Field at night-Critique/advice please!

Bill19

Bill19

Messages
1,044
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,
this isn't strictly my first go at shooting the stars, but its the first time I've tried capturing them like this within an actual landscape shot. I'd really appreciate advice on improving settings and processing!
These were both shot with Nikon D7100 + Nikon 10-24mm at ISO800, f/3.5, 30 second exposure. Processed in lightroom and then I did some individual processing of foreground vs sky using layer masks in photoshop, mainly to get the white balance looking more correct in the sky and torch lit bale. I over exposed the bale a bit with too much torch light, but lesson learned!

I initially tried to take two shots for each composition, one focusing on the sky and the other on the bale, but when I was going through them after there didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference so I stuck with just editing the one shot. The two shots here are basically the same, but in the second the foreground doesn't seem as sharp but I think I prefer the sky, which I've added a bit more contrast to compared to the first. Thoughts?

1. (EDIT: see below for re-edit!)
23833788594_e549aa1531_b.jpg


3.
23835207923_dab47d17f4_b.jpg


Cheers!
Billy
 
Last edited:
Didn't read the opening post properly.

Nice idea but a little harsh on the processing for me.

More subtle and subdued colours might be better but it's only my point of view.

If you like it then it's a winner.

The pylons needs to go though
 
Last edited:
I prefer the lighting in the second but it looks like you've knocked something as it isn't as sharp (look at the hedge). Also the 2nd is a bit let down by the plane and the bit of cloud. I also think you need to lose the pylons. For your focal length ideally you need to reduce the exposure too as the stars a clearly moving. Maybe try 25 secs? Having spent a while sat in the dark trying to figure out if I'm in focus or not I appreciate it's not simple!
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Didn't read the opening post properly.

Nice idea but a little harsh on the processing for me.

More subtle and subdued colours might be better but it's only my point of view.

If you like it then it's a winner.

The pylons needs to go though
Click to expand...

Wayne Els said:
I prefer the lighting in the second but it looks like you've knocked something as it isn't as sharp (look at the hedge). Also the 2nd is a bit let down by the plane and the bit of cloud. I also think you need to lose the pylons. For your focal length ideally you need to reduce the exposure too as the stars a clearly moving. Maybe try 25 secs? Having spent a while sat in the dark trying to figure out if I'm in focus or not I appreciate it's not simple!
Click to expand...

Thanks both! Agree re. shutter speed, will definitely try shorter next time... or commit to trying a star trail instead. To be honest I kind of liked the telephone wire because it reflects the lines in the stubble, but point taken!

It wouldn't be the first time I've over cooked an image without really realising, so I've gone back and toned it down a bit, and I think it has improved
24466462105_37b9257529_o.jpg
 
•
I think you've got the right idea…
I don't mind the wire pole
but I believe your light source was far too powerful!
I like the city light dome afar.
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I like the pylons and wires mirroring the stubble lines - adds a bit more for the eye to follow.
Yes, you have gone a little overboard with the torch on the bale though but its not completely lost - still retains detail. Which torch did you use? I generally use LED Lenser torches - nice and reliable;)
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
I think you've got the right idea…
I don't mind the wire pole
but I believe your light source was far too powerful!
I like the city light dome afar.
Click to expand...

JulesP said:
To be honest, I like the pylons and wires mirroring the stubble lines - adds a bit more for the eye to follow.
Yes, you have gone a little overboard with the torch on the bale though but its not completely lost - still retains detail. Which torch did you use? I generally use LED Lenser torches - nice and reliable;)
Click to expand...
Thanks both!
It was a LED head torch which I just tried to paint the scene with, I think I just forgot to pay attention to the bale while looking back at the shots in camera, unfortunately I didn't have long either since it wasn't long before it all clouded up!
 
I quite like it, 2nd edit is certainly the better (y) not sure what focal length you used, 10mm? If you did 30 seconds should have been fine. TBH I'm not sure whether I can see the stars just starting to trail or not :confused:

Ideally, @10mm, f3.5 I would have been tempted to up the ISO to at least 1600, this would have given you a lot more star detail, a quick flick with the head light on the bale would probably have been enough to light paint it. The biggest problem @ 1600 ISO would have been the light pollution in the distance being too bright, although it adds a bit of colour, maybe a different pov to try eliminate it might have been better :)
 
Phil-D said:
I quite like it, 2nd edit is certainly the better (y) not sure what focal length you used, 10mm? If you did 30 seconds should have been fine. TBH I'm not sure whether I can see the stars just starting to trail or not :confused:

Ideally, @10mm, f3.5 I would have been tempted to up the ISO to at least 1600, this would have given you a lot more star detail, a quick flick with the head light on the bale would probably have been enough to light paint it. The biggest problem @ 1600 ISO would have been the light pollution in the distance being too bright, although it adds a bit of colour, maybe a different pov to try eliminate it might have been better :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Phil, I was at 10mm, when you zoom in on the image the stars do look a little rectangular/streaky so I think they have just started to move. I'll try ISO1600 next time and see how it turns out!
 
Bill19 said:
I was at 10mm, when you zoom in on the image the stars do look a little rectangular/streaky so I think they have just started to move.
Click to expand...

Strange that Billy, at 10mm focal length 30 seconds should have been ok, trails shouldn't start to appear until around 35 seconds plus......:thinking:........could there possibly have been a little movement in the tripod? ......any breeze at all?
 
Phil-D said:
Strange that Billy, at 10mm focal length 30 seconds should have been ok, trails shouldn't start to appear until around 35 seconds plus......:thinking:........could there possibly have been a little movement in the tripod? ......any breeze at all?
Click to expand...
Perhaps a little, but nothing too noticeable, it being a muddy field there's potential I suppose that the tripod was slowly sinking in.

I've been zooming in on the stars, and the angle of movement changes through ought the sky, suggesting it can't have been a nudge to the camera? The D7100 is a crop sensor so 10mm would be rendered as 15mm, could that do it?
( 100% crop- near the top of the telegraph wires)
23856321823_3d04f5da68_b.jpg


(top right)
24483115605_1235d36355_o.jpg
 
Getting towards the edge of the frame is always pushing the maths when working out if you will get trails or not - chances are at the maximum exposure time it will cause slight trails towards the edges of the frame.
 
Bill19 said:
The D7100 is a crop sensor so 10mm would be rendered as 15mm, could that do it
Click to expand...

No, the 30 seconds is taking into account the D7100 is a crop body, strange. Next time try 25 seconds, if you up the ISO to 1600 you gain nearly a stop on the exposure anyway

This table is quite useful for working out exposure times = focal length for avoiding trails

500-Rule.jpg
 
Last edited:
Which direction were you facing?
Towards the Pole Star you will get less trailing but towards the celestial equator (Orions Belt) the stars will trail quicker as they move faster across the sky.
 
JulesP said:
Which direction were you facing?
Towards the Pole Star you will get less trailing but towards the celestial equator (Orions Belt) the stars will trail quicker as they move faster across the sky.
Click to expand...
Ah yes I was facing SSWish and I think I was shooting towards orion, I think you can spot his belt between the bale and telegraph wire!
 
Yeah I see it now - couldn't find any constellations earlier.
That's where the stars move across the sky at their fastest so probably is the cause of your trailing.
 
Wayne Els said:
For your focal length ideally you need to reduce the exposure too as the stars a clearly moving.
Click to expand...

The stars are not trailing if you look closer they all look like they are trailing towards the centre of the shot. Stars all trail the same way. This is coma and is a bad characteristic of that lens for night/astro work.
 
Last edited:
Bill19 said:
Perhaps a little, but nothing too noticeable, it being a muddy field there's potential I suppose that the tripod was slowly sinking in.

I've been zooming in on the stars, and the angle of movement changes through ought the sky, suggesting it can't have been a nudge to the camera? The D7100 is a crop sensor so 10mm would be rendered as 15mm, could that do it?
( 100% crop- near the top of the telegraph wires)
23856321823_3d04f5da68_b.jpg


(top right)
24483115605_1235d36355_o.jpg
Click to expand...

As above post this is not trailing it is COMA and is a characteristic of the lens. My Tokina 11-16mm is okay on crop but the coma is really bad on a FF D750.
 
Ignore the crappy composittion and exposure but this was a quick test (between the clouds) of a Samyang 14mm f2.8 on a D750. This lens was a bad copy and you can clearly see the coma in the corners. Especially on Pleiades (top left).

DSC_4647 by Martin Coomer, on Flickr
 
looks nice but why shoot it at f3.5 and limiting the DOF?
I would have had this way out at maybe even F8 or F11 on a tripod.
 
Mr Bump said:
looks nice but why shoot it at f3.5 and limiting the DOF?
I would have had this way out at maybe even F8 or F11 on a tripod.
Click to expand...

With a focal length of 10mm and a focus point at say 10ft, @f3.5 the dof in front of the subject is 6.8 ft and behind is infinity, so even @f3.5 dof is massive :)

Most of my night shots are took wide open @2.8
 
MartinCornwall said:
The stars are not trailing if you look closer they all look like they are trailing towards the centre of the shot. Stars all trail the same way. This is coma and is a bad characteristic of that lens for night/astro work.
Click to expand...

That's something I've learnt not sure if I've ever noticed it but its something I'll look out for :)
 
Phil-D said:
With a focal length of 10mm and a focus point at say 10ft, @f3.5 the dof in front of the subject is 6.8 ft and behind is infinity, so even @f3.5 dof is massive :)

Most of my night shots are took wide open @2.8
Click to expand...

yes but is it sharp @ F3.5 was also my point?

I have a 28mm Nikon wide lens which is sharpest @ F8 in my tests
 
Mr Bump said:
yes but is it sharp @ F3.5 was also my point?

I have a 28mm Nikon wide lens which is sharpest @ F8 in my tests
Click to expand...

The problem with shooting stars is that you are limited to the length of exposure time by focal length, by opening up the lens, its possible to save 3 stops of light on the ISO, meaning ISO 6400 becomes 800 :) I haven't found mi Tamron 17-50 to be too bad @2,8 as far as sharpness goes when shooting stars :)
 
Last edited:
Mr Bump said:
looks nice but why shoot it at f3.5 and limiting the DOF?
I would have had this way out at maybe even F8 or F11 on a tripod.
Click to expand...
I'd normally always shoot landscapes at f/11 or similar, the only reason I left it wide open is that to capture stars you need all the light you can get! I'd rather sacrifice a bit of DOF for less noise or a faster shutter speed to stop trailing :)
 
Bill19 said:
I'd normally always shoot landscapes at f/11 or similar, the only reason I left it wide open is that to capture stars you need all the light you can get!
Click to expand...

Yes spot on there. With star photography you need to catch as many photons as possible in a short time so always fully open. Meteors are even tougher, you need F2.8 or faster otherwise they don't usually show up.
 
Fair enough I was more thinking the fourground blurred items that draw the eye needs attention.
 
MartinCornwall said:
The stars are not trailing if you look closer they all look like they are trailing towards the centre of the shot. Stars all trail the same way. This is coma and is a bad characteristic of that lens for night/astro work.
Click to expand...

I have no experience of that lens nor am I up to date with reports about its characteristics. It may well have a reputation for bad coma, but what's showing across much of the frame is star trails. The apparent trailing towards the centre of the frame is purely a coincidence of such a wide viewing angle w/ the direction the camera's facing. There's a tiny amount of coma visible in the crop posted from the corner (you say top right; I think you mean top left) and this is identifiable as a slight bloating of the individual stars rather than the more linear streaking seen elsewhere.

All that said, I wouldn't worry too much about the results of pixel-peeping. If you study for long enough and in enough detail, you'll eventually find something to query- every time. Shooting widefield astrophotography is almost always a compromised exercise from the start, in which you have to make a series of judgements to get the best results from a challenging situation. You're balancing the demand for an aesthetic output with the technical limitations of your camera (noise at higher ISOs) & lens (aperture speed, DoF, vignetting). Given what we know or can see of your equipment, locale & objective, I think you've judged things pretty well.
 
They look good to my inexperienced eye! Had my first forray into star photography this week, without much success. A bright moon and struggling to find proper focus ruined my images, but was fun none the less. Can see how this field of photography is addictive!
 
JulesP said:
Which direction were you facing?
Towards the Pole Star you will get less trailing but towards the celestial equator (Orions Belt) the stars will trail quicker as they move faster across the sky.
Click to expand...

Yes you are right, the further south you are facing, the faster the stars move.
I think this shot illustrates it quite well. Well under the 500 rule, 15 seconds at 22mm (35mm equiv) facing southeast, the stars to the left show no trailing, but those further south on the right are starting to trail.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/sS4bbB]Window On Other Worlds by Steve Bennett, on Flickr[/URL]

Same settings looking northeast no sign of trailing.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/t5ZrKJ]Star Wand by Steve Bennett, on Flickr[/URL]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top