I took this on my last jaunt after shooting sunset at the top of Mt. Evans. It's taken at Echo Lake. I have tried coaxing more light on the lake out of it, but my PS skills are preventing me from anymore than this. Some real noise issues if I try to open it up. Might have to have a little more moonlight to make it even begin to approach Stan's shot at the dunes.
f/4, 28mm, 1600 iso, 30 sec.
Comments and critiques always welcome, and thanks for looking,
This has a lot of potential! Just wish I could see the foreground.
Next chance you get, expose the foreground for a longer period of time at a lower ISO, then expose for the stars just like this, and then combine (blend) the two.
I think the sky is a little bit (okay, a lot) too neon blue for my tastes, but I sure like the concept. Dumb question: By Mount Evans Massive, do you mean Mount Evans massif?
Thanks John, that should do the trick. And yes Mr. Grammar thank you for humiliating me in front of everyone. That would be Mt. Evans massif.
(I can't bellieve I used that other word. DUH!)
Just wondering why ISO 1600? I think the image idea is sweet, but the noise hurts it.
Posted by Paul Wegemann on July 18, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Great concept, Morris, and overall I like this. John pretty much sums up what I would have tried. Not that my night shots are any good, but it's what I would have tried.
Justin, I use 1600 because I want to keep the exposure times down. I could be wrong, but doesn't the noise problem get worse ,guys, with longer exposures? I probably need Noise Ninja or something like it, if I am to continue trying this. Or try John's suggestion. And Paul, I will try it next time I have the chance. And thanks to everyone for your comments.
I can't add anything to whats been said, like John suggested a blend is the only way to go. Im hoping my next upgrade allows me a little less noise with a little more light, but theres only so much you can do. Im not really anxious to do lots of night shots until i can get less noise at ISO 800+, otherwise the results are just too frustrating.
Longer exposures at lower ISOs should always equate to less noise than shorter exposures at higher ISOs. Even with my "small sensor" 4/3rds Olympus camera I can get some pretty clean longer exposures if I turned the in-camera noise reduction feature on. I'm assuming most cameras have this feature as well. But like others have mentioned, I think blending shots would be a good solution too.
Justin,
Also, one of the reasons I want a shorter exposure is so I don't have star trails, but star points of light. Longer exposures tend to produce a short trail, which I don't really care for. Anyone out there experimented with maybe 1 minute at less than f4 with a 5d? And I need to try the in-camera noise reduction setting as you suggested.
What the in-camera 'noise reduction' feature actually offers isn't noise reduction, but 'hot pixel subtraction' instead. It does this by overlaying a black frame that was taken immediately after your long exposure and removing any stray hot pixels created by that long exposure.
Not that that isn't valuable, but just thought you oughta know the reality of that method.
Also, the colder it is outside, the cleaner the image will be.
Sounds like hot pixels to me.
Most cameras seem to have 'em.
Posted by Brent Murphy on July 20, 2009 at 10:54 AM
I agree you need to keep the exposure down to around 30 seconds, or less, to avoid streaks in the stars. Even at 30 seconds, if you zoom in, you can see the star movement. I have taken some shots like this, and Noise Ninja did an excellent job cleaning them up. I would highly recommend giving it a try.
Posted by Jim Casteel on July 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Morris,
It also depends on the camera. My old camera (D70) could only go about 60 seconds before it started getting hot in the corners of the sensor. My new camera (D300) however has gone 5 minutes and I can't see any visible hotspots or noise.
Discussion
17 repliesf/4, 28mm, 1600 iso, 30 sec.
Comments and critiques always welcome, and thanks for looking,
Morris
Next chance you get, expose the foreground for a longer period of time at a lower ISO, then expose for the stars just like this, and then combine (blend) the two.
(I can't bellieve I used that other word. DUH!)
Just wondering why ISO 1600? I think the image idea is sweet, but the noise hurts it.
Longer exposures at lower ISOs should always equate to less noise than shorter exposures at higher ISOs. Even with my "small sensor" 4/3rds Olympus camera I can get some pretty clean longer exposures if I turned the in-camera noise reduction feature on. I'm assuming most cameras have this feature as well. But like others have mentioned, I think blending shots would be a good solution too.
Also, one of the reasons I want a shorter exposure is so I don't have star trails, but star points of light. Longer exposures tend to produce a short trail, which I don't really care for. Anyone out there experimented with maybe 1 minute at less than f4 with a 5d? And I need to try the in-camera noise reduction setting as you suggested.
Not that that isn't valuable, but just thought you oughta know the reality of that method.
Also, the colder it is outside, the cleaner the image will be.
Most cameras seem to have 'em.
It also depends on the camera. My old camera (D70) could only go about 60 seconds before it started getting hot in the corners of the sensor. My new camera (D300) however has gone 5 minutes and I can't see any visible hotspots or noise.