I'm not sure if I've posted the same image twice before, but this night photography stuff was a little more tricky than I first thought. I've spun around npn and the web a bit trying to learn from others, and would love some feedback on this white balance setting for those who are willing to weigh in yet another time. (I really value the feedback here, and promise to not post it again

)
Here's the original.
Also, I think a large part of the odd glow on the horizon in the lower right was from man-made lighting (maybe from a distant Las Vegas?); I tried to minimize it in this version.
Comments
28 commentsThis is excellent, a very nice balance of sky and land.
The WB looks good for me, it is a bit subjective.
What did you use?
I sometimes shoot at auto & change it if I want or I shoot at fluorescent which works most of the time.
This looks like fluorescent to me.
I do think the land could be warmer, you have nice light on it, maybe a bit more red on the rock.
Great tip Jared; I'll look for that. (I have no idea what temp my old headlamp is!)
Please see my comments on Keith Bauer's Bosque nightscape. Your image captures the prevailing view of digital photographers of the "night is blue crowd," and is much better than your original. But it is still far from natural. For example, the star Antaries (Alpha Scorpio) is a very red-orange star surrounded by dust that also shows the same color as the star. This star appears red-orange visually. You show it as white. You have some nice brownish tints to the Milky Way dust, but it is too magenta. You have many blue stars but there really are no blue stars. Emission nebulae, like the Lagoon nebula, appear white but are really quite red. Overall, the color balance is still too blue, at least if you want to represent real nature.
I liken this blue trend in the digital photography community as if they decided sunsets should be blue with a blue setting sun and no red is allowed.
The night sky is really warm and wondrous with many beautiful colors. But I'm probably speaking alone in the dark of the night.
Roger
It's fascinating to me how different the WB settings make the sky appear, especially because the camera sees so much that is just dark to my eye when I'm actually taking the photo. (My night vision is decidedly average.) Below, I'll post a version that is 35% the bluer version from above, and 65% this version processed at Daylight. Comparing these three the final version is probably my favorite, with the bluer version posted at the beginning of the thread second.
I like your 35/65 blend. The star colors show great range in color and are generally in the right end of the spectrum (e.g. Antares is orange, as is the dust around Antares). The brown in the Milky Way looks good too. The daylight version looks good too though seems a little too yellow--but sometimes the night sky is like that.
Roger
John
The end result is some beautiful night photography, sure to please