Post your night time long exposure photos here!

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post your night time long exposure photos here!

subx: Jan 12, 2003; If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Jekub posted:

I image using a unmodified DSLR so those are basically the natural colours. The only processing I do for colour is correction, as you would for your normal photographs, and a saturation stretch which is needed as by default the image is very grey.

As a hydrogen alpha emission nebula it can be a bit of a challenge to image with a stock DSLR, the built in IR cut filter blocks a lot of the light in that wavelength. However we have ways around that, first using a good filter, in my case an Astronomik CLS CCD filter helps enhance the contrast of the object as well as blocking out unwanted light pollution. Then we can do long exposures to capture more of the faint light from the nebula and lots of them to give a good signal to noise ratio. Modifying the camera to remove or replace the IR filter is also popular.

After that it's just a lot of time spend in processing, removing things we don't want (sensor noise, vignetting and dust doughnuts etc) and enhancing the things we do want.

Images from Hubble, other professional telescopes and images taken by the more advanced amateur tend to be taken with single shot mono cameras. They take several sets of images through different narrowband filters then combine those to create the completed image. Typically this would be red, green, blue and luminance in specific wavelengths. The combination of those images creates the palette, they could be true colour like mine, of combined to show different wavelengths in greater detail.

Anyway, it's a huge topic, worthy of it's own thread if there were a few more astrophotography goons.

I'd love to do it, as I've always loved space imagery, but it seems like it would be a lot of money to get into. How much is it for a basic setup?

This was my only night shot I've really liked, although I have a few more on my flickr:

Here's another one I like a lot, but it's only 1.6seconds, not really super long. Taken after the big fireworks show in Louisville. It made me happy to be on the other side of the river that night.

subx fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 4, 2010

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 05:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 12:38

subx: Jan 12, 2003; If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

Cross_ posted:

Smaller aperture = more streaks. First one is f/16 second one is f/8 and thus less streaky.

Isn't that more just a matter of the exposure being longer (because of the smaller aperture)? I mean, one exposure is people sitting at a light for 8 seconds, the other is people driving by with an exposure of 30 seconds. That's obviously going to be more "streaky" than cars standing still with a short exposure.

Now if aperture has something to do with size of flares or whatnot, that could be true, but I don't really think it affects "streaking" aside from just increasing exposure time.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2010 06:50

subx: Jan 12, 2003; If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate.

poopinmymouth posted:

icelandic_city_hall by mr-chompers, on Flickr

I made a massive print of this for my wall, 90x120cm

Your picture is awesome, but your picture of the picture seems out of focus :golfclap:

# ¿ Nov 30, 2010 16:20

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Post your night time long exposure photos here!