I Need Some Advice

Adam: If you shorted your exposure, you will lessen the light pollution buildup, but you will also shorten the length of your star trails. It appears that you will not have light pollution to deal with at the Arch location, or pretty much any natural formation, unless it would be located near a town.
 
Light pollution can be reduced by using a smaller aperture (bigger numbers) and by reducing the lens' focal length.

Here's a concise explanation from V. Farnsworth (You've got cows!) at http://photo.net/learn/astro/star-streak

Concerning astrophotography and the recording of stars, there seems to be some confusion about f-ratios, aperture, focal lengths, etc. For point sources such as stars, it is the focal length, not the physical aperture, that determines the limits of what will be recorded on film. This is because the amount of background sky included in the picture varies with focal length and thus the amount of magnitude-limiting sky fog goes up as the focal length decreases. Longer lenses include less of the sky and therefore less of the sky fog. Since the stars are points, their light is not spread out as focal length (magnification) increases. This effect results in an increase in the ratio of starlight (point source) to skylight (non-point source) as focal length increases, and fainter stars are recorded before being limited by the sky fog. This light-source ratio is not affected by the f-ratio or physical aperture of the lens. For example, a 50mm lens at a dark site has a limiting photographic magnitude of about 11.5. A 500mm lens has a limiting magnitude of about 16. The magnitude scale is a way of estimating the brightness of an object, with each successive magnitude number being about 2.5 times brighter than the next one (magnitude 1 is 2.5X brighter than magnitude 2). The f-ratio does determine how fast the sky fog limit is reached. Exposures longer than that needed to reach the sky fog limit will not record fainter stars.

For star trails, you should pick an f-ratio that will give you a decent star exposure for the faintest stars you want to record. For a given exposure time, too low a ratio will cause a fast sky fog build up with little contrast between stars and sky. Too high an f-ratio will result in fewer stars against a darker background. The f-ratio you choose will depend on the local sky conditions and the focal length of the lens for the reasons stated above.
 
Well I think what I am struggling with is light pollution. I went as far away from anything as possible (within reason). Here is my first star trails shot from tonight.

Did you stack or do one long image? If you didn't stack of course you'll get light build up issues. The atmosphere clarity will vary every night too obviously. Knowing what you did on the shot might help.
 
2010_02_23_3.jpg


Here is an example of one facing right towards Omaha. Edge of actual city, hmmmm, 15 miles probably. There's also a bright ass full moon just up and right of frame(note the car shadow...the moon is not low). If that wasn't shot at F4, 400ISO, and 30 seconds then stacked......well it just wouldn't look a thing like that.
 
It was f4 with images stacked. 3 images 1) 3 mins, 2) 10 mins, 3) 20 mins.

So you say wider apertures plus shorter exposure times reduce light pollution? Why is this?
 
It was f4 with images stacked. 3 images 1) 3 mins, 2) 10 mins, 3) 20 mins.

So you say wider apertures plus shorter exposure times reduce light pollution? Why is this?

Time is a factor of exposure. Expose too long and things blow out or wash out. That is what is happening on longer exposures. So a shorter shot has no choice but to reduce light pollution. Remember the stars are moving too. You ISO up and they will be brighter....but moving so not likely to blow out any area too much. But this just makes your shutter less for any given scene. Doesn't matter since stacking with the "lighten" selected only reveals lighter areas(stars) and doesn't increase a dark areas brightness that is just as dark each 30 second exposure.

20 minutes at 100 ISO is like 5 minutes at 400 ISO basically. Far more light saturating than 30 seconds at 400 ISO. And your moving star at 100 ISO will also then not be as bright as it would at 400 ISO. If 30 seconds 400 ISO is too much do 15 or 20 seconds 400 ISO. Guessing your moving star will be just as bright...overall scene darker.

Go to the same spot and try 30 seconds, F4, 400 ISO and stack them all.
 
Wow 30 seconds would take forever! I just set it and sat in the car reading something but I guess I will have to bear the very cold environment! I noticed that the 20minute exposure had far less in the way of light pollution and far less in the way of star visibility - in all my exposures the star brightness and light pollution correlated evenly. Look at this 20 minute long shot at ISO 50. And just to be sure I understand, if there is almost no light pollution then will short VS long exposures be an issue? And I think that moon brightness is going to be an issue. Even with the small moon of last night my foreground was very bright. (I wish there was a way to upload things better quality!!!)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2434.jpg
    IMG_2434.jpg
    7.9 KB · Views: 50
There's an app I use to use for astrophotography called K3CCD tools. It would auto align images based on a selected source or multiple selected sources. It was great when I use to take several photographs of Jupiter and I would stack them to bring out the most detail.

http://www.pk3.org/Astro/index.htm?k3ccdtools.htm

What software are you guys using to stack these star trail images?
 
Wow 30 seconds would take forever! I just set it and sat in the car reading something but I guess I will have to bear the very cold environment! I noticed that the 20minute exposure had far less in the way of light pollution and far less in the way of star visibility - in all my exposures the star brightness and light pollution correlated evenly. Look at this 20 minute long shot at ISO 50. And just to be sure I understand, if there is almost no light pollution then will short VS long exposures be an issue? And I think that moon brightness is going to be an issue. Even with the small moon of last night my foreground was very bright. (I wish there was a way to upload things better quality!!!)

This is why I mentioned putting the camera on consecutive shooting mode. Then just lock the cable release down and wala, you can still go sit in the car. It will fire them off one after another.

The star brightness would be the same/dim if you were at 50 ISO on them all. Because they are moving. You need ISO increase to make them brighter. Less time of it to keep the pollution and whatnot down.

If my setting with snow cover, full moon, and area lights didn't blow out at F4, 400 ISO at 30 seconds yours shouldn't either. If it is close or whatever shorten the shutter.

It's pretty simple to just try and see what happens with the advice being given.

http://www.startrails.de/html/software.html

That is what I used for stacking.

There's really not much of a reason to not use shorter exposures with some higher ISO(like at least 200 or 400) when stacking. Again just try and you'll see.
 
Smaller apertures and lower ISO will reduce light pollution and star intensity equally.

Shorter exposures will not allow light pollution and sensor noise to build up to obnoxious levels. Star brightness unaffected.

Stacking multiple short exposures will stitch short trails into one long one, but may also tend to build up sky glow. If you're shooting RAW you might want to process them to clip the darkest values (make sure you use the same settings for all the images) before exporting the resultant tiff (or whatever) into the stacking/merging program. I believe some stacking programs have a threshold function that will achieve the same end.

Shooting at a longer focal length will preferentially decrease sky brightness, while retaining star intensity. If conditions suck, this is the most direct manner to reduce the effects of light pollution relative to star brightness.

It's good you're running tests now, and coming to grips with these issues. Keep in mind that Arches will be VERY dark. Unless you've got a hazy sky and bright moon, you probably won't have too much trouble with sky brightness.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all for all your advice! I will use it all to get my shot on Thursday. I tried shorter exposures in Larkspur last night and light pollution did seem reduced! Thank you everyone and I will post up my result this weekend I guess.
 
WOW! That first picture was spectacular! What exactly were the settings on that? Was there any cut and pasting?

That was shot with my Canon 10D and Canon 20mm prime lens. Aperature F2.0, Shutter 90 seconds, ISO 100, WB Daylight. Total of 2 1/2 hours of exposures shot using my timer remote with no time between exposures. I stacked the resulting images using Image Stacker, a neat little program for stacking images. You can also use Photoshop, just make each layer a "Lighten" layer type so the star trails light bleeds through.

Good luck!

James
 
Well it is looking like a big time bummer that both nights I am in Moab are supposed to be either cloudy or snowing... Hopefully that will change! If not I will find something else to shoot with star trails and post that result.
 
Thank you for all the advice but unfortunately it was rainy and overcast every night I was there. Very disappointing. I will have to go back at some point!

Here is another shot I got despite the clouds which actually helped!
2405357-d0f6b553230beef2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top