Photographing Milky Way help.

It has been exceptionally clear here in Northern New Mexico, so I thought of doing a bit of Astrophotography. I have two questions and would appreciate any help.

Knowing that the Earth is on the edge of the Milky Way, I am assuming that some of the time we can see most of the Galaxy, and other times very little of it. Is this true? If so, is there a way to find out when we can see most of it? Kind of like the Sun and Moon data website.

Also, is it reasonable to expect any good results shooting the Galaxy with a 10mm lens at f3.5 for 15-30 seconds, at ISO 1600? I don't have access to a tracking device. Just curious what others think.

Thank you.

A 10nnm,f3.5, 30 sec, ISO 1600 starfield shot is certainly worth a try.

Since 30 seconds is about as long as you can go to avoid star trails, a slightly faster lens or higher ISO is about as far as you could push it.

Here's a recent example on the FM landscape board.
It's one of the best Milky Way images that I have seen.
He used a 5D, 15mm fisheye, 30 sec, ISO 3200 , f2.8
Note that he mentions the noise is a noticeable problem, if you try a large print from this image.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/609229

I think the light painting of the foreground really adds a lot.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you get.

The center of the Milky Way is roughly in the direction of Sagittarius. That's a summer constellation. The part of the Milky Way visible in winter isn't as dense. Not to say it's impossible in the winter, but the Via Lactea is best photographed in the summer. Unfortunate because those cold clear winter nights often have excellent seeing. Try pointing your camera generally towards Cassiopeia and Perseus or perhaps Orion instead.

You might find Sky & Telescope magazine's Interactive Sky Chart useful.

Wow Bill, the shot you linked to is incredible, quite literally. I have taken 10 minute exposures at 1600 ISO/f5.6, and never got those colors or that much light from the sky. All I got were star trails. Maybe it was a bad time of year (2 months ago), or the atmosphere was not as clear. I wish I could get a shot like that.

Mark, thank you for the link. I don't quite understand your answer. I thought that our sky changes throughout the day, but not throughout the year.

Oh well, I'll just have to read and experiment more.

Wow Bill, the shot you linked to is incredible, quite literally. I have taken 10 minute exposures at 1600 ISO/f5.6, and never got those colors or that much light from the sky. All I got were star trails. Maybe it was a bad time of year (2 months ago), or the atmosphere was not as clear. I wish I could get a shot like that.

Mark, thank you for the link. I don't quite understand your answer. I thought that our sky changes throughout the day, but not throughout the year.

Oh well, I'll just have to read and experiment more.

Momo, the sky changes throughout the day as a result of Earth rotating around it's axis. What is readily visible in the night sky changes throughout the year as a result of Earth revolving around the sun.

Think of it this way: Half of the sky is not visible because it's behind the sun. Six months (half a revolution around the sun) from now the other half of the sky will be behind the sun. That's a gross over-simplification, of course. The point is that it's all about the positions of the sun, the earth, and the background stars relative to each other.

I am assuming that some of the time we can see most of the Galaxy, and other times very little of it. Is this true? If so, is there a way to find out when we can see most of it?

It is most visible at night. In the daytime, not so much.

One thing to note about that shot that Bill posted a link to is that the area where it was shot is one of the places in the US with the least light pollution. I suspect the increased contrast due to the extremely dark skies helped a great deal in making that shot. Also, it seems it was shot with either a new moon or when the moon had not yet risen.

Another thing is that with the extremely wide field of view (which he did with the 15mm fishy on full frame), you'll be able to shoot for a little longer without getting apparent star trails.

Mel makes a good point. The maximum exposure time before star trails is a function of focal length.
An approximation of the relationship is:
focal length (or 35mm equivalent) divided into 600.
So, 20mm ~ 30 seconds maximum exposure without noticeable star trails.

I don't know how accurate that is, but it seems to be in the ballpark from what I have seen.

Thanks guys.

I might need to wait for a shot like that, but I will try some things after this storm, as I expect super clear sky with no moon. If I get anything, I'll post it.

Thanks again.

I've tried doing a few of these shot's before and for me I've tried to get up in elevation and on cold nights to limit the noise as the senor says cold. Amazing what you can pick up at 12,000 ft on a clear night. You might look at this site as it give a lot of info.

http://astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/TOC_AP.HTM

Brian