Night Photography and Starscapes

[Andrewjmarino]

Hi,

Other than reading some tutorials in various places, I've yet to try night photography. I think that I'd like to start with starscapes and then work my way toward star trails. Starscapes sound like a simpler starting point and you get more chances to try/mess up rather than waiting hours for a star trail
Fortunately, I live in a place where city lights will not be a problem.

I have an Olympus OMD EM1 with a 12-40mm/2.8 and a 17mm/1.8. I think the 17mm would be a better lens to use, but not sure on this.

Can anyone offer some suggestions or a "dummies" checklist for someone starting new at this type of photography. General length of exposure for a starscape; aperture setting(s) to experiment with; camera settings (turn off noise reduction and stabilization?); etc.

Thanks
Andrew

[Shadowman]

Stable shooting position (tripod), remote trigger or timer to prevent camera shake, any camera will do, but your Olympus might be best option to use bulb mode.

[IzzieK]

I will try to find my notes somewhere and get back to you...in the meantime I need my sleep...

[James G]

Andrew, trial & error is the order of the day....
but
Exposure 15 secs, F2-4 ISO 1600 (using a 20mm wide angle lens focussed at infinity)
Tripod is a must, and suggest you use mirror lock up if available.

I have also got away with F4, ISO 800 Exposure 5-25 secs.

In general, if you expose for longer than 30 secs you will get star trails.

If you have interesting foreground to the shot try 'light painting' with a diffuse LED torch.

oh yes.... wrap up warm... and use a headlamp with a red filter so you can see camera controls, and not lose your night sight...

[HaseebM]

What I do is use the lens to capture multiple images of 20, 30 secs each and then stack them together. Process accordingly and you can attain some very good results. If you are using a tripod, then since the lens is 17mm, I guess a 10 - 15 sec exposure may not induce much star streaks or trails. You could try one and then see. Obtaining focus is critical and can be time consuming, at least in my area due to heavy light pollution. Here's one image done using the stacking method but note there is lots of light pollution.

This was taken with a Canon 70 - 200mm L at 200mm.

[Andrewjmarino]

Thanks for the ideas. They seem to be inline with some of the tutorials I've read. And, like Jame's wrote, trial and error...
I guess with the EM1, the 17mm is actually a 35mm equivalent and the 12-40mm is 24-80 equivalent.
I may actually be more confused by the camera
As near as I can figure with the EM1, I have 6 different options for this type of shooting:

- set manually with a "longish" exposure (10, 13, 15, 20 seconds up to 60 seconds)
- custom self-timer (a somewhat limited version of time lapse as near as I can guess)
- live bulb
- live time
- live composite
- time lapse

Trial and error.........
Thanks again and hope to try it out in the next few weeks. Will let you know.

Andrew

[cuilin]

something that i read once (sorry, can't remember where) said to divide 500/focal length and you'll get the maximum shutter speed you can use without getting movement in the stars. so 500/20mm gives you a maximum length of 25 seconds. i don't have any scientific reasoning as to why that works, but it does seem to work for me.


18mm
f/2.8
20s
iso 3200

manual exposure, manual focus was set to infinity, tripod, cable release.


for star trails i take lots of shorter exposures using a locking cable release and stack them in photoshop. if you do this you'll want to turn off anything that will slow your camera down, noise reduction, lcd screen review, etc..

[PhotoByTrace]

Once you've established the ideal exposure length and ISO for your camera and lens combination, then I strongly recommend spending some time in Stellarium or an equivalent software to familiarise yourself with where and when in the night sky different elements will be visible and their movement through the night and across the year. Also consider how moonlight will influence the brightness of the stars and the lightness of your landscape.
Otherwise, get out there, experiment and enjoy Oh, and be aware it is rather addictive

[William W]

. . . I think that I'd like to start with starscapes and then work my way toward star trails. Starscapes sound like a simpler starting point and you get more chances to try/mess up rather than waiting hours for a star trail . . . I have an Olympus OMD EM1 with a 12-40mm/2.8 and a 17mm/1.8. I think the 17mm would be a better lens to use, but not sure on this. . . Can anyone offer some suggestions or a "dummies" checklist for someone starting new at this type of photography.

Actually, Starscapes are MORE difficulty than trails because if you do NOT want any trails it is a skill and a bit of Mathematics to do it.

The better lens to use is the 17mm F/1.8.

There are several reasons for this.

The main two are:

> (a) it is PRIME LENS and will be (should be) susceptible to FEWER internal reflections and
> (b) it is a faster lens by 1⅓Stops. This is very important, because for Starscapes you will be at or near the maximum aperture of the lens to ensure the fastest SHUTTER SPEED possible at the LOWEST ISO which you can sustain.

*

The “Rule of 500” referred to above (sometimes also the “Rule of 600”) is a Rule of Thumb for 135 Format Cameras and lenses, (aka “Full Frame” Cameras).

The Rule of 500 has been dumbed-down from the Mathematics which is used to calculate the maximum Shutter Speed for any given shooting scenario.

And (importantly) the accurate Mathematics Calculations take into account other factors as well as the CAMERA FORMAT

Two other main considerations are:

> (a) where you are on the earth’s surface

> (b) the angle of inclination of the lens

*

However, the "Rule of 500" is a good guide to get you going

For your 4/3rds camera and a 17mm lens a good start would be to use a SHUTTER SPEED of about 15 seconds or faster.

***

Rule of 500 to establish Slowest Shutter Speed useable:

Slowest Shutter Speed in seconds equals
[500 / Focal Length of Lens used] / [‘Crop Factor’ of camera relative to 135 Format]

i.e. for your set up as advised -

[500 / 17] / 2
≈ 29.4/2
≈ 15 seconds

WW

[Andrewjmarino]

Thank you all and a good and interesting point about star trails maybe being easier than starscapes. Thanks for the math help. I'll let you know how it goes (good or bad)

[ianlake]

One thing to bear in mind for UK based photographers is a quote from the late great Patrick Moore who said "if you want to study astronomy in the UK you have to be a bit of a masochist" weather and light pollution is a problem.

I'm based in the Thames Valley and you can almost guarantee that if something astronomical is happening it'll be cloudy.

[James G]

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread43495.htm#post478314

Ian I am up in Birmingham.... same problem I've got a reasonably good spot about 20 miles away at Chesterton, but the usual secondary problem after light pollution is cloud.

I'm hoping to see photograph Comet Lovejoy but I have a 'sinking' feeling that the weather over the next couple weeks may be hopeless!

I posted about it yesterday

[Andrewjmarino]

Thanks. Fortunately I live in rural Cambodia where there is only a generator for the village's electricity. Light pollution is not an issue and now is the dry (non monsoon) season which is why I'm trying to learn and plan for this photo op. There's also an ancient, mostly collapsed temple which I can use in a foreground. The final missing piece before experimenting is a tripod which I will need to travel to Phnom Penh, Bangkok or maybe Siem Reap to buy. I have a mini, but I know it will only be good enough to maybe take some test shots and learn my camera a little more. Lots of good information and tips above for me to use when I'm ready to fire away. Thanks again

[Andrewjmarino]

Hi,

Ok, here are some of my first attempts. Feel free to criticize or offer constructive feedback
The first and third shots were 13 seconds at 800 ISO. The image with the columns was 10 seconds at 1600. All were 1.8 with the 17mm.

The biggest problem was actually framing. I just sort of guessed what would be in the frame. I also, sort of realize, that you need some light on the foreground. I only had a small pocket light with me; except for the last image in the village where there was a yellow, incandescent light shining on the hut.
I need to plan/frame ahead more in the daylight and figure out how to light up the foreground correctly. Also, I only have a tabletop tripod which severely limited placement. I was trying to balance it on the rocks and not tip it over in the dark. Obviously, I need a decent enough full-size tripod.

I left in-camera noise reduction turned on; though I should have tried some with it off to see any differences.
I did some work in Lightroom. Changing the white balance to tungsten. I also did some in B&W which, I think, also look nice. I even liked the "As Shot" WB.

Noise reduction in Lightroom is still something that I am not entirely confident about. How much I can push it and working with the "Detail" "Contrast" and "Smoothness" sliders. I have a hard time seeing any +(good) or -(bad) changes with these sliders.
Thanks again. I hope these are ok for my first attempts.

Andrew

[William W]

. . . I also, sort of realize, that you need some light on the foreground.

I (still) like the first shot, with the foreground in darkness: it creates a solid base for the starscape.

I need to plan/frame ahead more in the daylight and figure out how to light up the foreground correctly. Also, I only have a tabletop tripod which severely limited placement.

Yes to all three points.

Planning how to light the foreground may be complex depending upon the scene - in any case, you will need to consider how to make the exposure "correct" for both the Starscape and the Foreground.

If the foreground (is small enough so it) can be lit with Flash, then you can 'drag the shutter' (research that if it is unknown to you).

Thanks for posting the results - you are on the right track.

Good work.

WW

[Andrewjmarino]

Can I ask a silly depth of field question related to this topic. I am still, very much, in the beginner's stage.

If I have an object in the foreground relatively close, don't I need to manually focus on that object?
Or else it will be out-of-focus.
But, what happens to my stars (i.e. depth of field) if I'm shooting at 1.8; or my aperture is almost wide open.

Sorry if I'm missing a basic technical concept here.

Thanks

[James G]

Andrew,
the basic rules of photography still apply, so if foreground detail is relatively close it may be out of focus.

There are a number of strategies for dealing with this.

1) simply move back. I presume your focus of attention is the night sky, so a foreground not fully in focus is not a great issue as long as it is not the dominant feature.

2) take a second shot refocused for the foreground and then blend back into the night sky.

3) Again depending on distance from the nearest foreground subject you wish to be in focus, place yourself to take advantage of the hyper-focal distance for the lens you are using.

James

[Andrewjmarino]

Thanks, and much as I thought. I guess i was wondering if the huge distance to the stars would make a difference when thinking about about the depth of field. Your points make sense and I'll have to pay attention to this issue as I want the temple to be in some of the foreground scenes as I practice and take more shots.

[William W]

Yes, the basic rules of DoF are a consideration, but not usually a very major consideration for this particular shooting scenario.

(Below are generalizations, but are specific to a shooting scenario TYPE/CATEGORY.

Certainly each scene needs to be evaluated as “individual” and technical choices are then made based on the Photographer’s Vision)

The reasons that Consideration of DoF is not a major concern are, that for this type of shooting scenario:
>  Usually using a wide lens – ergo: – big DoF and elegant Hyperfocal Distance

>  Tv (Shutter Speed) is more important to stop star MOVEMENT than Focus is to make stars SHARP

> ISO is more important to reduce NOISE than Av (Aperture) is to make bigger DoF

> The “foreground” Subject is usually NOT really close

And specific to your tools –

> Using a 4/3rds Camera – provides larger DoF (relative to 135 format)

In summary, with your camera and the 17mm Prime Lens I roughly calculate, using he HD (Hyperfocal Distance) you’d be good from about 20ft to infinity at F/1.8. Now “Depth of Field” does not mean it will all look really sharp. In my experience to ere more toward sharp focus on the Foreground does not really stuff up the quality of the Starscape all that much.

The SHUTTER SPEED being SHORT ENOUGH - AND – the TRIPOD being STEADY, I have found are more important than really accurate focus, on the stars.

A bit of a tangent example – but I use a 24/1.4 for Starscapes (on 135 format camera) – here is a sample of that lens used at F/1.4 – I think it is a good example of showing the DoF capacity simply because it is a wide lens. Note also, your 4/3rds format provides more DoF, because it is a smaller format.

Link here: http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=958772
You may double-click on the images to view them large.

If you do choose to “blend” two images, be careful: it will probably not be a ”blend” as such; but more a Mask and Sandwich Technique.

One mask will be the foreground and the other will the Starscape.

Because during the interregnum of making the two shots the stars will most likely have moved considerably.

WW

[Andrewjmarino]

Hi,

Back again with my first few attempts at star trails using the composite setting on the OMD EM1. Looking for a little critical and constructive feedback The first one was 10 minutes; the second one was 20 minutes, using the 17mm 1.8 and ISO 800. I used 30 second composite shots.
These were really just practice shots in my backyard to learn the EM1's composite shooting mode. I know I need to pay more attention to foreground composition, lighting and focus next time. Yes, btw, they are somewhat post-processed in Lightroom (WB, exposure, tone, noise reduction, sharpening).
I think the problem I see is the gaps in the trails which is more noticeable if the image is enlarged. I read somewhere this morning (after the fact) that I was supposed to turn off in-camera noise reduction to prevent the gaps. Will this work?
It's suprising how few cloudless nights I have in Cambodia during the dry season.

Thanks for any feedback
Andrew