Milkyway from Orange County

[Ryan10]

SCUBA divers under a moonless Milkyway at Corona Del Mar in Newport Beach, California.

This shot was technically challenging as well as lucky. The primary issue is the light pollution from Orange and LA counties. Even though I'm shooting out over the Pacific Ocean, the light domes from the counties probably push out a few miles from beach shoreline although not as intense as if you were inland more.

The lucky part was several things. #1, the young couple that were setting up to go SCUBA diving. I didn't even know it was a thing to do at night. It was kind of dark when I arrived, and I knew they were about 50 feet down the shoreline from me, but I just assumed they were enjoying the evening. Next thing I know they are walking into the water. It took me a few seconds to realize they were under the water with flashlights. Perhaps they were looking for lobster?

The #2 lucky thing that worked for me was the weather conditions. Many times the marine layer pushes too close to the beach to get clear skies for MW shots. On a moonless night, there was no marine layer last night.


Here are the shot details...
Canon 6D, Rokinon 24mm F/1.4, Hoya Red Intensifier Filter
Sky = 10 image stack of F/2, ISO 12,800, 1.6 secs
Land = 6 image stack of F/5.6, ISO 12,800, 13 secs

all 16 images were taken from the same tripod spot at the location.


Corona Del Mar by Ryan Luna, on Flickr

 

[JimFox]

Hey Ryan,

That's a pretty nice shot you have here, the Milky Way looks pretty good in this. I have shot the stars a few times from the beach and it's worked out pretty well, but clearly with our light pollution, shooting stars here is something that doesn't usually pop into peoples minds. So to shoot stars from our city environment, makes it more special.

I do wonder though as to why you shot at ISO 12,800? From your settings, there wouldn't be a reason to as you still could have shot at ISO 3200 and only had about a 6 sec exposure. It's hard to tell from a web image the difference, but in print an ISO 3200 image will look much better then an ISO 12,800 one. And since you were shooting the ground separate from the sky, I would have shot it at ISO 400 or 800 for even less noise.

This did all come together nicely for you, and we should consider doing an event at the beach to shoot the stars.

Jim

 

[Ben Egbert]

I just like it. I have not had much luck stacking sky images. Your patience paid off here.

 

[Ryan10]

Hey Ryan,

That's a pretty nice shot you have here, the Milky Way looks pretty good in this. I have shot the stars a few times from the beach and it's worked out pretty well, but clearly with our light pollution, shooting stars here is something that doesn't usually pop into peoples minds. So to shoot stars from our city environment, makes it more special.

I do wonder though as to why you shot at ISO 12,800? From your settings, there wouldn't be a reason to as you still could have shot at ISO 3200 and only had about a 6 sec exposure. It's hard to tell from a web image the difference, but in print an ISO 3200 image will look much better then an ISO 12,800 one. And since you were shooting the ground separate from the sky, I would have shot it at ISO 400 or 800 for even less noise.

This did all come together nicely for you, and we should consider doing an event at the beach to shoot the stars.

Jim

Well...I shot at 12,800 because lazy. I was able to get 1.6 second exposure. That way...when I take all 10 shots into Photoshop, I don't have to manually align or allow PS to align and get it possibly wrong. All I had to do was apply a "Median" image stack. it essentially takes all 10 shots and converts to a single shot reducing the noise by a little over 3 stops, so I got the equivalent noise of a 1200 ISO...roughly. The other reason I wanted to keep the shutter as low as possible, I didn't want super smooth milky ocean water.

I shot the foreground the way I did to match the exposure with the night. I'm sure you're right about doing it an easier way. I'm still experimenting and learning.

 

[Ryan10]

I just like it. I have not had much luck stacking sky images. Your patience paid off here.

Thanks Ben.

 

[JimFox]

Well...I shot at 12,800 because lazy. I was able to get 1.6 second exposure. That way...when I take all 10 shots into Photoshop, I don't have to manually align or allow PS to align and get it possibly wrong. All I had to do was apply a "Median" image stack. it essentially takes all 10 shots and converts to a single shot reducing the noise by a little over 3 stops, so I got the equivalent noise of a 1200 ISO...roughly. The other reason I wanted to keep the shutter as low as possible, I didn't want super smooth milky ocean water.

I shot the foreground the way I did to match the exposure with the night. I'm sure you're right about doing it an easier way. I'm still experimenting and learning.

Hey Ryan,

Interesting. I would have thought with 10 shots, even if they were at 1.6 secs, that there would have been enough movement that there would have been an issue with Median Blend. But if there wasn't, then there is something about shooting the high ISO ultra fast shots. I hadn't thought about it that way.

One of the fun aspects about shooting at night and shooting the stars is that no matter how many times one has done it, there are still things to learn, different methods to try. For me, experimenting and coming up with alternative methods really makes shooting at night a fun experience. Almost like we are back in school and in science lab and are pouring different colored chemicals into test tubes to see what cool things might come from it.

Jim

 

[Ryan10]

Hey Ryan,

Interesting. I would have thought with 10 shots, even if they were at 1.6 secs, that there would have been enough movement that there would have been an issue with Median Blend. But if there wasn't, then there is something about shooting the high ISO ultra fast shots. I hadn't thought about it that way.


Jim

Well...remember, I applied a 10 shot median stack to the sky only. I then applied a 6 shot median stack to the foreground. I blended the two together with a single shot from one of the sky images. Essentially, most of the water area, ( above the log and below the sky ), is a single shot at 12,800, so if you looked at a larger crop, yeah, the water portion would show more grain than everything above or below it. I also did this to preserve a bit more realism in the SCUBA light. The median stack also made it look a little off.