# Stars



## DGMPhotography (Sep 25, 2014)

I think this is the best I've done so far of just the stars (in terms of exposure and number of stars)


----------



## Raj_55555 (Sep 26, 2014)

Zero experience in this stuff so this might be a camera limitation, but I'm sure you can do better!
This one is has too much noise, colour and otherwise.

I am also planning to get into these, so I'm sure I'll not facing the same difficulties as well!!


----------



## D-B-J (Sep 26, 2014)

What's the settings on this image?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 26, 2014)

ISO 1000
20mm
f/8
20 seconds


----------



## D-B-J (Sep 26, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> ISO 1000
> 20mm
> f/8
> 20 seconds



Oh! Try this:

ISO 3200 
20mm
F(as low as you can go)
30 seconds.

Also, this really needs a foreground element. Something to add intrigue to the photo.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 26, 2014)

D-B-J said:


> What's the settings on this image?





astroNikon said:


> ISO 1000
> 20mm
> f/8
> 20 seconds



Astro, I'm assuming that you are answering the question above.

If so, OP, what was your thought process for using ISO 1000?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 26, 2014)

ronlane said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > What's the settings on this image?
> ...


Yes, that was the EXIF for his photo


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 26, 2014)

Normally you want to take a star photo at the lowest ISO possible with the largest aperture possible. Generally with a stopped down aperture (smaller opening) you are letting less light thus less stars even with a longer exposure.  So generally as wide open as possible to get as many stars as possible.  Unless you want a certain look.

But in regards to ISO you can do a test.
Leave the lens cap on
Take a 5 minute exposure (or about) at your lowest ISO
It theorectically should be perfectly black  But it might show streaks , pixels, etc 
Then try it at ISO 800
or even higher

This will give you an idea of what your max ISO should be for taking astrophotography stuff.

for instance I used ISO 25,600 @ f/5.6 @ 0.6 secs to get a noisy shot of Uranus using a regular NIkon 70-300 VRII cropped to the max.  A longer exposure and the planet was elongated (movement), lower ISO and you can't see it.  and f/5.6 becz that is what it is at 300mm.

versus the Orion Nebula which was pretty clean (except slightly out of focus) at ISO 6400, 10 seconds.

It also depends upon your environment you are in.  How much pollution, clouds, lights from light poles, etc etc. 

I've seen tutorials for shooting with pollution and you overexpose, and various other techniques/tips out there for various issues.  I shoot mostly in my backyard and there's only a couple spots I can shoot otherwise light coming in from an angle interferes.  Or across the street and the police come and look at what I'm doing.

Even though I love astronomy .. I'm kinda  a newbie with the camera on it.  just got back into it after failing a decade ago with film.  So I'm still learning the digital stuff.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 26, 2014)

Raj_55555 said:


> Zero experience in this stuff so this might be a camera limitation, but I'm sure you can do better!
> This one is has too much noise, colour and otherwise.
> 
> I am also planning to get into these, so I'm sure I'll not facing the same difficulties as well!!


Sometimes Colour is good ....



20140923-01 Orion Nebula by stevesklar, on Flickr


----------



## dannylightning (Sep 26, 2014)

not bad,  i tried to get some stars last night,   i was not really pleased with the results.


----------



## avraam (Sep 27, 2014)

oh, it's incredible! unfortunately it did'n exist starfall


----------



## KmH (Sep 27, 2014)

For all practical photography purpose and DoF, all stars, including our sun, are at infinity.
Consequently there is no need to use a middle or smaller aperture to deepen the DoF.
By the same token a wide angle focal length like  20 mm has pretty deep DoF even when using a large aperture .

Astrophotographers used specialized astronomy cameras that have a thermoelectric cooling system that cools the image sensor to minimize thermal image noise caused when the electrical resistance of the pixels heats up the image sensor during a long exposure.
Professional astronomers use image sensors cooled by liquefied gases - like liquid nitrogen which is liquid between -196°F and -210°F.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

So I'm getting some mixed messages here.. I chose the lower ISO because I wanted to avoid noise. Noise gets pretty bad on my camera at ISO 1600+


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 28, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> So I'm getting some mixed messages here.. I chose the lower ISO because I wanted to avoid noise. Noise gets pretty bad on my camera at ISO 1600+


Right, it's always a balancing act. Trying to go as low as possible with your ISO to limit the noise but needing to have it high enough to capture the stars with out trails.


----------



## shefjr (Sep 28, 2014)

There are two great write ups/tutorials from members here on the forum. I saved them and refer to them often. Both are packed with great information.

By, Sw1tchFX.  Shooting Night pictures of stars (and stuff) | Photography Forum

By, Manaheim   Manaheim's Ultimate Guide to Night Photography | Photography Forum

I hope they help. I know they helped me.

Something else I would suggest is to get an app for your phone that helps you locate stuff in the night sky. I use Skyview. Then you want to look for Sagittarius (some call it "the heart of the Milky Way") this isn't the best time of year for ♐️ Because it is setting and isn't really high in the night sky but, you still have a little time left to capture a few nice images of it.


----------



## petrochemist (Sep 29, 2014)

KmH said:


> For all practical photography purpose and DoF, all stars, including our sun, are at infinity.
> Consequently there is no need to use a middle or smaller aperture to deepen the DoF.
> By the same token a wide angle focal length like  20 mm has pretty deep DoF even when using a large aperture .


Whilst this is true, lenses show more aberations when fully open than when closed down a stop or two. 
With longer lenses it can also be difficult to get the focus spot on infinity so the increased DOF can be useful to correct for slight misfocusing.

f/8 does seem excessively small for a 20mm focal length though.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Sep 29, 2014)

Okay - so if f/8 isn't necessary for dof then perhaps I could have gotten a lower noise. Advice taken. Though I thought for sure someone told me before to try go go between f/8-f/11 for sharpness... is there any merit to that? 



shefjr said:


> There are two great write ups/tutorials from members here on the forum. I saved them and refer to them often. Both are packed with great information.
> 
> By, Sw1tchFX.  Shooting Night pictures of stars (and stuff) | Photography Forum
> 
> ...



I am familiar with those tutorials. And I actually contributed to Manaheim's. xD But perhaps I should refresh my memory. Thanks!


----------



## ronlane (Sep 29, 2014)

Most of the milky way shots that I've seen that look awesome are taken pretty wide open. (f/2.8, 3.5, 4).

Just think how far away you are from the stars, the DOF shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## shefjr (Sep 29, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> Okay - so if f/8 isn't necessary for dof then perhaps I could have gotten a lower noise. Advice taken. Though I thought for sure someone told me before to try go go between f/8-f/11 for sharpness... is there any merit to that?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oops, I didn't realize that you had seen those threads before. They are my go to references here on TPF. Having seen what you posted and noticing that you didn't use a wide opened aperture (which is stated in both Sw1tchFX and Manaheim's threads) I figured that I would let you know that they are out there and are great references for astrophotography. 
FWIW, I shoot with my lenses wide opened when doing astrophotography. There is obviously less noise which makes for a sharper image. I think the idea for those who choose to shoot closer to f8 is simply because the common opinion out there is that most lenses perform better two stops or so from wide open.
 I actually just shot, IMO, a beautiful photo of Sagittarius and printed it out on my 13X19 photo paper and am hanging it on the wall in my office. It turned out really well.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Sep 29, 2014)

[/QUOTE]

Oops, I didn't realize that you had seen those threads before. They are my go to references here on TPF. Having seen what you posted and noticing that you didn't use a wide opened aperture (which is stated in both Sw1tchFX and Manaheim's threads) I figured that I would let you know that they are out there and are great references for astrophotography....

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it was a long time ago that I checked them out, and I didn't finish reading. I will have to go do that.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 20, 2014)

How's this?


----------



## ronlane (Oct 20, 2014)

Did you do any noise reduction on that one in post?











youtube has a LOT of good videos on post production of just about anything you want.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 21, 2014)

ronlane said:


> Did you do any noise reduction on that one in post?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, I actually did do some noise reduction. Why?


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 21, 2014)

F8 is way too small. Stop down all the way, unless you have a 1.8 or 1.4, then you can get away with an f2 or 2.8. You will get better results at a higher ISO and shorter shutter speed (unless you want trails), and use some noise reduction software. There is really no way to get these shots tuned in without doing a good bit of PP.

I have the new nikon 20mm 1.8 and have been playing around with it. The results I am getting at 1.8 are as good as any. My best setting were something like ISO1600-2500, f2, 10-13 seconds. If the milky way is present, the 1.8 really brings it out. I would probably stop down a few if I had some sort of foreground  subject.

Also, infinity is not infinity on most lenses, you have to use live view to find that exact focus point.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 21, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Did you do any noise reduction on that one in post?
> ...



Good link, thanks for that.


----------



## JTPhotography (Oct 21, 2014)

DGMPhotography said:


> Okay - so if f/8 isn't necessary for dof then perhaps I could have gotten a lower noise. Advice taken. Though I thought for sure someone told me before to try go go between f/8-f/11 for sharpness... is there any merit to that?



Technically yes, but with star shots the shorter shutter speed will give you more of a sharpness advantage.


----------



## Alter_Ego (Oct 21, 2014)

I just got back from shooting stars like 10mins ago. 
This was at 640 ISO (I try not to go above that unless i really need too.)


----------



## DGMPhotography (Oct 23, 2014)

JTPhotography said:


> F8 is way too small. Stop down all the way, unless you have a 1.8 or 1.4, then you can get away with an f2 or 2.8. You will get better results at a higher ISO and shorter shutter speed (unless you want trails), and use some noise reduction software. There is really no way to get these shots tuned in without doing a good bit of PP.
> 
> I have the new nikon 20mm 1.8 and have been playing around with it. The results I am getting at 1.8 are as good as any. My best setting were something like ISO1600-2500, f2, 10-13 seconds. If the milky way is present, the 1.8 really brings it out. I would probably stop down a few if I had some sort of foreground  subject.
> 
> Also, infinity is not infinity on most lenses, you have to use live view to find that exact focus point.



I think I was a bit wider than that for my latest one!


----------

