What's the secret to getting these kind of shots?

MileCreations

MileCreations

What is the secret to getting a shot that looks like this?? https://vimeo.com/22439234 You don't even have to play the video, just look at the thumbnail.

I've tried many different ISO settings, aperture settings, shutter speed settings and RAW settings and I have NEVER been able to pull this level of colour from the night sky. Here is a photo I took and even when I make it brighter and stuff it doesn't make much difference, apart from the grain! http://www.flickr.com/photos/milecreations/8394771058/in/photostream
I have tried areas with much much less light and have had no better results, they just aren't online yet

Now I know that it isn't my part of the world that doesn't get this as I have seen examples from nearby (within 200-300km).

So is it the lens? Am I doing something wrong in my RAW editing? Can you only get shots like this some nights / some parts of the year?

:huh::huh::huh:
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Usually for this kind of thing you're looking at exposures in the 30 second range, plus high ISO and open aperture. You need a cloudless night with either a new moon or moon behind you (which will light up the ground).

It also helps to be away from any major metropolitan area to cut down on light pollution. Looking at your sample shot it looks like you're just too close to city lights. Running a longer exposure/higher ISO is just going to overexpose the lights further and make the sky murky - you can see the orangish glow of the lights in the bottom third of the shot. You need to head out to a more remote area - for instance, when you're out in the desert at night you can see the milky way with the naked eye, so it's going to be a lot easier to capture it in your shot. I'd say you'll want to be at least 100 miles from any major occupied area.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Crank the ISO to 1600, keep the F3.5 and the 18mm, and leave the shutter open for 30 seconds. That will get you fairly close if you have a clear night and can turn away from any other light sources besides the stars. To get some of the "galaxy" shots, photographers have been known to use software/hardware to line up the earths rotation with the camera to extend the exposure times.
By the way those photos at the beach are awesome....
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
Usually for this kind of thing you're looking at exposures in the 30 second range, plus high ISO and open aperture. You need a cloudless night with either a new moon or moon behind you (which will light up the ground).

It also helps to be away from any major metropolitan area to cut down on light pollution. Looking at your sample shot it looks like you're just too close to city lights. Running a longer exposure/higher ISO is just going to overexpose the lights further and make the sky murky - you can see the orangish glow of the lights in the bottom third of the shot. You need to head out to a more remote area - for instance, when you're out in the desert at night you can see the milky way with the naked eye, so it's going to be a lot easier to capture it in your shot. I'd say you'll want to be at least 100 miles from any major occupied area.
Click to expand...



icba pictures said:
Crank the ISO to 1600, keep the F3.5 and the 18mm, and leave the shutter open for 30 seconds. That will get you fairly close if you have a clear night and can turn away from any other light sources besides the stars. To get some of the "galaxy" shots, photographers have been known to use software/hardware to line up the earths rotation with the camera to extend the exposure times.
By the way those photos at the beach are awesome....
Click to expand...

Yeah I have done pretty much all those things in the past. As I said this is a bad example, I have tried it in much more rural areas. For the record you can see the milky way relatively clearly from my house with is only just out of a city. I have plans to go to an extreme remote area however I expected to at least get some level of those colours in slightly less remote areas. I guess I just need to keep practicing!

and thanks!

Lucky Hardwood said:
He was on top of a mountain. There is a reason they built an observatory there.
Click to expand...

Interesting point...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Is your goal to capture the milky way or get those kind of colours while shooting a timelapse at night? Or both?

I have a little experience in shooting timelapses and a lot more in the theory of circumstances which I have not been in. You'll find a lot of timelapse shooting is in the circumstance after you have your individually preferred settings mastered (there is no one correct way to do it.)

PM me and we can communicate by way of email if you want to talk about this. I don't want to type here because I could end up writing essays on different possibilities without knowing if they were even of use to you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
The pic you posted of your own shot has crazy amounts of light pollution in it. You can see it sweeping up and washing over the entire bottom third of the image... and while the city-level may be somewhat decently exposed, that's nowhere near good enough for the night sky.

1) Get out of town.

2) Use the fastest glass you have, assuming it's wide enough for good composition. Fast glass means more light can be seen in a shorter amount of time. Why is this important? 'Cos the Earth & cosmos are all spinning, and the longer the exposure the more blur you'll get.

3) Experiment. A lot. Once you've nailed how that first initial shot looks, record a set of images with those settings. Then afterwards, do the same thing in post. Adjust one image, over & over, til it's just how you want it... and then apply that exact thing to all images in the sequence. I'm sure you've installed DPP by now. Go nuts with it.

4) Take your nightsky timelapse at New Moon. If you have a moon out, the light reflecting from it will kill your sky and you'll end up with no visible stars. (Heh, I'm actually deliberately doing that this weekend, for full moon timelapse for werewolf flick, but that's a needed non-starry necessity)

5) Be prepared to spend a night out, taking lots of shots, and ending up with nothing. Bring a hot thermos & someone to talk cameras with. Company helps pass the time, and you need a lot of patience.

Learn by doing. get better. Post the great shots, and bask in the compliments. Trash the lousy ones, and move on. Practise makes perfect :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
The pic you posted of your own shot has crazy amounts of light pollution in it. You can see it sweeping up and washing over the entire bottom third of the image... and while the city-level may be somewhat decently exposed, that's nowhere near good enough for the night sky.

1) Get out of town.

2) Use the fastest glass you have, assuming it's wide enough for good composition. Fast glass means more light can be seen in a shorter amount of time. Why is this important? 'Cos the Earth & cosmos are all spinning, and the longer the exposure the more blur you'll get.

3) Experiment. A lot. Once you've nailed how that first initial shot looks, record a set of images with those settings. Then afterwards, do the same thing in post. Adjust one image, over & over, til it's just how you want it... and then apply that exact thing to all images in the sequence. I'm sure you've installed DPP by now. Go nuts with it.

4) Take your nightsky timelapse at New Moon. If you have a moon out, the light reflecting from it will kill your sky and you'll end up with no visible stars. (Heh, I'm actually deliberately doing that this weekend, for full moon timelapse for werewolf flick, but that's a needed non-starry necessity)

5) Be prepared to spend a night out, taking lots of shots, and ending up with nothing. Bring a hot thermos & someone to talk cameras with. Company helps pass the time, and you need a lot of patience.

Learn by doing. get better. Post the great shots, and bask in the compliments. Trash the lousy ones, and move on. Practise makes perfect :cool:
Click to expand...

I live out of town :) But yes I shall go further out!

The fastest I have is a 50mm so on the t3i it's cropped a bit but I guess depending on the area I am shooting this shouldn't matter as much I suppose...

Thats what I'm doing, experimenting :yes: I was just checking there wasn't something I was missing. Installed DPP tonight, it was on my list of things to do for this week (been busy with other edits and haven't had time for my timelapses). Made my computer go a bit crazy. It works... but I don't have as many RAW editing options as I do in Photoshop. Could I edit the RAW details of one in Photoshop then come over to DPP and do the copy recipe?

I'm planning a night out soon...

Thanks everyone for your advice!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
MetalRenard said:
*jaw hits the floor*
That video is spectacular...
Click to expand...

My reaction when I first saw it too! It is now one of my goals to produce time lapses of comparible epicness :D

Zensteve said:
You might be better off with a slower lens in the 14mm to 28mm range, in that case. Skies tend to look more epic with that wider angle.

But, hey... play around! Find what works for you. :cool:
Click to expand...

:/ I only have the kit lenses and the 50mm. So I guess I'll just go with 18mm for the moment.

And yeah the wider they are the more epic they are, I agree!


Oh and when I've got all my settings/locations right, should I expect to see a small level of this colour on the screen or will it not come out till the raw editing?

I'm curious in some of the crazy Milky Way shots in that video, one there is a sandstorm and another there are a few wisps which look like clouds. So far I've found a a clear night works much much better, so what am I seeing here, and why is it working for this guy?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Oh yeah, also forgot to tell you... Batch process the sequence through Photoshop (or whatever editing suite you prefer) to enhance the saturation. After setting it on one of the photos near the middle, you can batch it for the rest and you'll see much better colors. Also those folks got plenty of light pollution, which may add the yellows down low, that your first example showed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well, in reference to the thumbnail there is also this:

A large sandstorm hit the Sahara Desert on the 9th April (bit.ly/g3tsDW) and at approx 3am in the night the sandstorm hit me, making it nearly impossible to see the sky with my own eyes.
Interestingly enough my camera was set for a 5 hour sequence of the milky way during this time and I was sure my whole scene was ruined. To my surprise, my camera had managed to capture the sandstorm which was backlit by Grand Canary Island making it look like golden clouds. The Milky Way was shining through the clouds, making the stars sparkle in an interesting way. So if you ever wondered how the Milky Way would look through a Sahara sandstorm, look at 00:32.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you are just in the right place at the right time.

x2 on the HDR comment, which you can also do to a degree since you'll be taking RAW stills anyway.

MileCreations said:
Oh and when I've got all my settings/locations right, should I expect to see a small level of this colour on the screen or will it not come out till the raw editing?
Click to expand...

You'll have to process the RAW images, they'll appear flat-ish mostly, but in PS/Lightroom/Whatever you'll be able to tweak various attributes. HDR will also help get closer to that type of look, lots of info online on how to do that with a DSLR cam.

MileCreations said:
I'm curious in some of the crazy Milky Way shots in that video, one there is a sandstorm and another there are a few wisps which look like clouds. So far I've found a a clear night works much much better, so what am I seeing here, and why is it working for this guy?
Click to expand...

Serendipity. ;)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Zensteve said:
You might be better off with a slower lens in the 14mm to 28mm range, in that case. Skies tend to look more epic with that wider angle.
Click to expand...

It's more than just looking epic - wide angles let you get away with a longer exposure with less noticeable streaking because the amount of movement over a given time is smaller relative to the visible area of the frame.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
icba pictures said:
Oh yeah, also forgot to tell you... Batch process the sequence through Photoshop (or whatever editing suite you prefer) to enhance the saturation. After setting it on one of the photos near the middle, you can batch it for the rest and you'll see much better colors. Also those folks got plenty of light pollution, which may add the yellows down low, that your first example showed.
Click to expand...

THANKS! Great help this is what I have been trying to figure out for some time now
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I had briefly looked into one then discovered Magic Lantern. Is there much difference between an actual intervalometer and the built in ML one?

A number of the photos on my Flickr are actually part of their own timelapse which I'm slowly working on. It's not a giant priority, however, because when I eventually release the timelapses I will put them in a compilation and I currently don't have enough to make that worthwhile. I've probably done about 5 or 6 decent ones by now: Night, Sunrise, Sunset, clouds
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ML is great, but there are a couple things about the external units that are good too. I don't have ML (yet, the alpha isn't ready yet for T4i) but have read, watched, and looked at a lot of info about it. The external allows you to set a pause before starting the sequence letting you get all the shots with no chance of camera shake. It also has a programmable bulb setting (not sure if ML has that along with intervelometer, tutorials didn't say) to let you open the shutter for hours if wanted. Also there's a sequence amount allowed, say if you wanted to limit the end result to 16 seconds of video it will take only 399 pictures, saving battery and memory in case you don't want to babysit the camera.
I also have a different camera with no ML options, soooooo, it works great for that camera too...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
So I've managed to get some shots where you can see the definition of the Milky Way.
This was not RAW coz some idiot adjusted settings on my camera somehow without me knowing. ('family camera' but the only other person who would even know how to change a setting swears he didn't adjust it) and I hadn't bothered checking :|
http://www.flickr.com/photos/milecreations/8642237666/in/photostream



But how do you get the crazy colours??

So HDR... But HDR involves mixing multiple images (of different exposure.....) how can you do that with something that is moving. Or is it a simulated HDR? In that case how do I go about doing that?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top