Photoclubalpha

JT,
The third video is a real eye opener. Everything I learned got turned upside down.

Sury

Yes, I understand. More ISO does increase sensitivity and hence more light. Given that you would need to be focused at infinity, depth of field doesn't mean as much. The lack of light gets you the shutter speed anyway.
Thanks for posting. It has made me want to give this another crack. Taking a trip to southern VA on September. Loos like I am taking the tripod now. Need to download photo pills so I can find the milky way while I am there.

My friend swears by photo pills. One surprising find is that he found more noise in lower iso image (around 5min mark) in this context.
I was doing two things I should not have used: 1) Shooting JPEG instead of RAW 2) Using AWB instead of Tungsten if shooting JPEG
Once again thank you for taking time to find those links and the discussion. Both were tremendously edifying to me.

Sury

.

Surprising treasures await in those links. Thanks for sharing, JBTaylor.

Yildiz

JT,
Thank you. I followed the youtube tutorial (not literally but as a general guidance) and came up with this.
I realized I have a bracketed shot so stacked them on Machinery HDR SW and post processed them on LR.



Not so heavy handed treatment.

Sorry Sury But I like your first set better than last one. Last one OK too, but...

Valery,
Thank you for your feedback. Since I am learning how to post process,
could you help me figure out what aspects of this image are lacking?
I do plan on taking some more shots in Sept/Oct to get better images
to start with at better locations even (Arches NP, Utah), and learning
how much too much/little in post processing.

With best regards,
Sury

Your treatment of the milky way is improved. Shots of 95-100% sky don't do much for me as it ends up being wanna be deep space photography.
https://www.pga.com/news/golf-buzz/best ... hotos-year

So it seems you will need to deal with foreground objects and blend the two.
Again, I see improvement.

JT,
Thank you. Looks like I need to pay attention to having an interesting object in the foreground to create more interest.
Did I read you correctly?

Sury

Bingo.
You may wish to incorporate light painting to accentuate foreground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko2IuhKDA9Q
I know you like complexity and have a brain for it. I on the other hand do not. The shot I provided previously was a one off. I just happened to be in a location that had dark night skies and minimal light pollution in the foreground. It balanced out to my taste. My next effort will require a flashlight and some kind of warming gel effect. This is all designed for the sky to be part of a composition, not the whole composition.
All the best.
JT

JT,
I have also studied shots from others and read few articles. They all seem to suggest an interesting foreground.
So your example and observation though based on one of, is not far from the observations from the others. Here is
my latest attempt keeping in mind the interplay of foreground and the sky. This is a 3 image bracket stacked in Machinery HDR
SW, post processed in LR involving several tries.



Sury

.

Hi, Sury;

First, happy Apollo 11 Moon Landing Day! At least, I feel very happy about the particular feat of mankind that was embodied by peace and good intentions. We benefitted so much from the inventions of that period and moving forward, hopefully. Your Milky Way photo quest is aiding in remembering the Big Moment.

Second: In my opinion, this last one is closer to being the best of this particular scene that you shot. The light curve in bottom-left of the town on Earth adds to the context and also sort of grounds and brings everything together, like the existing landscape, the sky, the space and spatial bodies in correlation to each other. In time, you'll excel in such photography, and JBTaylor's links have a great deal to do with it.

Thanks for sharing,
Yildiz

Yildiz,
Thank you. Moon landing is a big moment in human history. Your observation regarding the image is what I was going after
and thank you for the validation. I owe it this forum in general and JT in particular for helping me develop my skills. Everyone
has been helpful and nurturing, not withstanding the message it self.

Sury

.

Sury, good to hear that the context and production purpose behind the last image are similar between the shooter and the viewer. That's as much as the viewer can get close to what the creator of the image had in mind.

Good work and much of the praise goes to JBTaylor, of course. Our sky is much too polluted over here for good space photography.

Yildiz

Sury, looks like you are learning quite a bit. I’d like to add thought or two.

1. Make sure the stars are in focus. Manual focus is really just about the only way to go.
2. Take the camera off steadyshot mode.
3. Use a firm, solid tripod or mount.

I only say that because I noticed that a couple of the first shots posted had rings for stars which could be any of these 3 things.

But keep up the work and study. I look forward to your future entries as stars have always fascinated me.