your lens to maximize: (focal length)/(f#)^2. The Canon lenses that win in this are the 85mm f/1.2 and 200mm f/2 (or f/1.8) - unfortunately neither of which I have. I've sometimes used a 135/2 for this with decent results, but honestly if you just want wide pictures of starfields then buying a good tracking mount both cheaper and more effective than spending a ton of money on lenses.

Of course once you start tracking then any fixed landscape in your image is blurred - so it's a trade off between brightness of the sky and sharpness of landscape detail on the ground. I'm just lucky that the ISO performance of current Canon bodies lets us get decent results with a fast lens on a fixed mount, but nothing holds a candle to the gorgeous widefield starscape images some serious astro folks get at lower ISO and long exposures from a tracking mount.

[The1]

Originally Posted by vachss

That point about aperture is very true. If taking pictures of point sources like stars then the bigger the physical aperture of your lens the brighter the star (and the more stars show up in the image). However, if you don't have a tracking mount, longer focal lengths translate into shorter exposure times (to avoid star trailing).

It turns out that to be able to record the brightest and largest number of stars from a fixed platform you want your lens to maximize: (focal length)/(f#)^2. The Canon lenses that win in this are the 85mm f/1.2 and 200mm f/2 (or f/1.8) - unfortunately neither of which I have. I've sometimes used a 135/2 for this with decent results, but honestly if you just want wide pictures of starfields then buying a good tracking mount both cheaper and more effective than spending a ton of money on lenses.

I'm just lucky that the ISO performance of current Canon bodies lets us get decent results with a fast lens on a fixed mount, but nothing holds a candle to the gorgeous widefield starscape images some serious astro folks get at lower ISO and long exposures from a tracking mount.

very good points. So, I have to ask, does this mean there might be a 5DmkIII in your future allowing you to play with the higher ISOs a little better for your star shoots?

[vachss]

Originally Posted by The1

So, I have to ask, does this mean there might be a 5DmkIII in your future allowing you to play with the higher ISOs a little better for your star shoots?

I have to see how big the improvement in RAW ISO noise is. If it's really a couple of stops it might be worth the upgrade. If as some suggest it's closer to 1/2 stop then the 5D2 will do for now. Looks like there's plenty of early adopters around here who'll be able to let me know just how good the III is.

[Icy J]

Lotus Exige S240 by - Icy J -, on Flickr