Take a View, Landscape Photographer of the Year 2014

[Wayland]

After about an hour in the darkness I could certainly see the galactic plane clearly but not the finer details that the camera sensor has recorded.

I was limited to a 25 second exposure because I was using a fixed tripod head. That meant I had to push the gain up to 6400iso which left me fighting sensor noise a bit.

Recently I experimented with a simple equatorial mount which allowed me to use a much longer exposure on the cameras native iso setting, resulting in far less noise, although this was just a few miles from home so the light pollution was lousy.

I had to desaturate the lower half to get anything useful but that has killed the delicate colour of the core as well. I'm certainly looking forward to trying this new mount in a darker location though.

Seeing stuff like this is why I'm so cranky about strong lighting around camps though. You might just as well stay in your living room in front of the telly if you are going to blind yourself and others with super bright gas lanterns or head lamps.

The night sky is a real treasure that some people never appreciate because they don't give themselves the opportunity to actually see it.

 

[CLEM]

Wow, that's blummin STONKING good that is Wayland :-O

 

[Wayland]

You should see the full frame image.

I wish I could post that up for you but it would take up too much of Tony's bandwidth.

(Plus it would get nicked in seconds. )

 

[CLEM]

Truly awesome image you made there mate, blown up and printed big it's something you could stare at and stare at.

 

[Klenchblaize]

You should see the full frame image.

I wish I could post that up for you but it would take up too much of Tony's bandwidth.

(Plus it would get nicked in seconds. )

Firstly well done. Lovely photograph. Secondly you've probably answered the question I was just about to pose elsewhere!

So it's the site's limited bandwidth that rather frustratingly prevents pictures being uploaded direct as an image to illuminate a write up? I was sure this use to be possible when I last posted on c2007!

Cheers

K

 

[Klenchblaize]

You should see the full frame image.

I wish I could post that up for you but it would take up too much of Tony's bandwidth.

(Plus it would get nicked in seconds. )

Firstly well done. Lovely photograph. Secondly you've probably answered the question I was just about to pose elsewhere!

So it's the site's limited bandwidth that rather frustratingly prevents pictures being uploaded direct as an image to illuminate a write up? I was sure this use to be possible when I last posted something worthwhile back in c2007!

Cheers

K

 

[British Red]

I don't understand all the talk of tripods and mount - but I know some damned fine images when I see them Wayland - great work and well deserved recognition!

 

[Dreadhead]

wow, those are superb, but that last one in particular is incredible Wayland!

 

[Wayland]

Firstly well done. Lovely photograph. Secondly you've probably answered the question I was just about to pose elsewhere!

So it's the site's limited bandwidth that rather frustratingly prevents pictures being uploaded direct as an image to illuminate a write up? I was sure this use to be possible when I last posted something worthwhile back in c2007!

Cheers

K

I may be wrong but although the pictures are hosted on our own sites or other hosts, I suspect they still take up Tony's bandwidth when accessed though the forum.

Having said that, I never actually post up full sized images on the web because it's just an invitation for someone to nick your work.

 

[Wayland]

I don't understand all the talk of tripods and mount - but I know some damned fine images when I see them Wayland - great work and well deserved recognition!

Thank you Red.

As far as the technical stuff goes, if the camera is mounted on a fixed tripod head then you are limited to how long you can expose the image before the Earth rotation turns the stars into trails.

Sometimes that hat can be an interesting effect such as the stars rotating around Polaris in this shot.

If you want to catch the Milky Way though it is a problem because it means you have to boost the sensitivity of the camera too much to keep the exposure short which tends to cause noise. (Random graininess.)

An equatorial mount however counter rotates the camera at the same rate as the planetary rotation which keeps the view steady and allows you to make much longer exposures.

 

[British Red]

Ahh like compensating for the coriolis effect in long range shooting then

 

[Wayland]

It's not quite the same and in fact if you add the Coriolis Effect into the equation it would get very complicated.

If you imagine that the stars are in a fixed position (They are not but their movement appears very slight from our planetary perspective.) and the Earth is rotating steadily in a fixed position relative to them (Which is also not true.) The stars appear from our position on the Earth's surface to travel in a circular route around a point close to Polaris.

An equatorial mount turns a camera or telescope in the opposite direction on a similar axis (We would have to be standing on one of the poles to get the axis exactly right and even that wobbles slightly.) which more or less compensates for the motion. From the perspective of the rotating camera, the stars now appear to be stationary.

In reality everything in the universe is moving, spinning, expanding or shrinking on it's own journey which means that this can only ever be an approximation and the Coriolis Effect would also influence things because of the finite velocity of light relative to all those movements and rotations. However, for all practical purposes within the short time frame of a photographic exposure, it's close enough to be within the resolution of the lens and sensor.

 

[Wallenstein]

You can get a sense of the earth's rotation from this video - the night sky is stablised and remains fixed while the earth moves around it:

[video=youtube;Tipr89oPSuM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tipr89oPSuM[/video]

 

[Wayland]

He He.. I like that, it illustrates things very well.

The Beeb and other TV production companies have been using time lapses showing the night sky in motion a lot in documentaries ever since the camera technology allowed them to do it.

It's starting to become as much of a cliché as hand held steady cam became in the nineties.

 

[VtBlackdog]

Looks great even on my tiny cell phone screen, nice!

 

[Wayland]

Thank you.

 

[Woody110]

This is one taken by the doctor on my trip up Kilimanjaro in October. I'm the tiny figure in the middle centre of the photo. The noise has been removed to bring out the colours.

 

[Wayland]

Nice one Woody