# How to have the sun appear like a star



## NoamC (May 2, 2008)

Hey guys.

I was wondering what's the secret to photographing the sun and make it appear like a star?
With night images, the answer to getting a star out of a street light in example, is long expsure. But what about the sun?
I assume some of you experienced with it 

By the way, if any of you remember I asked a couple of weeks ago about taking photos at the theatre, well, the assignment I had to do had been cancelled but instead I attended a local concert (pretty much the same lighting conditions), and I was able to use some of the tips I got here. So here's a couple of shots from there, I have a couple more on my link. Thanks


----------



## doenoe (May 2, 2008)

i think you are talking about the sun-burst. To do that you block the sun, with a tree or something, and just let the side of the sun get past the tree. Talking about a really tiny part of the sun here, but i think thats the way to get it.
And a great set of pics. Would probably have been a better idea to make a seperate thread for those


----------



## Big Mike (May 2, 2008)

How the sun (or any specular light) looks, will depend on the aperture that you use, and also on the shape of the aperture.  Usually, a smaller aperture will give you more of a star burst effect.


----------



## RubyMagic (May 2, 2008)

Thats the cheap way to do it...if you want the whole sun in the picture you need the 8 point filter. Its just a regular filter you put over your lens to give the sun 8 points of flare.


ps--that girl is CUTE.


----------



## Helen B (May 2, 2008)

Here is a recent thread about the subject: link.

As Mike says, you can get the star effect when the sun is in frame by using a small aperture. The star is the diffraction at the aperture blades.

Best,
Helen


----------



## usayit (May 2, 2008)

Yup... number of points == number of aperture blades.


----------



## Helen B (May 2, 2008)

usayit said:


> Yup... number of points == number of aperture blades.



... unless there are an odd number of blades, when there will be twice as many points as there are aperture blades. For example 5 blades, 10 points.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 2, 2008)

NoamC said:


> Hey guys.
> 
> I was wondering what's the secret to photographing the sun and make it appear like a star?
> With night images, the answer to getting a star out of a street light in example, is long expsure. But what about the sun?
> I assume some of you experienced with it



F/22.


----------



## NoamC (May 3, 2008)

Thanks guys! 

Great weekend,


----------



## Rhys (May 3, 2008)

Either a small aperture or a starburst filter. I've used both methods.


----------



## RyanLilly (May 3, 2008)

Actually, the sun _is_ a star.


----------



## Rhys (May 3, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> Actually, the sun _is_ a star.



Yup - and Pluto got demoted and now isn't a planet.


----------



## RyanLilly (May 3, 2008)

Rhys said:


> Yup - and Pluto got demoted and now isn't a planet.



Yeah, now its just the solar systems largest Ice cube...Ice Ball?


----------



## Alex_B (May 3, 2008)

f/22, an example :


----------



## Sontizzle (May 3, 2008)

nice picture alex


----------



## Alex_B (May 4, 2008)

Sontizzle said:


> nice picture alex



thanks, took it in 10 minutes walking distance from my house when I was bored one day


----------



## NoamC (May 4, 2008)

Lovely shot indeed, Alex.


----------



## bikefreax (May 4, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> f/22, an example :


 
Super shot but I am stumped. With the sun in the picture how did you not blow out the grass? Did you use a grduated ND filter? I just got one for this reason but have no clue how to use it. My first attempts were horrible. The sky was pitch black.


----------



## Alex_B (May 5, 2008)

bikefreax said:


> Super shot but I am stumped. With the sun in the picture how did you not blow out the grass?



Actually, not to blow out the grass was pretty easy. The problem was more not to get it too dark. The sun is bright, the grass (actuially not grass, but winder crop I think) is dark. so I metered on the grass, and a second metering  on the sky away from the sun, and both were about equal. So I could take the shot without a graduated filter. Of course I blew out the sun, but that is OK in this shot and inevitable 



> Did you use a grduated ND filter? I just got one for this reason but have no clue how to use it. My first attempts were horrible. The sky was pitch black.



Well, if it was pitch black, then you maybe had a scene like this where the sky is about as bright as the foreground. then one should not use such a filter. Or maybe it was simply to strong? How many stops in the gradient?


----------



## TamiyaGuy (May 5, 2008)

usayit said:


> Yup... number of points == number of aperture blades.


Aaaahhh, so that's why the "star" effect comes out different depending on which lens I use! Very clever...


----------



## BrandonS (May 13, 2008)

If anyone can help me with this I'm confused.  I was out the other night on a walk with the wife and tried to get some shots with my 17-55mm at f/32 of the sun.  It didn't have a star effect at all.  In fact it either came out with everything exposed and the sky over exposed or it would come out really dark save for the sun being decent looking.  I'm not suprised, as these are what I would have expected with the fastly different exposures between the ground and sun/sky.  Yet, it was still a sphere in the sky in any picture it wasn't completely blown out.  I tried different aperatures and also over and underexposing.  None produced anything close to a star effect.  Does it now work when the sun is lower in the sky?

Thanks for any insight.


----------



## Valethar (May 13, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> F/22.



Bet my F-22 can beat up your f/22 






<<Evil Wicked Laughter>>tm


----------



## Alex_B (May 13, 2008)

BrandonS said:


> If anyone can help me with this I'm confused.  I was out the other night on a walk with the wife and tried to get some shots with my 17-55mm at f/32 of the sun.  It didn't have a star effect at all.  In fact it either came out with everything exposed and the sky over exposed or it would come out really dark save for the sun being decent looking.  I'm not suprised, as these are what I would have expected with the fastly different exposures between the ground and sun/sky.  Yet, it was still a sphere in the sky in any picture it wasn't completely blown out.  I tried different aperatures and also over and underexposing.  None produced anything close to a star effect.  Does it now work when the sun is lower in the sky?
> 
> Thanks for any insight.



it also has to be small enough in the frame to give that effect, else you would hardly notice the star ... you were shooting normal to tele? My shot was ultrawide.


----------



## BrandonS (May 13, 2008)

Just checked the photos.  Looks like I was at 50mm on the 17-50mm lens.


----------



## Alex_B (May 13, 2008)

can you maybe just post it?


----------



## BrandonS (May 13, 2008)

Well rather than the JPEGs that the camera saved, I opened up the RAW files and played a little bit with the levels.  I did get somewhat of a star effect on the one that was underexposed.  Do you think it was that the sun wasn't bright enough?  The shot itself might not be bad with some cropping (probably removing the sun) and adding some reds to the sky.  I just played with levels though to show you the effect I got; or lack of intensity of it.  Also looks like my sensor is dusty or the lens has dirt on it.






50mm 1/200s f/32
ISO 100


----------



## Joves (May 13, 2008)

Rhys said:


> Yup - and Pluto got demoted and now isn't a planet.


To me Pluto is still a planet. To the devil with the Internationals demoting it. I met Clyde Tombaugh up here at Lowell, he was one heck of a nice guy.


----------



## usayit (May 13, 2008)

Helen B said:


> ... unless there are an odd number of blades, when there will be twice as many points as there are aperture blades. For example 5 blades, 10 points.
> 
> Best,
> Helen




Ah yes... I forgot about that tid bit... (don't ask me why).


----------



## Phazan (May 13, 2008)

Valethar said:


> Bet my F-22 can beat up your f/22
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
RAPTORS FO' LYFE!!!!!!


----------



## SBlanca (May 14, 2008)

hey brandons, is that dust in your photo?

Alex-B, nice photo! I have to work on the whole metering off things business haha


----------



## Valethar (May 15, 2008)

Phazan said:


> RAPTORS FO' LYFE!!!!!!




Hehe.  My brother is an ex-USAF crew chief (was stationed at Loring in Maine) so we tend to like those Raptors 

Doesn't hurt that McChord/Ft. Lewis is right up the road from us, and Boeing isn't far off either, so we get some nice air shows here.

(Sorry for the hijack :blushing:  ::slinks off to hide before he gets stoned with old lenses:: )


----------



## BrandonS (May 15, 2008)

SBlanca said:


> hey brandons, is that dust in your photo?
> 
> Alex-B, nice photo! I have to work on the whole metering off things business haha



yea i'm hoping it's only on the lens.  I didn't clean it before heading out that day.


----------

