# Milky Way Reflections



## DScience (Sep 21, 2016)

Peace out TPF.


----------



## WesternGuy (Sep 21, 2016)

Very nice image.  Did you take this one in portrait mode as well?  I ask because a portrait mode shot could have shown more of the Milky Way and its reflection in the water.

WesternGuy


----------



## DScience (Sep 21, 2016)

WesternGuy said:


> Very nice image.  Did you take this one in portrait mode as well?  I ask because a portrait mode shot could have shown more of the Milky Way and its reflection in the water.
> 
> WesternGuy



Thank you! Yes, this an 8 shot VERTICAL panorama using a 20mm f/1.8G lens, which is pretty wide. Of course I would have loved to get more of the milky way, next time i'll try a multi row pano.


----------



## kalgra (Sep 21, 2016)

So to get that sunset effect are you shooting with a full or partial moon but waiting for it to just go down below the horizon line?


----------



## DScience (Sep 21, 2016)

kalgra said:


> So to get that sunset effect are you shooting with a full or partial moon but waiting for it to just go down below the horizon line?



No, the 'sunset' effect is just light pollution from the Sacramento Valley. I'm about 2 hours away, in a remote wilderness area, but it's still present. if you go look at my instagram I have a panorama of a milky way, and you can see a weaker source of light pollution on the left side, coming from Tahoe.


----------



## WesternGuy (Sep 21, 2016)

DScience said:


> WesternGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice image.  Did you take this one in portrait mode as well?  I ask because a portrait mode shot could have shown more of the Milky Way and its reflection in the water.
> ...


Thanks for letting us know the techie stuff on how this was shot.  I always appreciate knowing that sort of thing.  That it was an 8 shot portrait mode pano makes me appreciate it even more - well done! 

WesternGuy


----------



## DScience (Sep 21, 2016)

WesternGuy said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > WesternGuy said:
> ...



I appreciate the kind words friend. Yea it's not necessarily a walk in the park to get these. I've been practicing and researching for months. I definitely have SOOO much room for improvement, and once I get a star tracker, it's all over.  And maybe a D810 down the road... lol


----------



## PersistentNomad (Sep 21, 2016)

DScience said:


> and once I get a star tracker, it's all over.  And maybe a D810 down the road... lol


You and I are kindred souls.  
But yes, this is a great shot and I love the way you are using the light pollution to add an extra layer effect. I followed you on 500px and look forward to seeing more.


----------



## NancyMoranG (Sep 22, 2016)

Wonderful! I was at Meadow Lake 1 summer just over Ca line from Reno. Were you anywhere near that or Donner Pass?


----------



## weepete (Sep 22, 2016)

Superb shot!


----------



## jsecordphoto (Sep 22, 2016)

nice scene, to be honest I'm not a fan of the processing though. Having your foreground be as bright or brighter than the night sky doesn't make visual sense. Bringing the exposure down on the foreground by a stop or two would make more sense, look more natural, and be a great image. I'll usually run my astro foregrounds for 5-10 minutes at a lower ISO (obviously less noise), but SOOC those longer exposures are way too bright. Better to ETTR with those exposures and bring the brightness down to look more natural and have a much cleaner final image.


----------



## DScience (Sep 22, 2016)

jsecordphoto said:


> nice scene, to be honest I'm not a fan of the processing though. Having your foreground be as bright or brighter than the night sky doesn't make visual sense. Bringing the exposure down on the foreground by a stop or two would make more sense, look more natural, and be a great image. I'll usually run my astro foregrounds for 5-10 minutes at a lower ISO (obviously less noise), but SOOC those longer exposures are way too bright. Better to ETTR with those exposures and bring the brightness down to look more natural and have a much cleaner final image.



I appreciate your feedback. I just got into astrophotography this past year so lately i've been experimenting with different techniques and editing styles. I agree this isn't realistic, but that was in no way my intention. 

Thanks for the support!


----------



## DScience (Sep 22, 2016)

PersistentNomad said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > and once I get a star tracker, it's all over.  And maybe a D810 down the road... lol
> ...



Thank you. I appreciate the follow, however I decided a while back to try and build my Instagram so I rarely post on 500px unless I think I can get a photo on the front page to a really high popular.

I love 500 px, it's just very competitive.



NancyMoranG said:


> Wonderful! I was at Meadow Lake 1 summer just over Ca line from Reno. Were you anywhere near that or Donner Pass?



Thanks! I'm not familiar with Meadow Lake, where is it? Desolation, where this was taken, is in the general area around Donner pass. It's just southwest of lake Tahoe proper. 



weepete said:


> Superb shot!



I appreciate that!


----------



## PersistentNomad (Sep 22, 2016)

DScience said:


> I love 500 px, it's just very competitive.


I don't try to compete there, but sometimes I do have my images reach (what I think) is a lot of eyes. Mostly I do it because to me it's more attractive a set up than Flickr is and it works nicely on my phone to show people images on the go.


----------



## DScience (Sep 22, 2016)

PersistentNomad said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > I love 500 px, it's just very competitive.
> ...



hehehe I was half kidding. But in reality, like I said I am trying to build a following and 500px was just too hard. But for sure it's way better than, pretty much any website for publicly displaying high resolution photos for the masses. I've had a couple ones blow up too, it's stimulating!


----------



## photofactum (Sep 24, 2016)

DScience said:


> WesternGuy said:
> 
> 
> > Very nice image.  Did you take this one in portrait mode as well?  I ask because a portrait mode shot could have shown more of the Milky Way and its reflection in the water.
> ...


You say vertical, so what about de opposite, horizontal? Despite for me this shot is horizontal, or I don't understand what vertical means.


----------



## WesternGuy (Sep 24, 2016)

photofactum said:


> DScience said:
> 
> 
> > WesternGuy said:
> ...


For vertical, replace it with portrait mode.  For horizontal replace it with landscape mode.  If I then translate this to the original image, then the OP shot this image as a series of portrait mode images and then merged them all into an image that mimics a landscape mode image.  I hope this helps improve your understanding.

WesternGuy


----------



## fishing4sanity (Sep 25, 2016)

All I can say/add is that I like it.


----------



## DScience (Sep 26, 2016)

Thanks guys! Yea it's portrait mode....i'm a scientist at heart so I guess I resort to the most technical term.


----------



## Peeb (Sep 26, 2016)

Really cool image!


----------



## FITBMX (Sep 27, 2016)

I love it, great work!


----------



## 407370 (Sep 27, 2016)

Its a great image but it has the feel of a composite to me. The foreground looks like its added to a layer of stars that has been mirrored vertically.


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2016)

407370 said:


> Its a great image but it has the feel of a composite to me. The foreground looks like its added to a layer of stars that has been mirrored vertically.



Thanks, and I can see how it appears to be a composite, as a reflection that good is rare. But I assure you it's not, and in fact I have several other photos similar that i'll be posting soon. If you are interested, I can post the RAW photo for you to see.


----------



## DScience (Sep 27, 2016)

Peace!


----------

