Sunstar Effect

Hi guys,

I've been trying in the last months to make some nice photos using sunstar effect, but the results have not been what I desire.
Some important items to have in consideration:
- keeping the glass clean
- avoid using filters
- use small aperture
- hide the sun behind rocks, trees, clouds
- primes are better

Here you have some examples of my attempts, in all I use a tripod, canon 350D + Canon 10-22, aperture F/22, ISO 100, clean the lens better i can and use no filters.

Searching on the web find that Nikon lenses seems to make more appealing effect, as the sunstar is more beaked.

I would like to know what do you think about my photos and would love to see yours and all the technical details you use it.
And please after submit your images come back to this post, to clarify some doubts that certainly will come out.

Thank you very much for your help.

Pedro Bento.

I Think this is my successful attempt in sunstar effect, however I thin this is the easiest way of getting the sunstar result, as I found that the technique of hiding sun behind something like trees show us the best results. However I am not 100% satisfied has the sunstar is not beaked as I wish. What do you think?

Notes: Use a tripod, canon 350D + Canon 10-22, aperture F/22, ISO 100, clean the lens better i can and use no filters.

Photographing direct to the sun without any front elements is other way to get sunstar effect, however the effect get here is not again what i desire What do you think?

Notes: Use a tripod, canon 350D + Canon 10-22, aperture F/22, ISO 100, clean the lens better i can and use no filters.

This effect is very appreciated at sunrise/sunset, but in situations with lot of clouds in front of the sun it's pretty difficult to get the result. What do you think about this one and what to improve in situations like that?

Notes: Use a tripod, canon 350D + Canon 10-22, aperture F/22, ISO 100, clean the lens better i can and use no filters (blend of two exposures)

Please analyse this photos and love to listen your opinions, your methods, see your photos and technical details, and read any articles you know.

One more time, I will appreciate a lot your help.

Honestly Pedro, they all look great to me. The sunstar is controlled by the aperture - both the size and shape of the opening (apertures aren't prefectly round). So there's not much you can change for that lens. It looks like you have some very nice ones and I'm not sure what you don't like here. Perhaps you could point to others that you like more (and explain what you mean by "beaked")? It may just be that the lens/focal length used simply give results that are more pleasing to you.

Hi David,

For example:
http://www.wild-wonders.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pc_06.jpg
http://www.wild-wonders.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/fkr_01.jpg

The sunstar here is more beaked.

I the fellow also uses canon lenses.
The effect it not only dependent on the aperture used but also on the number of blades a lens has got. Tricks like hiding the sun behind tree work quite well. I actually like your images. I do not think it has got anything to with the brand. My canon 17-40L was fine regarding this -
http://prashanteju.de/Paris_004.html

Well, the number of blades controls how many points the star has (I think that's what you mean by "beaked" Pedro?). There's no trick - more blades gives an aperture that's more close to a perfect circle, and produces more points. Pedro, the Canon 10-22 has six blades that form the aperture opening, hence the 6 pointed star you are seeing. Prashant's lens has 7 blades, which gives 14 pointed stars (I think odd numbers of blades give double points - but I'm not positive).

So if you want a lot of points Pedro, you'll have to look at lenses that have more blades.

Hi again David,

So if my Canon 10-22 has 6 blades and I get 6 pointed star, how Prashant's Canon 17-40, that has 7 blades, give him a 14 pointed stars?!

Pedro, You got it correct. You just need hide the sun a little more and be very keen on how much of it you let into the frame. I like or prefer just as little as possible. So if you're not blocking any of it the worse it will come out. Have fun!!! Great shots too!


Steve S.

OK...I wasn't certain, so I just looked it up...all lenses produce two points per blade in opposite directions. If the number of blades is even (2,4,6,etc.), these points line up and merge so you only get as many points as blades. If the number of blades is odd (3,5,7,9,etc.), both points from each blade are visible, giving you double the number.

Pedro,

Great technical info here, but I have some aesthetic observations, too. I think the sunstars in all three of your images are stunning. When I squint while looking toward the Sun, I can often see rays, so I consider them quite natural, too. (Probably quite a different optical effect, since the irises in our eyes don't have "blades").

Stars from reflected highlights are another matter. I think they can sometimes look artificial, even though they are real parts of the image. For instance, some people have suggested that I clone out the little 14-point highlight in this image. (I left it as-is, because they seemed to be in the minority, however.) I think most people are not as picky about "realism" as photographers are, so they will just enjoy the sunstars instead of analyzing them.

That's cool Wayne - I like that a lot because it's a small detail. And you must have a 7 bladed lens.

Thank you all guys for your contribution.
The sunstar in your image (Wayne) it's a really nice detail, minium but precious

David:

I'm not very good in English, se here is my question:
"IF TE NUMBER OF BLADES IS EVEN, these points line up and merge so you only get as many points as blades" or "IF TE NUMBER OF BLADES IS EVEN, both points from each blade are visible, giving you double the number." It's not the same thing?!

Come on guys,
I would like to see your sunstar photos and have your contribution

Pedro,
David has just made a typo. It should read -
F TE NUMBER OF BLADES IS UNEVEN, both points from each blade are visible, giving you double the number.

Anyway, I will suggest you to go for better compositions rather than worrying for the effect. After an initial fascination you will understand what I mean.

Prashant is correct Pedro - I've corrected my post above to clarify it. Sorry about the mistake.

I don't have any handy to share, but some of my favorite sun-star effects are in macro shots. If you compose a strongly backlighted, dewy subject and the sun's image is included in the image in each droplet, I can sometimes get a nice jewel-like effect. An old one of mine of was taken in the Texas Hill country during wild flower season. The flower stalk itself is pretty, but not very impactful. Sprinking a star dust of 50-100 starbursts though and it is pretty nice. Unfortunately, the only way to really see these is on a light box with a loupe. I haven't tried getting a really good scan of the slide yet, but a 4000 dpi slide scan doesn't work and projection doesn't even come close.

As Prashant suggests, concentrate on composition. The sun star artifact is not enough alone to make an imagine great. It can be a nice way to add impact, but it can also be over used, like I did the first year I figured out how to do it.

Pete D.
psm I'm too lazy to Google it again, but look up "into the sun" by dan smith and you will find the on-line article that inspired me to try generating sun stars.

Thanks Pete!