March Milky Way Madness

[SquarePeg]

These are all wonderful! I would love to try astrophotography but live in a crappy area for it due to light pollution (DC Metro area), even going out to the Shenandoah doesn't help much. I'm hoping to attempt something next time I'm visiting my friend in Omaha if the conditions are favourable.

Thank you I appreciate the feedback.

Yeah not much dark sky in the DC area. @photoflyer may have some ideas...

 

[photoflyer]

Yeah not much dark sky in the DC area. @photoflyer may have some ideas...

The learning curve is long and I am at the beginning. @SquarePeg has finely honed night sky shooting skills. You might want to cajole her into sharing a gallery of her night sky shots and explain the details behind each (Camera/Lens/Fstop/Speed/ISO/Conditions etc). I would point out that she also lives in a light polluted area but often heads to the shore to shoot out across the water.

Here in DC where we live (@PJM ) we can head to the beaches along the Delmarva or to the Skyline Drive. I'll share four images each with a slightly different twist on light pollution.

This is a Skyline Drive shot taken last summer. There are several problems with it but in the end I like it despite the flaws. 1) It was taken in the summer when the atmosphere has more humidity and turbulence (however we do see the center of the Milky Way in summer) 2) It was taken as a full moon was rising just out of sight. And that is what I like. Yes the Milky Way is washed out but those shadows are cause by moonlight.

Time of year and the moon have a big impact on your results. Light pollution is not just ground based.

This is, of course, Neowise, also shot from the Skyline Drive last summer. I shot this using a Sky Adventurer tracker and is a twenty second exposure so while the comet and stars are very sharp the lights in the valley are not. This can be corrected in post had I shot a separate image of the valley but I thought, if the viewer is looking at the valley, and cares, I completely blew it. Also, there was a thunderstorm a hundred miles away lighting up those clouds...some favorable light pollution!

These next two are special cases that deal directly shooting deep sky objects in dark and light polluted skies. The dark sky shot is first.

This is my best shot of Orion. It is 40 stacked 20 second exposures shot with an R6 and a Canon EF 100-400 4-5.6 L Mark II. This lens is incredible and it shows. The camera was piggybacked on my Celestron Alt/Az mount. It was shot at a little cabin on Lake Anna this month on a moonless night.

And this is Orion shot in February from Arlington on a moonlit night. It is about 20 stacked 20 second exposures. This is shot with the Celestron 6 telescope using a very expensive L Extreme dual band filter that allows only Hydrogen and Oxygen related wavelengths through. The optics are not as good and the conditions were horrible and yet somehow this light made it through.

Sorry to be long winded but I thought this variety would be interesting. If you want to shoot landscapes with the MIlky Way in the background @SquarePeg has that down. You don't need a tracker, fancy filter and stacking software. Travel to the shore or the mountains or to a farm field as far away from the closest city as possible and shoot on a moonless night.

 

[Nevermore1]

Yeah not much dark sky in the DC area. @photoflyer may have some ideas...

The learning curve is long and I am at the beginning. @SquarePeg has finely honed night sky shooting skills. You might want to cajole her into sharing a gallery of her night sky shots and explain the details behind each (Camera/Lens/Fstop/Speed/ISO/Conditions etc). I would point out that she also lives in a light polluted area but often heads to the shore to shoot out across the water.

Here in DC where we live (@PJM ) we can head to the beaches along the Delmarva or to the Skyline Drive. I'll share four images each with a slightly different twist on light pollution.

This is a Skyline Drive shot taken last summer. There are several problems with it but in the end I like it despite the flaws. 1) It was taken in the summer when the atmosphere has more humidity and turbulence (however we do see the center of the Milky Way in summer) 2) It was taken as a full moon was rising just out of sight. And that is what I like. Yes the Milky Way is washed out but those shadows are cause by moonlight.

Time of year and the moon have a big impact on your results. Light pollution is not just ground based.

View attachment 204793

This is, of course, Neowise, also shot from the Skyline Drive last summer. I shot this using a Sky Adventurer tracker and is a twenty second exposure so while the comet and stars are very sharp the lights in the valley are not. This can be corrected in post had I shot a separate image of the valley but I thought, if the viewer is looking at the valley, and cares, I completely blew it. Also, there was a thunderstorm a hundred miles away lighting up those clouds...some favorable light pollution!

View attachment 204794

These next two are special cases that deal directly shooting deep sky objects in dark and light polluted skies. The dark sky shot is first.

This is my best shot of Orion. It is 40 stacked 20 second exposures shot with an R6 and a Canon EF 100-400 4-5.6 L Mark II. This lens is incredible and it shows. The camera was piggybacked on my Celestron Alt/Az mount. It was shot at a little cabin on Lake Anna this month on a moonless night.

View attachment 204796

And this is Orion shot in February from Arlington on a moonlit night. It is about 20 stacked 20 second exposures. This is shot with the Celestron 6 telescope using a very expensive L Extreme dual band filter that allows only Hydrogen and Oxygen related wavelengths through. The optics are not as good and the conditions were horrible and yet somehow this light made it through.

View attachment 204795

Sorry to be long winded but I thought this variety would be interesting. If you want to shoot landscapes with the MIlky Way in the background @SquarePeg has that down. You don't need a tracker, fancy filter and stacking software. Travel to the shore or the mountains or to a farm field as far away from the closest city as possible and shoot on a moonless night.

Thanks, it's all useful information. I suppose I'll need to try hitting up Skyline one night when I can get rid of my kids. I may be going to my in-laws in Greencastle, PA this weekend and if it's not cloudy may attempt something if we're there late enough (they can get sort of dark unless the ski slopes are lit up, they are several miles away but those lights are bright). For starting out I'd just be happy getting used to figuring out the proper settings which I sort of know for night stuff but it's been at least 5 years since I did any night time work. Right now I'm just rusty all around and have been doing random stuff around the house the past few days. I meant to go to the park today but ended up stuck at home studying instead so this weekend will be dedicated to photography.

 

[SquarePeg]

@Nevermore1 If my memory is correct, this weekend the moon will be up throughout the MW core visibility window so I wouldn’t count on being able to get much. Unfortunately, there are only a few days each month that are ideal for astrophotography. I think the next window is early April.

 

[K9Kirk]

Sorry to be long winded but I thought this variety would be interesting. If you want to shoot landscapes with the MIlky Way in the background @SquarePeg has that down. You don't need a tracker, fancy filter and stacking software. Travel to the shore or the mountains or to a farm field as far away from the closest city as possible and shoot on a moonless night.[/QUOTE]

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?

 

[photoflyer]

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or do can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?

The last two are the Orion Nebula and you need to center it in a lens that is at least 300mm and use a tracking mount.

I believe @SquarePeg shots are taken with a 12mm lens on a Fuji (micro 4/3rds?) covering nearly a quarter of the sky. You don't need a tracker for multi-second shots but it can help. Maybe she can tell us how long these were. I'm using an R6 and the hype about low light performance is true, meaning I can jack ISO up and shoot a bit faster for sharper images.

Something else you will see in her shots is a nice balance between a foreground object, like a lighthouse, and a dark sky. That is really tricky to pull off.

 

[K9Kirk]

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or do can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?

The last two are the Orion Nebula and you need to center it in a lens that is at least 300mm and use a tracking mount.

I believe @SquarePeg shots are taken with a 12mm lens on a Fuji (micro 4/3rds?) covering a nearly a quarter of the sky. You don't need a tracker for multi-second shots but it can help. Maybe she can tell us how long these were. I'm using an R6 and the hype about low light performance is true, meaning I can jack ISO up and shoot a bit faster for sharper images.

Something else you will see in her shots is a nice balance between a foreground object, like a lighthouse, and a dark sky. That is really tricky to pull off.

I have two lenses that I think 'may' be able to capture some night shots. I know they wouldn't be the best at it because one is a 50 mm f/1.8 so it could capture the light and be fast enough but it wouldn't be very wide at 500 mm. The other lens is an 8 mm f3.5. I know it's recommended that you use at least an f/2.8 for astrophotography but could you pull it off with a longer exposure or would it be too slow to capture with any sharpness? Thanks for any help.

 

[PJM]

Nicely done. I'm heading to some dark sky areas in Utah in a month or so. I hope I can get some MW shots as nice as yours.

Thanks! Oh I bet Utah will be amazing! Enjoy!

ps - have you checked your dates for moon cycle? Fingers crossed for a new moon or early moon set.

Galactic center is visible from 11:00 to 4:20am. Moon sets at 2:20am. I should have a couple hours of good conditions.

 

[SquarePeg]

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or do can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?

The last two are the Orion Nebula and you need to center it in a lens that is at least 300mm and use a tracking mount.

I believe @SquarePeg shots are taken with a 12mm lens on a Fuji (micro 4/3rds?) covering a nearly a quarter of the sky. You don't need a tracker for multi-second shots but it can help. Maybe she can tell us how long these were. I'm using an R6 and the hype about low light performance is true, meaning I can jack ISO up and shoot a bit faster for sharper images.

Something else you will see in her shots is a nice balance between a foreground object, like a lighthouse, and a dark sky. That is really tricky to pull off.

I have two lenses that I think 'may' be able to capture some night shots. I know they wouldn't be the best at it because one is a 50 mm f/1.8 so it could capture the light and be fast enough but it wouldn't be very wide at 500 mm. The other lens is an 8 mm f3.5. I know it's recommended that you use at least an f/2.8 for astrophotography but could you pull it off with a longer exposure or would it be too slow to capture with any sharpness? Thanks for any help.

Of those two lenses I would think the 50 mm would be better but I would maybe shoot at F2 not 1.8. You would probably have to shoot a pano in order to get everything that you wanted to into the shot at 50 mm. Are you using a crop sensor or a full frame? I would think you would need at least 4-6 frames to get foreground and sky with a 50.

For the other lens you would have to bump the ISO not the exposure time or you’d get star movement. If you shoot 10 or 15 frames that are relatively high ISO but shorter exposure times you can stack them to get rid of some of the noise. You really have to experiment. But if you’re living in a dark sky area and you’re really interested check out the Samyang 12 mm it’s pretty cheap.

 

[SquarePeg]

Nicely done. I'm heading to some dark sky areas in Utah in a month or so. I hope I can get some MW shots as nice as yours.

Thanks! Oh I bet Utah will be amazing! Enjoy!

ps - have you checked your dates for moon cycle? Fingers crossed for a new moon or early moon set.

Galactic center is visible from 11:00 to 4:20am. Moon sets at 2:20am. I should have a couple hours of good conditions.

Perfect! You’ll have enough light to get set up and maybe get a few foreground photos before moon set.

 

[SquarePeg]

Sorry to be long winded but I thought this variety would be interesting. If you want to shoot landscapes with the MIlky Way in the background @SquarePeg has that down. You don't need a tracker, fancy filter and stacking software. Travel to the shore or the mountains or to a farm field as far away from the closest city as possible and shoot on a moonless night.

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?[/QUOTE]

Use the PhotoPills app to find the mw (for me it’s southeastish). There is a AR planner so you can see exactly where it will be. Check out lonely speck website for info on how to use the app.

 

[K9Kirk]

If the Milky Way is everywhere do you need a particular constellation or star to shoot at or do can you just point anywhere in the sky and capture something cool like with the last two pics?

The last two are the Orion Nebula and you need to center it in a lens that is at least 300mm and use a tracking mount.

I believe @SquarePeg shots are taken with a 12mm lens on a Fuji (micro 4/3rds?) covering a nearly a quarter of the sky. You don't need a tracker for multi-second shots but it can help. Maybe she can tell us how long these were. I'm using an R6 and the hype about low light performance is true, meaning I can jack ISO up and shoot a bit faster for sharper images.

Something else you will see in her shots is a nice balance between a foreground object, like a lighthouse, and a dark sky. That is really tricky to pull off.

I have two lenses that I think 'may' be able to capture some night shots. I know they wouldn't be the best at it because one is a 50 mm f/1.8 so it could capture the light and be fast enough but it wouldn't be very wide at 500 mm. The other lens is an 8 mm f3.5. I know it's recommended that you use at least an f/2.8 for astrophotography but could you pull it off with a longer exposure or would it be too slow to capture with any sharpness? Thanks for any help.

Of those two lenses I would think the 50 mm would be better but I would maybe shoot at F2 not 1.8. You would probably have to shoot a pano in order to get everything that you wanted to into the shot at 50 mm. Are you using a crop sensor or a full frame? I would think you would need at least 4-6 frames to get foreground and sky with a 50.

For the other lens you would have to bump the ISO not the exposure time or you’d get star movement. If you shoot 10 or 15 frames that are relatively high ISO but shorter exposure times you can stack them to get rid of some of the noise. You really have to experiment. But if you’re living in a dark sky area and you’re really interested check out the Samyang 12 mm it’s pretty cheap.

It's a crop sensor. Thanks for the info.

 

[SquarePeg]

@K9Kirk

Look up the "rule of 500". Or read below.

To achieve points of light you can use a simple rule that's often called the “500 Rule”. Here's the 500 Rule: 500 Divided By the Focal Length of Your Lens = The Longest Exposure (in Seconds) Before Stars Start to “Trail”

I use 300 for my crop sensor to be on the safe side But even then I try to keep exposures below 20 seconds. Usually I will bump up the ISO to 6400 15-18 seconds and stack or use Topaz Denoise to reduce the noise.

This chart is on petapixel.com

 

[CherylL]

Great set! Worth your travel time and freezing temps. You are dedicated

 

[SquarePeg]

really it depends on if you plan to print big or pixel peep.