# The Milky Way



## tevo (Dec 23, 2012)

Hello gents,

I will be staying in Palm Desert for about a week, and I want to photograph the stars / Milky Way. I have with me (among other gear) my D7000, a Tokina 11-16, a tripod and cable release. What is the best way to capture the Milky Way? I see photos showing the galaxy with rich colors and clarity, and I hope to achieve something similar.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 23, 2012)

High ISO, Wide open aperture, no exposure times longer than 30 seconds, tripod, cable release.

That's basically how I do mine...


----------



## tevo (Dec 23, 2012)

rexbobcat said:
			
		

> High ISO, Wide open aperture, no exposure times longer than 30 seconds, tripod, cable release.
> 
> That's basically how I do mine...



How high of an ISO? I was thinking 400, 800 maybe, I want to avoid noise if possible.


----------



## rexbobcat (Dec 23, 2012)

tevo said:
			
		

> How high of an ISO? I was thinking 400, 800 maybe, I want to avoid noise if possible.



It depends on how many stars you want to see and how dark the surrounding area is.

I've had to shoot at 1600 at f/1.4 before. It's just a fact of physics because you have to keep your shutter speed fast enough that the rotation of the earth doesn't smear the stars


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 23, 2012)

I highly recommend using the wireless remote with mirror lock up. Let the internal timer run out from mirror up to picture actuation. I've been doing that with my astrophotography and it helps with vibration reduction.

Shooting that wide you should be able to get away with 5" exposure @ 2.8 without any streaks and adjust ISO as needed. The wider you go the more play you have with exposure time.


----------



## DannyLewis (Dec 24, 2012)

ISO either 800 or 1600 you wont get much noise and it can be cleaned up in  PP


----------



## tevo (Dec 24, 2012)

Okay, I just went out and took a few test shots. One problem I am having is that it is not extremely dark where I am at currently, and I do not see many stars, nor can I see the Milky Way without looking carefully, and it looks like the moon is only going to be showing us more light for the duration of my trip.


----------



## STIC (Dec 24, 2012)

...


----------



## DannyLewis (Dec 24, 2012)

What lens are you shooting with?


----------



## DannyLewis (Dec 24, 2012)

I would use the mirror lock up and drop the ISO to 1600 and leave the shutter open for 30 seconds....


----------



## thetrue (Dec 24, 2012)

Stic, is your WB off or do you have blue stars in NZ?


----------



## STIC (Dec 24, 2012)

...


----------



## thetrue (Dec 24, 2012)

Alright, I'm on my way.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 24, 2012)

I can't even see the Milky Way from my location. I can still get good images of Orion though.


----------



## tevo (Dec 24, 2012)

DannyLewis said:


> What lens are you shooting with?



Well, I have the Tokina 11-16 on my camera atm, but I brought along my trusty 18-55 for good measure.


----------



## molested_cow (Dec 24, 2012)

Beware of where the moon is too! Shoot away from it if it's up. Also, take the opportunity to include the landscape in the shot(or composite) with the moon light. It will be cool!


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 24, 2012)

My galaxy photos are similar to others.... 14mm lens, ISO 1600, f/2.8, 40 seconds.

You will still need to process them a bit.  You can also take a dark frame to "subtract" the noise (same exposure as the real image except you leave the lens cap on.  Some cameras have a long-exposure noise reduction mode which causes the camera to internally take a dark frame immediately following the real shot (e.g. if I enable this on my camera and take a 40 second shot, the camera will actually take 80 seconds.   It'll take 40 seconds with the shutter open, followed by 40 more seconds with the shutter closed.  That means I don't need to pop on a lens cap, but that's a trivial thing to do if your camera doesn't have a noise reduction mode.)




Milky Way by Tim Campbell1, on Flickr

BTW, the above was taken in "good" but not "great" dark skies.  You can see the glow of light pollution above the trees which you don't see at the very top of the image.  I was having difficulty with this.  At a darker sky, ISO 3200 would have worked better, but at this location it just picked up even more light pollution.  I had to really work on this in post to improve the contrast.  Also the best months to take such an image would be in July or August when Sagittarius is up (that's probably the brightest part of the Milky Way with the best structure of dust lanes, etc.) 

This was taken in September and Sagittarius had already set -- so this is not the richest part of the Milky Way.  Knowing "when" to get the best image is as much as knowing the best exposure to use.


----------



## tevo (Dec 24, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> My galaxy photos are similar to others.... 14mm lens, ISO 1600, f/2.8, 40 seconds.
> 
> You will still need to process them a bit.  You can also take a dark frame to "subtract" the noise (same exposure as the real image except you leave the lens cap on.  Some cameras have a long-exposure noise reduction mode which causes the camera to internally take a dark frame immediately following the real shot (e.g. if I enable this on my camera and take a 40 second shot, the camera will actually take 80 seconds.   It'll take 40 seconds with the shutter open, followed by 40 more seconds with the shutter closed.  That means I don't need to pop on a lens cap, but that's a trivial thing to do if your camera doesn't have a noise reduction mode.)
> 
> ...



Wow, great shot. From the looks of things, I won't have much luck capturing the stars much less the Milky Way from where I am currently, there is far too much light. I might venture into the mountains on Wednesday night and try my luck there.


----------



## TimGreyPhotography (Dec 26, 2012)

The wider you are shooting the longer exposure you can do. I believe a good formula for calculating the maximum time without showing star trails is 600/Focal Length(35mm equivalent). So the tokina at 11mm is going to be 16.5mm equivalent on a 1.5x sensor. 600/16.5 = ~36sec. So to be safe I would stick to 30second exposures to minimize the formation of star trails. You are going to want to shoot wide open, high ISO, and focused to infinity with noise reduction on if you have it. If you are shooting a foreground with the milky way you are going to want to shoot 2 frames with 2 different focus points. Make sure you are using a steady tripod. If you dont have a remote shutter release I would set the timer and expose for 30sec. Dont worry to much about the high ISO.


----------



## jake337 (Dec 26, 2012)

An interesting read:

Island in the Sky: Christoph Malin talks about his time-lapse documentary of the night sky near the Island of La Palma | Nikon Rumors



Says he usually starts off at ISO 2500-8000


----------



## kykr (Dec 26, 2012)

I've spent a fair amount of time in the Apostle Islands on the southern shore of Lake Superior. Being a National Lakeshore, there's a "Friends" support group, and one fundraiser has been the sale of four incredible photographs of the Milky Way at lighthouses within the park. Outer Island was done first, and at the bottom of the link is a lot of information on how they did it. 

http://www.friendsoftheapostleislands.org/outer-island-lighthouse-photo.html


----------



## McNugget801 (Dec 26, 2012)

I've shot the Milky way plenty of times with my old Tokina 11-16 and got some pretty decent results.  Dont bother shooting anything below ISO1600 at 2.8. Also, where are you shooting from? The most photogenic area of the milky way isn't visible in the northern hemisphere this time of year, it will make its way back up this direction in May and will be prime in July.


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> I highly recommend using the wireless remote with mirror lock up. Let the internal timer run out from mirror up to picture actuation. I've been doing that with my astrophotography and it helps with vibration reduction.


While using mirror lockup will not hurt, it won't make any positive difference either. Think about it: if you need a long exposure to burn a dark scene onto the sensor, how much light do you think will enter the sensor in the fraction of the second that the mirror will be moving if you don't lock it up?



TheFantasticG said:


> Shooting that wide you should be able to get away with 5" exposure @ 2.8 without any streaks and adjust ISO as needed. The wider you go the more play you have with exposure time.


Five seconds at f/2.8 would require an insanely-high ISO that would show more noise than stars (unless you're shooting with a Nikon D4). See Tim's comment below for solid information.



TimGreyPhotography said:


> The wider you are shooting the longer exposure you can do. I believe a good formula for calculating the maximum time without showing star trails is 600/Focal Length(35mm equivalent). So the tokina at 11mm is going to be 16.5mm equivalent on a 1.5x sensor. 600/16.5 = ~36sec. So to be safe I would stick to 30second exposures to minimize the formation of star trails. You are going to want to shoot wide open, high ISO, and focused to infinity with noise reduction on if you have it. If you are shooting a foreground with the milky way you are going to want to shoot 2 frames with 2 different focus points. Make sure you are using a steady tripod. If you dont have a remote shutter release I would set the timer and expose for 30sec. Dont worry to much about the high ISO.


I agree with all of the above, except maybe the use of the camera's noise reduction (unless you don't mind waiting for about 30 seconds between photos). At the settings Tim suggested, expect your ISO not to have to go higher than 1600. The below is not necessarily a well-composed photo, and the aurora kind of "ruined" the night sky by making it brighter, but it shows you what you can get at f/2.8, 30 seconds, ISO 1600.







Have fun!


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 26, 2012)

Meh. 1stly, I use remote with mirror lock up on a telescope mostly but also with night shots as well and I don't see why you couldn't use it doing landscape shots such as yours posted above. Doesn't hurt anything to use it, does it? 2ndly, Tim said the same thing I said which was my point: _The wider you are shooting the longer exposure you can do._


----------



## McNugget801 (Dec 26, 2012)

ISO2000 F2.8 (new moon)




First Night at White Pocket by Summit42, on Flickr


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Meh. 1stly, I use remote with mirror lock up on a telescope mostly but also with night shots as well and I don't see why you couldn't use it doing landscape shots such as yours posted above. Doesn't hurt anything to use it, does it? 2ndly, Tim said the same thing I said which was my point: _The wider you are shooting the longer exposure you can do._


Why not also recommend shooting the Milky Way using flash? It won't do any harm either, so why not?

I haven't shot with a telescope before, but I assume that having the ability to magnify the stars should also bring more light in, which means that locking up the mirror might make a difference in that case. But, unlike what you just said, shooting the sky with a telescope and shooting a nocturnal landscape at 11mm are actually totally different beasts.

I have no interest in engaging in a pointless discussion but someone needs to point out when certain advice is not good. I'm not a night-shooting expert by any means, but I know enough to realize that you shouldn't be dishing out advice  let alone using "meh" when your expertise is put into question *with the facts*. Yes, the wider you are shooting the longer the exposure you can do, but the best the OP can do is completely ignore everything you wrote, to avoid confusion.


----------



## shefjr (Dec 26, 2012)

OP I would strongly encourage you to read this post by Sw1tchFX. 
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/276016-shooting-night-pictures-stars-stuff.html
It has everything you could want to know about with step by step instructions. Everyone above has given good advice and information, but the above link gives you all the steps.
I hope it helps.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 26, 2012)

Sw1tchFX has some good info in that thread.



invisible said:


> Why not also recommend shooting the Milky Way using flash? It won't do any harm either, so why not?



That's just a retarded comparison. Really.



invisible said:


> I haven't shot with a telescope before, but I assume that having the ability to magnify the stars should also bring more light in, which means that locking up the mirror might make a difference in that case. But, unlike what you just said, shooting the sky with a telescope and shooting a nocturnal landscape at 11mm are actually totally different beasts.



Just because they are different beasts doesn't mean techniques used with one doesn't, or rather, can't help with the other.



invisible said:


> I have no interest in engaging in a pointless discussion but someone needs to point out when certain advice is not good. I'm not a night-shooting expert by any means, but I know enough to realize that you shouldn't be dishing out advice &#8211; let alone using "meh" when your expertise is put into question *with the facts*. Yes, the wider you are shooting the longer the exposure you can do, but the best the OP can do is completely ignore everything you wrote, to avoid confusion.



I think good advice that's why I use it which is why I give it. The *fact is* that it doesn't hurt to use remote + mirror lock up with a long focal length or short focal length with night time exposures. If you think there is harm in that advice it is your problem.

And your attitude reminds me of the image I attached to this post.


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

You just said:


TheFantasticG said:


> The *fact is* that it doesn't hurt to use remote + mirror lock up with a long focal length or short focal length with night time exposures. If you think there is harm in that advice it is your problem.



What I previously said (and you are referencing):


invisible said:


> While using mirror lockup will not hurt, it won't make any positive difference either.


...so it's safe to say that you have reading-comprehension issues. I won't bother replying to the rest of your good stuff.

TPF is an amazing gathering place for photographers in all stages of development. Most of those who know what they're talking about are happy to share their experience, as a result of which I've learned a lot here, like many others. But it hasn't been without bumps in the road &#8211; sometimes it's been difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. Misinformed advice sets you back &#8211; you follow directions expecting to see certain results, and when the results are not what you expected you feel like you failed... which sucks big time. For those of us with a little more mileage on our wheels it's important to pay it forward, not just by giving advice but also by singling out incorrect advice &#8211; not with the goal of making the adviser look bad, but to ensure that those who are trying to learn don't feel discouraged. 

So, TheFantasticG, you're super cool, funny and über-knowledgeable but for the time being keep the night-photography advice to yourself. You're not going to be able to shoot the night sky with a 5-second exposure like you said &#8211; there is just no way unless you have a Nikon D4. In this particular case you won't improve the sharpness by locking up the mirror, like I explained above. 

I suggest you don't call other people's posts "retarded" when you try to defend the indefensible.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 26, 2012)

You need to relax. It really isn't that serious. We have differing opinions, obviously. Go get and drink or whatever you need to do. It's not bad advice to use remote + mirror lock up for night exposures. Chill out. Go take some pics or whatever you need to do. When I go out in a few days to the dark site near my house I will be doing exactly what I stated with the remote and setting exposure as I need to. I will use the remote + mirror lock up to reduce chance of vibration. Critical when I'm using a Celestron C8-SGT, less so on 11-16mm lens. But when I'm going for all the sharpness I can get it doesn't hurt to use it. It's really a small detail to b1tch over. Don't like it? Don't use it.


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> You need to relax. It really isn't that serious. We have differing opinions, obviously. Go get and drink or whatever you need to do. It's not bad advice to use remote + mirror lock up for night exposures. Chill out. Go take some pics or whatever you need to do. When I go out in a few days to the dark site near my house I will be doing exactly what I stated with the remote and setting exposure as I need to. I will use the remote + mirror lock up to reduce chance of vibration. Critical when I'm using a Celestron C8-SGT, less so on 11-16mm lens. But when I'm going for all the sharpness I can get it doesn't hurt to use it. It's really a small detail to b1tch over. Don't like it? Don't use it.


Reading your reply made me want to borrow your avatar  facepalm goodness.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 26, 2012)

*edited out beginning* From my experience it depends on what I'm shooting, at what focal length, what look I'm going for, etc. Tim's formula, I think, I s a great starting place for setting exposure but I wouldn't consider it gospel. I am curious, though, Mr Invisible what ISO you consider too high to shoot a 5 sec exposure at a F2.8-F4 on a night scape? I regularly use 800-3200 on the 60D and I suppose I could get away with 6400 on the D7000 with the right PP. 

Yesterday I installed a dovetail on top the C8. Should be nice as the CG-5 GoTo, if aligned properly, can track quite nicely so I will be able to use lower ISOs for the same length exposure.


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> I am curious, though, Mr Invisible what ISO you consider too high to shoot a 5 sec exposure at a F2.8-F4 on a night scape? I regularly use 800-3200 on the 60D and I suppose I could get away with 6400 on the D7000 with the right PP.


It depends on the conditions &#8211; not all nights and locations are the same. By default I approach nightscapes with 2.8, 30s, ISO 800 and then I up the ISO if I need more light. If your lens only allows you to shoot a 5-second exposure, that means you'd need six more stops of ISO &#8211; I'll let you do the math. Your ISO tolerance might be different than the next photographer's &#8211; different cameras, different post-processing workflows, different uses for the photos, etcetera. I need files that are good for big prints (24x36) and stock, so my tolerance for noise is relatively low.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Dec 26, 2012)

invisible said:
			
		

> I need files that are good for big prints (24x36) and stock, so my tolerance for noise is relatively low.



Ah. That explains everything. Just a hobby for me.


----------



## invisible (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> invisible said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hobby or not, I wouldn't expect any kind of usable files at ISO 51200 (if my math is right). I've never tried anything higher than ISO 3200 but I assume the noise one would get at ISO 51200 will most likely be brighter than any star.


----------



## TimGreyPhotography (Dec 26, 2012)

TheFantasticG said:


> Tim's formula, I think, I s a great starting place for setting exposure but I wouldn't consider it gospel. I am curious, though, Mr Invisible what ISO you consider too high to shoot a 5 sec exposure at a F2.8-F4 on a night scape? I regularly use 800-3200 on the 60D and I suppose I could get away with 6400 on the D7000 with the right PP.



I agree with the formula not being gospel. But it is always good to have something to go off of. I think the exposure goal that the OP should be aiming for is getting as long as an exposure possible while shooting wide open without creating noticeable star trails. But at the same time you might have to sacrifice some of that exposure time in order to use a usable ISO that doesn&#8217;t create to much noise. The ISO you are willing to use is also going to depend on the size you plan on printing. Also invisible makes a good point with the fact that 51200 ISO isn&#8217;t going to make anything pretty. Checking the ISO performance of the particular camera you are shooting with is always a good choice before choosing your ISO as well. For instance I get the same amount of noise at 12800 ISO on my 5DMK3 as my 60D shoots at 800 ISO.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 27, 2012)

tevo said:


> Okay, I just went out and took a few test shots. One problem I am having is that it is not extremely dark where I am at currently, and I do not see many stars, nor can I see the Milky Way without looking carefully, and it looks like the moon is only going to be showing us more light for the duration of my trip.



Light pollution can be treated as noise. If you have a good signal to noise ratio you can cut through it with an appropriately horrendous looking curves adjustment. 



DannyLewis said:


> I would use the mirror lock up and drop the ISO to 1600 and leave the shutter open for 30 seconds....



If you need to leave the shutter open for 30 seconds the mirror lockup does absolutely nothing for you and I say this with a Celestron C8 attached to my camera.  The benefit of using it depends entirely on the length of your exposure. Setup your camera as you would and take an exposure of 1/8th of a second. What you see in the frame (nothing) is what is contributing to camera shake. If you need more than 1 second to get something in your exposure then mirror lockup is a waste of time and suggesting to use it all the time is bad practice as it prescribes a HOW and does not inform WHY. So yes suggesting to use mirror lockup when not needed is actually bad.

Oh btw TheFantasticG if you're really having issues with vibration due to mirror slap on a C8-SGT I suggest giving the mount a service. It should not be anywhere near that sensitive to vibration at those subs. Planetary photography with 1/20-1/200 exposures yes for sure mirror lockup is critical there if you're game enough to try taking photos on a sill camera rather than video camera, but really unless you're shooting some ludicrously high ISO (6400+) even bright stars shouldn't be blurry as a result of mirror slap. 



thetrue said:


> Stic, is your WB off or do you have blue stars in NZ?



I'd hope we all have some blue stars, and white stars, and orange stars, and red stars


----------



## exemplaria (Dec 27, 2012)

I would also add that while the rule of 600 is certainly correct, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world if you violate it a bit.  This was an 87 second exposure at ISO1600, f4.5 at 8mm, and while you can certainly see some star movement on the periphery, I think the extra stars and depth gained in the middle are worth it. 




Untitled by exemplaria, on Flickr


----------



## tevo (Jan 4, 2013)

So I am currently staying at a location with much less city light and much more clarity in the stars. Here's one I just took:




Day 3 by theofficialtevo, on Flickr

Thank you everyone for your help!


----------



## molested_cow (Jan 4, 2013)

Well I wish I have access to dry dark places for star shots. I am currently by the coast right on tropic of cancer. The humidity is always high, so on starry nights, if I crank up the exposure, like aperture or ISO, all I will get is reflection of the humidity, not brighter stars. Therefore I have more success shooting star trails than star shots.


----------



## j-digg (Jan 4, 2013)

I can't wait until late May, I'll be in the middle of nowhere in Peru . Providing both a different perspective of the Milky Way and very little light polution, I've heard it's incredible. I'm thinking about getting my ( sort of ) broken XSi modded for astrophotography for a couple hundredish bucks. Has anyone here done this?


----------

