Tutorial Photography Guide: Star Trails



Had my first go last night, this is where i work.

Set the camera up and went back to work, not as long as i liked as the clouds set in :shake:

Also made a school boy error. :nono:

I never have my camera set to auto ISO, but tuesday i set it to auto as there was a thread on TP about it and i want to test something, anyway i never took it back off auto and the forgot about it. :wacky:

It was not until i was in Lr and could not work out why the pictures varied in colour as i had set everything :bang:

Anyway i am happy for a first go, Now i want a wide angle lens :puke:
 
That's a really nice first effort Nick, I like the composition and the degree of trails works nicely (y) as with the position of polaris (y) you should be very pleased with that, and just remember ISO next time, I've been there with leaving a setting from a previous shoot, I did just that on the 1st Jan as really messed up what could have been a stunning photo :(

Matt
 
Thanks for the feedback, I am back out Wednesday evening, its addictive this night time stuff.

Do you think you could use a graduated filter to darken the bottom of the image if a building had lights on?
 
Spoony said:
Thanks for the feedback, I am back out Wednesday evening, its addictive this night time stuff.

Do you think you could use a graduated filter to darken the bottom of the image if a building had lights on?
Click to expand...

I think that you could (y) but it could lead to some bad flair issues, personally I'd adjust my exposure a little to compensate, say going from a 30 second exposure to a 20 second exposure if that will help me (y)

Matt
 
squid said:
Thanks guys. Another one from last night


Day 86 by SquidVW, on Flickr

:)
Click to expand...

What was your individual frame settings for this one :thinking: the trails have come out well but I'm just wondering if there would be an opportunity to avoid the bright area at the bottom by tweaking settings

Matt
 
Nice guide. I'm on film here so no stacking for me, just lots of low(ish) ISO film, a tripod, the necessity for a very, very dark place and usually lots of swearing involved :LOL:
 
trencheel303 said:
Nice guide. I'm on film here so no stacking for me, just lots of low(ish) ISO film, a tripod, the necessity for a very, very dark place and usually lots of swearing involved :LOL:
Click to expand...

I'd really love to offer you some decent help on this front, but I've only ever operated on digital, I've never touched film other than in the day's of childhood and cheap film point and shoots :( I hope to soon though (y)

If you try it out please let me know how you get on and let me see the results (y)

Matt
 
We've done it already - ill post up the results in a bit. One of the best things I've found is the film brings out the spectral colours in the stars really well.

The one thing you have to watch out with film is a phenomena known as reciprocity failure, basically where the chemicals get "tired" and the exposure process slows right down after a few minutes - whereas on digital the exposure keeps multiplying in a relatively predictable fashion. So you can leave the shutter open a lot longer with film (within reason) which helps make up for the fact that you can't stack...
 
trencheel303 said:
We've done it already - ill post up the results in a bit. One of the best things I've found is the film brings out the spectral colours in the stars really well.

The one thing you have to watch out with film is a phenomena known as reciprocity failure, basically where the chemicals get "tired" and the exposure process slows right down after a few minutes - whereas on digital the exposure keeps multiplying in a relatively predictable fashion. So you can leave the shutter open a lot longer with film (within reason) which helps make up for the fact that you can't stack...
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information I look forward to seeing them (y)

Matt
 
sorry about the delay, here they are...







i have put thumbnails as I think the full images might be too big for the forum.

Its a really really dark forest park we go to when we do these shots... these are actually all my OH's shots, i was using a black and white film at the time but the camera screwed up so when I dev it I am not sure if any will come out.

You can cleary see the milky way in the pole star shot and we reckon next time we go there we'll try and get some none trailing shots... a fast lens wide open with an ISO 100 or 200 film for 30 secs will probs be enough to get detail in the stars, nebulae and galaxies. watch this space!
 
trencheel303 said:
sorry about the delay, here they are...







i have put thumbnails as I think the full images might be too big for the forum.

Its a really really dark forest park we go to when we do these shots... these are actually all my OH's shots, i was using a black and white film at the time but the camera screwed up so when I dev it I am not sure if any will come out.

You can cleary see the milky way in the pole star shot and we reckon next time we go there we'll try and get some none trailing shots... a fast lens wide open with an ISO 100 or 200 film for 30 secs will probs be enough to get detail in the stars, nebulae and galaxies. watch this space!
Click to expand...

They all work really well (y) what were your setting for these? as I'm sure that will help others they all look around 20 minutes?
 
I can't remember exactly but I think we were using a wide open aperture (f/4), it was ISO 400 film and the exposure were between 15 and 25 ish minutes yep.

The place was PITCH black though... its galloway forest park one of the darkest places in the UK or so I am told, the light in the photos is almost 100% pure starlight!

when we do our next lot of star shots up there I will note down the settings for definite and let you all know.

be aware though that pointing a digital camera into the sky for that long probably won't yield the same results... namely i reckon they'd be brighter and with less contrast (remember what i said above about reciprocity failure), I have tried it myself and I would say stacking is prob the way to go on digital...
 
trencheel303 said:
I can't remember exactly but I think we were using a wide open aperture (f/4), it was ISO 400 film and the exposure were between 15 and 25 ish minutes yep.

The place was PITCH black though... its galloway forest park one of the darkest places in the UK or so I am told, the light in the photos is almost 100% pure starlight!

when we do our next lot of star shots up there I will note down the settings for definite and let you all know.

be aware though that pointing a digital camera into the sky for that long probably won't yield the same results... namely i reckon they'd be brighter and with less contrast (remember what i said above about reciprocity failure), I have tried it myself and I would say stacking is prob the way to go on digital...
Click to expand...

Indeed stacking is the way with digital though you can do single exposure in the right conditions (y)

Thanks for posting the settings used (y)

Matt
 
Now this is something I have wanted to try for ages and never get round to it. But have some questions.

1) Most startrails tutorials I have read recommend getting away from towns cities etc (10-30miles) due to light pollution, but I notice that in your example of finding Polaris you are at Blackpool Pleasure Beach? which from memory isnt exactly "dark skies" orientated. What are your views on dark skies?

2) I have also read that a lens with a large objective lens is better for startrails than an equivalent focal length lens with a smaller objective at the same aperture settings. This had something to do with "point light source" which made no sense to me at all. Can you throw some broad light source on this?

3) Battery power: It must drain the batteries something awful. How do you power your camera on a long shoot of say 2-4hrs?

4) Lastly: My biggest difficulty seems to be actually getting out and trying it: Can you recommend a fool proof method for me to get my fat rear end of the couch on a cold dark night?
 
Re that last point... Don't do it in the depths of winter! Although the milky way isn't highest in the sky during the summer months, there are still some pretty interesting constellations to be had including Lyra and Hercules.
 
Weecorner said:
Now this is something I have wanted to try for ages and never get round to it. But have some questions.

1) Most startrails tutorials I have read recommend getting away from towns cities etc (10-30miles) due to light pollution, but I notice that in your example of finding Polaris you are at Blackpool Pleasure Beach? which from memory isnt exactly "dark skies" orientated. What are your views on dark skies?

2) I have also read that a lens with a large objective lens is better for startrails than an equivalent focal length lens with a smaller objective at the same aperture settings. This had something to do with "point light source" which made no sense to me at all. Can you throw some broad light source on this?

3) Battery power: It must drain the batteries something awful. How do you power your camera on a long shoot of say 2-4hrs?

4) Lastly: My biggest difficulty seems to be actually getting out and trying it: Can you recommend a fool proof method for me to get my fat rear end of the couch on a cold dark night?
Click to expand...

On your first point Peter, that one form Blackpool isn't my photo Andy (AndWhyNot) has allowed me to use that within my guide (y) but there is noting stopping you doing a trail in the middle of London (y) if you can see the stars you can make them trail

On point 2 I'm afraid I cannot really help there as I don't understand the question :shrug:

On point 3 generally a modern DSLR will be able to take 400 long exposures on a single battery, but I use a battery grip so utilse two batteries and have never gone flat to date

On point 4 only you can make the effort to get out (y) I tend to look on it as a wasted opportunity if I miss a clear night :shrug:

Matt
 
Well, isnt easy to pose a question where the logic escapes me before I ask. (I think)

I found the article I read it on: http://www.colinwoodsphotography.co.uk/articles_19877.html

"The focal length of the lens is not important but the size of its objective is. The larger the objective the more light will go in and the more faint stars you will record. The focal length is therefore a compromise between the angle of view and the light capturing ability of the lens. A 28mm f2 will have a larger field of view but will let in substantially less light than a 85mm f2,"

I was hoping someone could shed some light on this as it makes no sense to me at all. I always thought that f2 was f2 on any lens, but according to this guy that is true except for point light sources, like stars.

Wont really matter to me though, my widest apeture is f3.5 :( but my fisheye lens has a big lump of glass at the front, just wondered if that makes a differance.
 
Weecorner said:
Well, isnt easy to pose a question where the logic escapes me before I ask. (I think)

I found the article I read it on: http://www.colinwoodsphotography.co.uk/articles_19877.html

"The focal length of the lens is not important but the size of its objective is. The larger the objective the more light will go in and the more faint stars you will record. The focal length is therefore a compromise between the angle of view and the light capturing ability of the lens. A 28mm f2 will have a larger field of view but will let in substantially less light than a 85mm f2,"

I was hoping someone could shed some light on this as it makes no sense to me at all. I always thought that f2 was f2 on any lens, but according to this guy that is true except for point light sources, like stars.

Wont really matter to me though, my widest apeture is f3.5 :( but my fisheye lens has a big lump of glass at the front, just wondered if that makes a differance.
Click to expand...

I suspect that what the guy is talking about is that because your zoomed in on the starts that bit more you are seeing them a tiny but more and as such will pick up the light better that you would at the same aperture but and a shorter focal length but to me this is a bit of a misnomer as your interesting in the whole scene not just the smaller area you fit in at a long focal length
 
Weecorner said:
What lens & timings did you use?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the location but as a rule I will normally use my 17-85mm f/4-5.6 or my 8mm f3.5 fish eye, and setting it really depends on ambient light but generally around 30 seconds (y)

Welcome to TP :wave:

Matt
MWHCVT
 
OK - decided to have a go at this last night and tried to remember all I had read in the tutorial. It was an exceptionally clear night last night (could not believe how bright Venus was, or how clear we could see Mars). and being in deepest darkest Wales meant there was no light pollution. It also meant there was no internet or mobile connection so I could not pull up the website to check the finer details of how to start.

Anyhow, these are my first efforts. I am a little disappointed with the first effort as my camera stopped shooting after 100 frames but I also forgot the bit about staying close to Polaris. Second effort seems more effective but Polaris was masked by the trees behind the house.

Both were processed using startrails.exe - is this the best software for the job? Results were quick to produce but I notice it is quite dated now. I also only had my D300 with me so was robbed of a wider angle than with my D700.

Comments and advice on how to continue gladly recieved.

Cheers

Spooks

A:

Startrail 1 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

B:

Startrail 2 by Spooky 173, on Flickr
 
I think that you've actually done a really nice job on these (y) a little bit of light painting with a torch on the foregrounds would have really set the images off (y) as to the stacking, personally I'm now in the same camp as Andrew (AndWhyNot) in that I've left startrails behind in favour of StarStaX it just seems to do a much nicer job (y)

Matt
 
Spooky said:
OK - decided to have a go at this last night and tried to remember all I had read in the tutorial. It was an exceptionally clear night last night (could not believe how bright Venus was, or how clear we could see Mars). and being in deepest darkest Wales meant there was no light pollution. It also meant there was no internet or mobile connection so I could not pull up the website to check the finer details of how to start.

Anyhow, these are my first efforts. I am a little disappointed with the first effort as my camera stopped shooting after 100 frames but I also forgot the bit about staying close to Polaris. Second effort seems more effective but Polaris was masked by the trees behind the house.

Both were processed using startrails.exe - is this the best software for the job? Results were quick to produce but I notice it is quite dated now. I also only had my D300 with me so was robbed of a wider angle than with my D700.

Comments and advice on how to continue gladly recieved.

Cheers

Spooks

A:

Startrail 1 by Spooky 173, on Flickr

B:

Startrail 2 by Spooky 173, on Flickr
Click to expand...

These are phenominal, well done for capturing them. The spectral colours came out really well too.
 
Hi Matt, what kind of lens would you use? I have a EFS17-85 or a EFS 70-300 ?
I have. Ever had a try at this before however it looks so good when seen here. Not sure of places to go to avoid the street lights casting light into the shot.
Like the information and will look to try this soon:)
 
Duncan16 said:
Hi Matt, what kind of lens would you use? I have a EFS17-85 or a EFS 70-300 ?
I have. Ever had a try at this before however it looks so good when seen here. Not sure of places to go to avoid the street lights casting light into the shot.
Like the information and will look to try this soon:)
Click to expand...

Hi Duncan, of your two lens I would be suggesting the 17-85 that is the lens that I've used for most of my star trails (y)

As to light pollution I come from and do most of my light trails in quite bad conditions for light pollution you just have to work with it, I've always felt if you spend to much time worrying and getting away from light pollution you'll miss to many great photo opportunities

This link takes you to a page showing a map of UK light pollution (y) HERE

Matt
 
Thanks Matt:)
Once this rain has stopped I will try and see what happens. Any ideas of shooting in these condition were experiencing ???
 
Duncan16 said:
Thanks Matt:)
Once this rain has stopped I will try and see what happens. Any ideas of shooting in these condition were experiencing ???
Click to expand...

If there's cloud there is no point going out to do star trails, you need it to be totally cloud free (y)

Matt
 
Just been informed Startrails 2 has been released, not had a chance to test it yet, hopefully the video option works this time :)

Just ran a quick test and it made an animation video, never managed to get this to work with the previous version.
 
Last edited:
Bambi72 said:
Just been informed Startrails 2 has been released, not had a chance to test it yet, hopefully the video option works this time :)

Just ran a quick test and it made an animation video, never managed to get this to work with the previous version.
Click to expand...

Indeed I've not tested it or checked out the specifications in detail I'll give it a full run down and decide if I'm going to switch to the new version or stick with starstax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top