Is It Worth Taking My Star Tracker?

[southernsteve]

Hi all

I am on a trip up to North Norfolk next week and the weather is looking great for some moonscapes and possible night photography. Downside is it will be a full moon, so I was wondering if it's worth taking my star tracker with me, or should I just concentrate on using a fixed tripod and play with the settings. The locations I'm planning to use all have the advantage of a northly view, so the moon will be either 90 degrees so I'll try using a polarising filter, or behind me, hopefully lighting up the foreground, and no doubt I'll get some stars too, but Id like to get these a sharp as possible as well as trying long exposure star trail images. Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated

 

[CavGez]

Doesn't this depend on what angle you'll be shooting at? From that you can work out what the longest exposure can be, without trailing stars. Taking multiple shots and merging would work without the tracker. Also, less faff setting up.

 

[LeeRatters]

If you can get out early evening the moon may be pretty big but can give you some nice low sidelighting! That will be nice for star trails, but the tracker.... It's hard to say really. I guess the main thing is how happy you are with pushing ISO and if you are happy with stacking etc? I have taken my tacker out before but not used it because I've managed to get away with a good ISO. Of course you could reverse it for catching your star trails in less time.

I will admit, I've never thought of using a polariser at night though.

 

[southernsteve]

If you can get out early evening the moon may be pretty big but can give you some nice low sidelighting! That will be nice for star trails, but the tracker.... It's hard to say really. I guess the main thing is how happy you are with pushing ISO and if you are happy with stacking etc? I have taken my tacker out before but not used it because I've managed to get away with a good ISO. Of course you could reverse it for catching your star trails in less time.

I will admit, I've never thought of using a polariser at night though.

Thanks Lee, I usually use one frame, though not keen on using high ISO, but that's more because I am very new to a lot of what's involved with night photography and it's difficult for me to get to any really dark skies. I'd never thought about reversing the star tracker, mind I've only had it a week, might save me freezing waiting for the camera to shoot for long enough for the trails. As for the polariser, I had heard about using filters at night to allow for longer exposures, mainly HD's but stumbled over using a polariser on a YouTube channel. very well explained, though all the technical stuff went straight over my head, Basically use it with the lens 90 degrees to the moon.

 

[LeeRatters]

Thanks Lee, I usually use one frame, though not keen on using high ISO, but that's more because I am very new to a lot of what's involved with night photography and it's difficult for me to get to any really dark skies. I'd never thought about reversing the star tracker, mind I've only had it a week, might save me freezing waiting for the camera to shoot for long enough for the trails. As for the polariser, I had heard about using filters at night to allow for longer exposures, mainly HD's but stumbled over using a polariser on a YouTube channel. very well explained, though all the technical stuff went straight over my head, Basically use it with the lens 90 degrees to the moon.

If you do reverse for the star trails you'll obviously have to blend in the sky layer and do some work to get it behind your foreground. But then that's no different to tracking the Milky Way i suppose. I've only personally shot star trails on film, not digital yet.

The thing is about a polariser at night, in my eyes, it's that it's going to reduce the light coming into the sensor which is pretty damn low already! If I want longer exposures of the night sky just close the aperture down by a stop or drop the ISO.

 

[southernsteve]

If you do reverse for the star trails you'll obviously have to blend in the sky layer and do some work to get it behind your foreground. But then that's no different to tracking the Milky Way i suppose. I've only personally shot star trails on film, not digital yet.

The thing is about a polariser at night, in my eyes, it's that it's going to reduce the light coming into the sensor which is pretty damn low already! If I want longer exposures of the night sky just close the aperture down by a stop or drop the ISO.

I think you lose about one and a half to two stops with the polariser on. I have had problems in the past when taking photos at night when there is bright lights, and the full moon can give off loads of light. I was shooting at ISO 100, but to get a long exposure I had to close the aperture to around f/11 or lower, compromising sharpness and contrast, and on that occasion I should have use the HD filter I had with me, or polariser so I could have dropped down to below f/8. I'll see if I can experiment and see what happens.

 

[LeeRatters]

I think you lose about one and a half to two stops with the polariser on. I have had problems in the past when taking photos at night when there is bright lights, and the full moon can give off loads of light. I was shooting at ISO 100, but to get a long exposure I had to close the aperture to around f/11 or lower, compromising sharpness and contrast, and on that occasion I should have use the HD filter I had with me, or polariser so I could have dropped down to below f/8. I'll see if I can experiment and see what happens.

Are you talking about star trails? On digital they are typically shorter exposures & stacked because apparently sensor heat/noise happens. One o fmy mates regularly shoots star trails as a timelapse at 20-30 seconds shutter speed per image - just end up with hundreds of images!

I shot Stonehenge on ASA200 film at f/11 & slightly underexposed at 70 minutes.

I also have this tagged "ASA200 film, f/8, 22 minutes exposure with a rising full moon"

NOTE - Just thought of something, reciprocity with film! Those two exposures for digital would have been halved so 35mins & 11 mins.

 

[southernsteve]

Are you talking about star trails? On digital they are typically shorter exposures & stacked because apparently sensor heat/noise happens. One o fmy mates regularly shoots star trails as a timelapse at 20-30 seconds shutter speed per image - just end up with hundreds of images!

I shot Stonehenge on ASA200 film at f/11 & slightly underexposed at 70 minutes.

I also have this tagged "ASA200 film, f/8, 22 minutes exposure with a rising full moon"

NOTE - Just thought of something, reciprocity with film! Those two exposures for digital would have been halved so 35mins & 11 mins.

no, not with the filter, that was just general night sky/milky way to try and cut out moon light. I've tried a pollution cutter and that seem to work ok

 

[hunnymonster]

.., so I was wondering if it's worth taking my star tracker with me, or should I just concentrate on using a fixed tripod and play with the settings. ...

The law of maximum inconvenience suggests that if you take it then you'll have no need; conversely if you don't take it then you'll wish you had.

If you're travelling by car and there's room - take it.

 

[LeeRatters]

no, not with the filter, that was just general night sky/milky way to try and cut out moon light. I've tried a pollution cutter and that seem to work ok

Honestly, I think if you are shooting at ISO100 & f/11 for the night sky I think the sky is going to be way too bright to pick up many stars or the Milky Way.

 

[southernsteve]

The law of maximum inconvenience suggests that if you take it then you'll have no need; conversely if you don't take it then you'll wish you had.

If you're travelling by car and there's room - take it.

Honestly, I think if you are shooting at ISO100 & f/11 for the night sky I think the sky is going to be way too bright to pick up many stars or the Milky Way.

That was in London trying a long exposure of the London Eye

 

[southernsteve]

The law of maximum inconvenience suggests that if you take it then you'll have no need; conversely if you don't take it then you'll wish you had.

If you're travelling by car and there's room - take it.

didn't bother in the end, a glad I left it at home. The only night I've had where there was long enough between sunset and moon rise to make it worthwhile was tonight, and it was cloudy

 

[LeeRatters]

That was in London trying a long exposure of the London Eye

Ah, slightly different from shooting the night skies then really.

 

[Nod]

didn't bother in the end, a glad I left it at home. The only night I've had where there was long enough between sunset and moon rise to make it worthwhile was tonight, and it was cloudy

That's unusual - it's normally when I have all the right kit in the right place that the conditions don't play ball ; leave a vital piece of equipment behind and the rest slots perfectly into place!