Photography- one photo a day

TXCO,
Fist off, fellow Texan here.

As for the image. I used a Canon 6D and a 50mm lens. I set the aperture to 2.0 aperture, the ISO to 10,000 and expose the images for 10 seconds. For this length of exposure a good, sturdy tripod is necessary. After that I merged the photos together using photoshop and then adjusted the contrast, exposure and sharpness. This is my fourth or fifth attempt at the milky way and I think it is my best so far. The other important thing is time of year and location. The darker the sky the better and, here in Texas, this portion of the milky way is only visible from about March to early October.

Let me know if you have any specific questions and maybe we can start a new thread to get into more detail.
 
lugi06 said:
TXCO,
Fist off, fellow Texan here.

As for the image. I used a Canon 6D and a 50mm lens. I set the aperture to 2.0 aperture, the ISO to 10,000 and expose the images for 10 seconds. For this length of exposure a good, sturdy tripod is necessary. After that I merged the photos together using photoshop and then adjusted the contrast, exposure and sharpness. This is my fourth or fifth attempt at the milky way and I think it is my best so far. The other important thing is time of year and location. The darker the sky the better and, here in Texas, this portion of the milky way is only visible from about March to early October.

Let me know if you have any specific questions and maybe we can start a new thread to get into more detail.
Click to expand...

Why did you set the Iso so high? It may be the upload but it's got quite a bit of noise in it. Still a amazing photo but that's unusually high.
 
Last edited:
tipsntails7,
The main reason for the higher ISO was because I was trying to keep the exposure length down in order to keep the stars from streaking, like a star trail. On a full frame camera with a 50mm lens this starts to happen at about 10 seconds. So in order to keep the exposure time at 10 seconds and my aperture at 2.0 I had to adjust the ISO to get as much light as possible. Also, I agree the upload does not look as good as it does full size. Do you know what the ideal image size in pixels to upload is?
 
lugi06 said:
tipsntails7,
The main reason for the higher ISO was because I was trying to keep the exposure length down in order to keep the stars from streaking, like a star trail. On a full frame camera with a 50mm lens this starts to happen at about 10 seconds. So in order to keep the exposure time at 10 seconds and my aperture at 2.0 I had to adjust the ISO to get as much light as possible. Also, I agree the upload does not look as good as it does full size. Do you know what the ideal image size in pixels to upload is?
Click to expand...

For this website I don't, you would need to ask Ryan Avery, and it may be that this website does not allow super high res photos in not sure. Although I've always seen photos imbedded with a photobucket link turn out better then those dropped in straight to the site.
 
Rk5-r3I4wyTXu6_Uto_ss9LWaKPVnRcRgjDLCvTWfL6T-fZdnzDKivbmo75tbDbb6m0ljKeqzwyDqkb86e3-1lGKFHHeV8lPn14xPl06VXJOXHx2GBJDjYHtPijAN_juOHXHMitboGTYs1ZBnT_E0N4_WsOsCmKT6ihNgeAetVlQJq5NAmzlkAuk2GjRHkxEbbiEviIc3tsZNXHqEUzrRRsSxc9ocqFzqI066ninNzV46LNK7rBqtxETZJR3Dyt11RIJeVh1MKPE1szHTEVgS_e-pWL7D0AHiM2qCrT3pokqBLFatL1xT4Z47mK_uGUkKS9-dStW5Dxw1YZ-0qYL2h2R42Awky0AkBLcGzAPEWZaHmqTnK5bkLNMr3yuMtOTTcfNvwTZDp36wGMzTcCLtVOiz_T82erCK_4NBbojYVZNjSaffWnAd3CwBmsLpfL-0yBF5qYkz_EAvkErnLcxnsJrvhU_z8i6aUqB9dkOfbelKubpvmggDMp7AkudfSxS6ohHP5j4S8CwJI0Y-S3XOh8uUKdBQCqP1ksMOTDMXgbdE1NGDClQtFq_XY0pv5OJ8MtDT8bMk-yADcUNyprJub_t-jfeS3DJ=w1102-h881-no
 
tipsntails7 said:
For this website I don't, you would need to ask Ryan Avery, and it may be that this website does not allow super high res photos in not sure. Although I've always seen photos imbedded with a photobucket link turn out better then those dropped in straight to the site.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hosting photos at photobucket, google photos or some other site is much easier.

I agree that ISO 10,000 seems a bit high for f2.0 at 10s. I have a 50mm f1.8 but I have never really messed with night shots with it. At 50mm you get star trails fairly quickly. I rather prefer my 14mm f2.8 where I can get 25s exposures without trails. Then again, my new Pentax K-3II has a cool feature called Astrotracer which will allow me to take up to 5 minute exposures.
 
colonel00 said:
Yeah, hosting photos at photobucket, google photos or some other site is much easier.

I agree that ISO 10,000 seems a bit high for f2.0 at 10s. I have a 50mm f1.8 but I have never really messed with night shots with it. At 50mm you get star trails fairly quickly. I rather prefer my 14mm f2.8 where I can get 25s exposures without trails. Then again, my new Pentax K-3II has a cool feature called Astrotracer which will allow me to take up to 5 minute exposures.
Click to expand...

Yeah the KS2 has that same setting. I haven't played with it as of yet. Hope this weekend.
 
Pentax gaining a following on this forum. Good to see old school camera giants regain prominence. Pentax putting out some really good bodies as of late. And unlike Sony they have lenses to suit anyone.
 
tipsntails7 said:
Pentax gaining a following on this forum. Good to see old school camera giants regain prominence. Pentax putting out some really good bodies as of late. And unlike Sony they have lenses to suit anyone.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Pentax is still a small share of the market but they are making improvements and really focusing (pun somewhat intended) on what's important. For folks like us, that get out into the elements, I can't recommend the Pentax offerings high enough as most bodies and many of the lenses have weather proofing and not just the top of the line stuff either. DSLR's aren't for everyone but for those looking, I don't think you can find a better bang for your buck.
 
The GH4 from Panasonic seems to get some pretty good reviews as well from what I have read and heard, and it's weather proofed also. Kody Kellom says that all of their new stuff is shot with one of them. It's strong suit is video though, not as strong on stills. Just depends on which Sony body you are looking at I guess as far as lens compatibility. The Micro Four Thirds will run the Canon lenses if what I have researched is correct. The A7s II is the one I was thinking of in that example. The A7R II is a full frame and I'm not spun up on it as much.
 
I just recently bought my first halfway decent camera (Sony A6000) and this thread is incredibly inspirational!! Great stuff here!

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
A6000 for me too, the black bear and elk were 80 to 100 yards with the 55-210 lens. It's a good camera but apparently the lense options hold it back. Rokslide costs you a lot of money because someone else always has a fancier toy and then you want one too! Camera gear adds up quick$ I am a novice at photography also, first decent camera I've ever had. I don't shoot RAW only jpeg wouldn't know what to edit if I tried. So there is probably still improvements in image quality:) Maybe someday
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sierracharlie338
RS photogs - where is your work?
Replies
14
Views
967
Stevek
Stevek
Ajsomp
  • Locked
Sold SWFA 6x Milquad
Replies
8
Views
653
Ajsomp
Ajsomp
C
We've expanded our selection for videographers
Replies
0
Views
342
Camera Land
C
AK Troutbum
Record goat
Replies
16
Views
2K
NRA4LIFE
N
C
The Nikon Z5, the best value for Wilderness photography
Replies
0
Views
455
Camera Land
C

Latest posts

Featured Video

Stats

Threads
363,231
Messages
3,845,481
Members
82,483
Latest member
MT MNT Muley

Latest Articles

Back
Top